[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 144 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7147-H7160]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1845
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Biggs
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tipton). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 29 printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. BIGGS. 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 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,234,000)''.
Page 141, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,234,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year President Donald Trump submitted his
budget request for fiscal year 2018 to Congress. The budget request
included a 20 percent reduction in funding for the Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to
$419 million, $129 million below the fiscal year 2017 level.
The underlying bill cuts roughly 15 percent of the EPA's enforcement
budget, and my amendment would get us closer to meeting the President's
request by cutting an additional $10,234,000 from the EPA's programs
and management account enforcement line item.
Reducing the EPA's enforcement budget will help rein in inappropriate
bureaucratic actions. It is necessary to revive the American economy
and restore regulatory sanity to environmental regulations.
Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, the American people cannot afford to
continue to be burdened by an out-of-control EPA that overregulates and
promulgates rules and then punishes the American by adjudicating
unconstitutional penalties.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and
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. Chair, I can't support an amendment taking money
from an underfunded agency, reducing our bottom line, when it is
already $824 million below the FY17 enacted level. Let me give you two
examples of why I think the gentleman's amendment should not be
supported.
One is I have been talking to EPA officials because we have a
surprise toxic dump site that is as close to a residential area as I am
from the Chairman. Barrels. The owner just walked away. Too much for
the city of St. Paul to handle. Too toxic. Too dangerous.
The State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, had
to call in the EPA for help. It is costing us as taxpayers millions of
dollars to clean that up because the businessowner just walked away.
Nothing that the EPA can do but clean it up, and clean it up they are,
and the neighbors are ecstatic that the Federal Government is there to
help them.
The EPA, by taking more money away from it and putting it in the
spending reduction account at a time when I know that the EPA regions
all across this country are sending men and women down to help cities
and counties and communities out with the disaster that Harvey has
created, this is all money that is being spent right now in an agency
that is $824 million below 2017.
I think it is important that we protect the air that we breathe and
the water that we drink, and the consequences of further cuts to the
EPA, I believe, will be felt in communities like mine, like Houston,
like maybe what we will be hearing in Florida--we haven't had the
assessment yet in the Virgin Islands--all across this Nation. That, to
me, is just irresponsible.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I won't take the 2 minutes. I just want to
let the gentleman know I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I
encourage adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The EPA has no statutory duty to pursue or enforce regulation. My
home State of Arizona, along with the States west of the Mississippi,
are those who are most affected by the heavy hand of the enforcement
arm of the EPA.
In my community, dust is the number one particulate. The EPA's
response is to come to us in a desert and say: ``Water it down. Water
it down.'' Then they come after us because of misuse of water.
This is the inconsistency that we see in the EPA that is weighing
down the economy of many of the areas within the West.
The more I meet with local and national natural resource leaders,
their number one concern mostly deals with the EPA's burdensome
regulations and its enforcement proceedings. Further reducing the EPA's
enforcement budget will limit its ability to stifle the economy and
enforce unconstitutional rules.
I also want to emphasize the need to restore fiscal sanity in our
country. With the ever-growing national debt, my amendment will return
$10 million back to the United States Treasury.
I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) for partnering with
me on this effort, and to all Members who support our effort to restore
fiscal and regulatory sanity in our country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this account has already
been cut by $240 million below the 2017 enacted level, another $108
million tonight on the floor, but at least those dollars were going
back into something, in my opinion, meaningful. This is just taking
money away from the EPA, which is underfunded, which is undersourced,
and being asked to do more for less at a time when, as I pointed out,
we don't even know until there is an opportunity for the waters to
subside what we are going to find at the Superfund sites from Harvey.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
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 Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Katko
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H7148]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $250,000,000)''.
Page 67, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
Page 67, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Katko) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which
restores critical water infrastructure funding to the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund.
Across our country, communities are faced with aging water
infrastructure, which poses a growing threat to existing levels of
service, public health, and our environment.
The State Revolving Funds are a proven critical tool for States and
local communities to make high priority water infrastructure
investments that otherwise may not be feasible.
Earlier this year, Onondaga County in my district leveraged over $20
million in funding through the State Revolving Funds to upgrade the
Syracuse-Metro sewage treatment plant to continue to improve the water
quality of Onondaga Lake, which has made a remarkable recovery.
While I commend the Chairman for his work on this legislation, with
the EPA estimating our national 20-year capital improvement need to be
over $650 billion for drinking water and waste infrastructure combined,
now is not the time to roll back this Federal funding.
The $250 million cut to this fund included in the bill would prove
harmful to communities in my district and throughout our entire Nation.
I was heartened to see that the President's statement yesterday
opposed this $250 million cut and reaffirmed the administration's
support of pivotal water infrastructure funding.
This is a bipartisan issue that impacts nearly every congressional
district. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this amendment to ensure our communities can continue to invest in
critical water infrastructure projects that support their economies and
a safe and healthy environment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The gentlewoman from Minnesota is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, while there is nothing more I would like to
do, I think any of us would all like to do, than to provide more
resources for the clean water SRF, it can't be done by reducing the
EPA's environmental programs in management.
This administration has clearly shown that they do not regard the
EPA's work as a priority, which means that they have a blatant
disregard for public health and the health of our environment.
The EPM account includes funding for programs like brownfields
enforcement, environmental justice, geographic programs, and lot of
other critical programs, some of which I gave examples of this evening,
which would suffer with a $250 million reduction.
This amendment illustrates, because I agree with the gentleman, I
wish we had more money to put in that account, what happens when we
don't have adequate 302(b) allocations. To overuse a common phrase, we
are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it is not making us whole. So it is
with great reluctance that I oppose this amendment, but oppose it I
must because the cuts that have already been made this evening to the
brownfields enforcement, the environmental justice programs, and a
myriad of other programs which are critical to the health and well-
being of our communities, and they are out there working every day on
it, is something I can just not support.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment because
water infrastructure remains a top priority of this committee. I urge
adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chair, in response to my colleagues from the
Democratic side of the aisle, it is clear, as I stated previously, that
the President has signaled not only that he supports the plussing up of
the money as I propose in this amendment, that he supports plus-ing up
a much larger amount the Clean Water State Revolving Funds as part of
an overall infrastructure plan. To say otherwise is simply untrue. This
President wants everyone in the United States to have clean drinking
water. He supports this program, and for someone to say otherwise, it
is just not true.
She also stated that robbing Peter to pay Paul is something that may
be going on here. We are talking about clean drinking water, $250
million of clean drinking water, that would come out of the general
fund. I would much rather see a little discomfort from bureaucrats in
Washington, D.C., than to see people not have clean drinking water
nationwide.
I want to reiterate the importance of supporting the effective State
Revolving Fund program. It has done a great job nationwide, and we need
in these tough fiscal times to find ways to make these things work.
This is a way to do it. Take away from the general fund, take away from
instances in which bureaucrats may not be able to rent the car of their
choice or have the pencils that they choose or an upgraded computer. I
would much rather have that than to have dirty drinking water for our
constituents nationwide.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the very employees that the gentleman was
talking about that get in a car, they drive to check out the sewer
waste plants to make sure that they are operating. They are making sure
that the water is clean. They are doing their job.
Tonight we have cut this account already by 16 percent. That means we
are cutting programs. We have cut brownfields enforcement,
environmental justice, geographic programs, programs that support the
very account you and I would like to see more money go into. I just
urge my colleagues not to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1900
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. 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 67, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000) (reduced by $6,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, a little more than 2
years ago, an Environmental Protection Agency team was investigating a
contamination at the Gold King Mine that caused a spill of 3 million
gallons of wastewater, impacting New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Arizona,
the Southern Ute Reservation, and the Navajo Nation.
I was in Farmington, New Mexico, in the Four Corners area when the
toxic plume turned the Animas River yellow. I met with the community
and heard their concerns about the toll that the spill was taking on
businesses, farmers, families, and individuals. I attended different
community meetings, not only in southern Colorado, but in that
northwestern part of New Mexico.
Despite repeated promises by the EPA that it would fully address this
[[Page H7149]]
environmental disaster, progress has too often been needlessly slow.
For example, in January of this year, the EPA and the Department of
Justice announced a deeply disappointing decision that the EPA was not
liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages caused by the Gold
King Mine spill.
