Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4882-H4921]
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 Committee resumed its sitting.

Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Palmer). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 81 printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. PERRY. 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
shall be used to give formal notification under, or prepare,
propose, implement, administer, or enforce any rule or
recommendation pursuant to, section 115 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7415).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent funds from being used to
expand the EPA authority pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act, which has served us well since 1973, hasn't needed
to be expanded, it has been used over and over again to make sure that
we clean up our act.
Section 115 of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to mandate State
emission levels to whatever amount the Agency deems appropriate if they
find two things. Listen to that again. The Clean Air Act, section 115,
allows the EPA--the Federal Government--to mandate all 50 of our
States' emission levels to whatever amount the Agency deems
appropriate--whatever amount--if they find two things. This has been
there since 1973. It hasn't been relevant, but it is now. If the EPA
finds that U.S. emissions endanger a foreign nation and the endangered
nation has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control emissions in
their own nation.

{time} 1915

Now, where that comes into play is the Paris climate agreement. It
was just signed, and even though it is not a treaty, because we have
the Clean Air Act and section 115, it is now operative or potentially
operative.
Many believe and have argued that the U.N. Paris climate agreement
meets these requirements and, once again, would allow the Federal
Government to mandate our State emission levels to whatever amount the
agency deems appropriate, period.
The President has proven time and time again that he has no problem
circumventing Congress and working unilaterally to achieve his policy
priorities. I suspect since he is in favor of the Paris climate
agreement, that this is one of his policies.
With the Clean Power Plan caught up in the courts as the President's
administration comes to an end, there is a serious concern and a
legitimate concern that he will act unilaterally to cement his
environmental legacy by enforcing section 114 in this way.
This amendment would block this attempt to delegate nearly unlimited
power and authority over the energy sector in each one of our States to
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA. Such expansive
authority of the EPA would be economically devastating and could
threaten the reliability and viability of our Nation's energy sector.
I know the President has got 5, 6 months left to go, and he would
like to get as many regulations on the books as possible. We simply
cannot let this happen, and we cannot leave it to chance.
I would urge my colleagues to an affirmative vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as has been pointed out, this would block
the EPA from regulating air pollution under section 115 of the Clean
Air Act.
Section 115 deals with international pollution and allows the United
States to work with other countries in transboundary pollution issues.
As we know, pollution doesn't stop at a border. It moves. And it is
moving around the planet.
This amendment is a transparent attempt to clearly stop the Paris
climate change agreement reached in December 2015. The Paris climate
agreement is a milestone in the global effort to combat climate change,
something which my constituents feel is very clear, very present, and
is a huge problem of which the United States should show leadership in.
More than 190 nations have made commitments to limit their climate-
damaging pollution, including all the largest developed and developing
countries.
Future U.S. administrations could use section 115 to help ensure that
the United States does its part and to provide that other countries do
their part too.
The Perry amendment would prohibit the EPA and the White House from
even developing a well-considered recommendation or whether or not to
use this authority. Congress should not take a tool out of the toolbox
for a future administration's climate change mitigation toolbox.
This is a matter of global leadership. The United States needs to
meet its Paris climate commitment and, subsequently, any commitment to
act in the future.
Congressman Perry's amendment and similar efforts to thwart the
progress on climate change could--I would say ``would''--undermine our
ability to achieve needed pollution reductions and hit our Paris
targets.
This amendment is the latest in a long line of Republican attacks on
the Clean Air Act and the EPA's authority to respond to the urgent
threat of climate change. A vote for this amendment is another vote, in
my opinion, for those who deny climate change is real and to block
action to curb the carbon pollution that is driving dangerous climate
change.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this is not to deny climate change. This is
about authority. Whose authority? The United States and the individual
States don't need foreign governments through the Federal
administration telling us, telling them how to run their railroads and
their businesses and how much they regulate their own clean air
pursuant to the 1973 Clean Air Act. That is why we have the Federal
Government, and that is why it collaborates with the State.

[[Page H4883]]

This agreement is not a treaty ratified by the United States Senate.
This is an agreement between individuals that potentially gives the
power to the Federal Government to regulate in an unlimited fashion
every one of our States.
No one in the States signed up for this. No one in the United States
Senate voted on this. This is an agreement between individuals, and it
should not be left to stand in this fashion.
This amendment just says that we are going to follow the Clean Air
Act, passed in 1973, just like we have been. Nothing has changed.
Nothing has changed for the States. It has changed between individuals
in this administration and people all around the globe that wish to
limit the United States' productivity through regulation.
That is why this amendment is important, and that is why I hope
Members will support it.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity recently to be in
China, and because of our administration and as the Chinese people and
government saw, our bold leadership in standing up and saying that the
United States was going to play its role in reducing the harmful
effects of climate change, China came to the table for the first time
ever and said: You know, we are going to do something about it too.
Now, the gentleman keeps saying that the Senate never voted on it.
This has never happened. Well, the Clean Air Act is a law and climate
change is real.
This is not 1972, 1973, when I graduated from high school back many
years ago. The planet, the climate, the oceans, the ice shelves are all
changing. The legacy that we leave for our children and for future
generations will be: What does the United States, what does our country
do? How do we stand up and show leadership?
So this amendment clearly is an attempt to stop the Paris climate
change agreement reached in 2015, something that I say with great pride
my constituents in the State of Minnesota think is a good idea and
something that we need to move forward on.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, no one denies that the 1973 Clean Air Act isn't
law. No one denies that. But what we are pointing out is that, with the
Paris accord, it activates section 115 in a way never perceived that to
happen in 1973 when the law was passed. They didn't think that other
governments were going to control the United States State by State by
State. But that is indeed what can happen here--and probably what will
happen here.
Pursuant to the agenda of the administration to reduce CO2
produced by United States by 80 percent, I know that the air was
dirtier in 1973, as you said, when you were in high school or what have
you, but what this is going to do is take us back to the 1900s, before
the time of cars and X-rays and refrigerators and everything that makes
a 21st century life livable for us. That is what this is going to do,
if we allow the President's agenda to role forward with the Paris
climate accord enshrined and then enacted through the Clean Air Act and
section 115.

All this amendment wishes to do and seeks to do is make sure that
that statute isn't enacted, per the Paris climate agreement--not a
treaty, an agreement--between individuals, not between our countries
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 1 minute
remaining.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the debate couldn't be clearer here right
now. Either you believe that climate change is real and it presents a
clear and present danger--if you read some of the reports from the
Department of Defense, they are very concerned about what is going on
in the world with food scarcity, with rising sea levels, with all kinds
of potential things that could bring real security risks to our Nation.
Do we as a country stand up and do something about it and bring other
countries with us? My State is not going to be compelled by a foreign
government. My State is part of the United States of America, where we
will work together under leadership to do something about climate
change. Or do we continue to deny that climate change is real? We
ignore what the Department of Defense is saying, and the United States
doesn't play a clear leadership role in moving forward and bringing
people with us on this issue that affects today, tomorrow, future
generations and what this planet will be like for our children.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 82
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. POMPEO. 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 finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the
proposed rule entitled ``Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air
Act'' published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the
Federal Register on March 14, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 13638 et
seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds for the EPA's
proposed Risk Management Plan rulemaking for the remainder of this
year.
This RMP is the EPA's program implementing section 112(r) of the 1990
Clean Air Act that requires facilities that use certain materials to
develop a plan to prevent accidental releases.
Safety is at the very core of the chemical industry, and industry
stakeholders have worked cooperatively with the EPA to achieve a
dramatic 60 percent reduction in accidental releases in the 20 years of
the RMP program, to date.
While the EPA has proposed several changes, many of the new
regulations they have put forward are highly problematic and could
actually lead to an increased likelihood of an incident.
The EPA has raced ahead of the other agencies participating in the
Federal interagency working group created to improve chemical safety
and security, and it is no longer working in coordination with the
other Federal agencies involved in this process.
Yet the EPA is moving to finalize the rule, even though changes
planned to OSHA's similar program, the process safety management
program, are still in their early stages. This lack of coordination has
the potential to create duplicative rules for individuals and companies
struggling to comply with multiple Federal oversight programs.
I urge Members to adopt my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would block the EPA from
finalizing or implementing a proposed rule that establishes accidental
release prevention requirements.
Earlier this year, the EPA issued a proposed rule to amend its risk
management program regulations response to a 2013 executive order on
improving chemical safety. The proposed rule seeks to improve chemical
process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning and
responding to accidents, and improve public awareness to chemical
hazards at regulated sources.
This is an important regulation and its need was underscored in the
tragedy like the one that occurred in 2013 in west Texas, where a
massive explosion in a fertilizer plant killed 15 people and injured
more than 160.
This amendment would needlessly and recklessly block efforts to
further improve chemical safety and security

[[Page H4884]]

in coordination with owners and operators, and I strongly oppose that.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Calvert of California

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 820, I offer
amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 83, 86, 107,
118, 127, and 129 printed in House Report 114-683, offered by Mr.
Calvert of California:

Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Tom Price of Georgia

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 any rule issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act that is a major rule described in
subparagraph (A) of section 804(2) of title 5, United States
Code.

Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

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 make grants
pursuant to section 6 of the National Environmental Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 5505).

Amendment No. 107 Offered by Mr. Yoho of Florida

Page 8, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 118 Offered by Mr. Duncan of Tennessee

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 destroy any buildings or structures on Midway
Island.

Amendment No. 127 Offered by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas

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 Department of the Interior for the purpose of
destroying any records regarding, related to, or generated by
the Inorganic Section of the United States Geological Survey
Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado.

Amendment No. 129 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California

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 consult with the National Science Foundation with
respect to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 or section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 with respect to any Environmental Impact Statement
prepared pursuant to the ``Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement and Initiate Section 106
Consultation for Proposed Changes to Arecibo Observatory
Operations, Arecibo, Puerto Rico and Notice of Public Scoping
Meetings and Comment Period'', published in the Federal
Register May 23, 2016.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

{time} 1930

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the majority and the minority have agreed
to these amendments being offered en bloc. They are amendments that
address a variety of issues. Additionally, the sponsors of the
amendments have agreed to consideration of these amendments en bloc. I
urge the adoption of the amendments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I just oppose this. I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 13, 2016, on page H4884, the following appeared: The
amendments en bloc were agreed to.

The online version has been corrected to read: The en bloc
amendments were agreed to.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Ratcliffe

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. RATCLIFFE. 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 ``Clean Energy Incentive Program
Design Details'' published by the Environmental Protection
Agency in the Federal Register on June 30, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg.
42939 et seq.), or any rule of the same substance.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to offer a very simple amendment to
restrict funding to the EPA for finalizing, implementing,
administering, or enforcing its proposed rule called the Clean Energy
Incentive Program Design Detail, or CEIP.
As many in this Chamber are aware, the United States Supreme Court
issued an historic stay back in February on the EPA's so-called Clean
Power Plan, halting the EPA from proceeding on any plans to move
forward this harmful and costly regulation, a regulation that would
raise household electricity prices by up to 34 percent in some areas of
our country.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, we found that since the stay, the
EPA has continued barreling forward, acting as if the Clean Power Plan
will most certainly be upheld.
According to the EPA's own documents, the final regulations of the
Clean Power Plan already included the CEIP, meaning that the EPA's
decision to move forward on its implementation, would, in fact, be
unlawful and clearly forbidden by the Supreme Court's stay. Sadly, it
is no surprise to many of us that the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA
are once again choosing to ignore an order from the highest court in
the land, but this amendment will stop the EPA from committing this
blatant and unconstitutional violation.
I commend Chairman Calvert for prohibiting funding to implement the
Clean Power Plan in the underlying bill so we can ensure that the will
of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the underlying bill are
consistent in stopping the regulatory overreach of the EPA.
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, this amendment would prohibit the EPA
from finalizing or implementing designs and details for the Clean
Energy Incentive Program. The Clean Energy Incentive Program is
voluntary. It is an option for States. States can choose whether or not
to do it. It is not a mandate. The program provides incentives to
develop renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
The amendment is another example of some in the majority's
obstruction to anything that the EPA or this administration does to
attempt to address climate change. This program is designed to
diversify energy supplies used by power generation and provide cleaner
power generation to improve air quality. This amendment is a job
creator.
Let me highlight again, this program is designed to reward early
investments in renewable energy generation and energy efficiency to
reduce harmful emissions from electric-generated facilities. Many
States have embraced this. Many States are voluntarily moving forward
with this.
But this amendment seeks to remove the barriers that we are trying to
bring down in low-income communities so that they are able to invest in
renewable energy, they are able to help low-income customers reduce
their energy bills; and that is what we should be working forward with
States and with consumers who want to reduce their energy bills and
reduce the effects of climate change.
I want to state again, State participation in this program is totally
optional, so this amendment is another

[[Page H4885]]

attempt by some in the majority to block any action to address climate
change and to continue this Nation's dependency on Big Oil. There is no
reason to block a voluntary program from moving forward. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I once again encourage all Members to
vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I can't stress enough, the
Clean Energy Incentive Program is voluntary.
Why would we tell States that they couldn't choose to participate in
something that will help their customers have lower utility bills, help
with renewable energy, and help with the environment at the same time?
I urge my colleagues to strongly 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 Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe).
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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 85
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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 carry out the third sentence of section 107(f)(1)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(f)(1)) (relating to
use of recovered sums by the United States Government without
further appropriation).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, Natural Resource Trustees are
Federal officials designated by the President to act on behalf of the
public to assess potential damage to natural resources at certain
sites.
These trustees are authorized to seek compensation for natural
resource damages from responsible parties. Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, CERCLA, these
funds collected by trustees are currently not subject to appropriation
by Congress.
Unfortunately, in southeast Missouri, we have seen trustees run
amuck. They have used money from settlements in places other than where
the funds were intended to remedy, essentially resulting in land grabs
by the Federal Government.
My amendment would provide congressional oversight in the Natural
Resource Damage Assessment process by sending funds collected by the
trustees under CERCLA back to the general funds of the Treasury.
This amendment is a necessary step in reining in overreach of the
Federal Government and reasserting congressional authority, and I urge
my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit the Department
of the Interior's ability to conduct damage assessments and inland oil
spill preparedness by prohibiting the support of restoration work that
is paid for by recovered settlement funds under the Superfund.
In fiscal year 2017, the Department of the Interior will receive
nearly $500 million from the Deepwater Horizon settlement. This
amendment would prohibit the distribution of any of those funds to the
impacted Gulf States.
The Department's inability to distribute jointly recovered funds to
its co-trustees would have a devastating affect on strong Federal,
State, Tribal cooperation that the Interior Department has developed
over the years, and could lead to a reduction of future joint
restoration settlements and a splintering of cooperative restoration
efforts among co-trustees, and that would be a travesty.
The amendment could also create uncertainty about its impacts on
authorities under CERCLA to retain recovered settlement funds and
manage the $800 million previously recovered in past settlements. This
is a reckless amendment with far-reaching impacts.
If the Department of the Interior is unable to effectively administer
its Natural Resource Damage Assessment program due to a change in its
ability to use appropriated funds, it would likely have a significant
effect on NOAA's own ability to effectively manage many of these cases,
including the Deepwater Horizon. So I strongly oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It is
about making sure elected Members of Congress appropriate funds that
are collected under CERCLA instead of being delegated to unelected
bureaucrats. It is not reckless. It is being responsible, and it is
exerting our Article I authority of the power of the purse. So I
encourage this body to support the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I believe I have the right to close if the
gentleman has no further speakers.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is correct.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage this body to
support this amendment. If they are in support of holding the power of
the purse, support the Article I authority to make sure that Congress
would actually appropriate the funds instead of an unelected
bureaucrat.
This is just bringing back the power that has been delegated in the
past and making sure that there is more congressional oversight when
this money goes to the U.S. Treasury and that the appropriations
process is done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to state again that this would not
allow the Department to distribute jointly recovered funds with co-
trustees. It would have a devastating effect in the way the Federal,
State, and Tribal governments work together and as they have worked
together over the years. It could lead to a reduction of joint future
restoration settlements and a splintering of cooperation restoration
among co-trustees. And when people work together, we have better
outcomes, we have better results, and that saves the taxpayers money.
This amendment would clearly limit the Department of the Interior's
ability to conduct damage assessments and inland oil spill preparedness
by prohibiting the support of restoration work that is paid for by
recovered settlement funds under the Superfund. I recommend that the
amendment be defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
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 Missouri
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Westerman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 87
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. WESTERMAN. 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 enforce the decision in Civil Action No. 14-1807
(JDB), United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, issued March 29, 2016.

