[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 104 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4970-H4978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2020

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


            Amendment No. 161 Offered by Mr. Hice of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Himes). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 161 printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. 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 C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this Act (other 
     than an amount required to be made available by a provision 
     of law) is hereby reduced by 23.6 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Hice) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of my deep concerns over our 
national debt.
  At a time when our Federal debt exceeds $22 trillion, I believe it is 
time that we make every effort possible to rein in spending so that we 
are not shackling future generations with this burden.
  Division C of H.R. 3055 funds the EPA, Department of the Interior, 
and other land management agencies at $37.4 billion and increases 
spending by $1.6 billion over fiscal year 2019 levels.
  The spending level in this division is 23.6 percent over the 
President's budget request. That is almost $7 billion over the request, 
Mr. Chairman. We are not even close.
  Without question, there are areas within these Federal agencies that 
need improvement. For example, we need desperately to fix the National 
Park Service maintenance backlog, and I commend Ranking Member Bishop 
for his diligent work on that effort, and would urge passage, and at 
least bring to the floor his thoughtful and cost-effective bill to 
address that issue. But at the end of the day, the bottom line is our 
constituents back home are required week after week, month after month 
to make tough choices when it comes to planning their own household 
budgets, and we need to do the same right here in Congress.
  My proposed amendment will reduce spending levels to the President's 
original budget request so that, just like our constituents back home, 
we go back to the table, we go back to the drawing board, and we make 
those same tough decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment to rein in spending, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. I 
appreciate the thoughts of the gentleman, but this is the wrong place 
to go about it.
  This amendment just indiscriminately cuts programs in this bill 
without any thought to the relative merit of the programs contained in 
the bill.
  For instance, this cut would result in fewer patients seen at the 
Indian Health Service, fewer safety inspectors ensuring accidents do 
not occur, deferred maintenance on our Nation's water and sanitation 
infrastructure.
  More generally, investments in our environmental infrastructure and 
our public lands will be halted and the associated jobs will be lost.
  This amendment would not encourage the agencies to do more with less. 
Simply put, it would force the agencies and our constituents to do less 
with less.
  Yes, it is true the Interior budget does not meet the same numbers 
that the President sent over to us, but the President cut the 
Environmental Protection Agency by a third, he cut the National 
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. I 
can make a very long list that the President cut that this Congress 
would never stand for.
  So this does not stand. We cannot go back to the President's original 
budget. We must stand together to oppose this amendment, which if it 
was passed, would harm the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to 
join me in opposing it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

[[Page H4971]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 163 Offered by Mr. Banks

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 163 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. BANKS. 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 C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this division 
     (other than an amount required to be made available by a 
     provision of law) is hereby reduced by 14 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Banks) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It reduces spending 
in this division by 14 percent, the amount that is needed to avoid 
busting the budget caps and preventing sequestration.
  With these spending packages, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are making it clear that they have no interest in reducing our 
national debt. If they did, they would not be proposing bills that 
would bust the budget caps by nearly $90 billion, which they are fully 
aware would trigger sequestration and lead to devastating and severe 
cuts to our national defense.
  In this division alone, they are proposing to spend $37.2 billion, 
which is $1.73 billion above the previous year's enacted amount and 
$7.2 billion over the President's 2020 request. This does not even 
include the $2.2 billion in additional funding that is not subject to 
the caps.
  Again, my amendment would bring spending in this division to the 
level needed to avoid sequestration through a 14 percent across-the-