And while I appreciate Administrator Pruitt's recent announcement
that the EPA was reconsidering this misguided position, I believe that
the EPA and the Congress should act to ensure that every impacted
individual and community--especially New Mexicans and the Navajo
Nation--receive the compensation they deserve.
The State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation should not have to sue
the Federal Government to ensure that the government meets its moral
obligation to the farmers, small business owners, and others injured by
this spill.
This amendment, however, is about the long-term impact the spill will
have on the river and all that that it sustains, from drinking water to
providing water for farming and livestock. Robust long-term water
quality monitoring is essential to ensuring that communities along the
Animas River have the data they need to protect the health of all of
those who rely on this water, and the State of New Mexico has developed
a robust and independent monitoring plan that deserves the EPA's
support.
That is why I am again offering an amendment to provide $6 million to
direct the EPA to work with the affected States and Indian Tribes to
support long-term monitoring programs for water quality on the Animas
and San Juan Rivers in response to the Gold King Mine spill.
The same amendment was accepted by the House last year on a
bipartisan basis. I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for
their work on this issue, and because monitoring now and well into the
future is necessary to protect the health of all those who rely on this
water, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
reluctant opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I think it is important that EPA right the
wrong that was caused by the Gold King Mine spill and ensure that the
affected States, and the Tribal areas, have the resources they need
following the spill.
The FY17 bill included $4 million to work with the States and Tribes
on an independent water monitoring plan as authorized by the WIIN Act.
Therefore, the proposed level in this amendment would exceed the
authorized level. And for that reason, I must oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman very
much for his comments and look forward to working with him on this
issue.
We arrived at $6 million for water monitoring after consulting with
the State of New Mexico, and, in fact, it is my understanding that New
Mexico has about $15 million in priority needs related to the Gold King
Mine spill, including $6 million specifically for monitoring.
And so we checked with the State before we came down this evening to
debate this amendment, and what the State of New Mexico shared with me,
they report that they have only received $577,193 in Federal funding to
support monitoring, which is less than 10 percent of what my home State
believes is needed.
In addition, the Navajo Nation and other impacted communities still
need support from the Federal Government to help recover from this
disaster. So, again, I look forward to working with both the chairman
and with the ranking member to ensure that all of the communities
impacted by this spill are made whole, and that we provide appropriate
support to vital water and monitoring efforts in New Mexico, Colorado,
Arizona, Utah, the Southern Ute Tribe, and the Navajo Nation.
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 Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. 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 New Mexico
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 printed in House
Report 115-297.
Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Beyer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36
printed in House Report 115-297.
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:
Page 134, strike lines 17 through 25.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, 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 seeks to preserve our current
Clean Water Act protections for our rivers, streams, and wetlands. Our
Nation's river systems and wetlands provide values that no other
ecosystem can. These include: natural water quality improvement, flood
protection, shoreline erosion control, recreation, general aesthetic
appreciation, and natural products for our use at no cost.
Yet section 430 of this bill seeks to undermine the critical balance
between protecting these waters and the day-to-day operations of our
Nation's farmers, ranchers, and foresters. Under current law, farmers,
ranchers, and foresters can carry out their normal operations in any
waterbody without securing a Clean Water Act permit.
So what this means is farmers can continue to plow their fields,
including potential wet areas that have been farmed for decades, plant
their seeds, harvest their crops, without ever having to obtain
approval under the Clean Water Act.
Any normal farming, ranching, and forestry exemption is going to
include minor limitations. For example, a farmer cannot use the current
exemption to convert his farmland to a residential development without
obtaining a permit. And a rancher can't use the exemption to plow under
a wetland to expand his reach of grazing lands. And forestry operations
cannot use this exemption to change the course of a local stream to
improve drainage on their growing lands.
In short, the way the Clean Water Act currently operates is to allow
normal ranching, farming, forestry operations to continue without a
permit, unless the activities either change or convert the use of the
waterbody to a new purpose, or impair the historic flow or reach of a
stream or wetland.
So if the planned activity triggers any of these limitations, the
current law requires the activity to obtain a permit. That is perfectly
reasonable. But section 430 of this bill would, in essence, provide an
absolute clean water exemption for impacts to any streams or wetlands
that happen to be on agriculture, ranching, or forestry lands,
regardless if they have any relation to these activities.
Mr. Chairman, this is a fundamental change to the Clean Water Act,
and one where the impacts have never been explored. When the EPA was
asked what the impact of this amendment would be, here was their
response:
This amendment would be a significant departure from almost
40 years of implementation of the Clean Water Act by
eliminating the existing provision requiring that the
exemptions apply only to normal, as in established or
ongoing, farming practices.
This change could result in the loss or impairment of thousands of
acres of valuable wetlands and other waters where land is converted to
agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, we should not be using an appropriations bill to change
Federal policy related to the protection of our Nation's rivers and
streams. To the best of my knowledge, no hearings or investigations on
the impacts of this provision have been held.
[[Page H7150]]
If this Congress is interested in overturning almost 40 years of
Clean Water Act precedent, regular order would require hearings before
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which has
sole jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act, and approval by that
committee before consideration on the floor.
This rider is bad policy for the protection of our environment, for
the protection of human health, and bad policy for the protection of
our public safety.
Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and 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. In 1977, Congress made a deliberate policy choice to
exempt ordinary farming, silviculture, ranching, mining, related
activities, from the requirements to obtain Clean Water Act permits
when undertaken as normal activities: prepare and maintain land, roads,
ponds, and ditches.
Unfortunately, we heard concern for several years that, under the
Obama administration, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers changed
implementation of these provisions to significantly reduce the
application of the statutory exemptions.
Section 430 of the bill makes clear that Congress has always intended
that statutory exemptions are to have meaning, that the agencies cannot
simply ignore the will of Congress as set out by law.
For these reasons and a number of others, I oppose the amendment and
urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the perspective of the chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on this. I think our clear
understanding is that the exemptions, as currently written, allow for
all normal farming, ranching, forestry activities, and that the permit
would only be required when there is a substantial difference from the
activity as it has gone on before, and that this is the way the law has
been interpreted and enforced for the last 40 years.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge a strong ``no,'' and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Beyer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37
printed in House Report 115-297.
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:
Page 135, strike lines 1 through 23.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, 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 amendment would strike section 431.
Section 431 does two things. First, it withdraws the Clean Water
Rule. Second, and more importantly, it breaks procedure and creates a
loophole so that the removal of the Clean Water Rule does not have to
abide by the Administrative Procedure Act.
In essence, we are creating a loophole to eliminate a rule, a rule
requested by the Supreme Court and one that took several years to put
together. This elimination without allowing tweaks, thoughtful removal,
or comment is a radical and dangerous precedent.
In fact, 80 Members of Congress and I actually asked for an extension
of the 30-day comment period to eliminate the Clean Water Rule to allow
the American people to have a say. The Trump administration agreed with
us and extended the comment period an additional 30 days. I don't get
to say that too often.
So clearly, there is a desire for a comment period, as evidenced by
our letter and the administration's decision to appropriately extend
the comment period, but the language in this bill would eliminate that
process completely.
I include in the Record the request for extension.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 29, 2017.
Re Request for Extension of Comment Period on EPA and Corps
Proposed Rule Defining Waters of the United States under
the Clean Water Act.
Administrator Scott Pruitt,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203
Dear Administrator Pruitt: We request a minimum 90 day
extension to the proposed 30-day comment period to rescind
the 2015 Clean Water Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (Jun. 29,
2015).
The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) finalized the Clean Water Rule to
clarify the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water
Act. The EPA and the Corps solicited comments on the Rule for
over 200 days. In accordance with Administrative Procedure
Act, the agencies first established a public comment period
for 90 days and extended the comment period twice in response
to extension requests. The final rule reflected over 1
million public comments on the proposal, the substantial
majority of which supported the Clean Water Rule.
The agencies also initiated an extensive public outreach
effort, including over 400 meetings across the nation with
various stakeholders, including but not limited to: states,
small businesses, farmers, academics, miners, energy
companies, counties, municipalities, environmental
organizations, and other federal agencies. The agencies
incorporated these comments into the final Clean Water Rule.
