[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[HO]
[Pages 10538-10601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016


                             General Leave

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on consideration of the H.R. 2822, and 
that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Pursuant to House Resolution 
333 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2822.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1254


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2822) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, 
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2016, and for other purposes, with Mr. Graves of Louisiana in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor H.R. 2822, the 
fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill.
  As we begin, I want to personally thank Chairman Rogers for his 
leadership and support. Under his guidance, the Committee on 
Appropriations is again setting the standard for getting things done in 
the House. The Interior bill is the seventh appropriation bill to come 
to the floor so far this year.
  I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), 
my good friend and ranking member, for her partnership and work on this 
bill.
  Finally, I want to thank each of our subcommittee members for their 
efforts and the collegiality that continues to be the hallmark of our 
subcommittee's deliberations. Even though we may have differences of 
opinion within this bill, I greatly appreciate the Members' 
constructive contribution, and I mean that sincerely.
  The committee has made very difficult choices preparing this bill. As 
reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the fiscal year 2016 
Interior and Environment bill is funded at $30.17 billion, which is 
$246 million below the fiscal year 2015-enacted level and $3 billion 
below the budget request. We have made a sincere effort to prioritize 
needs within our 302(b) allocation. I would like to point out a few of 
the highlights.
  Again, this year, the committee has provided robust wildland fire 
funding. Fire suppression accounts at the Department of the Interior 
and the Forest Service are fully funded at the 10-year average level. 
The hazardous fuels program was increased by $75 million to $526 
million in the fiscal year 2015-enacted bill, and that increase has 
been maintained in this bill.
  This bill also continues critical investments in Indian Country, a 
nonpartisan priority of the committee. Building upon the bipartisan 
work of the former subcommittee chairmen Mike Simpson, Jim Moran, and 
Norm Dicks, this bill continues to make investments in education, 
public safety, and health programs in Indian Country.
  Overall, funding for the Indian Health Service is increased by $145 
million, or 3 percent, while funding for the Bureaus of Indian Affairs 
and Education is increased by $165 million, or 6 percent, from fiscal 
year 2015 levels, the largest percentage increase in this bill.
  This bill provides full funding in fiscal year 2016 for the Payment 
in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT, payments. PILT payments are made to 49 of 
the 50 States as well as to the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
  The bill provides $2.7 billion for the National Park Service, 
including more than $60 million in new funding, relating to the 
centennial of the Park Service.
  We have also addressed a number of priorities within the Fish and 
Wildlife Service accounts. The bill funds popular cost-shared grant 
programs above the fiscal year 2015-enacted levels. It also provides 
additional funds to combat international wildlife trafficking, protects 
fish hatcheries from cuts and closures, continues funding to fight 
invasive species, and reduces the backlog of species that are recovered 
but not yet de-listed.
  The bill provides $248 million for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, programs that enjoy broad support--bipartisan support, for that 
matter. Some Members would prefer more

[[Page 10539]]

funding; others would prefer less for LWCF. We have attempted to forge 
a middle ground that begins to return the emphasis of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund to its original intent of recreation and State 
and local acquisitions.
  Overall, funding for EPA is reduced by $718 million, or 9 percent, 
from fiscal year 2015-enacted levels. Members from the Great Lakes 
region will be pleased to know that the Great Lakes Restoration 
Initiative is maintained at the fiscal year 2015-enacted level of $300 
million. Rural water technical assistance grants and many categorical 
grants, including radon grants, are level funded at the fiscal year 
2015 enacted level.
  Again this year, there is a great deal of concern over the number of 
regulatory actions being pursued by the EPA in the absence of 
legislation and without clear congressional direction. For this reason, 
the bill includes a number of provisions to stop unnecessary and 
damaging regulatory overreach by the Agency.
  Before closing, I would like to address the Endangered Species Act 
provisions in this bill. We have no interest in interfering with 
science or letting any species go extinct, but we are concerned about 
Federal regulatory actions lacking in basic fairness and common sense. 
The provisions in this bill address problems created by an ESA driven 
not by science, but by court orders that drain limited Agency resources 
and force the Department to cut corners to meet arbitrary deadlines. 
Nowhere is this more evident than with the sage-grouse.