[[Page H4886]]

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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of my amendment. My amendment would bar
implementation of a Federal court decision issued on March 29, 2016,
that stopped implementation of the 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife's
decision to issue an Environmental Assessment extension for the
issuance of depredation permits for double-crested cormorants.
Since 1998, Fish and Wildlife has allowed the issuance of depredation
permits for cormorants that threaten commercially raised fish stocks.
In 2003, Fish and Wildlife issued the Public Resource Depredation
Order through a final Environmental Impact Statement which allowed for
the Federal Government, State officials, and tribal leaders to take
cormorants found committing depredations of public supplies of fish.
Environmental Assessments in 2009 and 2014 renewed both of these
depredation orders. On March 29, 2016, the U.S. Court for the District
of Columbia issued a decision stopping implementation of the 2014
Environmental Assessment extension as a result of a special interest
lawsuit.
In the meantime, Fish and Wildlife Service is beginning a new
Environmental Assessment, but new depredation permits are not being
issued to many farmers whose fish stocks are being depleted by
cormorant populations. This is leading to considerable losses for
farmers. Farmers are constantly living on the margin and just getting
by.
My amendment prevents the use of funds by Fish and Wildlife for the
enforcement of the March 29, 2016, court decision. It ensures that a
successful depredation program continues so that our farmers continue
to farm and feed America.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California, Chairman
Calvert, for the opportunity to offer this amendment. I ask my
colleagues to support this amendment. Let's stand up for small farmers
in our communities who find themselves under constant pressure
economically. They should not have to compete with bad rulings from
activist judges.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1945

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in March 2015, the court found the Fish
and Wildlife Service had violated NEPA, in giving an open-ended
approval for the lethal removal of the double-crested cormorant, and
that they were committing or were about to commit predation on fish,
saying that there was not current data or adequate analysis to support
this depredation order. The court didn't stop depredation but required
a mediation plan.
In May 2016, the court revoked these depredation orders stating that
individual permits should be sufficient. The court noted in its
decision that the service had ignored environmental benefits of the
double-crested cormorants by controlling invasive species fish and
economic disruption claims were imprecise, speculative, and not
compelling.
This amendment seeks to ignore the findings of the court. In other
words, this amendment would tell Fish and Wildlife you don't have to
follow what the court said you needed to do, and it prevents the
service from using appropriated funds to enforce a court's order on the
taking of the double-crested cormorant.
This language does not affect the law's prohibition against the
taking of migratory birds, and people who would take the cormorant
would knowingly be violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and be
subject to charges from wildlife officials or other law enforcement
agencies.
So the gentleman might not like how the court ruled, but this is the
ruling of the court. We are a society that follows the law, and Fish
and Wildlife is compelled to comply with the court.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, this is a unique situation where the
Fish and Wildlife Service has already begun a new environmental
assessment. In the meantime, there are fish farmers who are hurting
because of this ruling as they are seeing their stock being eaten by
these cormorants, with no recourse to take against them.
These cormorants not only affect fish farmers, they also affect
smallmouth bass populations in the Lake States. These farmers should
have the right to protect their crops while this new environmental
assessment is being put in place, and I encourage my colleagues to
support this amendment so that we can stand up for small farmers that
are doing their best to feed our country.
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. Westerman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 88 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 88
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of
Representatives Westmoreland, Collins, and Smith, I offer amendment No.
88.
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 pay legal fees pursuant to a settlement in any
case, in which the Federal Government is a party, that arises
under--
(1) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
(2) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.); or
(3) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, if this election cycle has shown
us anything, it is that the American people are tired of our officials
in Washington, D.C., not listening to the voice of the people. They are
tired of a Federal bureaucracy that is accountable to no one and
operates in the shadows without proper oversight.
The United States is facing a crisis of executive overreach, and
nowhere else is this truer than at the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA's escalation of sue and settle cases to change the law through
Federal Court rulings threatens to shut down American businesses. By
operating hand in hand with radical environmentalist groups that are
willing participants in the scam, the EPA's use of sue and settle not
only endangers the economy, but also our constitutional separation of
powers.
According to a 2011 GAO report, between 1995 and 2010, three large
environmental activist groups like the Sierra Club received almost $6
million in attorney fees alone. Under our amendment, no funds can be
used to pay legal fees under any settlement regarding any case arising
under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered
Species Act, period. Litigants can still sue, but they will no longer
be financially rewarded by the American taxpayer for their efforts.
I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
support this amendment to reduce the secretive transfer of U.S. tax
dollars to private self-interest groups. It is inexcusable to allow
this legal collusion.
By restricting Federal agencies from paying attorney fees, we will
not only reduce Federal spending, but also reduce the incentive for
these self-interest groups to continue suing the Federal Government and
taking the American taxpayers' dollars.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment so that Congress can
ensure taxpayers are protected from funding the legal efforts of
special interest groups and reinforce our constitutional powers.

[[Page H4887]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the Equal Access to Justice Act is the
law of the land. It allows for the Federal payment of legal fees--
within limits--to individuals, small businesses, and nonprofits where
they are the prevailing parties in actions against Federal agencies
unless the agency is able to show that the action was substantially
justified or that special circumstances make the award unjust. This law
helps deter government misconduct and encourages all parties--not just
those with resources--to hire legal counsel to assert their rights.
Now, I know my colleagues, including my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, will agree with me that the ability to challenge Federal
actions is the most important tool for ensuring government
accountability.
The Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the
Endangered Species Act are also the law of the land. These laws have
contributed greatly to the protection and improvement of public health
in this country.
A study by the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute found that the
Equal Access to Justice Act has been cost effective, and it only
applies to the meritorious litigation and that existing legal
safeguards and independent discretion of Federal judges continue to
ensure its prudent application.
Here is a fact: the claim that large environmental groups are getting
rich on attorney fees is simply not supported by available evidence. In
2011, the GAO did a study. It was requested by House Republicans on
cases brought against the EPA. They found that most suits were brought
by trade associations and private companies and that attorney fees were
awarded only about 8 percent of the time. Among environmental
plaintiffs, the majority of cases were brought by local groups rather
than national groups. That is just a fact. It is completely unfair to
target these important environmental safeguards for removal from the
protections of the Equal Access to Justice Act.
But more importantly, this amendment would have a serious consequence
on the public health. In order for our Nation's environmental
safeguards to work properly and ensure the protection of public health,
citizens--including those citizens with limited means--must have the
ability to challenge Federal action. The Smith amendment is clearly
designed to make it more difficult for citizens--every citizen--to
ensure the accountability of the Federal Government.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleague from
Georgia. The Constitution grants the power to make all laws which shall
be necessary and proper to Congress, not the executive branch. Yet many
executive branch agencies are using sue and settle techniques to
circumvent the rulemaking process to enact overly broad and costly
regulations, without any input or comment from the public.
One of the worst offenders is the EPA, which has increasingly relied
on outside special interest groups to bring lawsuits demanding expanded
regulations. And the EPA is all too willing to settle immediately.
My colleague's amendment would restrict the use of taxpayer dollars
from paying the legal fees of these outside groups when suing the
Federal Government under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the
Endangered Species Act.
This amendment does not prohibit affected parties from bringing these
lawsuits, but restricting agencies' ability to pay attorney fees will
reduce the incentive of using lawsuits as a way to expand the power of
the executive branch.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I have the right to close, so
I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, as the young lady across the
aisle made note of the GAO report of 2011, also in that same report, as
I noted, is that that report recognized that environmentalist groups
such as the Sierra Club received almost $6 million in settlement fees
from just suing the government. Under no circumstances should the
government be rewarding any group to sue the government on their
behalf. They definitely don't do that to every individual citizen and
to every small-business owner that is being targeted by the EPA where
they are being targeted by other Federal agencies. This is about
fairness, and this is making sure that self-interest groups are not
profiting off of the Federal Government.

I encourage the body to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state again that the GAO
report clearly found that most suits were brought by trade associations
and private companies and that attorney fees were only awarded about 8
percent of the time, and among environmental plaintiffs, the majority
of those cases were brought by local groups rather than national
groups.
So this amendment is clearly designed to make it much more difficult
for citizens--my constituents--to ensure that there is accountability
in the Federal Government so that they can have their day in court with
being a plaintiff against the government when they feel it necessary.
I urge my colleagues to defeat 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 Missouri (Mr. Smith).
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 Missouri
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 89
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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, or enforce the proposed rule
entitled ``Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations on the Outer
Continental Shelf-Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on
the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf'' as published February
24, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 9916).

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 13, 2016, on page H4887, the following appeared: from
Alaska. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was

The online version has been corrected to read: from Alaska. Mr.
YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was

========================= END NOTE =========================

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prevents funds from
this act from being used to finalize, implement, or enforce the new
Arctic regulations the Department of the Interior rushed to last week.
In addition to the billions of dollars already spent--$7 billion--to
develop these sales, these regulations would cost an additional $2
billion for the oil and gas industry.
This regulation is nothing more than a tactic to lock safe Arctic
energy development up in red tape because exploration would become full
of unnecessary operational burdens.
The National Petroleum Council Arctic report found that Arctic
resources

[[Page H4888]]

can be safely developed today using existing, field-proven technology.
Locking up Arctic resources only hurts our Nation by preventing
responsible energy development.
I ask my colleagues to support the State of Alaska, stand up for the
Alaskan Natives of the North Slope who support this production in
energy exploration, and vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2000

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). The gentlewoman from Minnesota is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment would block the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management from finalizing regulations that deal with exploratory
drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf that has conducted
mobile oil offshore drilling units. Oil and gas exploration on the
Arctic Outer Continental Shelf is expensive and requires industry to
make significant investments. Blocking this rule creates uncertainty
for industry and other stakeholders. Delaying or inhibiting
implementation of this rule will likely defer, rather than encourage,
future Arctic exploration and development.
The amendment would also undermine efforts to protect Alaska Natives'
health, livelihood, and cultural traditions. As we know, there are
Alaska Natives that do have grave concerns about what is going on with
oil drilling and exploration in Alaska.
The impact of a catastrophic oil spill would have extremely high
cultural and societal costs to these Native Alaskans. The amendment
would derail efforts to set specialized safety requirements and
environmental precautions to account for the extreme environmental
conditions, geography, and remoteness, like to fix infrastructure in
existing operations in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf.
The amendment stands in the way of efforts to reduce the risk of oil
spill in an extreme sensitive environment where responding to any spill
may be beyond current oil spill response capabilities. We need to
protect our precious Arctic resources and ensure that they are managed
responsibly.
Therefore, I must oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the young lady that
the Natives of Alaska on the North Slope support this legislation. They
want the development. They have talked about it. They have been really
working close with the oil industry as partners. I think we ought to
accept the fact that they are the most affected. If they want it, we
ought to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I think this is something where people
clearly in this Chamber know that the gentleman from Alaska and I are
going to disagree on.
I will state for the Record that I have spoken with many Native
Alaskans who do oppose this, so they are not all of one mind throughout
Alaska on this issue. They are concerned about the effect an oil spill
would have on their coastal and societal costs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 90 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 90
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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 the Final Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska for
which notice of availability was published in the Federal
Register on April 13, 2015 (80 Fed. 19678).

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 13, 2016, on page H4888, the following appeared: from
Alaska. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was

The online version has been corrected to read: from Alaska. Mr.
YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was

========================= END NOTE =========================

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prevents funds from
this act being used to implement a Department of the Interior
management plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which
designates the entirety as wilderness.
This would include the 1002 area that was set aside by Congress for
potential development in the future, an area that holds 10 billion
barrels of oil at the minimum and probably 37 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas.
I am trying to do this because we already did this act. In the Alaska
National Lands Act, we set that area aside. Now the Department that
regulates it is trying to make it all wilderness with no drilling to
take place.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise, respectfully, in opposition to this amendment offered by my
friend and colleague from Alaska.
This amendment would block the implementation of the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a plan that
will already have been in place for nearly 2 years by the time this
language will take effect and a plan that received broad support upon
its implementation.
At more than 19 million acres, the Arctic Refuge is one of the crown
jewels of our Nation's public lands, and like Yellowstone and the Grand
Canyon before it, this iconic landscape deserves to be protected for
generations to come.
Included in the CCP is a recommendation for expanded wilderness
designations which nearly 1 million people from all 50 States--
including native, faith-based, business, and conservation groups--have
submitted comments of support for.
The Arctic Refuge's Coastal Plain is the biological heart of the
refuge, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the ``center for
wildlife activity.''
The plan's current wilderness recommendation would ensure that these
pristine habitats will remain intact for future generations. This is
critical to supporting native wildlife and maintaining traditional and
subsistence activities on the refuge.
Since President Eisenhower established the Arctic National Wildlife
Range, Members of both parties have stood up to protect this truly
unique national treasure. Republican Senator William Roth introduced
the first bill to designate the refuge's Coastal Plain as wilderness in
1987.
A bill to protect this place as wilderness has been introduced every
Congress since. And this Congress, 128 Members from both sides of the
aisle have pledged their support.
I have the utmost respect for my friend and colleague Mr. Young. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the gentleman
that this was an act of Congress that set aside the 1002 area by the
Senator from Washington State. That is crucially important because it
is an area that has great potential 74 miles away from the existing
pipeline. It also is an area that has the Village of Kaktovik that
supports the drilling and development in 1002.
I am just saying that no agency has a right to overcome a law of the
Congress. I am not talking about the 19 million acres. I am talking
about the small acreage, a parcel no bigger than the Dulles Airport, to
allow that to be continued to be considered by the Congress of the
United States, who set it aside at the insistence of Scoop Jackson from
Washington State with the help of Senator Ted Stevens and myself, for
potential drilling. It has to have an act of Congress, but you can't
drill in a wilderness area.
So I am saying no money shall be spent. No regulatory agency can turn

[[Page H4889]]

and make it an off-limits area to develop the oil if this Congress so
decides.
I urge a ``yes'' on my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
My friend from Alaska is correct. The ultimate decision and the final
disposition of this incredible place is up to the Congress of the
United States. However, the question before us now is how should this
area be managed until Congress finally resolves this issue?
I am proud to have authored an amendment a few months back that
showed that there is bipartisan support in the House for a final
wilderness determination. I believe eventually that bipartisan support
will be a majority of the Congress. But in the meantime, those of us
that are working to protect this very important iconic place know that
we are expressing the voice of the American people.
Nearly 1 million people commented in support of the wilderness
recommendation. These are people from all 50 States. It includes Native
Americans. It includes Native Alaskans. It includes people from the
faith community, the business community, and the environmental
community. This is a uniquely important place with wildlife that, in
many cases, are not found anywhere else and with a connection for all
of us of because the migratory bird species that spend part of their
lives in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge travel to almost all 50
States in other parts of their life stage.
We all have a stake in this. We need to do the right thing. I believe
the administration is doing the right thing by managing this area as
wilderness while we continue to work on an act of Congress that will
settle this longstanding question.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that most people
don't know what they are talking about. We follow the laws of the
Congress. We should. I respectfully suggest that I am not suggesting
the whole--and I am not supporting it right now--the Arctic Wildlife
Range, I am talking about 100,000 acres of land that we set aside--the
Congress. The Senate agreed to it. The conference agreed to it. And
here we are trying to let a regulatory agency tell us how to manage it.
That is inappropriate.
I listened to another gentleman on this floor today talking about
overregulation of the EPA. That is what is wrong with this Nation
today, is regulatory law allowing the executive branch to run this
Nation without the people's voice being heard. That is what is
happening here.
I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to be up in
this area, and this protected area encompasses a wide range of Arctic
and sub-Arctic ecosystems. The native flora and fauna is magnificent.
The refuge is incredible with its biological diversity.
I understand that the gentleman from Alaska feels strongly about this
issue in a way that I feel differently about and that he has been an
advocate for his State for decades, but on this important issue, we
just simply disagree.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't point out one more obvious
truth. The President will not sign a bill loaded up with anti-
environmental riders just like this one. We only make our path for this
bill harder by including it. I hope my colleagues would join me in
opposing it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The 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 Alaska will
be postponed.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Cleaver) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the World War I
Centennial Commission.
The United States entered World War I in 1917. More than 4 million
Americans served in the Great War, including 350,000 African Americans
and the first woman ever to enlist in the United States Armed Forces.
In order to properly commemorate and celebrate the brave service
these Americans gave to us, the World War I Centennial Commission was
established by this body in 2013. In addition to the memorial, the
Commission is responsible for planning and executing educational and
commemorative activities.
I ask the Chair and ranking member to work with me as this bill
progresses to find the necessary resources for the Commission to do its
work. While it is true that there are no World War I veterans still
among us, their sacrifice must not be forgotten.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I pledge to work with
the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I understand and share the gentleman's interest in the World War I
Centennial Commission. The committee may be willing to consider funds
for the Commission to carry out its mission, but we need to make sure
that the process is open and transparent.
Report language accompanying this bill encourages the Commission to
submit a budget request in the future so that we might review it in
detail. The Commission will serve as the lead organizer for the
Nation's commemorative event so that America can tell the story of the
Great War that profoundly shaped our history.
I agree with the gentleman from Missouri that the work of the
Commission is important and look forward to working with the gentleman
on this issue.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2015

Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 91
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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 by the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service--
(1) to issue a final rule for the proposed regulations
listed under docket number FWS-R7-NWRS-2014-0005; or
(2) to implement the final rule entitled ``Alaska; Hunting
and Trapping in National Preserves'' and dated (80 Fed. Reg.
64325 (October 23, 2015)).

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 13, 2016, on page H4889, the following appeared: from
Alaska. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was

The online version has been corrected to read: from Alaska. Mr.
YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was

========================= END NOTE =========================

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the funds
in this act from being used to issue the final rule by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, which would seize authority away from
the Alaskan Fish and Game of the State of Alaska to manage fish and
wildlife for both nonsubsistence and subsistence uses on Federal
wildlife refuges in Alaska. In addition, this amendment prohibits funds
to be used on the existing National Park Service rule that interferes
with State wildlife management authority on national preserve lands,
which is guaranteed hunting under the Alaska National Lands Act in
Alaska.
The two rules in question violate the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, the ANILCA, passed by Congress and signed into law in
1980, which protects the ability of the State

[[Page H4890]]

of Alaska to manage wildlife across the State on State, private, and
Federal lands. This Chamber voted in favor of a similar amendment and
this language in the sportsmen's package, H.R. 2604, back in February.
These regulations are nothing more than an illegal overreach of the
Federal Government on the State of Alaska. It is agreed in the
Constitution, and it is in the law that they manage all fish and game
on all lands in the State of Alaska.
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, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardenas).
Mr. CARDENAS. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Chairman, I stand to strongly oppose this amendment.
This amendment would block Federal rules aimed at protecting wolves,
wolverines, black bears, grizzly bears, and lynx from some of the most
egregious hunting and killing methods. These methods include shooting
defenseless, swimming caribou from motorboats; using airplanes to scout
and shoot grizzly bears; luring grizzlies with rotting meat and pet
food to get a point-blank kill; killing wolf, black bear, and coyote
mothers and their dependent pups and cubs at their dens; and the
trapping of grizzly and black bears with steel-jawed leg-hold traps and
wire snares. These methods are inhumane and contrary to our values here
in this great country.
We should support the scientists, rangers, and wildlife managers in
the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service in their
efforts to maintain healthy ecosystems.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and strike this poison pill rider
from this bill. These are egregious things that we should not tolerate,
and we should not codify them in law.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed in the
comments that were just made because all he said was not true. The
State does not den; the State does not snare; the State does not trap;
the State does not kill wantonly. The State manages. To have the
Federal Government manage the game when it is the law and when it is in
the Constitution of the State of Alaska--an agreement made with this
body--and to have an agency take that over and with the propaganda that
has been espoused on this floor from the Humane Society is
inappropriate of this body. It is a flat-out lie. That is what it is.
It is not true.
The State manages, and they have not used these practices, but they
have a right and should have a right to manage the fish and game on the
property which was guaranteed to us.
I understand where this pressure is coming from. We in Alaska face
this every day. No one understands that we have people in Alaska and
that we have natives in Alaska who actually want the State to manage
their fish and game or who would like to manage it by themselves, which
I do support; but to have the Federal Government come in is wrong, and
it is against our Constitution. I will stand by this amendment to stop
moneys being spent by an agency that has overreached.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I respect the concern of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and
his advocacy for his State, but I oppose this proposal which, in this
case, does not present an opportunity for a balanced approach to
wildlife management. Let me clarify why the National Wildlife Refuge is
proposing these rules.
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, certain
types of inhumane hunting, such as bear baiting and den hunting, has
affected Federal refuge areas for wildlife. In fact, one refuge in the
Kenai Peninsula had an emergency closing due to the extreme decrease in
the number of brown bears, which was caused by these inhumane hunting
practices.
Rather than shutting down areas in which these hunting methods are
causing the overkilling of native Alaskan predators and restricting
access to all hunters, it seems reasonable to me to provide for a
balanced approach that provides for a means of traditional, permit-
based hunting.
Nothing in the rule of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
would limit traditional hunting tactics, but, rather, it would continue
and protect existing hunting practices. Unfortunately, this amendment
does not address the wildlife diversity and mechanisms in place to
maintain it. Therefore, it impacts the National Wildlife Refuge's
ability to maintain its parks in a responsible manner and provide
native animals with a refuge.
We as Members of Congress have a Federal responsibility to ensure
that our National Wildlife Refuges are being used in the most
responsible manner possible. The very agency Congress has vested with
the responsibility to manage our wildlife thinks these killing tactics
pose a threat to the necessary diversity of the wildlife, and I agree
with them.
I urge my colleagues to support the ability of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to effectively manage our National Wildlife Refuges for future
generations of Americans. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the
gentleman.
I will say, though, that all of these instances that have been
referred to have not happened under State management. I suggest,
respectfully, that the Fish and Wildlife is no longer a manager of fish
and wildlife. They have become people who prohibit activity on the
refuges. That was not why these refuges were made. They were made by
the people who hunt and fish, and now we are having other groups that
say this is inhumane, which has nothing to do with it.
I am a little bit shocked that we are reading the thing from the
Humane Society, PETA, and all of these other groups. Those are not the
true facts. I ask the gentleman to, please, look at the true facts.
Management is crucial to the State of Alaska. As I mentioned before,
we ought to really think about, maybe, management by the native
corporations on their lands, too; but in having the Federal Government
manage, it has done a miserable job of the management of game. Their
idea of management is to just leave them walking around and to let
nature take care of it. I happen to know a little bit about nature, and
it doesn't take care of it. We are just talking about management, and
the State has that right under its constitution; so I urge a ``yes''
vote on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, this amendment circumvents the
established rulemaking process, which solicits public input and uses
the best available science to reach a decision. Alaska's aggressive
predatory control practices and disregard for science-based management
in the approach of the Service would negatively impact the stability of
the ecosystems and wildlife throughout the region.
Thirty-one biologists and scientists stated on March 28, 2016, in a
letter to Interior Secretary Jewell and Service Director Ash:

The most current and best available science is clear that
predator control measures that are intended to restore the
herd, such as moose and caribou, are doomed to failure
because the herds need to access nutrition. Their main
limiting factor is Alaska's intensive management scheme,
which is the wrong approach to conserving natural systems.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 92 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 92
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H4891]]

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 remove Arctic Sales 255, 258, and 262 from the
2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
Proposed Program for which notice of availability was
published on March 18, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 14881).

