Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 144 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 144 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7172-H7180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3354.
Will the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman) kindly resume the
chair.

{time} 2224

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 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, with Mr. Bergman (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 56 printed in House
Report 115-297 offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) had
been postponed.

Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Carbajal

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. CARBAJAL. 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 to process any application under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) for a
permit to drill or a permit to modify that would authorize
use of hydraulic fracturing or acid well stimulation
treatment in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Carbajal) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I am offering my amendment on behalf of
my constituents on the central coast of California. It simply prevents
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from issuing any new permits that
would allow companies to use hydraulic fracturing or acid well
stimulation, otherwise known as fracking, in Federal waters off the
West Coast. It will prohibit the use of fiscal year 2018 funds to
process any new applications for this purpose. This would provide us
more time to study whether offshore fracking is safe for the
environment and public health.
In 2013, we learned that offshore fracking had been occurring off
California's coast for more than two decades. In the Santa Barbara
Channel alone, there have been more than a dozen documented instances
of offshore fracking, yet we know very little about the environmental
and health impacts this has had on our communities.
Already, the United States Geological Survey has concluded that the
practice of injecting pressurized water into deep rock formations
causes earthquakes. My constituents deserve to know the risks
associated with offshore fracking on our environment, marine life, and
public health.
My constituents have seen the devastating impacts of some of the
largest oil spills in California's history, like the 1969 Santa Barbara
oil spill. My amendment echoes my constituents' concern surrounding the
impacts of offshore fracking and prohibits the use of funds to process
any new applications for this purpose.
This is a commonsense measure that we should implement until we know
all the facts and risks associated with this practice.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of 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. Mr. Chair, last year, May of 2016, in the previous
administration, the Department of the Interior issued a finding of no
significant impact with respect to these operations; thus followed a
review of 23 oil and gas platforms currently operating offshore in the
State of California. The review drew upon the best available science
and reaffirms that these operations are operating safely, as they
should.

[[Page H7173]]

This amendment is nothing more than another attempt to restrict
offshore development, and I oppose the amendment and encourage my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I will note that oil platforms off
California's coast are already permitted to dump 9 billion gallons of
wastewater, including fracking chemicals, into the ocean each year.
Fracking increases air pollution and can expose coastal communities
to air pollutants that cause cancer and other illnesses.
Most offshore fracking jobs have occurred within 3 miles of the
coast. Injecting fracking wastewater underground can induce
earthquakes, and all of southern California's offshore injection wells
are within 3 miles of an active fault.
These are just a few reasons why it is important to pass this
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I oppose 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 California (Mr. Carbajal).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARBAJAL. 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 California
will be postponed.