                              {time}  1300

  States are rightfully concerned that a listing or unnecessarily 
restrictive Federal land use plans will jeopardize existing 
conservation partnerships with States and private landowners. These 
partnerships are necessary to save both the sagebrush ecosystem and 
local economies.
  So long as sage-grouse are not under imminent threat of extinction, 
cooperative conservation must be given a chance to work. That is why 
this bill maintains a 1-year delay on any decision to list sage-grouse 
along with full funding to implement conservation efforts.
  House consideration of this bill is the next step in a long 
legislative process. I hope over the coming months we will come 
together, as we do each year, to find common ground. In that spirit, I 
look forward to continuing to work with Ms. McCollum and the Members of 
the House on both sides of the aisle.
  In closing, I want to thank the staff on both sides for their hard 
work on this bill. On the minority side, I would like to thank Rick 
Healy, Rita Culp, Joe Carlile, as well as Rebecca Taylor. They have 
played an integral role in the process, and their efforts are very much 
appreciated.
  On the majority side, I would like to thank subcommittee staff 
Kristin Richmond, Jackie Kilroy, Betsy Bina, Jason Gray, Darren 
Benjamin, and Dave LesStrang. I would also like to thank Ian Foley, 
Rebecca Keightley, Alexandra Berenter, and Tricia Evans on my personal 
staff for their great work.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It deserves the support of the 
Members of this body. 

[[Page 10540]]





[[Page 10541]]



[[Page 10542]]



[[Page 10543]]



[[Page 10544]]



[[Page 10545]]



[[Page 10546]]



[[Page 10547]]



[[Page 10548]]



[[Page 10549]]



[[Page 10550]]



[[Page 10551]]



[[Page 10552]]



[[Page 10553]]



[[Page 10554]]



[[Page 10555]]



[[Page 10556]]



[[Page 10557]]



[[Page 10558]]



[[Page 10559]]



[[Page 10560]]



[[Page 10561]]