President Trump's Executive Order 13778 directs EPA and the
Corps to evaluate whether to revise or rescind the Clean
Water Rule, ``as appropriate and consistent with law.'' We
ask that as you examine the Clean Water Rule, like the prior
administration, you engage in a thoughtful and comprehensive
process bound in scientific fact.
Americans depend on clean water for their health and
livelihood. More than 117 million Americans rely upon
drinking water from public water systems that draw supply
from headwater, seasonal, or rain-dependent streams that were
vulnerable to pollution before the Clean Water Rule. As such,
the decision to roll back the Clean Water Rule cannot be made
in haste.
We are concerned that the EPA has provided limited time and
opportunity for stakeholder involvement and official public
comment. Any proposed rulemaking must include sufficient time
and participation to gather input from concerned and affected
parties, including those whose legal rights and
responsibilities will be affected by this effort. For
example, the 2015 Clean Water Rule provided legal certainty
that regulatory-defined water features, such as stormwater
control features, wastewater recycling structures, and
puddles, are not covered by the Clean Water Act. However,
that certainty would be eliminated if the 2015 Clean Water
Rule were rescinded.
Given the history of engagement on this issue and the fact
that parties may be subject to greater regulatory uncertainty
by this effort, a comment period of 30 days does not allow
for meaningful engagement from the public and stakeholders.
The Clean Water Rule is robust and ensures that water
sources are protected by taking into account the connected
systems of water, from wetlands and seasonal bodies of water
to large rivers and lakes. The requirements of the Rule were
meticulously developed and addressed longstanding
uncertainty, improving our national commitment to protect not
only America's water, but the American people. If the Clean
Water Rule is revised or rescinded, the process must be
comprehensive and deliberative.
We ask that you take into consideration the opinions of the
American public by extending the comment period, allowing for
respectful debate. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Donald S. Beyer Jr., Brenda L. Lawrence, Gerald E. Connoll,
Grace F. Napolitano, Matthew A. Cartwright, Barbara Lee,
Keith Ellison, Jared Polis, Paul D. Tonko, Niki Tsongas,
Jackie Speier, Carol Shea-Porter, Debbie Dingell, Gwen Moore,
Katherine Clark, Mike Quigley, Raul M. Grijalva, Earl
Blumenauer, Zoe Lofgren, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Anthony G.
Brown, James P. McGovern, David E. Price, Alan Lowenthal,
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Daniel W. Lipinski, Cedric L.
Richmond, Louise M. Slaughter, Colleen Hanabusa, Bonnie
Watson Coleman, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jared Huffman, Jerry
McNerney, Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Naette Diaz
Barragan, Bill Foster, Jamie Raskin, Betty McCollum, John
Sabanes.
Jerrold Nalder, Suzanne Bonamici, Steve Cohen, Marcia L.
Fudge, Beto O'Rourke, Grace Meng, Mark Pocan, Anna G. Eshoo,
Ted W. Lieu, John Yarmuth, Alma Adams, Alcee L. Hastings,
Adam Smith, A. Donald McEachin, Tony Cardenas, Dwight Evans,
Brendan F. Boyle, James R. Langevin, Salud O. Carbajal,
Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Judy Chu, Eliot L. Engel, Jan
Schakowsky, Richard E. Neal, Pramila Jayapal, Lisa Blunt
Rochester, Yvette D. Clarke, Jose E.
[[Page H7151]]
Serrano, Daniel T. Kildee, Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, William R. Keating, Stephen F. Lynch,
Doris Matsui, Richard M. Nolan, Elizabeth H. Esty, Pete
Aguilar, Adam B. Schiff, Marcy Kaptur, J. Luis Correa, Scott
Peters.
Mr. BEYER. So is this our new status quo, that once an industry
decides it doesn't like how a regulation turns out, we eliminate that
regulation without comment or consideration for the various
stakeholders or its value.
We are eliminating the process here that we, Congress, put in place
to ensure that those regulations were being considered, adjusted, or
even removed, that they were done thoughtfully and while keeping
stakeholders, like the American people, in mind.
It could be any rule, but the rule at stake this time is the Clean
Water Rule. Over 100 Members of Congress joined me to reinforce the
value of the Clean Water Rule, because without it, the streams that
help supply public drinking water serving one in three Americans will
be at risk.
Rolling back the Clean Water Rule cannot be made in haste and without
stakeholder input. Clarity was needed in light of the Supreme Court
rulings in 2001 and 2006 about uncertainty of the scope of the waters
protected under the act.
The EPA and the Corps held a lengthy and inclusive public rulemaking
process, 200 days of public comment, 400 meetings across the Nation,
and the rule reflected over 1 million public comments on the proposal,
the substantial majority of which supported the Clean Water Rule.
So we are overruling, essentially, 1 million comments and 400
meetings to do this without the appropriate administrative process.
So if it is withdrawn, I simply ask that the process be comprehensive
and deliberative, and the bill does not allow for that.
With this rule at stake, this time it is the Clean Water Rule, but it
could be any rule going forward.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from Members of Congress
to Administrator Scott Pruitt opposing the proposed rule to rescind the
Clean Water Rule.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, August 18, 2017.
Hon. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Administrator Pruitt: We write in opposition to the
proposed rule rescinding the Clean Water Rule (Docket No.EPA-
HQ-OW-2017-0203), also called the Waters of the United States
(WOTUS) rule. Americans need an Environmental Protection
Agency that will use the best possible science to protect our
health and this nation's natural heritage. This rule to
rescind WOTUS and reports of plans to reduce protections
under the Clean Water Act are deeply concerning. Rather than
protecting Americans, these actions ignore science and
undermine our clean drinking water, our public health and our
outdoor recreation economy.
The Clean Water Rule finalized by the Obama Administration
protects the drinking water of roughly one-third of
Americans. 117 million people rely on drinking water sources
fed by headwater, intermittent or ephemeral streams--
waterways protected under the Clean Water Rule. Rescinding
this rule puts Americans' health at risk by endangering their
drinking water.
Eliminating this rule also threatens our safe access to the
great outdoors and the outdoor recreation economy, which
generates $887 billion in consumer spending annually and
supports 7.6 million American jobs. Pollution in unprotected
streams and wetlands can threaten the health of the lakes and
rivers that our constituents use for swimming, boating and
other recreation. Wetlands protected under the Clean Water
Rule provide some of the country's best habitat for hunters
and anglers. As EPA Administrator, it is imperative to
protect the water bodies that our constituents use for
recreation, both to protect public health and the millions of
jobs these places have helped create.
Rescinding this clean water safeguard ignores science.
Years of research and peer-reviewed science have told us that
intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands provide
critical services, from filtering our drinking water to
protecting communities from flood and drought. They also
connect directly to major waterways, which means they can
pose a danger to drinking water and recreation if polluted or
degraded. The science is clear--what we do to these water
bodies impacts large, continuous water sources.
Americans agree that we should protect these waterways. The
previous Administration crafted the Clean Water Rule using
the comments of over one million Americans, the vast majority
of which were in support of the rule. Some opponents have
used scare tactics to confuse the public by stating that
there are new requirements for agriculture and that the rule
covers new types of waters. This is not the case. In reality,
the rule provides certainty over streams and wetlands that
have historically been covered by the Clean Water Act while
preserving agricultural and other common sense exemptions,
including for things like drainage ditches and stock watering
ponds on dry land.
The Clean Water Rule is a science-based rule that keeps our
communities safe and our natural resources protected--exactly
what Congress intended the Clean Water Act to do. We would be
willing to work with an Administration that wants to develop
thoughtful changes that maintain protections for this life-
sustaining resource, but this repeal is reckless. In
rescinding this rule, the Agency is risking the health and
safety of the American people and our natural resources. We
urge you to reconsider this rescission and instead focus on
fairly and fully enforcing the Clean Water Act.
Sincerely,
Donald S. Beyer, Jr.; Doris Matsui; Gerald E. Connolly;
Jared Polis; Marcy Kaptur; Paul Tonko; Alan Lowenthal;
Matt Cartwright; Mike Quigley; Grace F. Napolitano.
Jared Huffman; Barbara Lee; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Andre
Carson; Jerrold Nadler; Dwight Evans; Donald M. Payne,
Jr.; Nike Tsongas; Peter A. DeFazio; Debbie Dingell;
Brenda L. Lawrence; Adam Smith; Gregorio Kilili Camacho
Sablan; Keith Ellison; Stephen F. Lynch; Sander M.