board cut.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment, once again, indiscriminately 
cuts programs in this bill without any thought to the relative merit of 
the programs contained in the bill.
  To just reiterate again, fewer patients would be seen at Indian 
Health Services, fewer safety inspectors would be ensuring that we 
don't have oil and gas accidents on public lands or the other areas 
which they oversee, deferred maintenance on our Nation's drinking 
water--we don't want another Flint--deferred maintenance on sanitation 
infrastructure.
  One of the things that Members came up and asked me for, by and 
large, to make sure that we took a hard look to see what we could do to 
make sure that we protected our Nation's drinking water, and we moved 
on what we could do with our sanitation infrastructure.
  The National Estuary Program by the President was zeroed out; the 
USGS science was cut; school construction for Native American children, 
the future of their communities, the future of our shared Nation, 
zeroed out; the arts, the humanities, zeroed out; and the EPA cut by 31 
percent, the agency that is in charge of making sure we have clean air 
and clean water.
  More generally, investments in our environmental infrastructure and 
our public lands would be halted and the associated jobs would be lost.
  This legislation in front of us today that we are talking about 
creates lots of good jobs, lots of good-paying construction jobs that 
are important to the health of our communities.
  This amendment would not encourage agencies to do more with less. 
They would simply force the agencies and our constituents to do less 
with less, and they have been doing that for too long.
  Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Chairman, frankly, the arguments from my colleagues 
who oppose this amendment simply don't add up.
  By busting the budget caps, the nondefense programs that they are so 
passionately defending would face $55 billion in automatic cuts.
  So it seems my colleagues are willing to allow reductions in 
nondefense spending if they can also force reckless defense cuts that 
endanger national security.
  While that may be acceptable to those on the other side of the aisle, 
it is not acceptable to me.
  My amendment will bring spending in this division to the level needed 
to avoid sequestration and to protect our national security.
  Mr. Chairman, when I ran for this position, I promised my 
constituents that I would do my part to rein in Washington's spending 
addiction and safeguard the strength of the American military.
  Mr. Chair, I am proud that this amendment accomplishes both of those 
goals. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Joyce), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Under Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution: ``No money 
shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations 
made by law.''
  That function resides within the appropriately named Appropriations 
Committee, and I take great pride in having served on this committee.
  Every year, we dedicate a great deal of time to crafting and amending 
the annual spending bills to fulfill this constitutional responsibility 
and to keep the Federal Government operating.
  We spend countless hours hearing from agency officials, outside 
advocates, and our fellow Members of Congress about our budgetary 
needs. We make tough choices regarding prioritization.
  That is why I must oppose this amendment and I oppose the previous 
amendment.
  Rather than evaluating the worthiness of each individual program, the 
amendment would indiscriminately cut funding across the board.
  Such drastic cuts could harm bipartisan efforts to improve healthcare 
for American Indians and Alaska Natives; combat invasive species like 
Asian carp and zebra mussels; prevent devastating wildfires; address 
the maintenance backlogs at National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife 
Service sites; and provide payments to local communities under the 
Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT, program.
  Therefore, even though I share some of the gentleman's concerns about 
the excessive spending in these bills, I must oppose the amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, am I correct that the author of the 
amendment has yielded back his time?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has the only time remaining.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, first, I would just like to address some of 
the comments that the gentleman made.
  I have the honor and privilege of serving on the Appropriations 
Defense Subcommittee as vice chair with Chairman Visclosky, and I take 
great pride in the bipartisan work, the nonpartisan work that we do to 
make sure that our military is strong and our intelligence agencies 
have the tools they need to keep America safe.
  Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add that for the record, because there 
was, I think, some confusion as to where I and my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle, when it came to 
defense, what our positions were. Our positions are making sure our 
servicemen and -women have what they need to fulfill their mission and 
come home safely.
  But going back to the comments about this amendment, we need to