[[Page 10562]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I would like to acknowledge and thank Ranking Member Lowey for 
her support and her mentorship as I start working on this very first 
appropriations bill on the House floor.
  I would like to thank my subcommittee chairman, Ken Calvert, for the 
effort he has put into this bill. I appreciate that even as Chairman 
Calvert grappled with an inadequate funding allocation, he carried out 
his work in an open and thoughtful manner. The chairman is to be 
commended for his diligence in holding 14 budget hearings, where we 
received testimony from nearly 150 witnesses.
  Let me also, along with the chairman, express my appreciation to the 
subcommittee staff on the minority and majority sides for their hard 
work during another difficult budget year.
  Unfortunately, the inadequate 302(b) allocation given to the 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations sets this 
bill up for failure. The majority's refusal to adopt a sufficient 
overall budget allocation for discretionary appropriations has led to a 
bill that severely underfunds investments and protections that are 
priorities for the American people.
  The subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for FY 2016 is $246 million 
below the current year's enacted level. When added to the cuts of the 
past 5 years, this bill is more than $2 billion below the FY 2010 
enacted level. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, this bill invests 
less than what was appropriated in 2005.
  But it gets worse. The rising emergency costs of combating wildland 
fires, court-ordered Native American contract support costs, and the 
majority's decision to abandon mandatory funding for the Payment in 
Lieu of Taxes program, otherwise known as PILT, means the remaining 
funding available for other critical public programs is far below the 
FY 2015 enacted.
  PILT has been mandatory spending in the past, and almost 2,000 
counties use this compensation for lost tax revenue to provide vital 
services. PILT should not be in this discretionary bill. It should be 
returned to mandatory spending.
  The courts have ruled that Congress must pay full contract support 
costs to tribal nations. Contract support costs are true mandatory 
spending, and they should not be in this discretionary bill.
  Catastrophic wildland fires are natural disasters and, just as any 
other natural disaster, they should be treated as such emergency 
spending. Catastrophic wildland fires should not be subject to 
discretionary spending caps in this bill.
  Together, spending on these three activities consumes $5.4 billion, 
or 18 percent of the bill's budget allocation. It is time for the 
authorizing committees to stop ignoring this problem and responsibly 
address what are truly mandatory costs, because these costs are burning 
through our budget allocation.
  So what does that mean for the rest of the programs funded by H.R. 
2822? After years of cuts and flat funding, it means we are going 
backwards and undermining efforts to preserve America's natural and 
cultural heritage, failing to meet our commitments to the social and 
economic well-being of Native Americans, and causing real and lasting 
harm to the environment.
  We received compelling testimony this year on the unmet needs in 
Indian Country, especially in the areas of education and health. Yet 
this bill's inadequate allocation means that many Native American 
programs receive far less funding than what the President requested and 
what Native Americans indeed deserve.
  This is unfortunate because, as the chairman pointed out, he and I 
share a deep bipartisan commitment to bettering the lives of Native 
Americans and to uphold our Federal trust and treaty obligations.
  Last year, attendance at our national parks was at a record high. 
With the upcoming centennial of the National Park Service in 2016, 
visitation is expected to increase. But what will visitors find when 
they come to the centennial celebration?
  Without additional funding, they will find historic hotels in 
Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks that have serious health, 
safety, and accessibility issues. They will find closed facilities at 
Yosemite due to 70-year-old sewer lines that are failing. And under the 
Republican spending plan, what visitors will not find are the hundreds 
of seasonal rangers that the Park Service needs to hire to restore 
staffing capacity to 2010 levels.
  Under H.R. 2822, less than 16 percent of the funds requested for the 
National Park Service's centennial are provided. By underfunding the 
Centennial Challenge, this bill misses the opportunity to allow the 
American public to support their parks through matching donations.
  The National Park's Civil Rights initiative fares only slightly 
better, with just 19 percent of the request funded. It is our 
responsibility to act now to preserve the stories and monuments of the 
civil rights movement.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is cut by more than 25 percent 
below the FY 2015-enacted level, continuing the pattern of 
shortchanging conservation.
  Wildlife programs are underfunded as well, with cuts or flat funding 
to programs that assist in the recovery of species or help to prevent 
their listing in the first place. Funding decisions such as these set 
up the Endangered Species Act to fail.
  However, the most significant and devastating cuts are again targeted 
at the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill cuts the EPA by $718 
million from the FY 2015-enacted level, a 9 percent cut. This is on top 
of the nearly 20 percent cut the Agency has received over the past 4 
years.
  The air every American breathes and the water every American family 
drinks are all at risk by the funding cuts and policy attacks in this 
bill. When the majority says it wants to rein in the EPA, what they are 
really doing is denying the protection of our air and water.
  The consequences of abandoning public health and environmental 
protection will be negatively felt in communities across this Nation. 
Why? Because this bill cuts the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water 
Revolving Funds by more than half a billion dollars. The revolving 
funds are part of a partnership with our communities to build and 
repair infrastructure that protects America's drinking water and 
prevents sewage from contaminating our water. And when we invest in 
these water systems, we are also creating jobs in communities all 
across the country.
  Earlier this month, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior 
released their latest summer fire forecast, which showed that fire 
costs are likely to exceed FY 2015-enacted levels by nearly $300 
million.
  Wildland fires burn up 12 percent, or $3.9 billion, of the bill's 
allocation. And without some relief, these numbers will only continue 
to grow.
  In just the past 3 years, we have had to make up a total of a 
billion-dollar shortfall that forced agencies to borrow funds from 
other accounts to pay for fire costs. We know the answer to this 
problem. Many of us are cosponsors of Mr. Simpson's bill, H.R. 167, to 
treat a portion of these wildfire costs as they are--disasters.
  Yet as problematic as the funding decisions in this bill are, what is 
even more troubling are the more than two dozen problem legislative 
riders and funding limitations contained in the bill, with seven of 
these being new this year.
  These provisions do not belong in the bill. These are proposals that 
should be moved through the authorizing committee, where open, 
transparent, and thoughtful debate can take place.
  The riders the majority have hung on this bill undermine our Nation's 
bedrock environmental laws, endanger public health and safety, and deny 
the impact that climate change is having on our planet.
  Several of these riders would require that Agency scientists and 
procedures be ignored, saying that they ``can't be trusted.'' Yet other 
provisions would overturn Federal court decisions and limit judicial 
review.