{time} 2230

amendment no. 59 offered by mr. perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 59
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to give formal notification under, or prepare,
propose, implement, administer, or enforce any rule or
recommendation pursuant to, section 115 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7415).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would prevent funds from being used to expand EPA
authority pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act.
Now, this isn't an amendment to assail the Clean Air Act, but there
is a flaw with it, which is section 115. That section of the Clean Air
Act allows the EPA to mandate State emissions levels to whatever amount
the agency deems appropriate if they find two things. They have to find
that U.S. emissions endanger a foreign nation; and the endangered
nation has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control emissions in
their own nation.
Now, it was previously argued that the Paris climate agreement met
those requirements. When they wrote the Clean Air Act back in the
1970s, they never foresaw the Paris Agreement. And the Paris Agreement
is not a treaty. It is an agreement.
Fortunately, President Trump's decision to withdraw from the
agreement has alleviated those prior concerns. Whether you agree with
this President or the last one or the future President is immaterial.
The point is that this portion of the law shouldn't exist. That
authority shouldn't exist at the executive level, especially when we
don't do treaties anymore.
Despite the temporary relief, the fact remains that section 115 of
the Clean Air Act is just simply bad policy. Section 115 delegates an
incredible amount of authority to the executive branch without any
safeguards, without any oversight by the legislative branch.
This amendment would block the use of section 115 to delegate this
power over the energy sector, over our States, to the unelected,
unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA.
In the future, such expansive authority at the EPA could be
economically devastating and could threaten the reliability and
viability of our Nation's energy sector without any checks and
balances.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. So the gentleman was talking about the Paris climate
agreement, which the Trump administration withdrew from?
Mr. PERRY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McCOLLUM. And then you said you were worried about the
administration using section 115 of the Clean Air Act to impose
regulations.
It has been my experience, from my point of view, representing my
constituents, we were disappointed about the withdrawal from the Paris
climate agreement, and we haven't seen this administration be
aggressive on clean air.
So could you please explain to me your concerns about the Trump
administration and section 115 of the Clean Air Act? Because, if they
are doing things that you are concerned about, maybe I need to take a
fresher look at what the Trump administration is doing, because I have
seen them do nothing but block, cut back, and deny the ability to move
forward on the clean air agreement. So I am confused to the point of
your amendment.
The Obama administration is gone, and the Trump administration has
removed almost everything I care passionately about with clean air.
Mr. PERRY. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, what I am
concerned about is not necessarily the Trump administration or the
Obama administration. Any administration with the unbridled power that
section 115 gives the administration, without any checks or balances,
to make an agreement with another nation and then enforce--have their
agency enforce their regulations at whatever they deem appropriate on
every single State in the United States, without any ability of
Congress to intervene whatsoever.
It is not particular to this administration, the last administration,
or any future administration. It is particular to all of them. The
authority, in my opinion, should not exist for them to do that without
any checks and balances from the legislative branch.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, the Perry amendment would only be
in effect for 1 year because this is not a policy bill. This is an
appropriations bill. So the gentleman's concerns about having long-term
consequences of a future President in the future would not be addressed
by this particular amendment.
So I oppose the amendment. It is a long line of Republican amendments
on the attack of the clean air and the EPA's authority. But I think
this really makes it crystal clear the point that we shouldn't be doing
deep policy that you want to discuss on an appropriations bill because
it only lasts for a year.
As far as I know, the Trump administration has nothing up its sleeve
to improve air quality over the next year, so I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment. And I urge my colleagues who care about these
policy situations: You control the House, you control the Senate.
Please go to the committees of jurisdiction.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was adopted on the floor
last year. I believe it is a good amendment. I encourage my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60
printed in House Report 115-297.

[[Page H7174]]

It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61 printed in House
Report 115-297.

Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Pearce

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. PEARCE. 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 to finalize, implement, or enforce the rule submitted
by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Onshore Oil
and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases;
Site Security'', published at 81 Fed. Reg. 81356 (November
17, 2016).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Onshore Order 3, put in place by the last administration, creates a
number of unnecessary and duplicative burdens that cause energy
production to be much more difficult.
Now, many people visualize that oil wells are drilled into the ground
and then they just produce oil on their own; that it flows to the
surface magically, and it remains unabated through the life of the oil
well. It is not true at all.
What actually happens is that there is a pool of oil at the bottom of
the well, and as it is produced, the production gets smaller each day
until eventually the small production is classified as stripper well
production.
Now, the Saudi Arabians, about every 10 years, come in and kill the
stripper wells because that would be approximately 2 to 3 billion
barrels of oil a year they could produce that would be shut down here.
In my home county of Lee County, New Mexico, we hunker down when we
see these economic attacks coming, and we simply make it through; not
because it is economic, not because it is productive, but because it is
one of the few economic drivers of New Mexico. Oil and gas provides
about 40 percent of our teachers' pay, 40 percent of police pay. So it
is just our way of life.
But the stripper wells are not extremely economic. So when this
Onshore Order 3 came into place, it actually is assisting the Saudi
Arabians to try to drive stripper wells out of existence because it is
the small producers, it is the guys who will stay there and produce the
wells when nobody has economic interest in them. They like sweeping up
the crumbs off of the energy table.
So Onshore Order 3 puts in processes that require monitoring that is
already provided at the point of sale. So it is not as if somehow the
government's being cheated. It just is trying to squeeze more out of
these uneconomic wells.
The estimates are that we have shut down a great number of those
wells, affecting teachers' pay, affecting the economy of New Mexico,
killing jobs.
So my amendment is very simple. It would prevent funds from being
used to fund the BLM Onshore Order Rule No. 3.
Mr. Chair, 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, once again, there might be some very
legitimate points that can be worked on out of these stripper wells
that are at the end of their life, and we might find some common ground
on some of your issues, but this is the appropriations bills and this
isn't the place to do it. It should be done in the Policy Committee.
Mr. Chair, we should be going to the Policy Committee, and we should
be asking the Policy Committee to take up and have hearings on these
issues that are very important to some of the Members here in this
House.
So when I look at this amendment on an Appropriations Committee bill,
what it says to me is that it is continuing the administration's agenda
that favors oil and gas industry ahead of other uses of our public
lands. It says to me that the administration has rolled back and
abolished a lot of rules that have been made over many years that are
contained and outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, which
includes a consideration of public and travel comments so you can go
and register your comment and your concern on it.
The whole point of the site security rule is to protect against the
theft of oil and to make sure that the oil and gas production is
properly accounted for.
So this rule that we are talking about today also streamlines the
process for companies to get new measurement technologies to make sure
that they are using the most innovative technology. I think, after 25
years, most businesses, most people who want to make sure that they are
paying for product, want to make sure that it is being measured and
accounted for right.
This rule was also recommended by the GAO and the Department of the
Interior's IG, the Royalty Policy Committee regarding the BLM's
production of verification efforts. And those are things that, quite
often, we do to safeguard and to protect to make sure that the
taxpayer, when involved on public lands, is receiving fair value for
the royalty.
So there is a rulemaking process that is comprehensive. There is a
rulemaking process that is transparent. And there is also a way to
change the rule that is comprehensive, transparent, and allows the
public to have their voice, and that is to address these issues in the
Policy Committee.
So the main reason--and I want to be really clear about this--for
opposing many of these amendments is they are properly done in the
Policy Committee, a committee which I served on when I first came here.
Mr. Chair, I think that is where these amendments need to start being
direct so that we can do the real work and make sure that when Members
come to the floor, that they know that we have had a full vetting and
full transparency.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2245