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 13, 2016, on page H4891, the following appeared: from
Alaska. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was

The online version has been corrected to read: from Alaska. Mr.
YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was

========================= END NOTE =========================

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It
prevents funding from this act to be used to remove 3 Arctic Sales that
have already taken place from the 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas Leasing Proposed Program.
The economic benefits that would be associated with offshore
development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are tremendous. In those
two areas alone, we have the potential to produce about 23.6 billion
barrels of oil and 104 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Potentially
creating 54,700 jobs nationwide will generate billions of dollars in
revenue for the State and local governments. May I suggest,
respectfully, that this money can be used in conservation efforts, in
land and water conservation funds. You can't have that program without
the development of oil; yet everybody I know on that side supports the
program.
The second thing is, if I can say one thing, we sit with our heads in
the sand when, across the border, China and the other nations are
developing. We must, in fact, be part players of this program. We need
to do it wisely and to do it safely and to do it for the benefit of the
American people.
Now, if you don't believe in fossil fuels, I understand that, but
there is no way that we are not going to be using fossil fuels for many
years to come. If we are to do so, let's use that which is safe. We
have already proven it can be done safely in the Arctic. It is not the
frontier that people think it is. It is 150 feet deep. If we don't do
this off our shores, it will be done by foreign countries.
I am asking the Department of the Interior not to withdraw those
sales. It means money to the Treasury; it means we have less of a
dependence on foreign oil; and it means we will be actively involved.
When other countries are involved, we will be there with our equipment,
and we will be able to have an oil spill recovery if they spill the
oil, because they will not. I know how the parties play in this. We
will. I urge the adoption of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would mandate that the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management include specific areas in the Alaska
region of the Outer Continental Shelf in its 2017-2022 lease schedule.
This amendment would undermine the Bureau's fundamental mission to
manage the development of offshore resources in an environmentally and
economically responsible manner.
The 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed
Program was proposed in March of this year, and the public comment only
closed a few weeks ago. The Bureau is required by law to consider the
environmental impacts of the leasing decision. This includes a
comprehensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. It is
inappropriate to circumvent this process.
Lease sales should be informed by sound science and by using the best
data available. This amendment would violate multiple environmental
statutes, including NEPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
Endangered Species Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The
amendment undermines the environmental protection that is required by
law. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, these leases were put up for lease
in 2017-2022. We are not asking for any additional new leases. We are
asking for the leases that remain in the sales. Then we address the
environmental issue as the sales take place before we have development.
I am suggesting, respectfully, if we don't have those areas open, the 3
Arctic Sale areas, then the leases will not be issued in any other
area.
Oil is not where you want it to be--it is where it is. I am saying we
can address all of the issues the gentlewoman is concerned with after
the sales take place and we receive the money. If it can't be done
safely, it can be stopped at that time. This happened with Shell.
I am just saying not to let an agency or an administration get ahead
of itself and say, ``Oh, we are going to take the leases back.'' That
is the prerogative of an agency, yes; but the leases were put up to
begin with, so we ought to take and accept that. Let's go through the
process, and the process will follow through. Then we will decide on
the environmental impact, on the culture. Then we will have the way to
do it right and correctly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, obviously, we disagree once again.
My concern is that this amendment would mandate the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management to include specific areas in the 2017-2022 lease sale
schedule and that the Bureau needs to uphold the law. It is required to
follow the law and to consider the environmental impacts of leasing
decisions. This amendment would also violate, as I pointed out, quite a
few statutes: NEPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2030

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
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 Alaska will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 93 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 93
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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 Department of the Interior to require changes
to an existing placer mining plan of operations with regard
to reclamation activities, including revegetation, or to
modify the bond requirements for the mining operation.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple.
This is an area called the Forty Mile Mining District area in the State
of Alaska that has been mined since 1895.
There was an attempt by the BLM to go in and stop this mining. These
are not large mines. These are mom-and-pop operations, placer
operations. They put down ridiculous regulations and reclamation now,
and they want them to reclaim the land back to the original state
before it was ever mined, not of the disturbance of the mining they
were doing. It is amazing to me that they would even think about doing
this.
I am talking about people who have been there for 20 years, most of
them retired. They are really, if I have to say anything, the mom-and-
pops of Alaska; they are the spirit of Alaska.
All of a sudden, they have a big agency coming in and saying: You
have to

[[Page H4892]]

have a reclamation area, and this is the way that we want it done.
Yet, they don't recognize what has been done in the past and how it
has worked. What they are proposing is wrong, and it costs a
considerable amount of money to these small mom-and-pop miners.
One of our big plaques in the State of Alaska is the gold pan. Yet,
we have this agency coming in for 140 acres. That is all they are
talking about. For some reason, they got an idea that we want to put
them out of business.
I am just saying, no, they should not impose these regulations.
Follow the State mining law, and the reclamation that takes place now
works. Let them continue to do that, and we can reclaim the land. They
are agreeable to that. They just can't do what they are asking them to
do because they can't afford to do it. It is that simple.
This is a simple amendment to try and protect mom-and-pop operations
in the State of Alaska like you would do in your State for any other
operation where the Federal Government is coming in and trying to take
it away.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 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, most of the 186 active mining operations
on the BLM--these are Federal managed lands in Alaska--are placer
mining operations.
Between 4 and 800 miles of BLM Federal managed streams have historic
or active placer mining impacts, and there is a legacy of historic
claims with reduced ecosystem function.
Now, BLM continues various outreach activities, including public
meetings and interactions with individual miners, and is working with
industry to incorporate best practice management and to use new
science-based reclamation techniques to accelerate stream recovery.
I hear what the gentleman is saying about State lands and State
recovery. And what the State of Alaska chooses to do with recovery in
its own State boundaries is one thing, but these are Federal lands. In
the course of reclamation activities, it may be necessary to increase
an annual cost to miners to recover these streams and restore the
ecosystem function.
The amendment prohibits assessing the cost of reclaiming these areas
to placer miners who are profiting from Federal mineral extraction on
federally managed lands, BLM lands. So the taxpayers all across this
country should not be shouldering the burden of these restoring costs.
The responsible party should. So that is why I strongly oppose this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest one thing to the
gentlewoman; we are only talking about 49 families. This is small. I am
not talking about all the other placer mining. This is, in fact, the
Forty Mile Miners. I mean, they have been there forever.
Like I say, you can go there and it is like looking into a museum of
1859. And they are patented claims. It is their land. A lot of it is
State land.
They are claiming it because it is placer mining. The BLM is claiming
they have the authority to impose a reclamation system that does not
work.
Did they consult? No.
I am just saying, keep in mind that we are not talking about
corporations. We are not talking about large industry. We are talking
about, very frankly, if you go up there--and I wish you would--you will
find out they are a pretty good group of older Alaskans, some hippies.
We still have a few of those left. And they are not making any money.
This is an occupation, but if they have to do what the BLM is
suggesting they do--by the way, there are fish in that stream now, and
it was mined in 1895. What they are asking, it will break them. They
can't do it, and you will say good.
Well, that is taking people--this is a huge area, the total area.
That, I am not arguing. I am just talking about this little Forty Mile
group. So give them a break. Let them go out and make enough money to
buy Saturday night party time.
I urge the passage of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska has convinced
me of one thing: I need to go back to Alaska, and I need to spend some
time with you there.
I still oppose this amendment. The American taxpayer should not be
accepting the burden of restoration costs to make sure that these
waterways are reclaimed to how they should be.
I continue 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 Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Calvert of California

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 820, I offer
amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 108, 109, 110,
112, 115, 117, 121, 124, 125, and 126 printed in House Report 114-683,
offered by Mr. Calvert of California:

Amendment No. 108 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon

Page 16, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 38, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 109 Offered by Mr. Clyburn of South Carolina

Page 16, lines 4 and 24, after each dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 38, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 110 Offered by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee

Page 16, lines 4 and 23, after each dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 38, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 112 Offered by Mr. Kildee of Michigan

Page 72, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 115 Offered by Mr. Kildee of Michigan

Page 81, line 18, insert ``or if a Federal or State
emergency declaration has been issued due to a threat to
public health from heightened exposure to lead in a municipal
drinking water supply before the date of enactment of this
Act: Provided further, That in a State in which such an
emergency declaration has been issued, the State may use more
than 20 percent of the funds made available under this title
to the State for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
capitalization grants to provide additional subsidy to
eligible recipients'' before the semicolon at the end.

Amendment No. 117 Offered by Ms. Meng of New York

Page 120, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $300,000) (increased by $300,000)''.

Amendment No. 121 Offered by Mr. Engel of New York

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 Department of the Interior, the Environmental
Protection Agency, or any other Federal agency to lease or
purchase new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet, or
for an agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with
Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet Performance, dated May
24, 2011.

Amendment No. 124 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

At the end of bill, before the short title, add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for
the ``DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR--National Park Service--national
recreation and preservation'' may be used in contravention of
section 320101 of title 54, United States Code.

Amendment No. 125 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used may be used to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge
Partnership.

Amendment No. 126 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

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

limitation on use of funds

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to limit outreach programs administered by the
Smithsonian Institution.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms.
Pingree) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

[[Page H4893]]

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the majority and the minority have agreed
to these amendments en bloc. They are noncontroversial amendments that
affect a variety of issues. Additionally, the sponsors of the
amendments have agreed to consideration of these amendments en bloc.
I urge adoption of the amendments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Maine,
the ranking member, and the chairman of the subcommittee for their
kindness and their support of the Jackson Lee amendments.
Let me indicate that in the sum total of my amendments, amendments
Nos. 124, 125, and 126, my amendments promote support for national
historic areas in our Nation, promote partnership strategies in
preserving our urban life refuges, and promote outreach programs by the
Smithsonian Institution on the fantastic historical and artistic
knowledge of our Smithsonian houses, which facilitate an appreciation
for America all over the world.
In particular, my amendment No. 124 is an amendment that expresses
support for the national historic areas and for the continuation of a
national policy of preserving for public use historic sites, buildings,
and other objects of national significance.
My amendment No. 125 is an amendment that would prohibit the use of
funds to eliminate the urban wildlife refuge partnership. Additionally,
there is an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds to limit
outreach administered by the Smithsonian.
The idea behind these three amendments is to, again, recognize the
great history of this Nation, even as young as this country is. In
particular, in my congressional district, we have Freedmen's Town that
had Camp Logan. It was a place of freed African American slaves, which
grew into an amazing community. In addition, the Allen Brothers, who
founded Houston, are buried in that same neighborhood.
In addition to that, we have something called the Juneteenth Trail.
That is the trail the slaves traveled from Galveston up to Houston. The
trail has an enormous amount of history, and that is part of the
history of celebrating Juneteenth. To preserve that history is very
important.
In the second amendment, I want to make sure that we maintain a
program that helps and introduces urban youth to the wonders of
wildlife and historic preservation.
Finally, I think it is important that we recognize the historic
importance of the Smithsonian and continue to emphasize its outreach
capacity to ensure that it reaches Americans of all levels to speak
about the story of this great Nation.
My amendments, again, ask these simple questions: Is our history
worthy of knowing, studying, and preserving?
It is.
Is it important to work with our State and local governments to help
them preserve their history?
My amendments answer that question by supporting policies that will
work with State and local governments that will reach out to urban
youth so they can understand the wildlife preservation through the
urban wildlife refuge programs, and then, of course, the Smithsonian
that provides an eye to the history of this Nation.
I ask my colleagues to support Jackson Lee amendment Nos. 124, 125,
and 126 in the en bloc amendment.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter for
making in order Jackson Lee Amendments Number 124, along with my other
Amendments Number 125 and Number 126 to H.R. 5538--``Department of the
Interior and the Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of
2017.''
I also commend Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their
leadership in shepherding this measure to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Chair, in sum, my Amendment promotes support for National
Historic Areas in our nation.
Indeed, among other agencies, this measure funds the U.S. Forest
Service, the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution,
which operates our national museums including the National Zoo.
Most Americans do not know that this measure also funds a very
special agency, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and its
adjunct, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee Amendments are simple because they send a
very important message from the Congress of the United States: that we
value tradition, that we think about the impact of history and
tradition on future generations to come and that if we recognize and
know our history, we are able to work together as an American family in
the spirit of respect, unity and growth.
Specifically, Jackson Lee Amendment Number 124 encourages us to
preserve history, whereby the National Historic Preservation Fund and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are charged to redouble
their efforts to assist state and local governments and community
groups in identifying and working to preserve nationally significant
sites, structures, and artifacts, for example those relating to
communities founded by newly emancipated slaves, such as Freedmen's
Town in home District of Houston, Texas.
Indeed, just west of downtown Houston lies the Fourth Ward.
It is the city's oldest African American community, but before it was
the Fourth Ward, this community was known by its original name,
Freedmen's Town, given by freed slaves who settled it shortly after
receiving the news of their emancipation on Juneteenth.
Freedmen's Town prospered during the turn of the century.
Economic, community, and social development were at a peak until
local government became threatened by the prosperity of this area and
its residents.
In the 1920's, Freedmen's Town was the ``Harlem of the Southwest.''
The area was filled with many restaurants, jazz spots, and night
clubs.
As the years passed and with the coming of integration, many of
Freedmen's Town residents began to move towards Texas Southern
University, in the Third Ward, and other areas of the city.
Freedmen's Town has a rich and colorful past and is still home to
many significant historical landmarks and features.
It was famous for its hand laid brick streets, constructed by
Houston's Rev. Jeremiah Smith and his congregation over half a century
ago.
Houston's first cemetery, Founder's Cemetery at Valentine and West
Dallas, contains the graves of military men who fought in the Civil
War, as well as the historical remains of John and Augustus Allen, the
founders of Houston.
Behind Founder's Cemetery lies Congregation Beth Israel, the oldest
Jewish cemetery in Houston, which is beautifully maintained to this
day.
Among other historical churches in the area, Antioch Missionary
Baptist Church built in 1866 continues to be a major focal point of
Freedmen's Town, though it has been relocated from its original site on
``Baptist Hill'' where the Music Hall and Coliseum now stand.
Rev. John Jack Yates, the first Black pastor of Antioch, was a
dynamic and influential leader known for his deep commitment to the
education of Black youngsters.
He often used his personal finances to send Freedmen's Town children
to school.
Today, Jack Yates High School in the Third Ward stands in his honor.
Although Freedmen's Town is a nationally registered historical site,
and the largest intact freed slave settlement left in the entire
nation, its official designation protects only 40 of the 80 blocks or
more of the remaining Freedmen's Town area.
To preserve what remains of Freedmen's Town will require the combined
efforts of community groups working with local, state, and federal
government to reach a consensus of projects worthy of preservation.
One such project for Freedmen's Town is the ``Bricks Street
Project,'' which is intended to preserve the original brick pavers of
Freedmen's Town along Andrews Street and Wilson Street.
These streets were found to contain brick pavers patterns which may
be unique to the Freedmen's Town area, and are consistent with brick
patterns seen on architectural features located in the Historic
District.
Mr. Chair, hearts break when irreplaceable structures are destroyed
or damaged beyond repair, instead of preserved and protected as they
deserve.
A plaque pointing out ``on this site a great building once stood''
simply cannot tell the story in whole or in full.
Equally tragic is the loss of traditions: a way of living or crafting
wood or farming, of celebrating holidays or worshiping or feasting on
``Juneteenth'' cuisine.
The preservation of artifacts as well as traditions is important to
telling the story of the people who settled a community.
Thus, I urge support for Jackson Lee Amendment Number 124.
Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank Chairman Sessions and Ranking
Member Slaugher fror making in order Jackson Lee Amendment Number 125
to H.R. 5538--``Department of the Interior and the Environment

[[Page H4894]]