Levin.
Seth Moulton; Nanette Diaz Barragan; Anthony Brown; A.
Donald McEachin; William R. Keating; Sheila Jackson
Lee; Elijah E. Cummings; Gwen Moore; Bill Foster; Jamie
Raskin; Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Earl Blumenauer; James
P. McGovern; Janice D. Schakowsky; John Conyers, Jr.;
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Louise M. Slaughter; Raul M. Grijalva; Carol Shea-Porter;
David N. Cicilline; Mike Doyle; Bonnie Watson Coleman;
Nydia M. Velazquez; Mark DeSaulnier; Hakeem Jeffries;
Mark Pocan; Michael E. Capuano; John K. Delaney;
Katherine Clark; Joseph P. Kennedy, III; Anna G. Eshoo;
Frank Pallone, Jr.
John Yarmuch; Donald Norcross; Betty McCollum; Chellie
Pingree; Ruben J. Kihuen; Grace Meng; Diana DeGette;
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Alma S. Adams, Phd.;
Mike Thompson; Zoe Lofgren; Lucille Roybal-Allard;
Jackie Speier; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; Daniel T.
Kildee; Luis V. Gutierrez.
Rick Nolan; John Sarbanes; Suzanne Bonamici; Daniel W.
Lipinski; Elizabeth H. Esty; Marcia L. Fudge; Albio
Sires; Jimmy Gomez; Steve Cohen; David E. Price; Judy
Chu; Jim Langevin; Linda Sanchez; Robert A. Brady; Jose
E. Serrano; Salud O. Carbajal.
Brendan F. Boyle; Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Darren Soto;
Pramila Jayapal; Brad Sherman; Josh Gottheimer; Tony
Cardenas; Richard E. Neal; Jerry McNerney; Adam B.
Schiff; Stephanie Murphy; Ted W. Lieu.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment,
and 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. Since day one, everything about EPA's waters of the U.S.
rule has been flawed. The Obama administration claimed that it was not
expanding the waters under their jurisdiction, but we know that more
permits will be required.
{time} 1915
The Obama administration claimed that the rule was based on sound
science but only released to science after publishing the rule. The
previous administration changed the name to call this the clean water
rule and took to social media to lobby the public, which led to
questions about whether the EPA violated law, which the GAO later
confirmed.
It was clear the previous administration had an agenda to implement a
rule, and they weren't going to be told otherwise. Thankfully, the
Sixth Circuit Court put a stay on that rule.
The language of the FY18 bill authorizes the withdrawal of the Waters
of the U.S. rule and seeks to bring resolution to the issue. The
language in this bill is consistent with the steps the new
administration has already taken.
For that and many other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. The
rider that we are talking about here gives an unprecedented amount of
power to the EPA. It puts the agency above the law, letting it get away
with no public comment on its proposals, no
[[Page H7152]]
economic analysis on the cost and benefit of repeal, no justification
for repeal, and not having to defend repeal against court challenges.
As the Congressman pointed out, for some, this rider might serve a
purpose this time. But what about in the future? What do we really want
to say? That it is okay for the executive branch to circumvent laws we
create and that there is no accountability in our courts?
This rider removes the checks and balances that are essential to a
functioning democracy, so I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. ELLISON. 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 136, strike line 1 and all that follows through page
137, line 7.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, all Americans deserve access to clean air.
We have a great deal of progress that we have made in making the air
cleaner and reducing pollution, but we should continue to learn from
the most recent science to continue to improve air quality. Instead,
this bill delays needed public health protections like the ozone
standard.
My amendment would strike language that delays the implementation of
the new ozone standards until the year 2026. We don't have until 2026
to protect our children's lungs. We don't have until that time to
protect our seniors who are most subject and vulnerable to respiratory
harm.
The consequences of this pollution are real and significant,
especially for ozone pollutants. Chronic exposure to ozone at the
ground level is dangerous. It increases the risk of hospital
admissions. In my district in Minnesota, we have a real epidemic of
respiratory injuries known as asthma. North Minneapolis is mostly a
low-income community of color and has the highest rates of poverty,
unemployment, and asthma.
Our children deserve better. Allowing the implementation of these
ozone standards will protect them.
I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, much is said on this House floor
about job-killing regulations. As a person who believes in the right of
a business to open up and make a profit, I also believe that business
must absorb the cost that they impose on society as well.
This rule says you can take all the money you can possibly make as
you expand and increase ground level ozone, but you don't ever have to
pay the costs of the externalities and the health costs you impose on
everybody else.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, where I come from, Midland Empire, which
is where I have lived my whole life, is part of the South Coast Air
Quality Basin, which has been a nonattainment ozone area for about as
long as the Federal standard for ozone has existed. But it is not for a
lack of trying, as the south coast has a long history--actually the
longest history--of implementing some of the most stringent Air
Pollution Control measures in the entire United States.
We have done about all we can to reduce emissions from stationary
sources. Our issue is the amount of cars and trucks traveling through
the region. So you will find no stronger advocate for clean air than
myself, which is why this bill funds targeted Air Shed Grant Programs
and DERA grants. States and communities need resources to help meet the
overlapping 2008 and 2015 air quality standards.
To be clear, the language in the bill does not change ozone
standards. It gives communities some administrative relief to allocate
more resources to meeting the 2015 standard of 70 parts per billion.
Similar language, by the way, passed the House in July. Therefore, I
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to strike, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, administrative relief sounds like a
euphemism for ``you guys got to keep breathing this bad stuff.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I first thank the gentleman for yielding
and for his amendment.
We all know that ozone is a hazardous air pollutant that contributes
to health problems such as asthma attacks, heart disease, and birth
defects--problems being made worse by climate change.
More than 40 percent of Americans, almost 130 million people, live in
counties that receive an F grade for air quality from the American Lung
Association. This includes my district that I represent in Illinois, as
well as Washington, D.C.
This amendment would remove a needless delay in the implementation of
an ozone rule designed to protect public health. The rule in question
involves a modest lowering of the ozone limit from 75 to 70 parts per
billion, a small change that would yield large health benefits,
including preventing 230,000 asthma attacks in children and 188,000
missed school and workdays each year. This decision to lower the ozone
limit was the result of a rigorous multiyear process carried out by
expert scientists.
So I want to urge my colleagues to stand up for the health of our
constituents and support this amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to share with everybody
that over the past several weeks, Americans have seen this body try to
strip healthcare away from them. If there was a full repeal with no
replace, 32 million people would have been without any healthcare that
they had before, and many more would have been unprotected from
preexisting conditions. That, fortunately, was held off. But now here
we are again today with more attacks and assaults on people's health.
When will the Congress take people's health seriously? When will we
hold businesses accountable who emit toxins that cause the ozone layer
at the ground to increase and cause respiratory illnesses?
It is time for Congress to act responsibly in the public interest to
make sure that the health of all Americans is protected. The people
have the right to breathe. Let's go forward and eliminate and strip out
this language that delays the implementation of the new zone standards
until many years from now. Let's do it now.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate that California
has done more to clean air than virtually any other State in the Union
based upon its regulatory structure that we created and I continue to
support.
But technologies do not exist to meet standards that have been set
out by the Obama administration. So this gives us time to do what we
need to do, and that is to clean up ozone, and that is exactly what we
are going to do. But this is not the amendment that is going to do
that.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose that amendment strongly and urge a ``no''
vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H7153]]
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39
printed in House Report 115-297.
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:
In division A, strike section 435 (page 138, beginning on
line 3).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, 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 preserves the National
Ocean Policy.
The National Ocean Policy is a commonsense way to facilitate
multistakeholder collaboration on complex ocean issues, and it promotes
economic opportunity, national security, and environmental protection.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a coastal district in southern California,
and I know firsthand that we can have a thriving ocean economy and, at
the same time, protect and conserve our precious ocean resources.
Off the coast of my district, there are marine protected areas, State
waters, Federal waters, and Department of Defense installations. We are
a marine life hot spot--some of the best blue whale watching happens a
few miles from our shore. We have a booming recreational fishing
sector. We have a large shellfish aquaculture ranch that is now
operating. We have beautiful beaches. We also have oil and gas activity
with some rigs right near our shores. My district is also home to the
Port of Long Beach, which is the second busiest port in the United
States.