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the committee and
subcommittee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. I
appreciate my colleague for bringing the Bureau of Land Management's
Onshore Order No. 3 to the House's attention. Mr. Chair, I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, again, I appreciate what my chairman of the
subcommittee is saying in helping Members here, but we have a lot of
work to do just doing the oversight on how money is spent and
appropriated to make sure that we are doing our due diligence when we
appropriate funds, that they are used in the way that this Congress has
asked for them to be used. There is a Policy Committee to look at what
is happening with policy and to make sure that we move policy forward.
Mr. Chair, sometimes when amendments like this come to the floor, I
just think we are failing totally as a Congress to do our due diligence
in the Policy Committee, and then there is so much time spent on policy
in the Appropriations Committee, we fail to do our due diligence on
what has to happen for oversight for the tax dollars that we do
appropriate in these bills.
It is my hope that the Policy Committee will step up, speak out, and
start requesting that these bills be heard in the committee of
jurisdiction and not just put on as riders on our bills.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pearce for his leadership on
this issue.
Mr. Chairman, this rule by the BLM is a classic example of agency
overregulation at its finest. Should the new regulations take effect,
lessees and operators will be forced to maintain original gas charts,
measurement tickets, calibrations, verifications, prover

[[Page H7175]]

and configuration reports, pumper and gauger field logs, volume
statements, event logs, seal records, and gas analysis.
Most of these documents have nothing to do with determining the
amount of production at a lease and will force businesses to hire more
staff just to keep records.
This will also likely result in more Federal employees to oversee the
bureaucracy. This makes zero sense and is simply creating work and
overregulation for no reason. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear that what is at stake
is 2.6 billion barrels of oil a day made from wells that make maybe one
or two barrels, three barrels a day. They are not extremely economic,
but those businesses are located in New Mexico. Those businesses keep
their headquarters there. They are just small mom-and-pop operators
that care enough about the energy business to stay out there, and so
when the government does things that says we are not going to let you
operate, that we are going to shut you down, it accomplishes what the
Saudi Arabians have never been able to accomplish, and that is defeat
the spirit that says we can survive any attacks.
Mr. Chair, again, I urge people to support this amendment and the
underlying bill, H.R. 3354, and 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. Pearce).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Pearce