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2017.''
I also comment Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for
their leadership in shepherding this measure to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Chair, in sum, my Amendment promotes partnership strategies in
preserving our urban wildlife refuges.
Jackson Lee Amendment Number 125 prohibits the utilization of funds
to eliminate Urban Wildlife and Refugee Partnerships.
According to some estimates, 80 percent of the U.S. population
currently resides in urban communities, and the challenge before us is
ensuring our natural resources are conserved and valued by the American
people and that our youth are beneficiaries of Urban Wildlife and
Refugee partnerships.
Thus, Jackson Lee Amendment Number 125 works to facilitate the
nurturing and education of Americans, especially our youth on the
imperative of exposure to urban wildlife and refugee facilities across
our nation.
Picture this: nature meets skyline near Houston's Buffalo Bayou, one
of many sites where Texas works with Houston Wilderness to create
shared conservation messages and strategies.
Indeed, I commend the work of the Houston Urban Wildlife Refuge
Partnership, in Texas.
Additionally, the Texas Mid-Coast Refuge Complex will work with
Houston Wilderness, an alliance of business, environmental and
government interests, to create a coordinated conservation presence in
the metro area.
Moreover, young people deserve exposure to the educational
opportunities and excitement these urban wildlife and refugee parks
have to offer, where their minds are developed and enriched; indeed,
where they get to interact with and see wildlife they have read about
in their school books.
Urban wildlife and refugee parks spark creativity in a healthy dose
for the imagination of our young people so that they have an
appreciation of nature and all the beautiful inhabitants it offers us.
From Houston, to Rhode Island to Baltimore, to Chicago and everywhere
in between, young people have the opportunity to spearhead replanting
projects along various rivers; learn about birding and be partners and
stakeholders in their communities' parks and zoos while also sharpening
their minds.
For all these reasons, I urge support for Jackson Lee Amendment
Number 125.
Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank Chairman Sessions and Ranking
Member Slaughter for making in order Jackson Lee Amendment Number 126
to H.R. 5538--``Department of the Interior and the Environment and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2017.''
I also commend Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their
leadership in shepherding this measure to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Chair, in sum, my Amendment promotes outreach programs by the
Smithsonian Institution on the fantastic historical and artistic
knowledge our Smithsonian houses and facilitates an appreciation for
America and the world over.
Specifically, Jackson Lee Amendment Number 126 prohibits funds to be
utilized to limit outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian
Institution.
As I mentioned earlier, the Smithsonian Institution operates as our
national museum and attracts not only Americans and American youth but
also dignitaries from across the globe, from Africa to Asia to Europe
and everywhere in-between.
Indeed, our historical Smithsonian Institution has attracted
intellectuals, kings, dignitaries and youth from across the country and
others who have come from afar to witness in person the diversity of
the art housed in our Smithsonian Institution, the world's largest
museum and research complex which includes 19 museums and galleries and
the National Zoological Park.
No doubt, these Museums have enriched our lives: the African American
History and Culture Museum, African Art Museum, the Air and Space
Museum, the Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy Center, American Art
Museum, the American History Museum, the American Indian Museum,
Anacostia Community Museum, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Freer
Gallery of Art, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, the National
Zoo, the Natural History Museum, the Portrait Gallery, Postal Museum
and the Renwick Gallery.
By promoting and protecting the buildings, landscape, special places
and qualities that enrich and captivate the exceptional American
imagination, attracting visitors from across the globe, we preserve our
history for future generations to come and educate the general public
about American history.
For all these reasons, I urge support for Jackson Lee Amendment
Number 126.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman
of the committee and subcommittee for their work on this very important
issue.
This en bloc amendment includes two amendments that I offered that
would provide specific relief to my hometown. Many of you have heard me
on the floor of this House talk about the incredible challenge that my
hometown of Flint, Michigan, faces.
Through no fault of its own, during a time when a State-appointed
emergency manager was literally running every aspect of city
government, a terrible decision, a thoughtless and really not science-
based decision was made to use river water to replace water from the
Great Lakes as the drinking water source. That decision caused a series
of events that led to lead leaching into the water and, quite
literally, poisoning a city of 100,000 people. The impact of this event
will be long felt in my hometown.
We all have an obligation. Even though the principal responsibility
lies with the State, we all have an obligation to contribute to the
efforts that this city will painfully go through in order to recover.
The amendments within this en bloc amendment that I offered will help.
The committee has already done great work to provide some flexibility
to States in administering the clean drinking water revolving loan
fund, the state revolving loan fund, which in this case would provide
the State of Michigan with tools to assist the City of Flint in making
the kinds of changes to its water system to prevent this from ever
happening again and correct the problem in the first place.
There is another amendment that would actually allow the city some
help in transitioning to a permanent water source derived from Lake
Huron and away from dependence on either the Detroit water system or
this river water, which was the source of the problem.
I will just say this: It will take a lot more to fix this problem and
a lot of commitment from the State and the Federal Government, but it
means a lot to the people back home.
I just want to express my gratitude to the ranking member and to
Chairman Calvert for their work on this. It will help my hometown of
Flint, but it will also potentially be of value to other communities
facing water emergencies.
I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the en bloc
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Calvert for supporting this
amendment as well as my friend, Ranking Member McCollum. Thank you to
you both.
Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces the Smithsonian Institution account
on page 120, line 23, of the bill by $300,000, and then increases it by
the same amount. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the
Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center receives a $300,000 increase
over last year's enacted funding amount, consistent with the
President's request in his fiscal year 2017 budget.
The Congressional Budget Office scored this amendment as budget
neutral, and more than enough money exists in the $515,000 increase to
the Smithsonian's `Administration' account, which funds the Smithsonian
Asian Pacific American Center, to accomplish the goal of my amendment.
Frankly speaking, I do not care where the Committee, or the Board of
Regents, wish to reallocate funds from, I only wish to seek assurance
that the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center will receive the
$300,000 increase it so justly deserves. Thank you again, Chairman
Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum, for agreeing to this funding level
moving forward.
According to the Smithsonian's budget justification to Congress,
these additional funds will be used to provide for the salaries and
benefits of one associate program director, one curator for Asian
Pacific studies, and one education coordinator.
With the addition of three additional staff, the Smithsonian Asian
Pacific American Center will be able to continue to serve as the
leading voice on the Asian Pacific American experience, as well as host
events in cities across the country.
Mr. Chair, I believe the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center
deserves our support, and I thank everyone in this Chamber this evening
for agreeing with me.

[[Page H4895]]

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

{time} 2045

Amendment No. 94 Offered by Mr. Zeldin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 94
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. ZELDIN. 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 declare a national monument under section 320301
of title 54, United States Code, in the exclusive economic
zone of the United States established by Proclamation
Numbered 5030, dated March 10, 1983.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Zeldin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to bar
funding for the creation of any national marine monuments in the EEZ
through Presidential proclamation. I do this on behalf of commercial
fishermen on Long Island and throughout the Nation who, like so many
other hardworking Americans, are increasingly under assault from the
executive overreach of this administration.
This amendment uses the power of the purse to ensure the President
does not abuse the Antiquities Act to lock out commercial fishermen
from portions of the EEZ that contain essential fisheries. Any efforts
to create a marine-protected area must be done through the transparent
process laid out by Magnuson-Stevens, not through executive fiat that
threatens to put thousands of hardworking men and women out of
business.
The Antiquities Act has been an effective tool in the past to
preserve historic sites like the Statue of Liberty, but the overly
broad interpretation of this law held by the current administration is
threatening to shut down thousands of square miles of ocean from
fishing through a Presidential proclamation.
In the northwest Atlantic, ocean fishermen from my district and
throughout this region work in some of the most productive fishing
areas in the world. This area is currently under consideration for a
marine monument designation with little public input and zero
transparency. The concerns regarding the marine monument designations
reach nationwide, where the administration's closed and secretive
process have left fishermen and regional fishery managers extremely
concerned.
Recent marine monument designations proclaimed by the Obama
administration have been the largest in U.S. history, locking out all
fishing in perpetuity, a severe departure from the original intent of
the Antiquities Act to preserve historical sites and archaeological
treasures.
Mr. Chairman, protecting the seafood economy, coastal communities,
and the hardworking men and women who provide for their families
through commercial fishing is a top priority for my constituents on the
east end of Long Island.
I would like to thank Chairman Calvert and Chairman Bishop for their
support of this amendment to rein in executive overreach on behalf of
America's fishermen. I urge all my colleagues to support this critical
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, since Theodore Roosevelt's designation of
our first national monument, Devil's Tower in Wyoming, 16 Presidents
from both parties have used the Antiquities Act to protect more than
160 of America's best known and loved landscapes. Only three Presidents
have not.
Many national monuments created through the Antiquities Act have
since become some of our greatest national parks, like Zion, Bryce
Canyon, Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Glacier Bay to name a few. All
of these parks were first national monuments that Congress decided
warranted national park status.
The Antiquities Act has also been used on a bipartisan basis to
preserve Federal marine areas as marine national monuments, with both
President George W. Bush and President Obama using the Antiquities Act
to protect some of the most unique and vulnerable areas of the Pacific
Ocean.
To be clear, the Antiquities Act may only be used on existing Federal
lands and waters, areas which belong to all Americans and are typically
designated only after an extensive locally driven stakeholder outreach
process. Instead of honoring this long bipartisan history of the
Antiquities Act that has saved so much for our country, this amendment
would foreclose any opportunity for local communities to seek to
protect their regions' most valued marine resources located in Federal
waters.
We have a generational responsibility to ensure that historic and
cultural resources and important conservation areas found on our
Nation's public lands and waters are available to future generations. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to help protect our
Nation's most treasured public resources through the Antiquities Act.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Kilmer), also a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. KILMER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the Antiquities Act has protected some of our most
extraordinary landscapes. In my neck of the woods, it was central to
the creation of Olympic National Park. It is a big deal for our oceans,
too. President George W. Bush and President Obama both used the act to
create marine national monuments and to help vulnerable ecosystems in
our waters.
Like our forests, the ocean is an essential resource that matters to
livelihoods and to the health of our planet, and we need to be sure
they are around for future generations, including my daughters. But
this amendment would deny any President, regardless of party, the
ability to use the Antiquities Act to create marine national monuments.
The Zeldin amendment would put more than 4.5 million square miles out
of reach of protection and would curb our Nation's ability to show the
world that we care about our waters. We have seen the benefits of
protecting sensitive areas that are at risk. It helps drive tourism
while protecting fish populations that are essential to fisheries and
coastal communities.
The Nation's leading aquariums support protection of unique and
vulnerable ocean areas, as do hundreds of thousands of people, hundreds
of scientists, educators, businessowners, boaters, surfers, beachgoers,
and members of faith-based organizations, together with conservation
organizations representing millions of people.
The Antiquities Act was created 110 years ago. Rather than engaging
in an attack on this law, I urge my colleagues to join me and the
American people in celebrating our shared history and its 110th
anniversary. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, if the President was to designate the Plum
Island Lighthouse tonight under the Antiquities Act, I would certainly
welcome that, as in all the past precedent of important use and
historical use of the Antiquities Act for good reason.
I introduced this amendment on behalf of all those commercial
fishermen, those hardworking commercial fishermen all along the
northwest Atlantic concerned that, if this marine monument is enacted
by this President, they will be put out of business.
I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, especially from this region, who are concerned both with the
important desire for conservation, the important work of protecting and
utilizing the Antiquities Act productively, but also ensuring that we
are not putting our commercial fishermen out of business.

[[Page H4896]]

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank Chairman Calvert and Chairman Bishop. I
would ask all of my colleagues to please support this important
amendment, which is very important for my region, not just Long Island,
but the entire northwest Atlantic.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate my colleague from New
York suggesting that he is very much in favor of the balance between
conservation and supporting our commercial fishermen. Being from the
State of Maine, we certainly look at both of those things. I will look
forward to working with him, but I do think this amendment is an attack
on our national monument Antiquities Act policies, and it should be
recognized as that.
I do understand his concern about the inclusion of groups and the
importance of a public input process. In New England, we take that very
seriously. I agree with him that there is a vital need in the monument
designation process for local voices to be heard, but the way to ensure
that that occurs is not by an amendment that would stop monument
designations in their tracks, and it is certainly not by stopping
monument designation powers in the entire exclusive economic zone, the
EEZ area.
Today we should be talking about the importance of public input in
the monument process, about the importance of an open and transparent
process that uses common sense. Instead, we are debating an amendment
that sends the wrong message about this important conservation tool for
our oceans.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to stop local
coordination, collaboration, and information sharing. I do hope that
the gentleman from New York and I and the other people who represent
coastal communities can find a way to balance conservation and our
fishing industries and work together on that.
For now, I oppose the Zeldin amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. 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 New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 95 Offered by Mr. Beyer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 95
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. BEYER. 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:

limitation on use of funds to implement or enforce specific sections

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce section 114, 119, or 445.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes three riders that
undercut sound implementation of the Endangered Species Act as it
pertains to the gray wolf, the greater sage-grouse, and the lesser
prairie chicken.
Despite what many of my colleagues assert, the gray wolves are not
recovered. Attempts by the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove
Endangered Species Act protections for wolves have failed time and
again, and they have failed because the Endangered Species Act requires
listing and delisting decisions be based on sound science.
The scientific experts have shown, and courts have confirmed, that
the best available science does not justify the removal of all ESA
protections for gray wolves at this time. This is true whether you are
talking about proposals to delist wolves in the western Great Lakes,
Wyoming, or nationwide.
In fact, the only instances in which wolves have been delisted is
through unprecedented and unfortunate congressional action in 2011 to
remove protections from wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. These
wolves are now continually persecuted by hunters and ranchers despite
the positive impacts they have had on the ecosystem and the minimal
toll they take on livestock.
Gray wolves are incredible animals. Their reintroduction to the
Western United States has revitalized Yellowstone, and wolf-related
tourism around Yellowstone generates more than $35 million annually for
local economies. And, yet, gray wolves occupy only 5 percent of their
historic range.
With respect to the lesser prairie chicken, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has gone to great lengths to accommodate development interests
and, at the same time, protect the bird. Populations of the bird are
declining rapidly, and 80 percent of the short grass prairie it calls
home has been plowed, paved, or otherwise destroyed.
The Obama administration is undertaking an unprecedented effort to
conserve the bird and its habitat, and, thereby, avoid the need for
Endangered Species Act protections.
Federal agencies have worked closely with the States throughout the
process of developing science-based strategies to conserve sage-grouse
and their habitat. Claims that the States have been frozen out of the
process just don't reflect realities. In fact, the 10 resource
management plans released by the Interior Department are all based on
plans developed by the States, not one-size-fits-all plans, but
individual plans to suit each State. Because of these plans, the Fish
and Wildlife Service determined that listing the greater sage-grouse
under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted.
The ESA has been the catalyst for the conservation of many species
and landscapes across the country. I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I don't know quite how many cliches
to use here, but where a scalpel could have been helpful, this is a
meat ax that not only has missed the fingers, it has cut off the entire
hand.
In 2012, the Fish and Wildlife Service did declare the gray wolf was
recovered, and the Endangered Species Act demands that that goes back
to State for enforcement. A court vacated that not on the basis of the
science, but on a technicality. So the Fish and Wildlife Service, what
it wishes to do is done in the bill. This amendment would force them to
do what they don't want to do. Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't get it
right that often. For heaven's sake, let them do what they want to do
this time.
In 2014, the prairie chicken was listed, but they did not look at the
State requirements, so it was vacated by a district court. So, once
again, the underlying bill tells them what they wish to do. In fact,
the Department of Justice has said they don't have any intent of
appealing that decision. This allows them to do what they do. The
amendment would require the Department of Justice to do what they don't
want to do.
The sage-grouse last year was not listed even though it was then put
in plans that would act as if it were listed, but the issue is when it
was first started, Secretary Salazar told the States to actually come
up with plans. Every State that has a sage-grouse population has a
plan. The basic bill allows those State plans to go into effect. This
amendment would prohibit the State plans from going into effect. So, in
essence, this amendment tells the Fish and Wildlife Service to do what
it doesn't want to do, the Justice Department to do what it doesn't
want to do, and the States can't do what they do want to do.
In essence, we are doing the thing backwards, and we are harming
people in the process. This is an amendment that simply sounds good on
paper, but it misses the mark, and it hurts people.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

[[Page H4897]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio), my colleague and cosponsor of this amendment.

{time} 2100

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, of course, I have tremendous respect for
the chairman of the committee, but it wasn't quite an accurate
statement.
Courts have found that what Fish and Wildlife said is: If you want to
have delisting and manage the wolf, you must adopt an acceptable
management plan. Courts have found that neither Wyoming nor Minnesota
have adopted adequate management plans. In fact, we have seen basically
management to the point of extirpation. Even in States that have
theoretically adopted plans, like Idaho, they are attempting to reduce
the population to unsustainable levels.
There is a fabulous ``Dear Colleague'' from Mr. Ribble showing the
biggest, fiercest, ugliest looking wolf I have ever seen attacking a
small school child. Of course, there have been no wolf attacks in the
lower 48 in the recorded history of the United States, but that is what
we are protecting against here tonight.
They talk about predation on cattle. If we had better management of
cattle, better husbandry--it is, basically, disease and weather are the
biggest cause of loss of cattle. Then the number two cause is other
predators. That would be coyotes. And guess what? Wolves kill coyotes.
And wolves' preferred prey is not cattle.
So what is this insane obsession with killing wolves? I don't get it.
I mean, were you frightened by a wolf as a small child. I don't get it.
This is an incredible, iconic top species which actually helps regulate
the ecosystem. Look at Yellowstone since we had wolves reintroduced
there and how much more healthy it is.
I just don't get this irrational behavior. I would urge my colleagues
to vote for this amendment and don't substitute political science and
stupidity for science.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
Mr. RIBBLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would try to bring some clarity about the amendment,
and I stand in opposition to this amendment.
We have heard a lot of hyperbole here this evening, but I want to try
to set the record straight.
We cannot have it both ways. We can either have an Endangered Species
Act and we can have the Fish and Wildlife Service and their scientists
manage it, or we can get rid of it and just have the court do it.
So it appears that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
when things don't go the way they like by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, they are fully supportive of the court system. When things
don't go right in the court system, it appears, Mr. Chairman, that they
are fully supportive of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
What I would prefer is that we protect the Endangered Species Act and
the agency that was directed to manage it and to manage these rare
populations or endangered species like the gray wolf.
In the 1990s--and I am from Wisconsin--there were only a handful of
mating pairs of gray wolves in northern Wisconsin. Throughout the Great
Lakes region today, there are 3,700 wolves in this area. It is an
economically and ecologically unsustainable number.
The Fish and Wildlife Service rightly decided that the population had
recovered and that their program to protect this species had been so
completely successful that it was time to delist and turn the power
back to the States to manage, which in fact they were doing, until a
court decided that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the experts there
protecting the Endangered Species Act just didn't get it right.
Well, we cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chair, and it is time that
this Congress tells the courts what the laws are and how we want these
things managed. What we are doing here in this bill and in the
underlying language is protecting both the Endangered Species Act and
the Fish and Wildlife Service scientists who are giving the proper
jurisdiction to manage endangered species, including the gray wolf.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine
(Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am very happy to support this amendment,
and I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding time and
for his commitment to this issue and the preservation of the Endangered
Species Act.
There are many of us in Congress concerned about the continual
assault that is being waged against the ESA. On an appropriations bill,
and particularly the one before us today, we see attempts to reduce the
scope of the Endangered Species Act and to continue to weaken its
protections.
We must continue to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make
sure they are hearing from all stakeholders and taking their concerns
seriously. But that does not mean we get rid of the ESA.
We have so many strong examples of how the Endangered Species Act
works and worked over the past 40 years. One of my favorites that my
colleagues often hear me speak of is the success of the bald eagle and
the fact that it now thrives in Maine, where it was once endangered.
Where they were only once 30 nesting pairs in Maine, now there are over
630 nesting pairs of bald eagles in Maine.
There are so money other success stories, from the peregrine falcon
to the brown pelican to the sea otter. All of these success stories
were based on sound science and local input through the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. You are darn right there are success stories with the
ESA. That is because the agency that was designed to implement the laws
decided the species were recovered. They delisted them, and they are
doing fine. That is why there are so many eagles in this country.
That is not what happened with the gray wolf. The scientists at the
agency decided that they had recovered. They delisted them, by rule.
The courts got involved in D.C.--not in the State where the wolves are,
but in D.C.--and said, ``No, we disagree with all the sound science,''
the sound science of the agency, and they took it over. That is why we
are here.
Congress makes the laws. The executive branch implements the laws.
The courts interpret the laws. The agency implemented the law. Using
sound science, they found that those wolves should be delisted. And
they delisted them by rule. And then D.C. environmental groups went to
a D.C. court and said: We don't like the decision. And now, all of a
sudden, they are back.
Mr. Chairman, this is the way to respond, by law.
Mr. CALVERT. 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. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. Beyer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 96
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. BEYER. 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--
(1) Executive Order 13653; or
(2) Executive Order 13693.