[[Page H4972]]

stand together. We need to stand together to oppose this amendment, 
because it will harm the American people.
  There will be less clean water to drink, our air will be not as well 
protected, people will go without healthcare, and our communities will 
suffer.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and I encourage my colleagues to 
join me in opposing it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BANKS. 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 Indiana will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1545


                 Amendment No. 165 Offered by Mr. Biggs

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 165 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. BIGGS. 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 C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Integrated Risk Information System of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, 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, if I heard right, the previous two amendments were 
criticized for being overly broad and indiscriminate in the ways that 
they attacked spending in this particular underlying legislation. Well, 
I am laser focused. I am laser focused with my amendment.
  My amendment would restrict funds from going to the EPA's Integrated 
Risk Information System, or IRIS. That program is supposed to be 
developing impartial science-based toxicity assessments on chemicals 
for uniform use within EPA, and if that is what they were doing, I 
would not be standing before you today. But as I came to know all too 
well as I worked with former Chairman Lamar Smith and while serving as 
chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on 
Environment in the last Congress, the reality is different.
  Over the past decade, IRIS has been repeatedly criticized by the 
National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office 
for its lack of transparency and improper use of scientific methods, 
which have led to some significantly flawed risk assessments over the 
years. In fact, GAO first added IRIS to its list of government programs 
that are highly vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in 
2009. In the decades since, IRIS has made very few steps towards 
significant improvement.
  I strongly believe that instead of allowing a flawed and poorly 
managed agency like IRIS to continue to operate, we should return 
chemical assessments to the relevant program offices within the EPA 
itself.
  In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to achieve the reforms 
I have outlined. That bill was reported out of the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee last fall. I have reintroduced that bill again in 
this session, but it is laying in the Science Committee without further 
action.
  I believe that until there is a root-and-branch reform of the 
chemical assessments process at the EPA, we simply cannot allow IRIS to 
spread misinformation to the public as it is doing now
  I urge all Members to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I would like to clear up a little bit of 
information.
  There was a time a short while ago where the National Academy of 
Sciences asked the EPA, under the IRIS program, to tighten up their 
process. It needed fixing. It needed adjusting.
  The Agency reacted. They got an A-plus rating from the scientists 
now. So the fine-tuning that was unnecessary to make this good program 
even greater happened.
  But what this amendment would do is it would prohibit the EPA from 
funding the Integrated Risk Information System. Now, the Integrated 
Risk Information System, or IRIS, is an electronic base containing 
information on human health effects that may result from exposure to 
various chemicals in the environment.
  This was developed by the EPA's staff with consistent information to 
uniform risk assessments and regulatory decisionmaking with respect to 
health effects from exposures to chemicals found in the environment.
  There is a chemical right now that has captured the attention of 
people all across the United States, in fact, across the world, and it 
is PFOS.
  We need now, more than ever, to be laser focused, working with IRIS 
to do everything we can to get the data and the information so we know 
the health effects from being exposed to these chemicals for both 
military and civilian people all across the United States. It is a very 
serious problem, and IRIS' program review process is widely considered 
to be a gold standard when it comes to accessing chemical toxicity.
  Now, it is based on extensive scientific literature; it is peer-
reviewed; and IRIS' toxicity assessments are relied upon by programs at 
the EPA and across the Federal Government, by States, and it is because 
of the high quality of the assessments.
  Because these assessments assess risk across a variety of exposure 
paths, assessments can inform regulatory decisionmaking across all 
media offices in the EPA. So they can look at it holistically and be 
making very informed decisions.
  It is no surprise, Mr. Chair, that the chemical industry has long 
sought to undermine the IRIS program. From their point of view, the 
less the public knows about the risk from toxic chemicals, the more 
money the chemical industry can make. We ought to be looking out for 
the safety and welfare of the American people, not the bottom line 
polluters who profit from pollution.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify for those in the Chamber 
who may not be aware, IRIS is an information-collecting entity, not a 
regulator. If IRIS were eliminated, EPA would still maintain an office 
of research and development, which would perform chemical assessments 
in coordination with a specialized program office within the Agency. 
What will compromise public safety is a poorly run government office 
spreading misinformation.
  I also want to point out that both the nonpartisan NAS and GAO have 
repeatedly criticized IRIS over the past 10 years. Even the few NAS and 
GAO recognitions of improvements to IRIS over the years have been 
strongly tempered by caveats that far more work needs to be done.
  For instance, the 2018 NAS report, which has been cited, suggests 
that IRIS still has not produced a basic handbook to guide its 
operations, even though that recommendation was made more than 4 years 
ago. This agency has been in existence since 1986 without a handbook, a 
basic handbook.