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. PEARCE. 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 to finalize, implement, or enforce the rule submitted
by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Waste
Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource
Conservation'', published at 81 Fed. Reg. 83008 (November 18,
2016).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico for 5 minutes.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the venting and flaring rule was, again, put in place
by the last administration, intending for BLM to regulate methane.
Historically, that had been regulated by the EPA.
Now, keep in mind that methane production from oil wells is down 21
percent since 1990, while production is going up. Production is going
up, methane production is down. So we wonder why the administration
came at the last second to put this rule into place.
Basically, the argument is exactly the same for opposing that venting
and flaring rule that what is at stake are not the good wells. Those
wells are going to produce in their economic with whatever burdens are
placed on them. What is at stake are the stripper wells which, again,
make up 2.6 billion barrels of production in the U.S. every day, 145
million barrels of production in the State of New Mexico. So you can
imagine the economic catastrophe if that 145 million barrels weren't
available to the State to both tax and to provide jobs.
Again, 40 percent of New Mexico's pay, roughly the teachers' pay, the
police pay, roughly that much comes from oil and gas production. You
can do the math and see how much New Mexico would be affected if this
venting and flaring rule continues to place the burden on the well.
The estimates are for each well that a cost of $60,000 is going to be
required to come into compliance. Again, keep in mind that this rule
comes after the methane is more carefully controlled today under
greater production than it ever has been. The estimates are that we
will lose thousands of wells if this venting and flaring rule
continues.
Again, it is the stripper wells which are most at harm. If we lose
the 2.6 billion barrels of stripper well production every year because
of the high cost of implementation of the venting and flaring rule,
that is going to mean we are less energy independent, that we rely more
on outside sources. It is going to drive the price of gasoline up. The
people who can afford it least are the people at the bottom of the
economic ladder. They will be the ones penalized most by rising prices
of gasoline and decreasing supplies of oil.
Mr. Chair, again, I would urge people to support this amendment, the
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 2
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, I want to thank
my colleague for yielding me time.
Mr. Chair, yesterday the House passed a $7.9 billion downpayment to
address the destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey, which is projected
now to cost as much as $180 billion--by far, today, the costliest
hurricane to hit the United States.
Today, we are considering an amendment which would prohibit BLM from
implementing a rule to address the wasteful venting, flaring, and
leaking of methane, which is a climate change-causing emission 30 times
more powerful than carbon dioxide.
New Mexico is currently home to the largest methane hot spot in the
world. Not only is methane a powerful greenhouse gas, but every cubic
foot of gas that is wasted into the atmosphere cheats hardworking New
Mexican taxpayers out of precious royalty and tax payments which go
toward public education, infrastructure, and community development
programs.
Our State desperately needs these investments, and we cannot afford
to let money disappear into thin air. BLM, in fact, should work with
stakeholders, especially small independent producers who have low-
producing wells to make this workable. But taking a sledgehammer to our
Nation's energy policy is a shortsighted and counterproductive effort.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to
collaborate to make this rule effective for producers and taxpayers
alike.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, the House has spoken several times on the
Bureau of Land Management's methane regulation in the past 2 years. I
understand the administration is reviewing the regulation and that
litigation is ongoing.
In the meantime, I think action is needed, and so I support this
amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The BLM
venting and flaring rule, or the BLM methane rule, represents one of
the Obama administration's most egregious abuses of executive power
designed to destroy responsible energy production on Federal land.
BLM exceeded statutory authority by attempting to regulate air
quality; authority that is vested solely with the EPA. Methane
emissions from oil and natural gas have significantly declined in
recent decades without duplicative Federal regulations in a time when
oil and gas production in the U.S. has surged.
It is frustrating that this rule is somehow cloaked under the idea
that it will benefit taxpayers. It won't. It is an onerous rule with no
connection to the reality of the physics and chemistry of energy
production. It will reduce American energy production on Federal land
and, therefore, reduce royalties due to the U.S. Treasury.

This amendment brings accountability to executive rulemaking. I thank
Congressman Pearce and applaud him, as well as Congressmen

[[Page H7176]]

Westerman and Cramer for their similar amendments crippling other Obama
rules.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Pearce) has expired.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said, I rise in opposition to this
amendment, as clearly this amendment would prohibit BLM from regulating
flaring, venting, and leaking of methane from Federal onshore oil and
gas operations.
In 2016, the BLM finalized its rule which updated regulations that
were almost over 30 years old. We have learned a lot about how we have
to be more diligent about capturing energy and making America more
energy secure, because this rule would prevent the waste of an
estimated 65 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year and save
taxpayers $330 million annually.
BLM has a responsibility to the taxpayers, and that means capturing
what is flared off, what is burnt off, which is potential energy. We
have developed technologies in the past 30 years to capture this and
make it work even more effectively for the taxpayers when we lease out
these leases and royalties.
Just for a fact, I share that the Bakken oil field, when it was at
its height, flared more--I am from the Twin Cities--flared more and
brighter than the metropolitan area in St. Paul and Minneapolis. That
is how bright the flare was that the satellites captured at night. That
was burning energy, energy consumption that should have been captured
because we owe it to future generations to get it right when it comes
to our energy production.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is bad for public health, it shortchanges
the American taxpayers, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I don't
think we are going to change each other's minds on this because the
bottom line is, and I have been consistent with this, this belongs in
the Policy Committee. This only would change something for a year. You
would have to come back year after year after year. If there is
something where we can find common ground on, we can find it in the
Policy Committee. We can't find it on an Appropriations Committee where
it expires every year.
I ride the elevator with the gentleman, Mr. Chair, and I am sure he
is going to enlighten me some more.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2300

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
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 New Mexico
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 64 will
not be offered.

Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. McEachin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 65
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

limitation on use of funds for developing a new 5-year-offshore-plan

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to prepare a five-year offshore oil and gas leasing
program that would schedule any Outer Continental Shelf oil
and gas lease sale before 2022.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. McEachin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would prevent the Department
of the Interior from preparing a new 5-year offshore oil and gas
leasing program that schedules leases before the year 2022.
Mr. Chairman, offshore drilling carries real consequences, from the
industrialization of our coasts to the inescapable risk of another BP
Deepwater Horizon-like disaster. Those risks can not be eliminated.
As Deepwater Horizon made clear, accidents can inflict damage of an
almost unimaginable scale. BP has spent billions of dollars responding
to that disaster.
That figure reflects liabilities that arose from massive and
irreparable damage to our environment, permanent harm to economically
essential industries, and countless other impacts on the Gulf Coast
residents' quality of life. We have to make sure that other regions are
never exposed to those kind of harms. That is why my amendment is
important.
In the event of a drilling accident, thriving coastal economies could
be decimated. Industries that rely upon a healthy marine environment--
everything from the tourist trade to our fisheries--could disappear
overnight.
If a spill were big enough--and we have seen that they can be
enormous--the economic consequences would ripple throughout the
national economy, hurting millions of Americans who live many miles
from the sea. Again, we cannot afford such economic risks.
It is equally foolish to risk the natural beauty, fragile habitats,
and irreplaceable species for the benefit of a few massive oil and gas
companies.
Our coasts are home to some of our most iconic and unique wildlife.
Healthy oceans are critical to traditional ways of life, having
provided subsistence resources for many generations.
Those places, those species, those customs are part of why we live in
the greatest country on Earth. No other place could match the richness
and diversity of the United States of America. We must not endanger the
incredible heritage in a quest for dirty energy, especially the kind of
fuels that can drive catastrophic changes to our climate, with grave
and permanent consequences for our society.
It is important to note that prohibiting the preparation of a new
leasing program does not stop any of the currently scheduled lease
sales until 2022 from happening. My amendment just puts us back on the
regular schedule for writing the next plan.
Prohibiting the preparation of a new leasing program, however, does
ensure that millions of taxpayer dollars are not spent reworking a plan
that was just completed this year.
Restarting a new 5-year leasing process would throw away 2\1/2\ years
and tens of millions of dollars of effort, ignore overwhelming
bipartisan opposition from millions of people up and down our coasts,
and eliminate the protections that President Obama provided for the
fragile Arctic.
Mr. Chairman, the risk of a new 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing
program are simply too high and the consequences are too severe.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I certainly sympathize with
many of the comments that the sponsor of this amendment has brought up.
Certainly, none of us have any intention of trashing the environment,
of causing environmental degradation in any of our coastal areas in the
United States.
But the thing is that this amendment doesn't cut production. It would
not result in any reduction in oil and gas exploration and production
activities. And if it were to do that, then all that would happen is it
would increase our dependence upon foreign imports of oil.
The reality and statistics are very clear. You are less safe
transporting energy than you are producing it. The statistics are very
clear. Putting it into a ship is less safe. Putting it into a pipeline
is less safe than actually producing it. So you are not doing anything
to benefit the environment.
The next thing is that, within approximately 1 month of the Obama
administration's being sworn into office in 2009--as I recall, I
believe it was on February 10--Secretary Salazar stood

[[Page H7177]]

up and said: We are rewriting the 5-year offshore leasing plan of the
previous administration.
They walked right in and said: We are throwing this out.
Which the amendment's sponsor said was billions of dollars in
implications and much planning.
It is exactly what the Obama administration did. So if the Trump
administration chooses to take a fresh look at these resources and
these resources, then I want to quote the Obama administration saying
that these are offshore energy resources that belong to all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other note. If you read the
amendment, it says that none of the funds made available in this act
may be used to repair a 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program
that would schedule any Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sale
before 2022. This wouldn't just prohibit making changes to it, such as,
perhaps, the idea of expanding it if public comments and other input
found that that was the best thing to do, but it also would prevent
slowing down the lease sale schedule.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. While I certainly
support the gentleman's intent to prevent any type of environmental
harm and degradation, I just want to say in closing that I was the lead
trustee for the State of Louisiana in the Deepwater Horizon spill.