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

[[Page H4898]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I firmly believe that addressing the causes and
consequences of climate change is perhaps the most pressing issue of
our time.
Each week, I share the latest scientific facts with my constituents
about climate change--its impact on coral reefs, on disease migration,
community displacement, species extinction, sea level rise, cloud
movement, and so much more.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is no shortage of material to draw
upon. Our best scientists are warning us that, unless carbon emissions
were dramatically cut, we face severe consequences ecologically and
economically, not to mention global instability.
We need to be doing more in this body to address the causes and
consequences of climate change. Instead, we have an appropriations bill
laden with riders aimed at undermining climate action.
We have section 122, which prevents the Bureau of Land Management
from cutting emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas; section
417, prohibiting regulation of carbon dioxide methane as part of Clean
Air Act title V permits; section 418, prohibiting establishment of a
greenhouse reporting program for manure management; section 436,
stripping the executive of its ability to incorporate the social cost
of carbon into rulemakings and guidance; and, section 439, prohibiting
regulation of oil and gas sector methane emissions under section 111 of
the Clean Air Act.
Another provision of the bill requires the EPA to make the false
assumption that burning biomass is carbon neutral. In reality, in 2012,
EPA's scientific advisory board directly challenged the claim that all
forest biomass is carbon neutral, explaining that while some type may
indeed be carbon neutral, it is not appropriate to assume that all
types of forest biomass are carbon neutral.
Numerous studies have underscored that using some types, particularly
slow-growing trees, can actually increase atmospheric carbon for many
decades. To know what types of biomass are truly low carbon, scientists
need to assess them, and EPA deserves to have its scientific judgment
uncorrupted by Congress.
With this amendment, I seek to render inert the anticlimate action
riders of this bill. Executive Order 13653, titled ``Preparing the
United States for the Impacts of Climate Change,'' requires Federal
agencies to integrate considerations of the challenges posed by climate
change effects into their programs, policies, rules, and operations to
ensure that they continue to be effective, even as the climate changes.
Executive Order 13693, titled ``Planning for Federal Sustainability
in the Next Decade,'' requires Federal agencies to carry out a range of
actions to improve Federal sustainability. These include tracking and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, climate resiliency measures, energy
conservation and renewable energy targets, green building goals, and
other positive steps. Federal agency actions have major impacts on our
contributions to global warming.
For that reason, I offer an amendment to ensure that no funds are
spent on activities that are not in compliance with the President's
2013 executive order on climate change adaptation and the 2015
executive order on sustainability.
It is the right thing to do to run an effective and efficient
government. It is the right to do to return the highest value to the
American taxpayer.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 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 is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, the gentleman wants to ensure that funds are
being expended on climate and sustainability executive orders issued by
the President.
Simply put, the President did not consult Congress on these executive
orders. We would not be doing our job if we allowed this President or
any President to unilaterally make policy decisions without allowing
Congress to weigh in with appropriate policy debates.
In the meantime, we must use our congressional power of the purse to
rein in executive branch overreach, which is exactly what we are going
to do.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to vote ``no'' 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 Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Beyer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 97
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. BEYER. 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 authorize, permit, or conduct geological or
geophysical activities (as those terms are used in the final
programmatic environmental impact statement of the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management entitled ``Atlantic OCS Proposed
Geological and Geophysical Activities, Mid-Atlantic and South
Atlantic Planning Areas'' and completed February 2014) in
support of oil, gas, or methane hydrate exploration and
development in any area located in the North Atlantic, Mid-
Atlantic, South Atlantic, or Straits of Florida Outer
Continental Shelf Planning Area.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment would essentially
prohibit geological or geophysical activities in support of oil and gas
exploration and development in the Atlantic in fiscal year 2017. Most
importantly, this includes seismic airgun blasting.
In March of this year, the Department of the Interior removed the
Atlantic Ocean from offshore oil and gas drilling until 2022. However,
the administration is still considering permits to conduct seismic
airgun blasting for subsea oil and gas deposits. Not only is this
unnecessary, because drilling is not permitted, but this exploratory
process would cause undue harm to marine resources.
Seismic airgun pulses are loud, repetitive, explosive sounds. The
produced sound can travel over enormous distances, due to its low
pressure and high amplitude. Because sound travels so efficiently
underwater, the noise from a blast can be heard up to 2,500 miles from
the source, roughly the distance from Washington, D.C., to Las Vegas.
What these loud, repetitive, explosive sounds ultimately do is harm a
range of aquatic species and the communities that rely upon them.
Numerous studies have shown that noise from seismic airgun testing
negatively impacts fish. Examples include 40 to 80 percent reduced
catches in the Atlantic of cod, haddock, rockfish, herring, sand eel,
and blue whiting. Sea turtles and invertebrates have also been found to
demonstrate alarm and avoidance responses when exposed to seismic
blasts.
The critically endangered North Atlantic right whale species, of
which less than 500 remain, use sound to find food, locate mates, and
keep track of their young. The area proposed for blasting includes the
only known right whale calving grounds in the world. Seismic airgun
blasting could displace right whales from their habitats and tip the
species toward extinction.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4899]]

{time} 2115

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the administration, as already mentioned,
already removed the Atlantic leases from consideration in the 5-year
lease plan from 2017 to 2022. This language is completely unnecessary,
and I urge all the Members to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of
the bipartisan amendment to prohibit seismic testing in the Atlantic,
which I have cosponsored, along with colleagues from New Jersey,
Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina.
After taking into account the overwhelming opposition to offshore
drilling in the Atlantic, including my home State of North Carolina,
the Obama administration wisely removed the prospect of drilling from
the 5-year Oil and Gas Leasing Program for the Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf.
Now that there are no foreseeable plans to drill among the dynamic
ecosystems and pristine beaches of the Atlantic Coast, we should move
immediately to prevent seismic testing and other geological and
geophysical activities. Not only are these activities unnecessary in
light of the administration's decision, they also pose a significant
environmental threat.
Seismic testing is hugely disruptive to marine ecosystems. Its
negative impacts include displacing fish over a large geographic area,
reducing catch rates for commercial fishermen, and impacting the
reproduction, foraging, communication, and other vital behaviors of
marine mammals, including the North Atlantic right whale, one of the
most endangered species on the planet.
Further, the data generated from the seismic testing is proprietary
and, therefore, unavailable to the public or to policymakers who might
rely on it to inform public policy, planning, or debate regarding the
economic and environmental impact of offshore energy exploration.
Instead of allowing oil and gas companies to conduct an unnecessary
and ecologically damaging activity, just miles from our Nation's
coastline, we should be investing our time and money in advancing
energy efficiency, renewable fuels, alternative energy technologies,
including offshore wind development to reduce dependence on fossil
fuels.
I thank my colleague from Virginia for taking the leadership on this
amendment. I urge its adoption.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. How much time is left, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk just for 1 minute about
the community impacts. Along the Atlantic Coast nearly 1.4 million jobs
and over $95 billion in gross domestic product rely on healthy ocean
ecosystems. In my State of Virginia that is 91,000 jobs and nearly $5
billion in GDP.
The Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils have
formally updated their policy position to express opposition and
serious reservation to seismic airgun blasting.
Our chair kindly says this isn't necessary because the Obama
administration has taken the drilling off the table until 2022, but it
has not taken seismic airgun off the table, and that research will go
on.
I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to put a moratorium on
airgun blasting. Oil and gas development should not come at the expense
of coastal communities and the marine species on which they rely.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, seismic testing has been
done all over the globe for decades, not a single verifiable instance
of a marine mammal being hurt or killed due to seismic activity.
In fact, I am on the Natural Resources Committee. We got Abigail
Hopper's own testimony in the committee saying that there hadn't been a
verifiable instance.
Go to BOEM's Web site. Their Chief Biologist has a written statement
there. Not a single verifiable instance of a marine mammal being hurt
or killed due to seismic.
If we want to find out what resources are available in this country
for future energy independence, let's allow the seismic to happen off
the coast of South Carolina, off the coast of Georgia, off the coast of
North Carolina, to see if there are resources that may be harvestable
to help with American energy independence going forward.
Stopping seismic is just ludicrous because there is not a single
verifiable instance. Go do the research yourself on the BOEM Web site.
Look at the Chief Biologist, listen to Abigail Hopper, the Director's
own testimony in Natural Resources, and you will hear it for yourself.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to this amendment. I
urge everyone to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-683 on
which further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. 76 by Mr. Palmer of Alabama.
Amendment No. 78 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Amendment No. 79 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 80 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 84 by Mr. Ratcliffe of Texas.
Amendment No. 85 by Mr. Smith of Missouri.
Amendment No. 88 by Mr. Smith of Missouri.
Amendment No. 90 by Mr. Young of Alaska.
Amendment No. 92 by Mr. Young of Alaska.
Amendment No. 94 by Mr. Zeldin of New York.
Amendment No. 95 by Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
Amendment No. 96 by Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
Amendment No. 97 by Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Palmer

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Palmer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 223, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 453]

AYES--195

[[Page H4900]]

Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Trott
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zinke

NOES--223

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Graham
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Miller (MI)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Torres
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (IN)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--15

Costa
Gallego
Garamendi
Granger
Hastings
Himes
Issa
Marino
Messer
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Ruppersberger
Sewell (AL)
Swalwell (CA)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 2141

Messrs. HINOJOSA, KINZINGER of Illinois, and GRAYSON changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FINCHER and McHENRY changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, during rollcall Vote No. 453 on H.R. 5538, I
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall No. 453.

Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 203, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 454]

AYES--219

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke

NOES--203

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries

[[Page H4901]]

Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--11

Blackburn
Hastings
Himes
Marino
Mullin
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Ruppersberger
Sewell (AL)
Swalwell (CA)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2144

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 455]

AYES--161

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Olson
Palmer
Perry
Pittenger
Pompeo
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stutzman
Thornberry
Tipton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin

NOES--262

Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Ashford
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hunter
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pitts
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Rush
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Zinke

NOT VOTING--10

Brady (TX)
Hastings
Kinzinger (IL)
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Ruppersberger
Sewell (AL)
Takai
Tiberi

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2147

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Perry

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 239, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 456]

AYES--188

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Conyers
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx

[[Page H4902]]

Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--239

Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Comstock
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaHood
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--6

Crenshaw
Hastings
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2150

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Ratcliffe

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Ratcliffe) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 457]

AYES--231

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--197

[[Page H4903]]

McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--5

Hastings
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2153

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 458]

AYES--170

Allen
Amash
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harris
Hartzler
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Massie
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--257

Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Ashford
Babin
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Gohmert
Graham
Granger
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Harper
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hurd (TX)
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Miller (FL)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Hastings
Marino
Murphy (PA)
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2157

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 88 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 459]

AYES--226

[[Page H4904]]

Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--202

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--5

Hastings
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2200

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 90 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 460]

AYES--237

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke

NOES--191

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Royce

[[Page H4905]]

Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--5

Hastings
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2203

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 92 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 461]

AYES--242

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--185

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Hastings
Marino
Pascrell
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2207

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 94 Offered by Mr. Zeldin

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Zeldin) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 462]

AYES--225

[[Page H4906]]

McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--202

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Hastings
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai
Waters, Maxine

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2210

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 95 Offered by Mr. Beyer

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Beyer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 463]

AYES--193

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--235

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Rush
Russell
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder

[[Page H4907]]

Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--5

Hastings
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2213

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. Beyer

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 464]

AYES--194

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--234

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--5

Hastings
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2218

Messrs. COHEN and RUSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Beyer

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 465]

AYES--192

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard

[[Page H4908]]

Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--236

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lipinski
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--5

Hastings
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai

{time} 2222

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. Beyer

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 98 printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce section 120, 425, 426, or
427.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strips the dirty water
riders in this bill. These four poison pill riders do not need to be in
the bill. Each in its own right is a good example of a bad rider, and
together they represent an assault on clean water, an attempt to
forcibly supplant Agency expertise with ideology.
The first dirty water rider, section 120, undermines the Interior
Department's Stream Protection Rule which updates regulations which
would allow coal mining companies to pollute and often extinguish
altogether our mountain streams. We need this rule, and it is
sufficiently flexible to accommodate regional variability. It is
stringent enough to protect the people of Appalachia from the negative
health and environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining.
The second dirty water rider, section 425, prohibits the EPA from
updating the definition of fill material under the Clean Water Act. It
was never congressional intent to allow mining refuse and similar
material--some of it hazardous--to qualify as fill material and thereby
bypass a more thorough environmental review and meet Federal pollution
standards.
Downstream water users have every right to be concerned that the
section 404 process fails to protect them from the discharge of
hazardous substances. To freeze those definitions in time, as section
425 does, ties the hands of implementing agencies despite evolving
scientific understanding and current regulatory insights. Current and
future administrations must have the discretion to implement key terms
and clarify them when needed.
The third dirty water rider, section 426, requires that certain
dredge and fill activities be completely exempted from the permitting
process. This is in direct contravention to the text of the Clean Water
Act and essentially bars the executive from being able to implement the
environmental safeguards contemplated in the act.
The fourth rider, section 427, blocks the EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers' Clean Water Rule, which restores critical pollution
standards to our Nation's small streams and wetlands. At stake is the
protection of almost 60 percent of U.S. streams. Headwaters and
nonperennial streams supply drinking water to more than 117 million
Americans.
American businesses need certainty. They need to know when the
Federal Government has authority and when it doesn't. Without updated
guidance, businesses will often not know when they need an Army Corps
permit. This uncertainty will continue in the light of the recent
Supreme Court decision and underscores the need for the Clean Water
Rule to clarify the limits of Federal authority.
These riders are a far cry from sensible adjustments to the Clean
Water Act. On the contrary, they are just the latest in a seemingly
endless effort to undo clean water protections and regulatory clarity.
All four of these riders are not only unnecessary, they pose a
significant threat to water quality, public health, and fish and
wildlife populations.
Just as important is poison pill riders like these that prevent us
from doing our jobs and pass appropriations bills that have any chance
of passing the Senate, any chance of being signed by our President. I
urge my colleagues to oppose these riders and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, first, I want to point out that we have had
separate and stand-alone debates on each of the provisions that the
gentleman is trying to address, so obviously we have already had this
debate.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. Over the last few days, we have heard from our
colleagues across the aisle that it is the market that is responsible
for the downturn in coal, not this administration's regulations. But if
you issue regulation upon regulation that completely overhauls the
entire industry sector, is that really just the market at work?
Instead of acknowledging that it is the onerous regulations that play
a big part in the problems impacting the coal industry, this
administration has blamed coal's troubles on the market; and,
incredibly, this has been what our friends on the opposite side of the
aisle seem to agree with.