  Just to add a little bit more color to this debate, here is an 
example of how absurd IRIS risk assessments can be. It sets the risk 
value of the chemical ethylene oxide, which is often used to sterilize 
medical equipment, at 100 parts quadrillion. That is a 1 with 15 zeros 
behind it. That value is 19,000 times less than the naturally occurring 
level of ethylene oxide in the human body. For perspective, OSHA sets 
the risk level for ethylene oxide at one point per million, which is a 
vastly higher threshold than IRIS itself.

[[Page H4973]]

  I can speak similarly about flawed IRIS risk assessments related to 
formaldehyde or acetone, a substance found naturally in breast milk.
  To sum up, absurdly assessed risk either creates unwarranted public 
panic or cynical disregard. Neither outcome creates a safer society.
  Even worse, if IRIS is overly focused on evaluating the safety of 
low-risk or, in some cases, effectively no-risk chemicals, then it is 
likely to be distracted from assessing truly dangerous substances.
  Again, I invite my colleagues to support this very important laser-
focused amendment. We are not overly broad here. We are focusing on one 
program that has been completely--not repudiated, but certainly been 
highly criticized by the National Academy of Science and the GAO.
  I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BIGGS. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


              Amendment No. 167 Offered by Mr. Cunningham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 167 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 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 C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used--
       (1) to conduct or authorize any person to conduct 
     geological or geophysical exploration for oil or gas, 
     pursuant to section 11(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1340(a)), in any area located in the 
     Atlantic Region Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas, as 
     such planning areas are defined in the 2017-2022 Outer 
     Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Proposed Final Program 
     described in the notice entitled ``Notice of Availability of 
     the 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing 
     Proposed Final Program,'' published by the Department of the 
     Interior in the Federal Register on November 23, 2018 (81 
     Fed. Reg. 84,612); or
       (2) to prepare or supplement an Environmental Impact 
     Statement or Environmental Assessment, pursuant to the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 4321 et seq.), and its associated regulations, for any 
     such exploration.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my 
straightforward, commonsense amendment to the Interior-Environment 
appropriations bill that would prevent BOEM from issuing permits for 
seismic exploration in the Atlantic Ocean.
  South Carolinians have made it explicitly clear where we stand on 
this issue. Far too much is at stake in our State. South Carolina's 
tourism economy is worth $22.6 billion a year, and two-thirds of that 
comes from the coast.
  While folks may disagree about the amount of oil deposits that exist 
in the Atlantic Ocean, most would agree that the amount of oil off the 
coast of South Carolina is minimal and far less than the amount of 
revenue that the State brings in from tourism, recreation, and 
commercial fishing.
  Put simply, the people of the Lowcountry understand that the risk 
isn't worth the reward. Or, as may grandmother said: ``The juice ain't 
worth the squeeze.''
  Our beaches, our economy are not for sale.
  And it is not just South Carolina that feels this way. It is Florida. 
It is Virginia. It is New Hampshire. It is North Carolina. It is 
Pennsylvania. It is New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. From coast to 
coast, communities have made it clear that they do not want to put the 
marine ecosystems and their coastal livelihoods at risk, which is why 
so many of my colleagues from all over the country have joined me in 
sponsoring this amendment.
  Seismic exploration is incredibly dangerous in its own right. Seismic 
air guns create an underwater blast louder than all but military-grade 
explosives. Companies fire air guns as often as every 10 seconds for 
days, weeks, to months on end. This can have impacts across the entire 
ecosystem, from marine mammals to fish to plankton.
  But beyond that, seismic exploration is a major step towards this 
administration's ultimate goal of seeing drilling rigs up and down the 
Atlantic coast. High-ranking officials have said it clear as day: The 
only reason they are working so hard on these seismic permits is so 
they can open up the Atlantic to drilling by the highest bidder.
  Drilling in the Atlantic would put the health of our ocean and our 
coastal economy at risk, and it is a massive investment in a future of 
dirty and dangerous offshore drilling that an overwhelming majority of 
people from both parties all along the Atlantic Coast oppose. I stand 
with them in opposition to both seismic testing and oil drilling. Far 
too much is at stake.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, we had the same discussion yesterday. Once 
again, these are offshore leases that are part of the American public's 
domain, not the State of South Carolina or California or Massachusetts 
or Florida. I understand that application.
  But, once again, we also have heard that we want to have responsible 
renewable energy, so we are actually predisposing no seismic aspect. 
Well, how do you actually look at moorings in regard to subsurface 
anchors if you didn't use seismic activity? That is contradicting all 
the way around the aspect here.
  Once again, this just shows that we want nothing of the sort: no 
seismic, no wind, no solar, no oil and gas. That is unbelievable.
  If this is the kind of attitude that we want going forward, those in 
Arizona and the Western States that have public lands ought to be 
getting a lot more say in those applications.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 20 
seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. And when we start looking at it, maybe what we ought to 
do, if we are talking about oil spills, one of the worst ways to 
actually import oil is through boats. So maybe we ought to disallow 
ships, because a ship that has an accident is one oil spill away from 
anywhere.
  So this just begs my indifference in regards to what the heck we are 
trying to do here. It is looking at our assets. We have a due diligence 
to the American people to look at those assets for public assets.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, respectfully, I would disagree with Mr. 
Gosar. South Carolinians have the opportunity to say what goes on off 
of South Carolina's coast. Voters have made it very clear on this 
issue.
  This is not Democrat or a Republican issue. This is an issue that has 
been supported by Republican Governor McMaster, who has made it clear 
that he opposes offshore drilling.
  I would ask that my conservative Members of this body, that that 
conservative idealogy also translates to conserving our natural 
resources, and for that idea of federalism to extend to offshore 
drilling so that States have a say. And States have spoken in South 
Carolina, and other States as well.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, let's break this apart a 
little bit. So my friend from South Carolina has proposed this 
amendment because he wants to protect the environment.
  Well, let's look at what happens when you do this.

[[Page H4974]]