When you look at Outer Continental Shelf energy production, we had
produced trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. We had produced
billions of barrels of oil. What the courts found in the BP incident
was that there was gross negligence and willful misconduct.
They didn't find that there were problems with the rules and other
things. That is why, as the gentleman correctly started, that they had
to spend tens of billions of dollars paying for their gross negligence
and willful misconduct, which is very different than the trillions of
cubic feet of natural gas, and billions of barrels of oil that we have
produced safely; we produced them in the United States; and we have not
put them in pipelines and tankers in other less safe mechanisms of
transportation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, what is the balance of my time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prevent the Department
of the Interior from performing a necessary and thorough review of the
existing 5-year plan. Meanwhile, the committee encouraged a review of
the 5-year plan in the 2017 omnibus, which we just enacted just a few
months ago. For these reasons and others, I certainly urge a ``no''
vote on this amendment.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say
that, once again, while I understand the gentleman's intent to prevent
any type of environmental degradation--I think everyone shares that
objective--the reality is that this amendment doesn't do anything to
advance that objective. And potentially, should there be some type of
emergent situation where you would want to slow down lease sales, this
amendment would actually prohibit that from happening.
We should take a fresh look with public input and with the best
science to determine where we produce, how we produce, to maximize
domestic energy production, to maximize or to reduce dependence upon
foreign energy, to maximize economic opportunities and employment
opportunities in the United States.
Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, of course, I was not here
at the time, but it was my understanding that this is nothing unlike
what the other side of the aisle did during the Obama administration.
So what this amendment seeks to do, in many cases, is not that unusual.
And while the gentleman is correct, the size of the payments that BP
had to make were because of a certain type of conduct: What we want to
do is just freeze things where they are.
While I acknowledge that there is a possibility that somehow someone
wanted to slow down the process, I don't believe that this
administration would do just that.
Again, millions of dollars have been spent. Much time has been spent
in developing this plan. I think we just need to leave it in place.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support 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 Virginia (Mr. McEachin).
The amendment was rejected.

amendment no. 66 offered by mr. grothman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 66
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule
entitled ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone''
published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the
Federal Register on October 26, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 65292).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
3354. The purpose of my amendment is to prohibit use of funds made
available by this act to implement, administer, and enforce the EPA's
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone rule, which was
originally published on October 26, 2015.
This rule will make the standards more stringent in other places, in
the State of Wisconsin, up and down Lake Michigan, including counties
such as Sheboygan County. As you make these standards more stringent--
first of all, it makes no sense because they don't take in the fact
that there are areas like mine in which the ozone is coming from
outside my district.
For example, Sheboygan County, whatever they do, I don't think they
could ever meet those standards because there is so much ozone coming
up from the Chicago area. But there is an effect to these standards as
well.
The standards make it more difficult for industry along Lake Michigan
to operate, to comply with the standards, putting us at a competitive
disadvantage not only with other parts around the country, but a
competitive disadvantage compared to other areas around the world with
much more pollution than we have. Right now our ozone is much less than
it was when I was a child. Quite frankly, when I was a child, nobody
complained anyway.
Another thing about these ozone standards, it is something that
people who are looking out for that not particularly wealthy people
should pay attention to. When you aren't meeting the standards, it
creates a situation in which your owners of automobiles have to have
their cars tested every year. And sometimes these cars have to go
through very expensive repairs to meet the standards.
Now, there are people who are going to think that is no big deal
because they are maybe wealthy Congressmen and they need to buy a car
every 3 or 4 years and they don't have a problem. But if you are
somebody who has a 10- or 15-year-old car, maybe you can only afford to
spend $500, $1,000 on a car, and then once a year you have to get the
car tested. You flunk the test and you have to put $1,000 or $1,500
into it. No wonder we have some people in this country who can't get
ahead as long as the environmental extremists are running the EPA.
So, in any event, I think it would be good if we don't spend any more
money implementing this new rule. Give the EPA more time to reconsider
this rule and come up with something a little bit more reasonable.