With so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the
Navy at the table when NOAA is working on siting for a new aquaculture
installation. It makes sense to have the fishery management council
weigh in when oil rigs are being decommissioned, and it is a no-brainer
that NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the ports all work together to get
those massive ships in and out of port safely.
We want these collaborations to happen because we want to have a
sustainable ocean economy, and by developing regional plans and having
a framework for multistakeholder involvement, we can streamline this
process and promote a robust ocean economy that also conserves our
precious ocean resources.
Mr. Chairman, as we look to the future, the need for an overarching
policy only grows. Issues like sea level rise and ocean acidification
are too big and too serious for any one community or agency to tackle
alone. Increased aquaculture development and new technologies for
clean, local energy are creating economic opportunities but must be
thoughtfully implemented.
Prohibiting the allocation of funds to this important program would
stifle collaboration among all the stakeholders on these complex
issues, as I pointed out before, relating to environmental protection,
national security, economic opportunity, and ocean policy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the importance of agencies
working together to protect our coastal resources for future
generations. We must also ensure that such coordination is done
carefully with congressional input to ensure that it does not lead to
Federal overreach.
{time} 1930
When the previous administration created the National Ocean Policy
through executive order, the impacts were so broad, so sweeping, that
it would have allowed the Federal Government to evaluate everything
from agricultural practices, mining, energy production, fishing, and
anything else with activities impacting our oceans.
This subcommittee asked the CEQ, DOI, and EPA on a number of
occasions to provide estimates of the impact of the policy on their
budgets, but the administration failed to work with Congress and
provide such information.
How can Congress adequately budget for something without knowing the
expected expenditures and implication of the policy?
The bottom line is, if the administration wants to fund the National
Ocean Policy with such sweeping implications, it must work with
Congress to provide relevant information and allow Congress to provide
the necessary oversight to prevent that Federal overreach.
I support the language of the underlying bill, and I encourage my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, we just heard a very interesting
argument that said that we should not support or fund the National
Ocean Policy because, instead of by executive action, it should have
been done through congressional legislation.
But I would remind everyone watching this that, prior to the
beginning of the National Ocean Policy by the previous administration,
over the 4 years before that, four bills were introduced. Each one--two
by a Republican leader, two by Democratic leaders--did what was just
asked of us: to introduce it by the Congress. It was never taken up by
the Congress in the administration prior to President Obama.
What was called the Oceans Conservation, Education, and National
Strategy for the 21st Century Act was never heard. That is why it was
done through executive action. That is why we need to continue this.
Without having coordinated ocean policy, we will have tremendous
problems as we move forward, as I pointed out, both in terms of
economic opportunity, national security, and also environmental
protection.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, just because legislation isn't passed in
the House and the Senate and made into law doesn't mean that the
President can then go out and create an executive order. We have a
Constitution, and we have a process we must abide by. For that and
other reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. Chairman, 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.
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. 40 Offered by Mr. Long
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 40
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. LONG. 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 division A (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 enforce
notification requirements respecting released substances
under subsections (a) through (d) of section 103 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9603) or subsections (a)
through (c) of section 304 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11004) with
respect to releases of hazardous substances from animal waste
at farms.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Long) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It
would
[[Page H7154]]
make clear that two laws enacted several decades ago to manage the
aftereffects of industrial toxic waste spills would not apply to
everyday emissions that are simply a way of life on family farms.
A court decision earlier this year overturned the EPA exemption for
agriculture from reporting requirements under the Superfund and
emergency planning and community right-to-know laws. This court
decision means that over 100,000 farmers and ranchers will be forced to
report odor emissions from livestock and poultry manure.
If farmers and ranchers don't submit these reports, they face
potential lawsuits from the government and any citizen who wishes to
sue them, subjecting them to penalties as high as $53,907 per day for
not filing paperwork. Farmers will lose time and money that would
otherwise be spent growing our Nation's food supply.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it is important that I note that the Obama
administration as well as the Bush administration defended this
exemption. This is not a partisan issue. This is simply a case of
reaffirming congressional intent under the law, as the EPA already
tried to do several years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote in favor of my amendment,
and 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 requiring agricultural sources to report air emissions under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Liability Act.
The purpose of this amendment is to circumvent a 2017 court decision
that invalidated an EPA rule which exempted agricultural sources from
such reporting.
Policy riders like this do not belong in the appropriations bills.
The EPA should either accept the court's decision or they should appeal
the decision. At a minimum, something that is this impactive with court
policy does not belong as a rider on an appropriations bill. For that
reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support this amendment.
The recent court decision earlier this year overturned, really, a
longstanding EPA exemption for reporting from farms. These family farms
and ranchers across the Nation shouldn't be burdened with just more and
more paperwork to do an activity they have been doing for many, many
years in this country. It is not what Congress intended. Congress, last
I looked, still makes the laws around here.
I would support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I say this is a nonpartisan issue, and I
would like to point out that the organization, National Association of
SARA Title III Program Officials, back in 2012, in an earlier version
of a similar amendment, had opposed this. Back on May 28 of this year,
they announced that they are no longer in opposition. So I don't really
think it is controversial at all.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that, as a State
representative and, even now, as a Member of Congress, I will encounter
people--and I was just at our State fair--over the years, people who
have built homes in rural areas and are contributing to the schools and
maybe have a soybean farm or a community that is built up over the
years around farms. All of a sudden, a hog farm comes in and people are
sick, they are unable to go to work, their children develop lung issues
and all kinds of problems. They come to the State or they come to us as
Members of Congress and say: What is going on here? The air is so
polluted, it is making me and my family sick. I am losing my home. I am
losing my investment.
So I think that there is a role to have these discussions about what
do we do, as a community, to make sure about people who live in some of
these rural areas who all of a sudden find themselves, after decades of
living in the same area, unable to open up their windows on a summer
day.
As I said, that is why I don't think this policy rider belongs in
this bill. I think we need to have a thoughtful discussion on it and
really hear out both sides on many of these agriculture issues,
especially in rural communities.
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. Long).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Buck
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to enter into a cooperative agreement with or
make any grant or loan to an entity to establish in any of
Baca, Bent, Crowley, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero,
Prowers, and Pueblo counties, Colorado, a national heritage
area, national heritage corridor, national heritage canal
way, national heritage tour route, national historic
district, cultural heritage corridor, or other heritage
partnership program.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Buck) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to protect
private property rights in Colorado.
This amendment would prevent the creation and expansion of a National
Heritage Area in southeast Colorado. Heritage Areas open the door to
new land use restrictions on privately held land that are strongly
opposed in this part of my district.
I recently held multiple townhalls in southeast Colorado to hear the
unique concerns of these rural communities. At the top of their list
was a need to cut burdensome government red tape that hurts their
businesses and threatens their way of life.
These small family farms and ranches should not be forced to follow
new regulations that give control of their private lands to Washington,
D.C. That is why this amendment is so important. It allows Coloradans
to keep control of their land.
My amendment would only affect nine counties in Colorado and protect
them from new, unwanted land use restrictions. This amendment passed
last year by voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to again support the
private property rights of these farmers and ranchers.
Mr. Chairman, 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 stops the Department of
the Interior from entering into cooperative agreements and providing
financial assistance for the purpose of protecting natural, cultural,
and historic resources in several counties in southeast Colorado.
This amendment restricts the expansion of Natural Heritage Areas,
Natural Heritage Corridors, Natural Heritage canalways, national
heritage tour routes, and national historic districts and cultural
heritage corridors.
All of these preservation partnerships are important tools that
enable the Federal Government to work with private partners to preserve
and protect our Nation's shared heritage. Unfortunately, this amendment
takes those options off the table for the people in southeastern
Colorado.
It is my understanding that the sponsor aims to preemptively prevent
expansion of a Federal footprint in his district, but I would like, Mr.
Chairman, to remind us that the sponsor of the Preserve America
Executive Order was issued by President George W. Bush, a Republican,
and it emphasizes public-private partnerships that limit, not expand,
Federal ownership.
[[Page H7155]]
I have worked on some of these corridors. We always make sure that it
is a partnership and it is not the Federal Government coming in and
taking over land. It is a partnership that the community comes to the
Federal Government and asks for.