[[Page H4909]]

{time} 2230

They are minimizing the devastating impacts of regulations like
Office of Surface Mining's proposed stream protection rule.
So let me tell you about the real-world consequences: lost jobs, lost
revenues, lost taxes, lost resources. The stream protection rule would
reduce total recoverable coal by 65 percent. That means a decrease of
$3 billion in coal taxes. Our towns and counties rely on the revenue to
pay for schools, police, emergency services, and so much more.
A big drop in coal production means a big drop in good-paying jobs.
Over 100,000 jobs are at risk because of this rule. Coal puts food on
the table, pays the bills, and supports our families.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Without the good jobs coal provides,
families are having to make tough decisions, decisions that will impact
these individuals' lives: How will they get their bills paid? How will
they make their car payment or their house payment?
It is time we stand up for these hardworking miners, their families,
and American energy. Therefore, I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I heartily agree with my friend from West
Virginia that it is time we stand up for coal miners and their
families. It is time we stand up for their health. I don't know West
Virginia's health statistics, but I do know those from southwest
Virginia. They, unfortunately, have the highest negative health
consequences of any counties in Virginia.
The New York Times did a story a few years ago about the 20 counties
in America where the death rate was going up. Seven were in the
coalfields of southwest Virginia. The incidence of sickness, birth
defects, cancer, and all kinds of illnesses are much higher when you
look at the streams that have been buried by coal refuse.
Let's look at this. In this so-called war on coal, no administration
has put as much money into research on trying to bring coal back--coal
gasification and carbon capture sequestration--trying to make coal a
vital part of our economy again, without the health consequences and
without environmental consequences. This is what we are trying to do.
We cherish these people also. Let's take care of them in a strong way
rather than subjecting them to environmental conditions and lifestyles
that destroy their lives.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, we already had a
number of debates about each of the provisions that the gentleman is
trying to strike; therefore, this amendment is totally unnecessary.
Nevertheless, the committee included each of these provisions for sound
reasons, and each have their own merit. Broadly speaking, these policy
provisions are included in the bill to put the brakes on flawed
policies that this administration is trying to implement.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I would just agree with the distinguished
chairman of this committee that, yes, we have had debates. It is
important that we continue the debates, and ultimately, wisdom will
emerge. It is this back-and-forth, hopefully, that gets us to the very
best policies and the very best laws.
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. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mrs. Capps

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 99
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mrs. CAPPS. 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 process any application under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) for a
permit to drill or a permit to modify, that would authorize
use of hydraulic fracturing or acid well stimulation
treatment in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, despite technological improvements, we know
that extracting, transporting, and burning oil and gas is a dirty and
dangerous business. There is simply no disputing that.
Our reliance on these outdated fuel sources is placing people and our
environment at risk. This is especially true for offshore drilling and
the activities used to extract as much oil and gas as possible from
these wells, methods such as hydraulic fracturing, called fracking, and
acid well stimulation.
Offshore fracking has been occurring for over 20 years off
California's coast, and yet we know very little about the impacts on
our oceans. That is why, last year, I introduced H.R. 1951, the
Offshore Fracking Transparency and Review Act, which would require an
environmental impact statement to be produced for fracking and acid
well stimulation. We simply must know more about these activities
before they should continue.
While my legislation has not been afforded a hearing, the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, and the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, BSEE, completed a programmatic assessment
providing the first attempt to examine offshore well stimulation
treatments, which resulted in a legal settlement with stakeholders in
my congressional district earlier this year.
This assessment confirmed that the potential for negative impacts on
the environment and wildlife from offshore fracking and acid well
stimulation, as well as the many unknowns as to the extent of the
impacts, are well confirmed. Despite this, they decided that a more
thorough analysis of potential impacts would not be undertaken.
Regrettably, this has resulted in a missed opportunity to fully
examine the risks posed by these treatments through a full
environmental impact statement, as my legislation would require.
Additionally, there is a severe lack of transparency as to what types
of chemicals are being used for tracking and well stimulation
activities and how they would be polluting our waters.
So I join my constituents in expressing significant concerns over the
impacts that these activities may have on our local environment, marine
life, and public health.
Given the many questions surrounding the impacts of offshore fracking
activities, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds to process any
application for a permit to drill or permit to modify that includes
hydraulic fracking and acid well stimulation in the Pacific Outer
Continental Shelf. This would provide a pause in activities to allow us
to study both the need to extend the life of these wells as well as the
safety and long-term impacts of these activities.
My amendment provides a measured approach to a very uncertain
practice that could have long-term and severe consequences to our
oceans and public health. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. First, I want to say I have enjoyed serving with the
gentlewoman from California for a number of years. We have shared many
a plane

[[Page H4910]]

ride back and forth here to Washington, D.C., but we disagree on this
issue.
In May, the Department of the Interior issued a finding of no
significant impact with respect to these operations. This followed a
review of 23 oil and gas platforms currently operating off the shore of
California. The review drew upon the best available science and
reaffirms these operations are operating as safely as they should.
The amendment is nothing more than another attempt to restrict
offshore development for oil and gas. I oppose the amendment and
encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, also to my colleague with whom I have
enjoyed serving and with whom we share a particular affinity for a
certain portion of a coastline along my district which I know he and I
both appreciate, I want to close by reiterating that oil and gas
extraction, transportation, and combustion is inherently risky and
dirty. And this we do know. There is no denying it.
But what we don't know equally concerns me. We have very little
knowledge of the long-term impacts of offshore fracking and well
stimulations on our oceans and our marine life as well as our public
health, yet these activities continue to occur off our coast.

{time} 2240

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply provides a pause in the use of
fracking and acid well stimulation on the Pacific Outer Continental
Shelf so that we have the chance to evaluate the need for and potential
impacts of these practices.
Let's make sure we fully understand the potential damage we are doing
to our sensitive coastal and ocean environments, the species that live
in them, and our public health.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to say that BSEE
has done an enormous amount of study and assessment. They continue to
do so as they look at the operations of oil and gas industry in
California, certainly off the coast of California.
Many people don't realize how large a producer the State of
California is in the oil and gas industry. It has a long history in the
State of California, one of the largest oil companies in the country,
Chevron, still one of the few that operates out of the State of
California, and we are certainly very proud of that.
It has not been a perfect history, but the science has improved. The
production practices have improved, and it is certainly an important
part of our economy, and we want to make sure that they continue to
operate safely. We are going to make sure that these agencies do the
necessary regulatory work that they need to do.
So I am opposed to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 100
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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 to terminate--
(1) the Law Enforcement and Investigations unit of the
Forest Service; or
(2) the Office of Law Enforcement and Security of the
Bureau of Land Management.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will ensure that none of
the funds made available by this legislation are used to abolish the
Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service law enforcement
units.
BLM and the Forest Service law enforcement units are highly
specialized, highly trained professionals responsible for enforcing a
range of Federal laws across our public lands. These responsibilities
include enforcing grazing regulations, monitoring mine safety,
protecting archaeological resources, and enforcing fire restrictions.
A vote for this amendment will simply send the message that Congress
supports these important responsibilities and does not condone any
effort to undermine or eliminate this important Federal authority and
the officers in those law enforcement units.
Today, more than ever, Federal law enforcement officers charged with
protecting our public lands deserve our respect and support. Tragically
marked by the illegal occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge by armed militants earlier this year--an occupation, I remind
you, that House Republicans refused to officially condemn--there is a
growing hostility toward Federal land management and is increasingly
exposing Federal law enforcement officers to violence, threats of
violence, intimidation, and disrespect.
Whether it is individuals like Cliven Bundy who believe they are
above the law and refuse to pay below-market, federally subsidized
grazing fees, violent seditionists plotting to bomb a Federal facility,
or treasure hunters determined to deface and loot precious cultural
resources, law enforcement officers at Federal land management agencies
enforce critical laws like the Endangered Species Act, the Lacey Act,
the Native Americans Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and they
deserve our support.
But despite these important functions, House Republicans aim to strip
Federal land management agencies of their law enforcement authority,
going so far as to introduce legislation, H.R. 4571, to completely
dissolve BLM and Forest Service law enforcement authority.
To do so would be disrespectful and outright dangerous. Instead of
pouring gasoline on the fire and contributing to the climate that leads
to violent armed occupations, we should stand up for the integrity of
the Federal law enforcement officers, and not cast them away with
scorn, neglect or disrespect.
With this amendment, we have an opportunity to send a clear message
that Congress supports Federal law enforcement officers and the rule of
law across our public lands.
Please support this amendment to ensure that none of the funds made
available by the bill can be used to abolish BLM or Forest Service law
enforcement units. I urge my colleagues to support federal law
enforcement officers by voting in favor of this simple, commonsense
and, indeed, reassuring amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, the bill provides funds for law enforcement
functions of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Even
if these agencies wanted to, they could not eliminate their law
enforcement offices and responsibility. Neither could they provide more
or less funding for them without the approval of the Appropriations
Committee, and this committee has no desire to end the law enforcement
function of either the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management.
This amendment has no purpose and, therefore, it is not needed. It is
nothing more than a nuisance amendment, in my opinion. I would urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4571, does exactly that, strips the
authority. And Congress can and has the authority to strip from law
enforcement units and Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
their authority and their ability to enforce the laws that they have
been responsible under their jurisdiction to enforce.

[[Page H4911]]

So this amendment, as I said earlier, is a reassurance that the
intentions are both good intentions, to retain these services, but
that, by approving this amendment, we effectively negate and hold
harmless and impotent the present legislation that is out there to,
indeed, get rid of these units.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, there is no need for
this amendment, and I would oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 101 Offered by Mr. Higgins

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 101
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. HIGGINS. 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:

compliance with great lakes compact

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by a State in contravention of the interstate compact
regarding water resources in the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence
River Basin consented to and approved by Congress in Public
Law 110-342.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Higgins) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I would like to thank the
chairman and the ranking member for their work on this appropriations
bill. While not perfect, the bill funds the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative at $300 million so that critically important work to clean
up the Great Lakes can continue.
My amendment would prohibit funds in this act from being used by
States in violation of the Great Lakes Compact, an agreement among the
eight Great Lakes States outlining how this precious and nonrenewable
resource is to be managed.
The compact prohibits water from being pumped to areas beyond the
drainage basin, and sets strict criteria for any diversion request.
To that end, a municipal government outside the basin recently had
its application approved to divert up to 8.2 million gallons per day
from Lake Michigan, most of which will be returned after being treated.
This diversion request was only approved after conditions were met
lowering the volume of water to be withdrawn as well as reducing the
service territory it would be provided to.

{time} 2250

Going forward, it will be important to ensure that the approval of
this request does not set a precedent that will threaten to deplete
this resource by encouraging further diversion requests that do not
uphold the strict water management standards outlined in the compact.
As freshwater supplies in other parts of the country and the world
dwindle, the desire to divert water by tanker or the construction of
pipelines could become a greater threat to the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes are a nonrenewable source. Less than 1 percent of the
water is renewed annually through rainfall and snow melt. The onslaught
of climate change will likely cause water levels to decline in the
future. Irresponsibly diverting water from the basin could threaten the
fragile ecosystem, putting fish and wildlife at risk by degrading water
quality and damaging habitats.
This amendment is supported by the Alliance for the Great Lakes, the
National Wildlife Foundation, and Citizens Campaign for the
Environment.

[From Citizens Campaign for the Environment]

Memorandum of Support: Compliance With the Great Lakes Compact

Amendment to H.R. 5538--Higgins

Background
While seemingly inexhaustible, the Great Lakes are truly a
gift of the glaciers, as rainfall and snowmelt only naturally
replenish about one percent of the water annually. Once water
removal from the Great Lakes for any reason extends beyond
one percent annually, lake levels will decrease. The existing
strains on this fragile ecosystem, such as pollution,
invasive species, and climate change, will only be
exacerbated if the sheer quantity of water is jeopardized by
Great Lakes water export.
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources
Compact has been law in New York and the United States since
2008. The Compact is a valuable interstate agreement that
builds on century-old interstate and international
protections for the Great Lakes. The Compact specifies how
each Great Lakes state will act to protect Great Lakes water
quantity. The Compact prohibits water diversions out of the
basin, with limited exceptions.
Justification
A municipal government that is considered a community in a
straddling county of the Great Lakes Basin recently had its
diversion application approved after strict conditions
regarding the volume of water and service territory were met,
among others. Going forward, it will be important to ensure
that the approval of this request does not set a precedent
that will threaten to deplete this resource by encouraging
further diversion requests that do not uphold the strict
water management standards outlined in the Compact.
Congress can help ensure compliance with the Great Lakes
Compact by prohibiting federal funds from being used by
states to break the strict guidelines laid out in the
Compact. Predicted to be more valuable than oil, our abundant
fresh water resources are the envy of many who suffer from
already strained, polluted, or disappearing water resources.
Congress must protect the integrity of the Compact if we are
to protect Great Lakes water quantity for future generations.
____

Alliance for the Great Lakes,

July 12, 2016.
Hon. Brian Higgins,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Higgins: On behalf of the Alliance for the
Great Lakes, I thank you for offering an amendment to H.R.
5536, the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill,
regarding compliance with the Great Lakes Compact. The
Alliance for the Great Lakes is pleased to support this
amendment.
The Alliance for the Great Lakes appreciates that you
recognize the importance of the Great Lakes to our region,
our communities, and our way of life. The Great Lakes provide
economic engines for our communities and recreational
opportunities for families. They hold almost 20 percent of
the world's surface fresh water and supply drinking water to
more than 30 million people. In order to protect this amazing
resource, the Great Lakes Compact was adopted in 2008. It
provides significant protections to Great Lakes water because
it prohibits diversions of Great Lakes water, with limited
exceptions, and requires each state to enact water management
programs for in-basin water use. Your amendment is a good
reminder of how important the Great Lakes Compact is to
protecting this precious natural resource.
Recently the Compact Council approved with conditions the
first diversion request under the exception standards of the
Great Lakes Compact. This diversion will serve the City of
Waukesha, Wisconsin. Given this development, the Alliance for
the Great Lakes supports your amendment that seeks to uphold
the spirit and intent of the Great Lakes Compact. The
Alliance for the Great Lakes and our partners will work to
ensure that this diversion approval with conditions is
enforced and sets a high bar for any future diversion
requests.
Thank you for your continued leadership on Great Lakes
issues.
Sincerely,
Molly M. Flanagan.
____

July 12, 2016.
Hon. Brian Higgins,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Higgins: On behalf of the National
Wildlife Federation (NWF) and our 248,000 members and
supporters in New York, we thank you for offering an
amendment to H.R. 5536, The Interior and Environment
Appropriations bill, regarding the Great Lakes Compact
(Compact) and wish to express our support for this effort.
As you well know, our Great Lakes are a wonder of the
world. They hold almost 20 percent of the world's surface
fresh water, supply drinking water to more than 30 million
people, and are the foundation of our economy and way of
life. The Great Lakes are vast, but fragile, and are
susceptible to water withdrawals and diversions. As a result,
the Compact was negotiated and adopted in 2008 to help
protect and sustain our Great Lakes. The Compact provides
significant protections to Great Lakes water because it
prohibits diversions of Great Lakes water, with limited
exceptions, and promotes the wise use of in-basin water
resources.

[[Page H4912]]

Given the recent approval with conditions of the first
diversion request under the Compact by the City of Waukesha,
Wisconsin, NWF supports your amendment that seeks to uphold
the spirit and intent of the Compact. It is important to
ensure that this diversion approval with conditions is
enforced and sets the right precedent. Therefore, we share
your efforts to reinforce the strength of the Compact and
protect the largest surface freshwater system in our country.
We thank you for your continued leadership and look forward
to working with you on this issue.
Sincerely,

Marc Smith,

Policy Director, National Wildlife
Federation's Great Lakes Regional Center.

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, by prohibiting the use of funds by States
in violation of the compact, Congress can send a clear message that it
takes seriously its responsibility to protect the largest surface
freshwater system in our Nation.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HIGGINS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the amendment and
am willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting Chair. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 102 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 102
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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 Secretarial Order 3289, issued by
the Secretary of the Interior on September 14, 2009, and
addressing the impacts of climate change on America's water,
land, and other natural and cultural resources.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that the
Department of the Interior continues to address the impacts of climate
change on our public lands, on our waters, and cultural resources by
maintaining a 2009 Secretarial order on climate change.
Across the country, our public lands and wildlife are often on the
front lines of climate change.
Every week, we learn more from scientists about the impacts of rising
levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Ocean acidification,
droughts, increased frequency of wildfires, heat waves, extreme weather
events, diminished air quality, habitat loss, species migrations, and
more changes than even these to our environment are occurring because
of climate change.
The Department of the Interior is in a unique position when it comes
to climate change because it is responsible for where fossil fuels are
extracted, how fossil fuels are extracted, and the amount of fossil
fuels extracted from our public lands and our waters.
Of course, fossil fuels, when burned, contribute a significant amount
of climate-changing pollution to the atmosphere. In addition, the
Department of the Interior is also responsible for managing much of our
public lands and waters that are impacted by that damaged climate.
Therefore, the Department of the Interior should play a significant
role in both promoting the transition to a low-carbon economy and
mitigating the effects of climate change on our public lands and
waters.
That is why I am so glad the Department is finalizing a rulemaking
for renewable energy development on public lands, paving the way for
massive clean energy development.
The Department of the Interior also recognizes that climate change is
drastically changing the landscape and the wildlife it is working to
preserve, and so the Department has taken a series of commonsense steps
to protect our national resources from the impacts of climate change.
These steps include coordinating responses across multiple bureaus of
the Department; communicating the science of climate change impact;
establishing regional hubs to study existing climate change impacts and
management strategies; engaging the public through education;
developing a network of local, State, and national partners to devise
strategies for responding to climate impacts; and understanding and
limiting the Department's own pollution footprint.
The complexity of a changing climate require multidisciplinary teams
covering large swaths of the landscape who strive to understand what is
going on, respond appropriately, and adapt long-term management
strategies so that the public lands, waters, and resources continue to
be accessible to the public and resilient to the impacts of climate
change. My amendment supports these commonsense measures to help our
public lands and resources become more resilient to the impacts of
climate change so that future generations will continue to benefit from
our rich natural and cultural resources. My amendment also ensures that
these Department of the Interior actions continue into the next
administration.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Department of the
Interior's efforts by voting ``yes'' on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, my friend wants to ensure that funds are
being expended on efforts to address climate change. I understand that.
Simply put, though, we are not here to write blank checks. Some
programs may have merit; many certainly do not.
We would not be doing our jobs if we allow the Secretary of the
Interior to just unilaterally make policy decisions without allowing
Congress to weigh in with appropriate policy debates, and certainly, we
are not going to allow a future Secretary to be bound by a prior
Secretary's fiat without congressional input.
In the meantime, we must use congressional power of the purse to rein
in the executive branch overreach. I would think that whoever is in
power, we cannot allow an executive to continue to use executive orders
in violation of the separation of powers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that these
Secretarial actions that I am asking to continue have been going on
since September of 2009 with approval and with oversight and reports
back to this Congress. These are rational, logical steps that the
Secretary has put into place.
I ask my colleague, what would you oppose? We should not communicate
responses across multiple bureaus? We don't need to understand the
science of climate change impacts? We don't need regional hubs to study
this, which are ongoing?
All we are saying is let's continue this course of action. We need to
develop resiliency. We know these impacts. The science is overwhelming.
This is an ongoing activity. To deny this now means to stop what is
already ongoing, and that would be a shame at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to continue the actions of the
Department of the Interior to really coordinate and understand climate
change impacts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, just call me old-fashioned. I just think
that the folks that are elected to office should have some authority
around this town.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote
``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H4913]]

Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 103 Offered by Mr. Pocan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 103
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. POCAN. 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 Executive Order 13693.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe climate change represents one of
the greatest threats to our economic livelihood, our national security,
and the health of the planet.
To help combat this growing threat, on February, 19, 2015, the
President issued a historic executive order which requires that the
Federal Government commit to key sustainability goals. This executive
order builds off of ongoing low-cost efforts throughout the
administration to reduce emissions, save energy, and achieve key
sustainability goals.