[[Page H7178]]

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment,
and I yield back 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, while I understand the gentleman's intent,
I share his concern with the 2015 ozone standards, the bill's language
in the amendment goes a little too far. It ties this new
administration's hands with respect to reconsideration or flexibility
efforts that they are trying to build in at the present time.
Meanwhile, the ozone language in the underlying bill provides the
necessary administrative relief for communities to comply with the
overlapping 2008 and 2015 requirements. I think that this
administration understands the complexities that are being imposed by
this 2015 requirement. They are trying to deal with it. Mr. Pruitt has
indicated that publicly.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to 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 Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The amendment was rejected.

{time} 2315

Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of 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 implement or enforce the threatened species or
endangered species listing of any plant or wildlife that has
not undergone a review as required by section 4(c)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following current law,
specifically section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, by
conducting a review of all threatened and endangered plants and
wildlife at least once every 5 years.
Time after time, the Federal Government refuses to follow the
original intent of the Endangered Species Act. The government
designates land as critical habitat despite not meeting the ESA
definition, and the government consistently refuses to remove plants
and animals from threatened or endangered status even when these
species are flourishing and are no longer in need of ESA protections.
But you may ask yourself: How does the government know when the
species should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? How
does the government know if a species is recovering? The answer can be
found in the ESA and its requirement that the Federal Government review
all plants or species that are currently listed as endangered or
threatened every 5 years.
Under the act, the purpose of a 5-year review is to ensure that
threatened or endangered species have the appropriate level of
protection. The reviews assess each threatened and endangered species
to determine whether its status has changed since the time of its
listing or its last status review and whether its status should be
changed or maintained.
Because the act grants extensive protection to a species, including
harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, it makes sense to
regularly verify if a plant or animal is being properly classified or
should be delisted. Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has acknowledged that it has neglected its
responsibility to conduct the required reviews for hundreds of listed
species.
By enforcing the 5-year review--which is in the law--my amendment
will ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best
available and most current scientific information in implementing its
responsibilities under that act, including incorporating new
information through public comment and assessing ongoing conservation
efforts.
Now, I am sure you will hear the ranking member say that the problem
is that there is simply not enough money to comply with the law, but
the reality is that megasettlements and overzealous regulators have
caused the number of species listed under the endangered species list
to balloon to unmanageable levels. For the recovery of a threatened or
endangered species or plant to be successful, we must prioritize our
limited resources to where they are most critically needed.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service complies with the ESA and that we do not provide
money in this bill that would violate current law. This exact amendment
was added to the fiscal year '16 Interior Appropriations bill by voice
vote and was added to the fiscal year '17 bill by a bipartisan rollcall
vote.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support this amendment for the third
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado is right. We
have had this conversation in this Chamber, Mr. Chair, before. The
Service does attempt to comply with the statutory mandate and to review
the status of listed species every 5 years to determine whether or not
it is classified as threatened or endangered.
It is correct. The Service has a backlog in reviews due to funding
limitations. This year it is a 17 percent listing reduction contained
in this bill so that they have been working on the backlog. But the
Service still has only been able to complete 100 to 120 reviews per
year, which is half of what is needed.
So in this bill, you and I might agree that there are things that
could happen and that money isn't always the solution to a problem, but
in this bill you might be surprised to know that it has cut another
$3.4 million, so that only builds up the backlog all the more.
That is not necessarily the fault of the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Chair. It is just the fact that the allocation that
our subcommittee had to work with, tough choices had to be made. I know
that the chairman was trying to balance a lot of things.
The gentleman talked about the court and the environment. I would
love to have a conversation with the gentleman more about that, because
it is my understanding--and I want to make sure I have it correct
before we go into depth about it because, as the gentleman knows, we
have a good relationship, and I want to make sure that I am correct
when I say things--that actually some of the things that have been
happening in court have actually helped to reduce some of the costs
that the gentleman is thinking about because it is in place.
I will get the information, Mr. Chair, and share it with the
gentleman later.
But the fact is that this amendment would not remove species without
review from the list of species protected by the ESA so that the ESA's
prohibition, again, would still remain, and it still would be the
ability of citizens to sue or force compliance even with what the
gentleman is proposing. So funding cannot be used to enforce the ESA
for species with late reviews; it is going to leave the species
unprotected.
Proposed language would prohibit the Service from working with the
agencies. It would prohibit working with developers and landowners to
comply, compliance to section 7 consultations or section 10 permits for
Federal and private projects that could potentially affect the species.
So as you can see, the other thing it doesn't do is the proposed
language would not affect the ability of third parties to sue those
agencies or landowners.