  My friend sat in the House Committee on Natural Resources where we 
had experts, not people standing here behind the microphone, but real 
experts who came to the Congress, who testified before us, and who 
said: We have looked at this issue when you stop producing energy 
domestically. We have looked at it. And what happens when you stop 
producing it domestically? You import it. You import it from foreign 
countries.
  All right. So, one, you are not stopping the production of energy. 
You are just doing it in another country, and you are paying them and 
creating jobs there.
  Number two, when you do this, you still have to actually ship the 
energy. It doesn't just pop up in the socket. You have to ship the 
energy.
  Look at the studies. Look at the reports. You have a greater chance 
of threatening your global environment, threatening the coast of South 
Carolina by transporting it by ship.
  Look at the statistics. It is safer to do exploration and production 
activities, to put it in a pipe in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend was there and heard the witnesses talk about 
this. It is important that we make sure that we are doing things that 
don't just feel good, but things that will actually achieve the goal of 
protecting our environment in the United States. This amendment is 
flawed.
  Now, look. The other thing, Mr. Chairman, I think is important is 
what this prohibits is it prohibits us from actually doing a resource 
assessment. Maybe there is an assessment and it is determined that it 
doesn't make sense to produce energy there. Well, let's make an 
informed decision.
  Last thing, Mr. Chairman, is about ecological productivity. Off the 
coast of Louisiana, where we reproduce somewhere between 80 and 90 
percent of all of the offshore energy, the conventional energy in the 
United States in Federal waters, we have the second most productive 
fisheries in the Nation, only behind Alaska, another State that does 
offshore energy production. We have multiple times more fisheries than 
my friend's home State of South Carolina.
  So the whole ecological productivity argument is just not supported 
by the facts. If you support the environment, if you support ecological 
productivity, if you support American jobs, you oppose this amendment. 
If you support Russian gas, if you support Vladimir Putin, if you 
support a dirtier environment, I urge you to vote in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues, again, especially 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, who have 
supported this amendment and who have supported H.R. 1941, as well. I 
thank my colleagues, my conservatives, who support conservation.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to vote in favor of this bipartisan commonsense amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, 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. Cunningham).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 168 Offered by Mr. Cunningham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 168 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 235, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, I want to recognize the great work of 
Chairwoman McCollum in finding ways to increase funding for the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. The chairwoman and members of the 
committee have shown a strong commitment to this important program, and 
I applaud their efforts.
  One of the first things that Congress did was pass into law the 
bipartisan lands package, which permanently authorized the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. This demonstrated what we can achieve when we 
work together on behalf of our constituents.
  LWCF not only promotes access to our public lands, but helps ensure 
all Americans can utilize these publicly owned resources. It is 
important that we build off that bipartisan work by making sure that 
this important program receives the funding it deserves in our final 
spending bill.
  LWCF provides hundreds of millions of dollars to States that are 
challenged with coastal erosion, loss of open space, and trying to 
balance a need to protect species habitat with urban growth demands.
  It also supports our States and communities by funding stateside 
programs that promote recreation, responsible community development, 
and provide opportunities to get Americans outdoors.
  When LWCF was created, it was agreed that funding from oil and gas 
development would be used to achieve conservation objectives across the 
country. This program balances resource development with conservation 
and opens access to our public lands for hunters, anglers, and back 
country users.
  I strongly support LWCF, and I appreciate the efforts my colleagues 
have made to secure the future of this program. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to vote in support of my amendment, as well as 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even 
though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, once again, I have been sitting on the 
floor. I sat in the House Committee on Natural Resources yesterday and 
heard this assault on oil and gas. So I want to remind everybody that 
the only mechanism to fund LWCF is actually these funds from the Outer 
Continental Shelf oil and gas.
  It is amazing. It is absolutely amazing that we have this rhetorical 
conversation on the House floor.
  So we are against adding any access to know what the resource 
actually is by seismic. We are responsible on behalf of these resources 
to the American public. Yes, the American public actually owns these 
jurisdictions. And what we are doing is we are leveraging as that 
opportunity to fund LWCF.
  Be careful, Will Robinson, what you are asking for.
  Those responsible applications, we heard it over and over from the 
gentleman from Louisiana. Once again, these are an asset of the 
American people, not South Carolina, not Florida, not California, not 
Massachusetts. So responsible applications here, we have got to be 
taking in good stewardship.
  So with that in mind, I caution everybody that LWCF is the only 
mechanism for funding. The only mechanism for funding is these Outer 
Continental Shelf oil and gas leases.
  These are responsible aspects, and they actually know what the 
resources are. You are going to need seismic, if you are going to look 
at alternative energy aspects, particularly wind, in regards to 
permanent moorings.
  So from that standpoint, I just offer a cautionary plea. Be careful 
what you ask for. You may end up having no funding at all.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemen from 
Colorado (Mr. Neguse), my esteemed colleague.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my distinguished colleague 
from

[[Page H4975]]

South Carolina for his leadership on this amendment.
  With respect to the Member from Arizona, I, given his comments, look 
forward to him voting for this amendment as well. It is an incredibly 
important amendment, and, ultimately, this program has been our 
Nation's premier conservation program for over 50 years.
  I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee for their work to 
reprioritize the program after the President's budget actually proposed 
drastic cuts to LWCF. As a result of their efforts, the bill before us 
today would provide the highest level of funding for the program in 17 
years.
  I have the great honor of representing the State of Colorado, and I 
have seen firsthand the benefits that LWCF brings to our State. 
Colorado received $278 million in LWCF funding over the last decades, 
including for a variety of areas in my district: Rocky Mountain 
National Park, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, to name just a 
few.
  LWCF not only conserves critical land; it is an investment in outdoor 
recreation economies. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in 
the LWCF is $4 in economic value from natural resource goods and 
services.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from South 
Carolina for bringing forth this amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their commitment 
to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and for joining me in offering 
this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 176 Offered by Mr. Carbajal