{time} 2300

The efforts bolstered by this executive order have already helped
Federal agencies save $1.8 billion in cumulative energy costs. Surely
we can all agree that the Federal Government, as the country's largest
consumer of energy, should be a leader in cutting energy costs and
saving taxpayer dollars, which is exactly what this executive order
enables us to do.
Specifically, the executive order directs Federal agencies to ensure
25 percent of their total energy consumption is from clean energy
sources by 2025 and reduces energy use at Federal buildings by 2\1/2\
percent per year between 2015 and 2025. These are worthy realistic
goals to strive for because the consequences of not acting are dire.
Unmitigated global warming will reduce our global gross domestic
product by almost a quarter in the next 80 years. As a professor at
Stanford University said, we are basically throwing away money by not
addressing climate change.
And to be clear, Mr. Chairman, this isn't something that only
environmental groups are concerned about. Citigroup issued a report
that found that minimizing temperature rises could reduce the global
gross domestic product loss by $50 trillion.
While climate change will have catastrophic long-term consequences,
the effects of our warming planet are already being felt in our own
backyards. Given the nature of this threat and the modest, yet worthy,
goal this executive order sets to help combat the economic security and
health risk climate change poses to us, I hope we can push through
these commonsense measures.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, my friend wants to ensure that funds are
being expended on an executive order issued by the President. Simply
put, the President did not consult Congress on these executive orders.
Again, call me old-fashioned, but around here you should be able to
pass a law in the House of Representatives, the United States Senate,
have it signed, and not do things unilaterally.
Obviously, we were not consulted. From the perspective of the
majority, we have a problem with this executive order. We would not be
doing our jobs if we allowed the President to unilaterally make policy
decisions without Congress having the ability to weigh in with these
appropriate policy debates.
In the meantime, we must use our congressional power of the purse to
rein in the executive branch overreach.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman may have a little
confusion and not be as concerned about funds that are expended, but
really funds that are saved--the $1.8 billion in cumulative energy
costs and the billions of dollars we will save by addressing climate
change. I know in 2015, in the gentleman's home State of California,
they had the worst water shortage in 1,200 years, which has been
intensified 15 to 20 percent by global warming. In my home State of
Wisconsin, farmers are facing more pests and widespread disease from
higher humidity and warmer winter temperatures.
I would argue that this isn't about spending funds. This is about
saving taxpayer funds, which is what I thought people on the other side
of the aisle also would want to do. I hope that the gentleman might
change his mind and support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, obviously, being from California, we have
our own versions of what is going on with the drought, and certainly
the science that I look at is different than the gentleman's look at
the science that he is at; but that is what policy debates are all
about. We should debate that here in the Congress, we should debate
that in the Senate, and it shouldn't be decisions that are unilaterally
made by any President of the United States. That is why we have a
democracy here, not a king.
I oppose this amendment, and I encourage all of the Members here to
oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POCAN. 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 Wisconsin
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 104 Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 104
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. POLIS. 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. 441. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 102(a)(1) of Public Law
94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(1)).

[[Page H4914]]

the Kosovo and Iraq war who lives in Colorado recently said: ``I fought
to protect all that makes our Nation great, and that includes the
public lands that belong to every American.''
Not only are our public lands good for our souls, but they are also
one of our largest economic drivers in our State and throughout the
Rocky Mountain region and, indeed, across the country. Over $646
billion is generated economically through our public lands, and
visiting our public lands supports over 6 million jobs. From small
businesses to ski resorts, from gas stations to diners, our economy
thrives largely in part because of the public lands in areas like the
one I have the honor of representing.
A recent poll across six Western States revealed that 96 percent of
Americans support protecting public lands for future generations.
Clearly, it is a top priority for our families. People want to see our
public lands stay public and they want to see the maintenance for
access of outdoor areas on our public lands as a critical focus of the
Federal Government.
States simply don't have the resources to take on the
responsibilities for maintaining and keeping our Federal lands safe.
Selling these lands outright to private owners would undoubtedly lead
to loss of access, loss of jobs, devastate our economy, and hurt the
quality of life in districts like mine.
If you talk to the people on the ground who use these lands, whether
it is sportsmen and recreational shooters, hikers, bikers, campers,
hunters, or motorized activists, they don't want our land, the land
they use, taken away from them. Obviously, those concerned with
environmental well-being, water quality, and public health also
strongly support our public lands.
With this amendment, I offer a clear choice to my colleagues. Support
the protection of public lands and let's cast a vote to do that. I ask
my colleagues to support the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that current
law regarding public lands must be followed. There is nothing in this
bill that contradicts that. We are not going to be getting rid of
public lands in this bill. As such, there is no purpose or relevance
for this, so I would oppose this. I think this is trying to get people
all excited that we are going to be getting rid of public lands in this
bill, which is not true.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I, again, thank the gentleman that there is
not any sale of public lands in this bill. I would point out that there
are Members in this body--in fact, the chair of the authorizing
committee in this general area--who speak regularly about privatizing
our public lands, so there is a real threat. This is not simply
something that comes out of nowhere. I think the peace of mind that we
would get by including this kind of language in an appropriations bill
would make it very clear that Congress supports the opinion of the
American people, supports the economy in districts like mine, and wants
to keep our public lands public.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2310

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, there is no need for 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. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 105 Offered by Ms. Speier

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 105
printed in House Report 114-683.
Ms. SPEIER. 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 finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the
proposed rule entitled ``Special Regulations, Areas of the
National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
Dog Management'' published by the National Park Service in
the Federal Register on February 24, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 9139
et seq.; Regulation Identifier No. 1024-AE16).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this bipartisan amendment
to the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
to ensure my constituents and those who visit the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area will be able to enjoy the park as it is intended to be
enjoyed.
The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is in the bay area and was
envisioned to have multiple complementary uses. This is enshrined in
its mission statement ``to preserve and enhance the natural, historic,
and scenic resources of the lands north and south of the Golden Gate
for the education, recreation, and inspiration of people today and in
the future.'' However, the National Park Service is moving forward on a
severely restrictive rule on an activity that many bay area residents
presently enjoy in the GGNRA, and that is dog walking.
Dog walking off leash has been allowed in certain areas of the GGNRA
for 40 years, but under a new proposed rule this amendment addresses,
it would dramatically restrict access. While the NPS wants to treat all
parks the same, the GGNRA has enjoyed off-leash walking for decades
with little or no problems. As one of our Nation's few urban parks, it
requires dog rules that fit the unique place in our community.
I have heard from literally thousands of San Francisco and San Mateo
County residents who oppose the rule. Dog owners certainly must act
responsibly. As a dog owner myself, I understand that I must make sure
my dog is well trained and safe for all visitors to the GGNRA. I don't
think all of the GGNRA should be open to off-leash dogs, only
designated off-leash areas that won't impact our native wildlife and
flora and fauna.
I love my dog, Buddy, a beautiful yellow Lab. I love walking him, and
he certainly enjoys the fresh air and being off leash and free to roam.
So this amendment is for Buddy and for all the ``Buddies'' in the bay
area that enjoy the GGNRA. Buddy has been there for me, and, tonight, I
am here for him and for all of his four-legged buddies.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SPEIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. If you come by my office, the gentlewoman can meet our
dog, Callie, whom we refer to as the ``barker of the House.'' As a
fellow dog lover, I have no problem with the gentlewoman's amendment
and would happily support it.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, in reclaiming my time, I will accept that
on behalf of the 200,000 dogs in San Francisco and the many more in San
Mateo County, and I thank the gentleman for his support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 106 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 106
printed in House Report 114-683.
Ms. TSONGAS. 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 in this Act may
be used in contravention of section 302(a) of Public Law 94-
579 (43 U.S.C. 1732(a)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman

[[Page H4915]]

from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, many of our Nation's public lands, those
lands which belong to all Americans, are managed under a multiple use
mandate. This means that they are managed to support a wide variety of
uses, including hunting, fishing, hiking, and other recreation
activities, alongside responsible energy development, the preservation
of historic and cultural resources, the conservation of some of our
Nation's most iconic landscapes, and wildlife habitat protection.
The resource management plans that were recently finalized by the
Bureau of Land Management to protect the greater sage-grouse and the
broader sagebrush sea landscape strike the appropriate balance between
the many uses of our public lands. The plans, which were developed in
close consultation with the States and which reflect an unprecedented
collaboration among stakeholders, allow for the responsible resource
development, recreation, and preservation of the habitat which the
greater sage-grouse requires to survive and thrive.
Without these plans, it is highly likely that the greater sage-grouse
would need to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. However,
language in the underlying bill blocks funds from being used to
implement the resource management plans, upsetting the carefully
crafted balance that is required under the multiple use mandate. This
harmful provision could also put the many other species that depend on
this landscape at risk, including elk, mule deer, and pronghorn
antelope; and it would deprive hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts of
opportunities to use their public lands and enjoy the benefits of
renewable wildlife resources.
This is why hunters and sportsmen across the West support the sage-
grouse conservation plans and strongly oppose any effort to block the
plans from moving forward, including groups such as the Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Backcountry Hunters and
Anglers, the Archery Trade Association, and the Dallas Safari Club,
just to name a few. My amendment would allow the BLM management plans
to go into effect if failing to implement the plan would impact the
multiple use mandate and, thereby, deprive outdoor enthusiasts of their
ability to use these Federal lands.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which protects
opportunities for sportsmen and sportswomen and other outdoor
enthusiasts, who depend on our public lands.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, of course the Federal lands are managed
according to current law, and current law requires that they be managed
for sustained yield and multiple use. There is nothing in this bill
that contradicts that--nothing. There is no purpose for this amendment,
so I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
requires the Bureau of Land Management to manage the public lands it
administers according to two principles, as we both agree: multiple use
of the landscape and sustained yield of renewable resources.
Multiple use and sustained yield mean balance. Opportunities to hunt,
fish, and watch wildlife are just as important and have just as much
legitimacy under the laws as activities like grazing, mining, logging,
and drilling. Unfortunately, the balance has swung too far toward the
second set of activities, resulting in significant damage to wildlife
habitat and diminished uses and yields for people who wish to enjoy the
outdoors.
Updating and implementing resource management plans is critical to
maintaining balance and complying with the law. In this case, it not
only guarantees that those who wish to enjoy the great outdoors can do
so, but, in complying with the multiple use mandate, it does all that
is necessary to prevent the greater sage-grouse from being listed under
the Endangered Species Act.
This very balanced plan recognizes the needs and interests of all
parties who seek to use these lands so as not only to protect the great
sage-grouse, but to make sure our sports enthusiasts also have access
to it. The failure to implement this plan could put all of those uses
in danger.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.

Amendment No. 111 Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 111
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. 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:

Page 29, line 12, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
Page 30, line 3, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount insert
``(decreased by $1,750,000)''.

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

{time} 2320

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan effort with Ann
Kirkpatrick, we are offering this amendment. It is an amendment on
behalf of Native American schoolchildren dangerously rutted in flood-
prone dirt roads that cause Native American kids to miss school, on an
average, 10 days a year. I have one of the pictures here of a whole
series. You can take the whole seasons here and you can see what these
bus routes are like.
When it rains, when it snows--and it does in parts of Utah and
Arizona--you look at the Navajo Nation and you are going to find that
kids are missing 10 days a year on average because of roads like this.
Now, the funding for the BIA to take care of these roads has not
changed since 1988. We are asking for a modest shift of less than $2
million to deal with this situation.
I have a county in my district, a county that is larger than the
State of New Jersey, and yet, the population there is less than 15,000
people. That is a tremendous tax burden for them to try to maintain
such massive roads. It is hard to imagine sometimes on the East Coast
how massive some of these areas are, but they need a little maintenance
money for these roads and for these schoolchildren.
So I have joined with Ann Kirkpatrick in offering this amendment. I
would encourage Members to vote for it. It is less than $2 million. It
will make a huge difference on the Navajo Nation, in particular, where
we desperately need to make sure that kids can get to school in a
consistent manner. We have dealt with the funding for nearly 30 years
at the same level. It is time to make that adjustment. I would
encourage Members to vote in favor of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's legitimate concern
for the condition of BIA roads, but reluctantly must oppose this
amendment because it takes even more money from an already starved EPA.
EPA's main operating account is already cut by $92 million in the
bill. Amendments have cut an additional $116 million. Again, while I
share the concern that the gentleman has, the fact is that the bill
already provides $30 million for BIA road maintenance. This is $3.2
million more than the budget request.

[[Page H4916]]

So although road maintenance is critically important, I cannot
support the offset. I oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's
amendment. I have experience firsthand with Mrs. Kirkpatrick, as a
matter of fact, and with Ms. McCollum. We were at the Navajo
reservation about a year ago, and my back is still hurting from the
road that we were on. It was quite an experience.
So they need help. I think this is a very modest amount of money. I
appreciate the support that our colleagues give to Indian Country. They
certainly deserve it.
I would encourage adoption of this amendment.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the distinguished ranking member.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz), we agree that these roads need to be fixed. In fact,
Chairman Simpson and I, just sitting on the bus, we did 500 steps. I
had one brand of tracking equipment, and he had another. I won't
mention the names here.
We are not opposed to fixing these roads, but we just wanted to take
an opportunity on this amendment to point out how much has already been
cut from the Environmental Protection Agency. They have had $164
million cut. There have been other cuts that have come through. At the
same time, Members come to the floor and complain that they haven't
done the delisting, and they haven't been out there, and they haven't
checked this out, and they haven't done this, and they haven't done
that. Well, we need to give them the tools in the toolbox.
We know that this amendment is going to pass. We hope that the
schoolchildren arrive to school safely. As a teacher, I want them there
every day to be educated, but we really need to figure out a way to
fund some of these other projects besides already taking out an already
pared-down Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I think you would
find the mutual bipartisan approach to achieve the goal. I don't think
anybody is in opposition to this.
The reality is, in nearly 30 years, the funding level hasn't changed.
It is very modest. It is less than $2 million.
I hope people find it in their heart to let this pass. It makes a
world of difference to people. We can debate about where to pull those
funds. I have offered this amendment in a bipartisan way from this
fund. It is the way it is structured, and I do hope it passes.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, again, I fully respect the gentleman's
concern. Although he says this is a modest offset, that may be true,
but we have one modest offset on top of another modest offset on top of
another modest offset. Before you know it, the EPA is just starving and
cannot do its mission.
I 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 Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 113 Offered by Mr. Grayson

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 113
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. GRAYSON. 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:

Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $468,000)(increased by $468,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is nearly identical to an
amendment that passed by voice vote last year. I hope we will agree on
its passage again this year.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAYSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Florida wants to cut
it short, I will accept the amendment right now.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 114 Offered by Mr. Norcross

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 114
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. NORCROSS. 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:

Page 74, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $15,282,000) (increased by $15,282,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would designate an
additional $50 million within the Superfund accounts specifically for
the enforcement division.
This amendment does not take money from other programs. Rather, it
designates a portion of already allocated monies for enforcement. It is
revenue neutral and would equal the amount the EPA said it needs to
hold accountable those companies which have polluted the lakes,
streams, and even the homes of my constituents and our constituents.
As I mentioned yesterday, there are still well over 1,000 active
Superfund sites across this great Nation. In my district alone and home
to the author of the Superfund bill, there are over 13 sites that are
still contaminated today.
I want to tell you about just three of those sites, in particular,
named for the company responsible for dumping lead and arsenic into the
ground, streams, and the lakes. It is called the Sherwin-Williams
Sites. These sites include Sherwin-Williams/Hilliard's Creek Site
located in both Gibbsboro and Voorhees, the Route 561 Dump Site in
Gibbsboro, and the United States Avenue Burn Site, which is in
Gibbsboro.
Early in the 1930s, Sherwin-Williams purchased a former paint and
varnish manufacturing plant in Gibbsboro and expanded their operation
throughout that facility. For 20 years, the company allowed these
chemicals from their synthetic varnish to be disposed of in that area.
The contamination happened not only at the manufacturing plant, but in
two separate disposal sites, dump sites that they created. Just one of
the Sherwin-Williams disposal methods included pumping sludge into
holes in the ground around the property.
These chemicals from the varnish seeped into the groundwater,
contaminating not only that property, but properties and streams around
the entire area.

{time} 2330

The facility was closed in 1977, and Sherwin-Williams tried to pass
the bag by selling the property to a developer in 1981. The soil in the
groundwater beneath these sites is contaminated with chemicals,
including lead and arsenic, which have devastating effects on both
human health and children's development. After the devastating events
in Flint, Michigan, I know we understand so many of the horrific
effects of lead exposure, but I think it bears repeating what my
constituents and Americans across the country are facing.
Lead exposure can have serious long-term health consequences in
adults and children. Even at low levels lead in children can cause IQ
deficiencies, learning disabilities, impaired hearing, many of those
things that we have heard about over the past few months. It also leads
to problems in pregnant women and also harms fetuses. According to EPA,
long-term exposure to high levels of arsenic can lead to skin lesions
and a variety of cancers, including skin, bladder, and lung cancer.
We must hold companies like Sherwin-Williams accountable for the
havoc that they have caused in both

[[Page H4917]]

Gibbsboro and Voorhees. For almost 40 years, this ground has laid
there. For the author of the Superfund bill, Jim Florio, this was one
of the driving forces for writing this, and yet 40 years later it stays
there, still not being addressed by the company that caused it. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, Jim Florio was a good friend of mine, a
great guy.
As I mentioned during the debate on the gentleman's previous
Superfund amendment, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's support for
robust funding for the Superfund program, particularly the cleanup
program. I agree, we need to make progress to address the backlog of
1,300 sites, as the gentleman mentioned, on the national priorities
list, and the bill proposes to do so with the $40.1 million increase
for cleanup work.
However, the gentleman's amendment proposes to increase EPA's
enforcement budget by $15.2 million, offset by other reductions within
the Superfund account. Presumably, those reductions would come at the
expense of the cleanup program. So I reluctantly oppose the amendment
and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Certainly, I sympathize with
what the gentleman is trying to do, but we just don't agree to the
offset. I urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Jim Florio's vision,
unfortunately, caused by this site, just being one of many in New
Jersey and in this site, but the fact of the matter is we have to hold
accountable those companies that are still active, that are still
making profits today while the cause that they had in these two
particular sites still go unaddressed. Forty years, the company is
still making money, still not being held accountable. This is one way
we can start holding them accountable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Again, I 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 New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NORCROSS. 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 New Jersey
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 116 Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 116
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. POLIS. 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:

Page 91, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000)''.
Page 95, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 96, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my
colleagues Mr. Peter King of New York and Mr. Raul Ruiz of California.
The amendment is small, but its impact is large and very important to
our three districts and many others across the country that have rural
towns with volunteer fire departments.
All this amendment does is increase funding for the Volunteer Fire
Assistance grant program from $13 million to $15 million. VFA funds are
awarded to volunteer fire departments that protect small communities of
less than 10,000 people and help them prepare to respond to wildfires.
Sadly, I have a perfect example of this need in my district right
now. The small town of Nederland in Boulder County, Colorado, is
battling the Cold Springs forest fire, with the fire crews largely made
up of volunteers, initially. As just one example, Charlie Schmidtmann,
who is a captain with the Nederland Fire Protection District, and
Bretlyn Schmidtmann, who is an ER nurse, a paramedic, and volunteer
firefighter already lost their home to the Cold Springs fire, even as
they continue to work to save neighbors' homes. It is this sort of
heroic work that we need to support through the funding that they need
so they have the tools that they need to fight fires swiftly and
effectively.
For some reason, we still don't treat fires the way we treat other
natural disasters. Wildfires are underfunded when it comes to
mitigation, prevention, and suppression. Fires often occur in rural
communities with smaller populations.
The Volunteer Fire Assistance program is critical to moving the
needle on wildfire management, preventing large wildfires from getting
out of hand while they are still small. Though this grant program is
small, its impact is incredible. The Volunteer Fire Assistance program
provides matching funds to volunteer fire departments protecting
communities with 10,000 or fewer residents.
Volunteer fire departments provide nearly 80 percent of the initial
attack on wildfires across the United States, but, unfortunately, these
volunteer fire departments frequently lack significant financial
resources. $2 million may not sound like a lot in this town, but it
makes an enormous difference for our volunteer fire departments across
the country.
In recent years, the threat of wildland fires has increased steadily
across the country. The 10-year average cost to the Federal Government
of suppressing wildland fires continues to go up; but instead of
funding communities that might be able to suppress the fires in the
initial phase, we have been underfunding that very program that can
save taxpayer money by preventing large forest fires.
I ask for your support for this amendment, which has been endorsed by
the National Association of State Foresters and International
Association of Fire Chiefs, in adding $2 million to this program.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. This is a good amendment. We are willing to accept the
amendment.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for accepting this important
amendment on behalf of the many small towns and volunteer fire
departments across the United States.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 119 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 119
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. GOSAR. 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 the Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the modification
to boating restrictions contained in the news release issued
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service entitled
``Minor Modification to Boating Restrictions at Havasu
Wildlife Refuge'' and dated May 20, 2015.