So, if there are specific concerns that you have about the Federal
management in this region, I believe the sponsor should work with the
authorizing committee to make sure that they are addressed and not use
the appropriations process to wall off a section of the country from
partnering with the Federal Government to preserve its historical and
cultural natural resources.
These discussions that take place at a local level with sometimes the
business community, sometimes it is schools, sometimes it is churches,
that come together to talk about what can we do to preserve our
cultural history or what can we do to preserve something is driven by
local control.
I have never attended a meeting, once, where it was driven by Federal
control. The Federal Government has asked to come in to be a partner.
I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the subcommittee chair.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I was happy to accept the amendment in the
last year and will be happy to support it again this year.
With that, I urge its passage.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I really think that we need
to better utilize, in this Congress, in this institution, our policy
committees. They should be the first call for help if there are
questions, if there are concerns, if there are adjustments that need to
be made, not the appropriations committee, where there has been no
hearing on this.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will protect private property
rights in southeast Colorado. These families have worked for
generations to maintain their land. They should not lose their
livelihoods because of land use restrictions from Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42
printed in House Report 115-297.
{time} 1945
Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43
printed in House Report 115-297.
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 division A (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 by the Secretary of Interior to implement the final
rule entitled ``Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National
Preserves'' (80 Fed. Reg. 64325 (October 23, 2015)), or to
develop, issue, or implement any other rule of the same
substance.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, 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, I have an amendment that was
successfully included in the House fiscal year 2017, which prohibits
funds in this act being used to implement the Obama administration
National Park Service rule that interferes with the State's wildlife
management authority on national preserved lands of Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, when we became a State, we were guaranteed to have
management of all Federal lands and State lands on fish and wildlife
management. Under the Obama administration, they tried to do
differently on the wildlife lands, and now they are trying to do it on
the BLM lands and the park preserves, not the parks themselves.
I suggest, respectfully, if you want to follow the law, you adopt
this amendment, as it should be, as is proposed, and we will be able to
manage lands we were guaranteed by this Congress to the State of
Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment, which undercuts an important rule meant to protect our
public lands and the species that inhabit them.
The National Park Service has an important mission, which is ``to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects in the
wildlife by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of future generations.''
As a result of this mission, the National Park Service has
implemented an important rule that protects a variety of species
critical to the ecosystem in our national preserves in Alaska.
In 1994, Alaska did pass a law that undercut those efforts by
allowing for extreme predator control, which led to fringe practices
that could hardly be called traditional hunting.
Now, the other side may argue that this amendment is a States' rights
issue, but that simply isn't true. These are Federal lands and are,
therefore, subject to Federal regulation.
These national lands are intended to be enjoyed by all Americans,
including those who visit and hope to have the rare opportunity to see
bears and wolves in their natural habitat.
Now, to be clear, Mr. Chairman, the rule that this amendment aims to
reverse is not intended to ban hunting in its entirety. The rule simply
regulates that there be no use of bait, which has been as extreme as
grease-soaked doughnuts and bacon, allowing for point blank shots, no
use of artificial light to spotlight black bear dens, no killing sows
or bear cubs, no killing pups or wolves and coyotes during the denning
season, no hunting of big game that is swimming, no use of dogs to hunt
big game, and no predator control simply for the purpose of increasing
stocks for human consumption.
Now, these are reasonable regulations that prevent cruel hunting
practices. Let us be very clear, Mr. Chairman, that reversing this rule
would actually be thumbing our noses at the voices of tens of thousands
of citizens who took part in a public comment period process that was
extensive.
Before the rule's adoption, the National Park Service held two
separate comment periods which resulted in 26 public hearings, two
teleconferences, and three tribal meetings. More than 70,000 public
comments were received, and the majority of those supported the
existing rule. Ignoring this process and the thoughtful public input
would be a major slight to the democratic process and to everyone who
participated.
These processes are in place to ensure that the voice of the people
is heard, and circumventing this is unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), my good
chairman from the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the specific rule is now
being reconsidered by the Department of Interior, which is a good
thing, and I encourage my colleagues to support the Young amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. You know, I rarely do this, but I'm deeply
disappointed in my good lady from Washington. * * *
This was a preserve, and we were guaranteed this in the Alaska
National Lands Act. No more. No more. And the State, under the
Constitution, has the right to manage fish and game.
Now, I know your side doesn't believe in State's rights. You don't; I
do. My job is to protect my State, not your State--my State.
And what you said a while ago was really nonsense. It was written by
an interest group, not yourself. Maybe
[[Page H7156]]
your staff is affiliated with the Humane Society or some other group,
and I'm disappointed.
My Native people support this amendment. You talk about natives.
Alaskans, our first Americans, support this amendment. And I really am
disturbed. * * *
I am still talking.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the gentleman's words taken
down. The gentleman has already impugned my motives by saying that I
don't know a damn thing about what I'm talking about.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I didn't say ``damn.'' You said it.
Ms. JAYAPAL. He's now called me ``young lady,'' and Mr. Chairman, I
demand that the words be taken down.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman will take
his seat.
The Clerk will report the words.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my offending words.
And to the gentlewoman, I do apologize. I get very defensive about my
State. We have gone through these battles for the last, actually, 45
years, and we are a State. I have my people to represent, as you do
yours. I do apologize for my statement. I recognize it was out of
order, so I hope you accept my apology.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Alaska?
Ms. JAYAPAL. Reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman
from Alaska. I do accept your apology. I thank you for it. We have,
obviously, some work to get to know each other. But I can tell you that
I care about my State, as deeply as you do, and I look forward to
getting to know you.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. And I thank the gentlewoman.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the words are stricken from the
Record.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, let me continue by saying that the reason
I do feel strongly about this is I also believe that this amendment
would be bad for the economy and for the people who depend on it.
Every year, wildlife watchers contribute more than $2 billion toward
the economy. According to the National Park Service, in 2016, 2.8
million park visitors spent an estimated $2.8 billion in local gateway
regions while visiting National Park Service lands in Alaska. These
expenditures supported a total of 18,900 jobs, $644.7 million in labor
income, $1.1 billion in value added, and $1.9 billion in economic
output in the Alaska economy.
I do believe--and the reason I am speaking up so strongly about this,
we all have very strong perspectives on all sides. I do believe that we
must do everything we can to preserve our natural lands and their
inhabitants, particularly as climate change takes its toll all over the
country and the world. In my home State of Washington, which I care
deeply about, wildfires are destroying thousands of acres of land and
threatening homes, while across the country residences of Houston are
reeling from Hurricane Harvey and Floridians brace for Hurricane Irma.
We need to invest in our public lands for all Americans so that
generations in the future can continue to enjoy the beauty that our
country has to offer.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JAYAPAL. 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.
{time} 2000
Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44
printed in House Report 115-297.
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 division A (before the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used 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 504, 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, my amendment, which was
successfully included in the House fiscal year 2007 Interior
appropriations bill, prohibits the funds to be used by the Bureau of
Land Management to change their existing placer mining plans of
operations with regard to environmental mitigation in Alaska.
Alaska is one of the very few places left in the United States where
placer mining is being still conducted. Unfortunately, unelected
bureaucrats have targeted these small mom-and-pop, usually retired
people, family miners from attaining unattainable regulations under the
falsehood of protecting the environment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a sound piece of legislation that should be
accepted by this committee and this body to make sure those people
elected participate in mining on lands that are old. This is a mining
area that has been mining for the last 100 years, yet the BLM has
decided they are going to take these little miners and put them out of
business.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment. It is very simple. It
protects the smaller people of America. Let them do what they wish to
do. Letting them have an activity after they retire I think is actually
important. As I said before, it was adopted before.
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, I listened very carefully to what the
gentleman from Alaska had to say, and the bulk of my objection, Mr.
Chairman, is that this is better addressed in the Policy Committee than
on the Appropriations Committee as a rider.
BLM does many outreach activities, including public meetings and
interactions with individual miners, and is working with industry to
incorporate best management practices in new science-based reclamation
techniques.
In the course of the reclamation activities, it has been necessary to
increase the annual cost to miners to recover these streams and restore
ecostream function.
This amendment would prohibit the cost of reclaiming these areas to
placer miners who are profiting from mineral extractions on BLM managed
land.