[[Page 10563]]

  As lawmakers, we create the legislation that guides our Nation, but 
my colleagues in the majority seem to need a reminder that we are only 
one of three branches of government. Clearly, we are the most important 
branch. But the other two branches have jobs to do as well.
  For a majority that complains about the Federal rulemaking process, 
it is surprising to see that the bill contains directives that certain 
Federal rules be issued. It would appear that the majority is okay with 
Federal rulemaking, but only as long as the rules are the ones they 
want.
  With the inadequate funding and special interest provisions, I share 
the administration's concerns about this bill. I will submit the 
Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2822, which is eight pages 
and includes a veto threat.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


    H.R. 2822--Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
                   Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

                          (Rep. Rogers, R-KY)

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     2822, making appropriations for the Department of the 
     Interior, Environment, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes. The 
     bill drastically underfunds core Department of the Interior 
     programs as well as the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     operating budget, which supports nationwide protection of 
     human health and our vital air, water and land resources. 
     Funding levels in the bill would prevent investments that 
     reduce future costs to taxpayers by facilitating increased 
     energy development and maintaining facilities and 
     infrastructure in national parks, refuges, forests, public 
     lands, and Indian Country. They would make it harder for 
     States and businesses to plan and execute changes that would 
     decrease carbon pollution and address the challenges the 
     Nation faces from climate change. They would also reduce 
     support for partnerships and effective collaboration with 
     States, local governments and private entities on efforts to 
     restore and conserve natural resources. Further, the bill 
     includes numerous highly problematic ideological provisions 
     that have no place in funding legislation. These provisions 
     threaten to undermine the ability of States and communities 
     to address climate change and protect a resource that is 
     essential to America's health--clean water, as well as the 
     most basic protections for America's special places and the 
     people and wildlife that rely on them. If the President were 
     presented with H.R. 2822, his senior advisors would recommend 
     that he veto the bill.
       Enacting H.R. 2822 and adhering to the congressional 
     Republican budget's overall spending limits for fiscal year 
     (FY) 2016 would hurt our economy and shortchange investments 
     in middle-class priorities. Sequestration was never intended 
     to take effect: rather, it was supposed to threaten such 
     drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense funding that 
     policymakers would be motivated to come to the table and 
     reduce the deficit through smart, balanced reforms. The 
     Republican framework would bring base discretionary funding 
     for both non-defense and defense for FY 2016 to the lowest 
     real levels in a decade. Compared to the President's Budget, 
     the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the Nation's 
     most vulnerable children losing access to Head Start, 
     millions fewer workers receiving job training and employment 
     services, and drastic cuts to research awards and grants, 
     along with other impacts that would hurt the economy, the 
     middle class, and Americans working hard to reach the middle 
     class.
       Sequestration funding levels would also put our national 
     security at unnecessary risk, not only through pressures on 
     defense spending, but also through pressures on State, USAID, 
     Homeland Security, and other non-defense programs that help 
     keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our economy and 
     the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the 
     President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in 
     sequestration going forward, nor will he accept fixes to 
     defense without also fixing non-defense.
       The President's senior advisors would recommend that he 
     veto H.R. 2822 and any other legislation that implements the 
     current Republican budget framework, which blocks the 
     investments needed for our economy to compete in the future. 
     The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress 
     to reverse sequestration for defense and non-defense 
     priorities and offset the cost with commonsense spending and 
     tax expenditure cuts, as Members of Congress from both 
     parties have urged.
       The Administration would like to take this opportunity to 
     share additional views regarding the Committee's version of 
     the bill.