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. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense,
bipartisan amendment. The Gosar-Sinema-Cook-Kirkpatrick-Amodei-Buck-
Cramer-Duncan-Franks-Jones-McClintock-Schweikert-Zinke-Salmon-Heck
amendment will assist with keeping Lake Havasu open for all users.

[[Page H4918]]

On May 20, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued new
motorized boating restrictions that arbitrarily expanded a no-wake zone
on Lake Havasu, a renowned fishing and boating destination on the
Colorado River popular with visitors from Arizona, California, Nevada,
and around the world. These arbitrary wake restrictions effectively
prohibited tubing, waterskiing, and wakeboarding in an area utilized by
recreational enthusiasts for decades. This action was taken behind
closed doors with no advance notice and without opportunity for public
comment.
These new mandates were announced and implemented just 2 days before
Memorial Day weekend, an economically vital weekend, as tourists spend
more than $200 million annually in the area and support 4,000 full-time
jobs. Further, 75 percent of tourists are interested in waterskiing and
recreational boating activities while visiting Havasu.
The Service has attempted to justify the May 2015 ``temporary
restrictions'' by stating that they are necessary to address safety
concerns. The Arizona Game and Fish Department recently submitted
formal comments refuting this claim, stating there were only four
incidents in the last 3 years in the area--three groundings and one
swamping.
The Department went on to state: ``The temporary restriction imposed
in May 2015 . . . includes a safe, traditional, very popular
waterskiing and wakeboarding flat-area . . . [The Service] does not
adequately justify this additional restriction and that the impacts to
the recreational area would be significant . . . The reported events do
not support the existence of a safety concern.''

{time} 2340

On April 12, 2016, the Service announced a draft recreational boating
compatibility determination and the agency's intent to pursue even more
boating restrictions on Lake Havasu. Due to significant opposition,
which included more 1,000 concerned citizens showing up at a public
meeting, the Service suspended the agency's pursuit of the April 12
proposed restrictions.
While this action was welcomed, the Service still has not reopened
the area closed on May 20, 2015, that started this very controversy.
These temporary restrictions have now been in effect more than a year.
In addition to being arbitrary, unwise, and unsafe, the action by the
Fish and Wildlife Service was also unlawful. The agency violated the
law by not going through the regular NEPA process and soliciting public
comment from stakeholders.
Such irresponsible action by Federal bureaucrats should alarm not
only the visitors to Lake Havasu, but Americans who value the rule of
law and a government accountable to the people it serves.
This bipartisan amendment is endorsed by more than 20 local and
national organizations, including Americans for Limited Government, the
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Concerned Citizens for America
Arizona Chapter, the Lake Havasu Area Chamber of Commerce, the Yuma
County Chamber of Commerce, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, and many,
many more.
My amendment is about government accountability. It simply prohibits
a press release from closing an area on Lake Havasu that has been
utilized by recreational enthusiasts for decades. The Service should
solicit public comments and go through the normal scoping process
before making major changes that impact users on Lake Havasu.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the chairman
and the ranking member for their time and for their goodwill on this
bill.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, just so I
can make a comment and share a concern.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Minnesota
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I am from a water State. I am from Minnesota. And I
know that sometimes boating becomes an issue where it hasn't been an
issue before because of popularity and the number of people coming to
an area.
So sometimes our State DNR or sometimes, in our State, it is actually
municipalities that oversee some of the waterways, or we have a park
board that oversees it. Sometimes we have to go back and we have to
reexamine what is going on because of the way that something has just
caught on with people coming. And the more people that are in an area
in water, whether it is swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, sometimes
it becomes that, all of a sudden, this resource where there was plenty
of room and opportunity for everybody to do what they wanted to do, now
we finding people are on top of each other. And then you add the fact
that this is a body of water--and I have pictures up here--where you
also have wildlife habitat.
So I hear clearly what you are saying, that it doesn't appear that
the people in the area who have recreated in this wildlife refuge felt
they were given much advanced notice or much input on in this.
Here is the concern that I have about us taking a vote here on this.
I think you raise legitimate concerns. I think we need to make sure
that it is addressed. But I don't want to start having every refuge
start being managed by Members of Congress.
I think you show that you have a lot of people in support of what you
are doing. It is bipartisan in nature. The way that it appears that the
Fish and Wildlife Service handled it wasn't in an open process where
people either understood what they were doing or could comment on what
they are doing. But when we come to the floor here and legislate this,
I think it sets kind of a bad precedent.
So the question I have to the gentleman: Do you really feel you need
to pass an amendment to legislate this? I am willing to work with you
on this. Is there a way that we can get the achieved goal and objective
that you are seeking and making sure visitors' safety and recreational
use is preserved but preserved in a way that is safe and enjoyable for
everyone? A part of this is that there is multiple use with more people
coming in a confined area.
I understand your frustration. That is why you are here on the floor.
But I am wondering if there is a better way you can accomplish the
goal.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
The issue is very interesting, because we actually issued a FOIA
request for emails. This was done egregiously by two people
complaining.
If you look at the map, what ends up happening by closing this area
where families and young kids learn how to water-ski, it forces them
into the main channel of the Lake Havasu area, where boats go 50 to 70
to 75 miles an hour. People are going to get hurt.
So my point is if the Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't want us to
continue to do this, then do their job right. Follow the law. That is
the key here.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to
the Chair.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, and this is why I think it becomes
a little cumbersome. When you have people swimming and fishing and
water-skiing all in the same area, there is more and more pressure on
it. So I just rose in opposition to have a discussion to understand
this issue better.
With that, I withdraw my opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the dialogue back and forth. Once
again, let's follow the rule of law. If the agency doesn't want to have
incidents like this and have their hands slapped publicly, then do
their job and do it right and do it well. This is about safety, but it
is in the reverse fashion.
With that, I appreciate the work of the gentlewoman and the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 120 Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 120
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H4919]]

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

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 321(a) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7621(a)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Weber) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a very simple and
commonsense amendment to H.R. 5538, the Department of the Interior and
EPA appropriations bill.
This amendment passed by a voice vote last year, and I hope all
Members can support it again today--or should I say tonight.
America's job creators have faced an onslaught of regulations from
the EPA, Mr. Chairman, even as Congress has consistently reduced the
Agency's budget year after year. The EPA has proposed lower national
ozone standards, regulations on new and existing power plants,
regulations on waters of the United States, just to name a few.
All of these regulations are based on questionable scientific data
and will lead to higher energy prices for hardworking families and
small businesses and, without a doubt, will negatively impact American
jobs.
The Agency has cited its authority under the Clean Air Act as the
basis for many of its regulatory actions. However, when it comes to
evaluating how its regulations impact American jobs, the Agency has
failed to follow the law.
Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act clearly states: ``The
Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss of
shifts of employment . . . including, where appropriate, investigating
threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly
resulting from such administration or enforcement.''
Mr. Chairman, the EPA is even now involved in ongoing litigation for
its failure to comply with this provision, and Congress has repeatedly
heard testimony reinforcing EPA's failure to comply with section
321(a).
In response to questions for the record during her Senate
confirmation hearing, Administrator McCarthy said that the ``EPA has
not interpreted section 321(a) to require EPA to conduct employment
investigations in taking regulatory actions.''

{time} 1150

Mr. Chairman, Congress put this provision into the Clean Air Act for
a reason: to provide a necessary check on the regulatory powers of
unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. In response to the EPA's refusal to
follow the law, Congress must act to ensure that the true impact of
regulations on jobs are disclosed to inform the public and Members of
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this 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, I was trying to figure out exactly what
this amendment does. So, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required
to evaluate potential loss or shifts of employment as a result of air
pollution regulation. No one is disputing that requirement.
So this would tell the EPA that they are not allowed to spend any
funds in the course of not doing any analysis. It is just illogical to
prohibit the agency from spending money not to do something, but it is
also pointless.
The employment impact analyses are already required under the Clean
Air Act. The agency regularly undertakes them as part of rulemaking.
Mr. Chairman, why I look baffled is this amendment is impractical,
and it is unnecessary. So it appears to me it is just another attempt
to come to the floor and undermine the EPA's efforts to make sure that
they are able to do their job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's
comments. She actually raised a good argument for the amendment. I
mean, we are telling the EPA that they need to do their job. No money
can be spent in contravention of section 321(a). They can't go after a
company, for example, if they haven't done the job analysis, and that
is exactly what this amendment says.
So I simply want to reiterate what I said. The law says the
administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss of
shifts employment. I don't understand what the administrator does not
understand about ``shall.''
So it is a commonsense amendment. It actually reins in the EPA and
keeps them from destroying more jobs as they seem wont--have the
habit--to do.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 122 Offered by Mr. Gallego

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 122
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. GALLEGO. 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 issue a grazing permit or lease in contravention
of section 4110.1 or 4130.1-1(b) of title 43, Code of Federal
Regulations.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will
reaffirm Congress' support for the enforcement of grazing fees on
public lands.
Grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right. Ranchers who use
these lands should abide by the law and pay their fair share. My
amendment simply confirms that grazing permits or leases should not be
issued to anyone who does not comply with BLM regulations.
Mr. Chairman, revenues from grazing fees go toward the management,
maintenance, and improvement of public range land. The mass majority of
ranchers are upstanding, responsible Americans. They understand the
importance of these efforts and pay their fees on time.
But some ranchers are outright refusing to pay their grazing fees.
That is completely unacceptable.
To be clear, my amendment does not penalize people for forgetting to
repair a fence or neglecting to make a payment once or twice. Instead,
this amendment will ensure that egregious violations of grazing
regulations are not financed by the American taxpayer.
One particular rancher, who is well known to the media, continues to
be more than $1 million in arrears. He has ignored the executive and
judicial branches of our government, expanding his herds further on to
Federal lands.
While continuing to violate the law, he put the lives of local and
Federal officials at stake during a dangerous standoff, for which he
was indicted by a grand jury on charges including assaulting and
threatening Federal officers. We are only now beginning to see the full
extent of the damage he has caused to public lands as a result of this
confrontation and his unauthorized grazing.
Mr. Chairman, my friends on the other side of the aisle talk a lot
about upholding the law, yet they responded with silence, or even
support, when this particular rancher and others brazenly broke our
laws and put the lives of BLM officers at risk in an armed standoff.
Mr. Chairman, I can't help but notice a double standard in
Republicans' support for ranchers who refuse to pay their fair share
and Republican criticism of Americans who refuse to accept injustice in
their communities.
This amendment offers my Republican friends the opportunity to stand
up against those who have broken our laws with impunity. It sends a
clear signal that egregious violations of grazing regulations will not
be financed by the American taxpayer, and

[[Page H4920]]

it projects a clear message of support to the BLM officers who
demonstrated discretion and restraint in the handling of the ranchers'
protests.
Mr. Chairman, let's pass this amendment and uphold the basic
principle that our laws should be applied fairly to everyone who lives
in this country and uses its public lands.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I certainly agree
with the gentleman that permit holders should meet all their existing
requirements in order to renew their permits, and I would accept this
amendment.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GALLEGO. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 123 Offered by Mr. Grayson

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 123
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. GRAYSON. 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 enter into a contract with any offeror or any of
its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by
Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of
its principals--
(1) within a three-year period preceding this offer has
been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it
for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public
(Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation
of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records,
making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal
criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property;
(2) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of
any of the offenses enumerated above in paragraph (1); or
(3) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has
been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount
that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains
unsatisfied.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to other
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every
appropriations bill considered under an open rule under the 113th and
114th Congresses and, in the last few weeks, under a structural rule.
If it is accepted, I will not ask for a recorded vote.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAYSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I like the gentleman's amendment. Criminals
shouldn't get contracts. I accept the amendment.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 130 Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 130
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. POLIS. 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 Bureau of Land Management to study or test the
feasibility of, or implement, any sterilization program for
wild horse and burro management with surgical sterilization.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, wild free-roaming horses and burros are a
living symbol of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West, like in
my home State of Colorado.

{time} 0000

My amendment will help to prevent the Bureau of Land Management from
destroying this iconic symbol using funds allocated in this bill to be
used for surgical sterilization of horses.
What distinguishes America's wild horses from their domestic
counterparts is their natural behaviors and their complex social
organizations. Surgical sterilization will take the wild out of wild
horses by removing the horse's ability to utilize the reproductive
organs that drive their natural behavior and changing their hormonal
structure. It turns them into little more than pasture horses,
destroying their complex social organizations and inalterably changing
the free-roaming behaviors that Congress sought to protect when we
passed the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
The way surgical sterilization of our horses is conducted under the
guise of population control is simply cruel. A 2013 National Academy of
Sciences study report identifies many strategies for fertility control
and supports the use of PZP, or immunocontraception, which has been
underutilized.
Rather than using taxpayer funds and do expensive roundups and
expensive operations, we have effective dart-delivered birth control
that is a fraction of the cost and is more humane and preserves the
wild character of the herds. The National Academy of Sciences notes
that sterilization is the least recommended of the approaches. There is
not good data, it is untested in wild horses, and the risks associated
are simply unnecessary.
BLM noted that fertility control is viable if used appropriately. It
is important to maintain the population size of these herds. Of course,
we can agree that some form of fertility control is needed.
Sterilization affects both male and female wild horses. In both cases
experts have flat out said they are bad ideas. Ovariectomies, tubal
ligations, and laser ablation are planned techniques to be used on wild
horse mares. Two of the three techniques have never been performed on
horses, let alone wild mares and fillies.
The National Academy of Sciences, once again, stated clearly that
castrating stallions will cause loss of testosterone and consequential
reduction in or complete loss of male type of behaviors necessary for
maintenance of social organization, band integrity, and expression of a
natural behavior repertoire. Scientists believe this mass sterilization
program could essentially lead to the end of wild horses and burros in
the West.
Luckily, BLM does have a better and cheaper tool. The PZP birth
control vaccine is an example. It is deliverable by a remote dart. It
is relatively cheap--$25 a dose. The surgical interventions cost far
more.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the cost effectiveness and
efficacy of this vaccine in managing wild horse populations. But
instead of expanding its use, the BLM has incorrectly reduced it over
the last several years. Contraception alternatives have been available
since the 1980s. But BLM, unfortunately, continues to ignore this
approach despite the National Academy of Sciences report indicating
these vaccines are the most promising fertility control methods to help
limit the population growth for wild horses and burros.
Examples of successful use of PZP has been noted in the McCullough
Peak herds in Wyoming and Assateague herds in Virginia and Maryland.
Look, these kinds of procedures destroy the wild nature of horses.
They are a waste of taxpayer money, and they are inhumane. The National
Academy of Sciences advised against the surgical removal of ovaries,
warning

[[Page H4921]]

the possibility that ovariectomies may be followed by prolonged
bleeding or infection makes it inadvisable for field application.
The final point I want to make is that this proposal by BLM has
raised overwhelming opposition by the general public for whom our wild
horses and burros are very popular. Over 20,000 citizens submitted
comments in opposition to this plan. The public wants its wild horses
protected, and, of course, we need to control the population, but we
should not surgically mutilate our wild horses.
I would like to ask for the ranking member and chairman to work with
me to make sure the BLM spends our taxpayer money more wisely and
protects the iconic symbol of the American West.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
I do so for the purpose of speaking to this problem we have.
I certainly thank my colleague from Colorado for his willingness to
work with the subcommittee in agreeing to withdraw the amendment later
in this discussion. I fully understand his concerns regarding the
Bureau of Land Management's research program for wild horses and
burros.
I value wild horses and burros. They are certainly, as you mentioned,
an iconic part of our history in the West. But we have a problem, and I
think we can agree to that. Right now we are spending $80 million a
year.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
obviously not to speak in opposition, but to speak for the purpose of
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, right now we are spending $80 million a
year in this appropriation bill. It will double to $160 million in 4
years to store horses that we are presently doing. Also, as the
gentleman is aware, we are concerned not just about the health of the
herds--some of these herds are in very poor health--but also about the
health of the range. Some areas are way overutilized.
So we need to work with the gentleman to find out a way to deal with
this problem because we just can't continue to ignore this issue. It is
a growing problem.
I was just over in Death Valley. We have in some cases irreversible
environmental damage that is being done by wild burros in Death Valley.
So I look forward to working with the gentleman to resolve this
problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his commitment to
work with us protecting wild horses.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 131 will not be offered.
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.
Calvert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, 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.

____________________