I do hear the gentleman talking about not all business is the same
shape or size, so I really think that we should work through the Policy
Committee. For that reason, I object to this amendment, and I would
encourage the gentleman from Alaska to work through the Policy
Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and his dedication to the
sound management of natural resources on behalf of the constituents in
his State.
Placer mining is unique to Alaska and has a unique history in place
in Alaska's economy. As such, the BLM proposal for unique reclamation
and bonding requirements need to receive additional review.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I, again, urge passage of the
amendment, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
work.
[[Page H7157]]
This is a mom-and-pop operation. If I thought it was going to do
anything wrong--it has been mined for 100 years. They came in, they had
a guy in a wheelchair, and they made him walk to his mine because you
couldn't use a mechanized vehicle. Now, that is not good personnel.
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. 45 Offered by Mr. Westerman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45
printed in House Report 115-297.
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 division A (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 to enforce the final rule entitled ``Onshore Oil and
Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases;
Measurement of Oil'' and published by the Bureau of Land
Management on November 17, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 81462).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, 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 thank Chairman Calvert and Chairman
Frelinghuysen for their hard work on this bill.
On November 17, 2016, the Bureau of Land Management released a final
rule titled: ``Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil
and Gas Leases; Measurement of Oil.''
Though the BLM claims that this rule would incorporate proven
industry standards developed by oil measurement experts from industry
and the BLM, it seems like the BLM ignored industry expert standards
and set their standards, regardless of industry input.
In comments filed on December 14, 2015, the Independent Petroleum
Association of America, the American Petroleum Institution, the Western
Energy Alliance, and many citizens involved in oil production detailed
serious concerns. Many of the comments centered on BLM's reluctance to
recognize its obligation to adopt properly established industry
standards.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is vital that agencies such as the
BLM listen to and take into account industry concerns and input when
promulgating these new rules.
My amendment would restrict funding for this rule in its current
form, and I ask my colleagues to support this 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 new rule updates outdated
regulations and establishes minimum standards for the measurement of
oil production from Federal and Indian leases to ensure that
productivity is accurately measured and properly accounted for.
The administration has aggressively sought to abolish rules that were
developed over many years, and adhere to the process outlined in the
Administrative Procedure Act, which includes consideration of Tribal
and public comments.
Updating this regulation avoids regulatory uncertainty and reflects
the considerable changes in technology and industry practices that have
occurred over 25 years since the previous oil and gas order No. 4--25
years since the previous onshore oil and gas order No. 1. Changes in
technology. We should be embracing changes in technology and industry
practices. We should not be using technology and practices formed 25
years ago.
The new rule also responds to comments made by the GAO, the
Department of Interior's IG, and the Royal Policy Committee regarding
BLM's production and verification efforts.
The objective of this rule is to ensure that the oil volume reported
by the industry is sufficiently accurate to ensure that the royalties
due are paid correctly, the royalties due to the U.S. taxpayer. The
rulemaking process has been comprehensive and it has been transparent.
If there are to be changes to those rules, those changes need to be
done in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Administrative
Procedure Act. There is a way to do that. So, once again, there would
be an opportunity for Tribal and public comment.
This amendment does not provide for an open and transparent process.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to
protect the American taxpayer to make sure that the royalties are
accurately recorded.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
won't take nearly 1\1/2\ minutes. I just want to support the amendment.
I understand there are portions of the order that are widely accepted
and some parts that need to be reworked. I hope the Bureau gets the
message and works with all of the interested parties to improve onshore
order No. 3.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, another way the BLM has ignored their
obligations under the rulemaking process is by discounting the
practical difficulties for both industry and the agency associated
compliance.
Mr. Chairman, the BLM ignored their rulemaking responsibilities by
both disregarding industry input and snubbing practical timelines for
compliance.
I believe the BLM should go back, reexamine this rule, and this time
listen and get it right.
Mr. Chairman, I ask support for my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition for two reasons.
One, this, once again, is a substantial piece of policy work being
done on an appropriations bills on the floor of the House. We have
committees which can take things up, government oversight, and we have
the Natural Resources Committee. There are many venues in which the
gentleman could ask for a hearing and bring people to testify, if there
are things that need to be done. Or just work through the
Administrative Procedure Act, which has opportunities before it, if
people feel that they are not being treated justly.
But the other reason why I rise against this is, 25 years since the
previous update has happened, technology has changed since then and
industry practices have changed. Part of our responsibility--and I
truly believe this in my heart--is to make sure that when we do leases,
when we are to receive royalty payments, we need to be looking out for
the U.S. taxpayer to make sure that they are fairly compensated for
these leases.
Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment, and 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.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 46 will
not be offered.
Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to take any of
the actions described as a ``backstop'' in the December 29,
2009, letter from EPA's Regional Administrator to the States
in the Watershed and the District of Columbia in response to
the development or implementation of a State's watershed
implementation and referred to in enclosure B of such letter.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a
[[Page H7158]]
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge support for my
amendment, which would reaffirm and preserve the rights of the States
to write their own water quality plans.
My amendment simply prohibits the EPA from using its Chesapeake Bay
total maximum daily load and the so-called watershed implementation
plans to hijack States water quality strategies.
Over the last several years, the EPA has implemented a total maximum
daily load blueprint for six States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter the
Chesapeake Bay. Through its implementation, the EPA has basically given
every State in the watershed an ultimatum: either the State does
exactly what the EPA says, or it faces the threat of an EPA takeover of
its water quality programs.
Congress intended that the implementation of the Clean Water Act be a
collaborative approach through which the States and the Federal
Government work together. This process was not meant to be subject to
the whims of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Therefore,
my amendment instructs the EPA to respect the important role States
play in implementing the Clean Water Act.
I want to make it perfectly clear that my amendment would not stop
the EPA from working with the States to restore the Chesapeake Bay, nor
would it undermine the cleanup efforts already underway. My language
only removes the ability of the EPA to take over a State's plan, or to
take retaliatory actions against a State if it does not meet the EPA
mandated goals. Again, it ensures states' rights remain intact and not
usurped by the EPA.
It is important to point out that the correlation between the EPA's
outrageous Waters of the United States rule and the bay TMDL. At the
heart of both issues is the EPA's desire to control conservation and
water quality improvement efforts throughout the country, and to punish
all of those who dare to oppose them.
Mr. Chairman, the bay is a national treasure, and I want to see it
restored. But we know that in order to achieve this goal, the States
and the EPA must work together. The EPA cannot be allowed to railroad
the States and micromanage the process.
With this amendment, we are simply telling the EPA to respect the
important role States play in implementing the Clean Water Act and
preventing another Federal power grab.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2015
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the
EPA from spending any funds to ensure that States fulfill their
obligations under the Clean Water Act to help clean up the Chesapeake
Bay. If passed into law, this amendment would endanger the progress we
have made in restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed and would put in
jeopardy not only the Chesapeake Bay itself, but also critical economic
contributions that the bay provides.
Since the Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed in 1983, the most
recent agreement signed in 2014, bay States and the Federal Government
have invested significant resources in cleanup and restoration efforts.
Cooperation is critical in these efforts, and only under the
cooperative agreement agreed upon in the Chesapeake Clean Water
Blueprint are we seeing a lot of progress being made. But the
Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts are part of backstops that make sure
that each State does what it has actually promised to do. With these
safeguards in place, States have to certify that their investments are
not made in vain and that other States will also make good on their
investments.
This amendment would undermine this historic collaboration, endanger
historic progress we have made, and give States a loophole to avoid
meeting their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.
I believe that, instead of offering amendments that undermine
Chesapeake Bay restorations, we should be investing even more resources
to ensure that they are successful.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I won't take 1 minute. I just want to support
the gentleman's amendment.
It is my hope that the gentlemen from Virginia and Pennsylvania may
be able to work with the new administration, find common ground on
approaches that will improve water quality in a flexible manner which
works for everybody.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has 2
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I understand that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has the right to close.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has the
right to close.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject
the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Chairman
Shuster along with Mr. Thompson, for being cosponsors of this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
It is simply not true that this amendment would interfere with the
cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, and I am going to repeat what I said
earlier. My amendment does not remove the TMDL or the watershed
implementation plans. It only removes the retaliatory actions
threatened by the EPA.
The current plans and processes the States are using to clean up the
bay are working. That is absolutely right. They are working, and they
started long before this imposition by the EPA that occurred at the
beginning of the Obama administration.