                 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

       EPA Operating Budget. The Administration disagrees strongly 
     with the bill's reduction to EPA's operating budget by $474 
     million, or 13 percent, compared to the FY 2016 Budget 
     request. This reduced level of funding would significantly 
     undermine implementation of the Clean Power Plan and the 
     recently finalized Clean Water Rule. The Clean Power Plan is 
     a flexible and practical approach to addressing the risks of 
     climate change by reducing carbon pollution from the electric 
     power sector, the largest source of carbon pollution in the 
     United States. Climate change is not only an environmental 
     challenge, it is also an economic, public health, and 
     national security challenge. Unabated climate change is 
     projected to hamper economic growth in the United States and 
     put the health and well-being of the Nation at risk from 
     extreme weather events, wildland fire, poor air quality, and 
     illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease carriers 
     such as mosquitos and ticks. Failing to address climate 
     change would also exacerbate poverty and contribute to 
     environmental degradation in developing countries, 
     potentially resulting in resource shortages, political 
     instability, and conflict. Meanwhile, the bill also reduces 
     funding to implement the recently finalized Clean Water Rule 
     that would ensure waters protected under the Clean Water Act 
     are more precisely defined and predictably determined. By 
     delaying implementation of this rule, business and industry 
     face a more costly, difficult, and slower permitting process.
       State Categorical Grants. The Administration opposes the 
     $118 million reduction to State and Tribal Categorical grants 
     compared to the FY 2016 Budget request. Often, States and 
     Tribes implement environmental programs through delegated 
     authorities. However, the bill reduces these grants to States 
     and Tribes to carry out activities such as water quality 
     permitting, air monitoring, and hazardous waste management 
     programs. In addition, the bill reduces funding for 
     brownfields projects by $35 million, or 32 percent, from the 
     FY 2016 Budget request. This reduced level of funding 
     severely limits opportunities for local communities to 
     revitalize their contaminated lands to improve environmental 
     quality and spark economic redevelopment.
       State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Administration objects to 
     the funding levels provided for EPA's Clean Water and 
     Drinking Water SRFs. The bill reduces SRF funding by a 
     combined $527 million from the FY 2016 Budget request, 
     reducing necessary support to help communities finance water 
     infrastructure improvements, resulting in approximately 200 
     fewer projects being funded nationally.
       Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Limits for Power Plants. The 
     Administration strongly objects to section 428 of the bill, 
     which would prohibit the use of funds to propose, finalize, 
     implement or enforce carbon pollution standards for fossil 
     fuel-fired electric generating units that are the largest 
     source of carbon pollution in the United States. The bill 
     seeks to derail Administration efforts to address under 
     section 111 of the Clean Air Act the urgent economic, public 
     health, and national security impacts of unabated climate 
     change. Failure to reduce the utility sector's carbon 
     footprint places the Nation at risk from extreme weather 
     events, wildland fire, poor air quality, global instability, 
     accelerated environmental degradation, and illnesses 
     transmitted by food, water, and disease carriers such as 
     mosquitos and ticks.
       Clean Water Act (CWA). The Administration believes that the 
     CWA provisions in the bill undermine efforts to protect 
     America's clean water resources, which are critical to 
     American families and businesses. The Administration strongly 
     objects to section 422 of the bill in particular, which would 
     disrupt the Administration's current efforts to clarify the 
     scope of CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts, and create 
     significant ambiguity regarding existing regulations and 
     guidance.
       Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The Administration regards the 
     SCC as an essential component of the environmental rulemaking 
     process and opposes the Congress' interference with the 
     Interagency Working Group's (IWG) development of the SCC. The 
     Administration strongly objects to section 437 of the bill, 
     which would force the IWG to revise the SCC using only the 
     discount rates and ``domestic'' SCC values stated in 
     Executive Order 12866 and Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-4. This revision would ignore the trans-boundary 
     movement of carbon, fail to capture key costs of carbon 
     emissions, and disrupt dozens of upcoming rules that would 
     use the SCC to monetize carbon reduction benefits.
       Limitations on Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 
     Program under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Administration 
     objects to section 435 of the bill, which would block the 
     finalization, implementation, and enforcement of a rule to 
     prohibit certain uses of climate super-pollutants known as 
     hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Domestic action to reduce use of 
     HFCs is consistent with U.S. advocacy for addressing HFCs on 
     a global basis, such as through an amendment to the Montreal 
     Protocol.
       National Ocean Policy. The Administration objects to 
     section 425 of the bill, which prohibits any funding provided 
     in the bill from being used to implement the marine planning 
     components of the National Ocean Policy. This provision would 
     prohibit the Department of the Interior (DOI) and EPA from