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 176 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  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 C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and 
     gas leasing, preleasing, or related activities in the 
     Washington/Oregon, Northern California, Central California, 
     and Southern California Outer Continental Shelf Planning 
     Areas.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, 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. Chair, I am offering an amendment to make it clear 
to the administration that we will not sit idly by as they attempt to 
open up our shores to further oil and gas development. We will not 
allow our treasured natural resources to be sold to Big Oil, and we 
will not put corporate profits above protecting our environment and our 
local coastal economies.
  My amendment would put in place a moratorium on offshore oil and gas 
drilling and related activities in the four planning areas off the 
Pacific Outer Continental Shelf for fiscal year 2020.
  My constituents on the central Coast have seen firsthand the 
devastating impacts of some of the largest oil spills in California 
history, like the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. Most recently, the 2015 
Plains All American oil spill in my district cost $92 million to clean 
up. These incidents show us that we cannot afford yet another 
disastrous oil spill.
  In contrast, California's coastal region generates over $1.9 trillion 
of GDP and supports more than $731 billion in wages.
  Future oil drilling would pose a direct threat to our local 
economies, businesses, and tourism, which are tied to our clean oceans 
and healthy ecosystem.
  Since the 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, there has not been a new 
or expanded lease in California State waters, or one in Federal waters 
since 1984.
  This policy has enjoyed support from both Republican and Democratic 
administrations. Yet this administration today seems tone deaf to this 
reality. Instead, they are asking to hold seven new lease sales in the 
four planning areas off the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf.
  I urge passage of my amendment, which would protect nearly 650,000 
jobs in our region.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Kilmer).
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Carbajal, my good friend, for his 
leadership on this amendment.
  I am proud to cosponsor this amendment which would prohibit future 
oil and gas sales off the West Coast, including my beautiful home State 
of Washington.
  The fact is the people of Washington State don't support drilling off 
our coast. Our commercial and recreational fishermen who generate 
billions in economic impact for our State don't want to see our 
fisheries compromised by another disaster like the 1988 spill which 
released more than 230,000 gallons of oil and affected over 110 miles 
of our coastline.
  The 17 Native American Tribes who have fished throughout the Puget 
Sound watershed since time immemorial don't want to see our coastline 
exposed to these harmful and polluting activities.
  Our shellfish growers, who support roughly 3,200 jobs in our State, 
don't want to see their jobs threatened. They saw how the Deepwater 
Horizon spill devastated Louisiana's coastal economy.

                              {time}  1615

  Coastal towns including Ocean Shores, Westport, Aberdeen, Hoquiam, 
Montesano, Long Beach, and Ilwaco have passed resolutions saying they 
don't want it.
  Even former Department of the Interior Secretary Zinke in his 
testimony before the Appropriations Committee last year admitted that 
the oil and gas industry doesn't want to drill off the coast of 
Washington because there aren't the resources or infrastructure to do 
it.
  He also said, ``I think I'm going to mark down Washington as opposed 
to drilling.''
  Mr. Chair, I believe this body ought to mark Washington State down as 
off-limits to drilling, and this amendment does that.
  This matters to our economy. It matters to our region's identity. The 
survival of the last 76 southern resident orca left in the world 
depends on keeping the Puget Sound protected from the harmful impacts 
of oil and gas development.
  There is a lot at stake here. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
support the will of the residents of the State of Washington and pass 
this amendment.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, we don't need a moratorium off the coast of 
California. We actually need a resurgence in domestic energy 
development offshore.
  I heard from the gentleman that the last oil spill was in 1969. Let's 
see, it is 2019. Fifty years later, technology has been much different.
  While the local demand for oil in California has dropped over the 
last 40 years, foreign dependence has increased from 5 percent to 57 
percent.
  In 2018, California imported 135 million barrels of oil from Saudi 
Arabia alone. According to the national offshore energy industry, 
leasing in the 240 million acres of currently off-limits areas would 
support an additional 165,000 jobs and inject $15 billion in annual 
contributions to the economy.
  There are already 23 active oil platforms in Federal waters adjacent 
to California. Once again, let me repeat, there are 23 active oil 
platforms in Federal waters adjacent to California. These platforms 
produced nearly 17,000 barrels of oil per day in 2016 and

[[Page H4976]]

brought in $32.8 million in total royalties in fiscal year 2016. In a 
State that is importing 57.5 percent of its refined oil from foreign 
nations, it is imperative that we take the opportunity to utilize 
domestic energy supply.
  Once again, let's highlight that: 57.5 percent is from overseas, 
which is much dirtier than what we produce here. If we are concerned 
about climate change and emissions, we ought to be importing less and 
looking at what we actually do.
  Last but not least, I would like to remind everybody that we just had 
a conversation on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is funded 
exclusively by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas. Once again, the 
people who don't want this for their States, maybe they should turn 
down LWCF funding because it seems contradictory to the conversation.
  Once again, I remind my colleagues that Federal waters belong to the 
U.S. people, not the States of California, Florida, South Carolina, or 
Massachusetts. We have a due diligence to look at the management of 
those resources.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chair, clearly, my colleague from Arizona was not 
paying attention. The last oil spill was in 2014.
  Again, I will state that what we need to be doing is weaning 
ourselves off fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy like most 
progressive countries are doing.
  The West Coast, California, and the coast of the 24th Congressional 
District cannot tolerate another oil spill. The benefits of oil 
exploration and development off our coasts do not outweigh the risks. 
We need to keep that in mind. For a Representative from the State of 
Arizona, which is landlocked, which hasn't experienced the perils of 
such oil spills to their economy, their workers, or their jobs, keep 
that in mind.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has 
expired.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, yes, I am landlocked by California, but you 
know the old adage. I am waiting for oceanfront property in Arizona, as 
the song goes.
  Once again, let's take a look at this. When we start talking about 
offshore assets for the Outer Continental Shelf, there is less 
jurisdiction with regard to that versus what we do on-shore. If we are 
giving this type of leverage to States with offshore assets, we ought 
to be giving those States like Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and 
Montana more jurisdictions because the law is better on their side than 
it is with those on offshore.
  Once again, I find it interesting that we have a dichotomy here. We 
are all for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but we are unwilling 
to look at the resources it takes and where they are derived from to 
make sure that that is permanently, in perpetuity, funded.
  Mr. Chair, 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 California (Mr. Carbajal).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
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.