[[Page H7179]]

So I agree with the gentleman that we need to do a better job of
making sure that these reviews are done in a timely fashion. I agree
that, when a species has attained a classification where it is no
longer threatened or it is no longer endangered, it should come off. So
I think we have a lot in common.
But I think that the challenge with this amendment is that, without
the funding, in order for the Service to do the job that it has to do,
it just kind of puts the Service in a box in which we are saying you
are not doing a good job and, therefore, we are going to start changing
the way in which we proceed.
So I, right now, have to oppose this amendment. But as I said, in the
policy committee I think that there is room for some of us to come
together and to make improvement, but legislating this rider for 1 year
at a time on this appropriations bill doesn't allow us to have the
deep, transparent, and open discussion that we need to have to resolve
your issue.
So at this time I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.
If we get additional resources in the future, I would love to make
sure that Fish and Wildlife has the resources to make sure they meet
their mandates, and they should meet them now.
One of the mandates they have is review the status of every listed
species every 5 years and a corresponding change in the status if it is
called for by those reviews. Instead of doing those reviews, in many
cases, the Service chooses to spend the money to list more species.
If the government isn't willing to shoulder the responsibilities that
come with listing species under the ESA, perhaps it shouldn't be
listing those species in the first place. So I think they need to meet
their obligations under the law.
I certainly support this amendment, and I encourage Members to
support the amendment and vote for it.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that statement.
I will say to the gentlewoman from Minnesota that I would love to
work with her on this. I know that, in the Natural Resources Committee,
we are going to be looking at some of the different facets of the
Endangered Species Act, and I hope we can continue this dialogue.
This amendment seeks to make the agency comply with the law. That
provision is in there for a reason, so let's enforce what Congress, in
its wisdom, put into the law many years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of 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 Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of 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 implement or enforce the threatened species
listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

{time} 2330

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, clearly, what this amendment does--and it
is different from the other amendment--is prohibit the Fish and
Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the threatened species
listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the Endangered
Species Act. It full-out restricts the Service from offering any
critical protections to preserve the species.
Once a species like this is listed under the Endangered Species Act,
the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service is fairly permissive. They
can help parties comply with the act as they carry out their other
activities.
The Service right now is reviewing and considering all the comments
that they received during the public comment period, and a draft
recovery plan is being worked through to develop a final recovery plan.
But with this

[[Page H7180]]

amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to recover the
species. All the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply.
So, in other words, we would stop them from moving forward, but they
would still be under jurisdiction to comply. They wouldn't be able to
comply by working with agencies and land developers and landowners to
provide the ESA compliance.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing
permits or from offering exemptions. That means landowners, industry,
and other parties who might need to take the Preble's meadow jumping
mouse incidental to otherwise lawful activities, such as urban
development, are vulnerable to third-party lawsuits.
Another limitation that the Service would have would be undertaking
the required status reviews of subspecies or initiating any rulemaking
or downlisting or delisting species.
So now we are talking about deep dives into what the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife may or may not be impacted by doing or helping landowners or
developers on an appropriations bill.
Quite frankly, as I have been saying all night--and I understand
people have the right to come here with these amendments--the Service
has a responsibility to implement the Endangered Species Act. They are
charged with fulfilling their legal requirements. When they don't
fulfill their legal requirements, it makes them more vulnerable to
lawsuits, which I know is not the goal of the author of this amendment,
Mr. Chair. But when there are lawsuits incurred, it creates more costs
for American taxpayers.
The gentleman's amendment would just undermine the Service's ability
to work collaboratively with States and local communities. It opens the
Service up for lawsuits and it would create even more uncertainty for
landowners and make them vulnerable, as I said, to lawsuits.
I think we should be working to support the Fish and Wildlife
efforts, not blocking the agency from doing its job and going back to
what we discussed earlier, that is working through the committees of
authorization, and then the authorizing committees having conversations
with the Appropriations Committee on how they can achieve their goals,
this being one of them.
Because of those reasons, I do not support this amendment. I thank
the gentleman for bringing this forward, but at this time I cannot
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert) to weigh in on this issue.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to jump up and support this
amendment. Obviously, the agency has not leaped fast enough and
problems persist. So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment, and I know it will squeak by with a large margin.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying there is one
other sort of a temporary element in this whole episode. And that is
when you go from Colorado into Wyoming, the mouse is no longer
threatened or endangered. There is a political boundary line between
the two States.
In its wisdom, the Fish and Wildlife Service says that if you go
north far enough across the State line, it is no longer threatened or
endangered. There is an element of arbitrariness that I think also
calls into question why this was ever done in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Lamborn) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bergman, 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.

____________________