States have made great strides in cleaning up the bay, so why
continue to threaten them with an EPA takeover of their water quality
plans.
The other argument that is made is the Federal Government needs to be
involved in this cleanup process. Well, I believe the Federal
Government should be a partner in this effort. As the chairman has
noted, they can play an important function. However, the current
process has the EPA dictating to States, local communities, and
businesses instead of a cooperative approach. That is not playing a
part; that is controlling the process.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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. 51 Offered by Mr. Sanford
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), I have an amendment at the desk.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 7, 2017, on page H7158, the following appeared: Mr.
SANFORD. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from New
Jersey (Lobiondo), I have an amendment at the desk.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. SANFORD. Mr.
Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Lobiondo), I have an amendment at the desk.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (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
[[Page H7159]]
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 504, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I want to make clear I am offering this
amendment on behalf of the gentleman from New Jersey, Frank LoBiondo,
who I know has worked with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia,
Don Beyer, on this bipartisan measure. I think it is one that makes
sense. It would, quite simply, restrict money with regard to seismic
testing on the Atlantic waters and the waters of the Florida Straits.
Now, why do I think that that is important? I think it is important
because you don't build a foundation if you don't intend to build a
house. And yet, fundamentally, what we are trying to do is move forward
on something that I think begs this most Republican of questions, which
is: Do we believe in home rule?
At home, every municipality of every town and hamlet along the coast
of South Carolina has come out unanimously against the idea of offshore
drilling and seismic testing, not because they are against fossil fuel,
but simply because they believe that they want to determine themselves
how the coast of South Carolina develops. That is obviously the case
with many colleagues from Florida, who have now headed home to deal
with the hurricane, and a whole host of other places up and down the
Atlantic and, again, the Straits of Florida.
So I think that this amendment fundamentally is about this notion of,
if you believe that the government that is most local governs best--not
always, but generally--then might you not give this amendment a try,
because fundamentally what it says is places like Port Fourchon are
nice, but what the people of South Carolina have determined is that we
don't want our coast to develop that way because of the amount of
onshore that is necessary to support offshore operations.
Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my colleague.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Sanford) for yielding time.
Mr. Chair, moving forward with permits for seismic airgun surveys for
subsidy oil and gas deposits puts our vibrant Atlantic coast at risk.
I am a Virginia businessman, and I look at what seismic testing does.
Congressman Rutherford and I led a bipartisan letter to the
administration signed by over 100 of our colleagues expressing our
concerns about seismic airgun blasting.
Our coastal economy relies on healthy ocean ecosystems, which
generate $95 billion in gross domestic product, support nearly 1.4
million jobs each year. We have heard from countless businessowners, as
Congressman Sanford has said, elected officials, residents all along
our coasts who recognize and reject the risks.
NASA, the Department of Defense, the Florida Defense Support Task
Force have all expressed concern that offshore oil and gas development
will threaten their ability to perform critical activities.
The North, South, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, which are
responsible for the management of fish stocks and habitats in Federal
waters from Maine to Florida, also have significant concerns about the
risks associated with offshore drilling and seismic airgun blasting.
So you have numerous fishing and tourism interests, including all the
local chambers of commerce, tourism, restaurant associations, an
alliance representing over 41,000 businesses, and 500,000 fishing
families from Florida to Maine oppose offshore oil drilling activities
as well.
Opening up the Atlantic to seismic testing and drilling jeopardizes
our economy and these coastal economies in the most immediate terms.
I strongly support the LoBiondo-Sanford amendment and urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this critical
amendment.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, this amendment sets a
dangerous precedent not only for the energy future of the Atlantic and
the Florida coasts, but for the Nation as a whole.
Although this is framed as an Atlantic amendment, I would make clear
that the residents from South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, and
Georgia support offshore seismic survey activities pursuant to the all-
of-the-above energy approach that America needs.
Seismic surveys are routinely conducted off American coasts and
around the world for oil and gas. We have been conducting seismic
surveys around the globe in the oceans of the world for 50 years with
not a single verifiable instance of a marine mammal being harmed or
killed. In fact, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has confirmed
this. President Obama's own BOEM Director, Abigail Hopper, confirmed
this to me in a public hearing when I asked her last Congress.
Seismic surveys have not been conducted in the Atlantic region for
over 30 years. Today's advancement in technologies allows for 3-D and
4-D seismic work to actually look into the Earth and see what may be
there.
I would argue that the folks who are against seismic work really
aren't against seismic for the purpose of trying to save marine
mammals; they just don't like fossil fuel development. But we need to
see what is out there.
If Members are genuinely concerned about Russia, then voting in favor
of oil and gas exploration should be a no-brainer. Why would Members
vote to cut off the most significant tool in America's arsenal, that
is, our energy independence?
For these reasons, it is critical that we continue to permit safe G&G
geological studies in all areas off America's coasts, that includes the
mid-Atlantic, the south Atlantic, and all Florida.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman from South Carolina yield?
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I just want to let the gentleman know that I
oppose this amendment. I don't think we should stand in the way of
exploration research that could inform potential future decisions,
whether it is for or against drilling, but we need to know information
so once we know the potential, we can allow the agencies to weigh those
pros and cons.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, we do have hurricanes
coming. The Gulf of Mexico has prepared for hurricanes and dealt with
it in the oil and gas industry. That is not the issue.
We are talking about seismic surveys so that we as American
policymakers can see what may or may not be in the Earth for future
development. I would be willing to bet that, if it was natural gas that
was found off the coast of my home State of South Carolina, we would be
having a completely different conversation than if oil was found.
Let's at least have the guts to go out there and look and do G&G work
off the coast of the mid-Atlantic, the south Atlantic, and Florida and
find out what resources may or may not be there and whether they are
even recoverable or not.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I very much respect the viewpoint of the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), and I want to be clear: I believe in
fossil fuel.
I think that the real conundrum in this debate is who is best able to
determine whether or not areas off of where they happen to live should
or shouldn't be developed: Should it be decided from Washington, D.C.,
or should it be decided by local folks?
So I would frame this, fundamentally, as an issue of home rule, that
all
[[Page H7160]]
the points that you are making are very, very valid, but shouldn't that
determination be made by folks that are most close and would be most
affected by what might or might not happen in the offshore waters off
of the coast of South Carolina or Florida or Georgia or elsewhere?
So I just go back to, if we found the mother of all lodes, there has
been testing out there, they say 132 days' worth of supply might be off
the coast of South Carolina, and what people have said is we have a
vibrant tourism industry on the coast of South Carolina and we don't
think the risks are worth the rewards based on what might or might not
be out there.
So I very much respect the viewpoint of the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Duncan), but again, what folks are telling me at home on
the coast of South Carolina is, even if stuff is out there, we are
concerned about the tourism risk and we are concerned about the
infrastructure that would be required to support it.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate the point of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford).
We need to find out what is out there. G&G activity would allow us to
determine whether there is oil or natural gas. If we find oil, I am
willing to have a conversation with the folks in Charleston County,
Horry County of South Carolina. If we find natural gas, I belive the
conversation will be completely different.
Mr. Chair, what we need to do is G&G work, which is safe to marine
mammals, to find out what might be there and might be recoverable.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I will split my time, in the spirit of
bipartisanship, with my colleague from Virginia, and I would simply say
this: I want to go back to the most basic of all conservative themes,
which is we believe that the individual is paramount in the way that
decisions get made and that not all decisions should be made in
Washington, D.C. And if folks have spoken out as clearly and as loudly
as they have with regard to home rule on what should or shouldn't
happen off their coast, that voice ought to be respected in Washington,
D.C.
Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
{time} 2030
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, to respond to both my friends from South
Carolina, one of the dilemmas with the additional exploration is that,
by law, the data obtained from the seismic surveys are proprietary.
They will belong to the many different companies that will be doing
this, and they won't be available to the American public; they won't be
available to local government officials; they won't even be available
to Members of Congress.
So this inability to access information will leave coastal
communities without the opportunity to provide these substantive cost-
benefit analyses that Congressman Sanford referred to.
Our constituents would take on significant risks without being
involved in the future development decisions. So, for that reason, I
encourage us to vote for the Sanford amendment.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The amendment was rejected.
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.
Walker) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3354)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________