          Amendment No. 187 Offered by Ms. Hill of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 187 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. HILL of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 272, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 267, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 310, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 310, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 314, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Hill) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HILL of California. Mr. Chair, it is hard to overstate the 
devastating effects of lengthening fire seasons across the United 
States, especially in my home State of California.
  I represent three diverse valleys in California's 25th Congressional 
District, across northern Los Angeles and Ventura County, and all of 
them have had significant wildfires and forest fires in the last year.
  In fact, 2018 was the deadliest fire season in California's history. 
According to CAL FIRE and the National Interagency Fire Center, 8,527 
fires burned a total of 1,893,913 acres, the largest area on record.
  Not only are these fires larger and more frequent, but they are also 
hotter and more intense. Soon, the term ``fire tornadoes'' will be a 
phrase that many people are familiar with.
  My own house was evacuated last summer. We had to trailer my horse 
and relocate my goats and dogs to my sister's house. My sister's house 
was evacuated shortly thereafter. Sadly, this is not the first time I 
or my family has had to evacuate. It has practically become a common 
occurrence for people in areas like ours.
  Two days after I found out that I would be coming to Washington to 
represent my community, three people died in the Woolsey fire, part of 
which burned through my district in Simi Valley.
  We have to do more. I am thankful for the opportunity to put forth 
this amendment that provides additional funds for wildland fire 
management and hazardous fuels work. I am offering it to highlight the 
funding that is already in this bill to prepare for, combat, and reduce 
the risk of future catastrophic wildfires and to make sure we do more.
  These funds are critical because when the Forest Service does not 
have enough fire suppression funds, they have to borrow from mitigation 
accounts to pay for fire suppression activities. This fire borrowing 
delays the very activities that improve forest health and reduce 
wildfire risk.
  We cannot simply treat the effects. We have to treat the cause. But 
prevention takes funding, and that is why this bill and this amendment 
are so important.
  For the first time, this bill includes $2.25 billion in fire cap 
adjusted funds. These additional funds ensure that our firefighters 
will have the resources they need to combat wildfires without fire 
borrowing, meaning that we will invest in the prevention solutions that 
we know work.
  However, we will only have the cap adjusted funds for 2 years. We 
must all work together to ensure that any budget agreement includes 
fire cap adjusted funds for future budget years as well. That is how we 
can make lasting change on this front.
  For my community, for California, and for States across the country 
experiencing the devastating effects of wildfires, I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I 
thank the gentlewoman from California for bringing it forward.
  This bill provides substantial funding to prevent and suppress 
wildfires. For the first time, this bill includes $2.25 billion in cap 
adjusted fire suppression funding, for a total of $5.2 billion for 
wildland fire management.
  Forest Service research and development is increased by $10 million 
to advance the understanding of wildland fires and climate adaptation.
  While the administration proposed to eliminate the Joint Fire Science 
Program, this bill includes funding at the fiscal year 2019 enacted 
level of $6 million.
  Hazardous fuels is $27 million more.
  I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that we 
only have the fire cap adjusted funds for 2 years. We must ensure that 
any budget agreement includes the fire cap adjusted funds in future 
budget years. These critical funds will allow the Forest Service to 
fight wildland fires without borrowing from nonfire programs.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's efforts to reduce the risk 
of

[[Page H4977]]

catastrophic wildfires, and I support this amendment.
  Ms. HILL of California. Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hill).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. HILL of California. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 190 Offered by Ms. Schrier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 190 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. SCHRIER. 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 C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize the proposed revised supplemental 
     ``appropriate and necessary'' finding in the proposed rule 
     entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 
     Generating Units--Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and 
     Residual Risk and Technology Review'' published by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on 
     February 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 2670).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Schrier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak on my amendment 
prohibiting funds from being used to undermine the EPA's Mercury and 
Air Toxics Standards, or MATS.
  These regulations have been implemented by the power sector and have 
protected children and communities from mercury, lead, arsenic, and 
other air toxics from power plants for the past 7 years.
  Furthermore, the administration's proposal to jeopardize mercury 
standards isn't even supported by the power industry. They have already 
spent billions to comply, and major power sectors and labor groups have 
asked that the standards be left in place and that the EPA does not 
move forward with its proposal to undermine them.
  Finalized in 2012, the EPA recognized the significant public health 
benefits of MATS. Then, the EPA estimated that MATS would yield up to 
$90 billion in public health benefits each year. Now, MATS is fully 
implemented and has shown to be lifesaving, preventing more than 11,000 
premature deaths every year and 130,000 asthma attacks each year.
  As a pediatrician, I have seen firsthand the impact of air pollution 
on our children. Pregnant women and children are particularly 
vulnerable when they are exposed to heavy metals, which impact the 
central nervous system with potentially devastating effects on neural 
development.
  What we are talking about here is a known public health risk to 
millions of people. We cannot abandon a policy that has already been 
proven to work and save lives. MATS has already been shown to prevent 
premature deaths, adverse effects on pregnant women and children, and 
health problems like asthma.
  It is critical that we protect our children and families from the 
well-documented health risks posed by mercury and heavy metals and 
prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to roll back these 
safeguards.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment from the 
gentlewoman from Washington to block the Trump administration from 
trying to weaken Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants.
  Power plants across the country, as has been pointed out, have 
already complied with the rule. In fact, they have been doing it since 
2012, and it has given huge health benefits.

                              {time}  1630

  The power sector opposes what the Trump EPA is trying to do, unions 
oppose what the Trump EPA is trying to do, and so do States and public 
health communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this amendment 
forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, the EPA's announcement in late December 
intended to revise the cost-benefit findings behind the MATS aspects 
and benefits. The Obama-era EPA's own estimate of the cost implementing 
MATS exceeded its estimate of benefits by 1,233 to 2,400 times, an 
absurdity papered over by the accounting trick of double counting as 
co-benefits reductions in non-mercury emissions as though these 
reductions were already achieved under other regulations.
  The financial costs of this implementation are between $4 to $5 
million annually--no, I am sorry--$9.5 billion annually.
  Once again, the rule hasn't even been put out yet.
  Don't you think we ought to be waiting to find out what the actual 
rule is before we say no go?
  Because we don't even know where it goes.
  We also want to take a look at catastrophic wildfires. Catastrophic 
wildfires are the largest aspect in regard to contaminants into the air 
as we witnessed in hazardous breathing times, particularly in Montana 
and California. So from that standpoint, I urge a ``no'' vote against 
this one because it is premature to actually what the rule is coming 
out.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply request that my opposition, 
my colleague, double check his facts. This is well-documented. This is 
effective. It is cost saving, and the costs have already been paid by 
the energy sector. This is something that they do not even want to see 
rolled back.
  Mr. Chairman, it protects public health. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 194 will not be offered.


 Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendments En Bloc No. 5 Offered 
                            by Ms. McCollum



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

  
  June 20, 2019, on page H4977, the following appeared: VACATING 
DEMAND FOR RECORDED VOTE ON AMENDMENTS EN BLOC OFFERED BY MS. 
MCCOLLUM
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: VACATING DEMAND 
FOR RECORDED VOTE ON AMENDMENTS EN BLOC NO. 5 OFFERED BY MS. 
MCCOLLUM


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


  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the request for 
a recorded vote on amendments en bloc No. 5 offered by the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) be withdrawn to the end that the question 
be put de novo.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendments en bloc.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The request for a recorded vote is withdrawn.
  The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise along with Mr. Joyce to thank our 
staff on both sides of the aisle and also our personal offices for all 
of the work they have done.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H4978]]

  

  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Granger), I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of increasing 
the productivity of our national forestland. Somehow, America is the 
world's number two importer of lumber, and at the same time our forests 
continue to burn at an unprecedented rate. We need to get our forests 
back in working order.
  The majority provided $276 million for forest products, which is an 
increase of $7 million above the enacted level and $4 million below the 
President's budget request.
  My amendment would support job growth and increased timber production 
to support forest health and promote safe communities. This funding is 
critical to support the President's executive order on forest 
management that involves a plan to sell 3.7 billion board feet of 
timber and improve over 1.1 million acres of national forestland to 
mitigate wildfire risk.
  Right now there are 150 million dead trees just in my home State of 
California. If we don't act now to dedicate more resources toward 
timber management, we won't have any forest left to manage. Instead, we 
will be watching them burn, foul the air, and foul our water with ash; 
and in the meantime, we are still importing wood products.
  For example, as a result of the 2018 Carr fire in West Redding, 
California, which burned approximately 230,000 acres and eight people 
lost their lives, we also lost the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area 
encompassing 318 square miles which burned to the ground.
  We need to increase the pace and scale of forest production and 
wildfire mitigation in a way that makes business sense and includes the 
private sector.
  Mr. Chairman, 62 percent of forestlands in my district are federally 
owned. The remaining private forests in my district generate 73,000 
jobs, contribute $4 billion in manufacturing and sales and supports 
$1.7 billion in payroll.
  There should be no reason our Federal forests cannot produce the same 
benefits and results to its employees and community as the private 
sector can.
  Let's focus on protecting public health, creating jobs, enjoying the 
great outdoors by reducing fire risks, and generating economic growth 
to rural communities across the U.S.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the House for passage of my amendment.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
McCollum) having assumed the chair, Mr. Himes, 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. 3055) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, 
Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2020, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________