[[Page 10564]]

     participating in marine and coastal planning efforts, a 
     process to better determine how the ocean, the Nation's 
     coasts, and the Great Lakes are managed in an efficient 
     manner.
       Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) Financial Assurance. The 
     Administration objects to section 427 of the bill, which 
     prohibits the use of funds to develop, propose, finalize, and 
     implement financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA 
     108(b). On May 19, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit ordered EPA to develop an 
     expedited schedule for financial responsibility rules for the 
     hardrock mining industry and for three other industries. This 
     provision would severely limit EPA's ability to develop these 
     rules in a timely manner and abrogates EPA's responsibilities 
     laid out in CERCLA 108(b).
       Classification of Forest Biomass Fuels as Carbon-Neutral. 
     The Administration objects to the bill's representation of 
     forest biomass as categorically ``carbon-neutral.'' This 
     language conflicts with existing EPA policies on biogenic 
     CO2 and interferes with the position of States 
     that do not apply the same policies to forest biomass as 
     other renewable fuels like solar or wind. This language 
     stands in contradiction to a wide-ranging consensus on 
     policies and best available science from EPA's own 
     independent Science Advisory Board, numerous technical 
     studies, many States, and various other stakeholders.
       e-Manifest. The Administration objects to the elimination 
     of funding for e-Manifest development, EPA's system for 
     electronically tracking the transport of hazardous waste. 
     While the Administration acknowledges the concern about the 
     pace of development of the e-Manifest, eliminating the 
     requested $7 million in funding at this time would jeopardize 
     EPA's ongoing progress to develop the system and begin 
     operations in the coming years.
       Lead Test Kits. The Administration objects to section 426 
     of the bill that would disrupt EPA's current activities under 
     the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule until EPA 
     approves a commercially available ``improved'' lead paint 
     test kit. This provision would undermine EPA's efforts to 
     protect sensitive populations from exposure to lead, a known 
     toxin to children and developing fetuses, during home 
     renovation projects.


                    Department of the Interior (DOI)

       Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Topline. The Administration 
     opposes the $159 million, or 5 percent, reduction to BIA as 
     compared to the FY 2016 Budget request. This funding level 
     would limit DOI's ability to make key investments in 
     education and wrap-around services to support Native youth, 
     eliminating all increases to post-secondary scholarships and 
     $10 million for education program enhancement funds to allow 
     Bureau of Indian Education to drive school improvement and 
     reforms. The bill reduces funding for initiatives aimed at 
     supporting tribal self-determination through the creation of 
     a one-stop portal to facilitate access to Federal resources 
     and funding to address data gaps in Indian Country, and the 
     creation of an Office of Indian Affairs Policy, Program 
     Evaluation, and Data to support effective, data-driven, 
     tribal policy making and program implementation. In addition, 
     this bill eliminates all increases to natural resources 
     management on tribal lands, including funds to help tribal 
     communities prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate 
     change.
       National Park Service (NPS) Centennial. The Administration 
     opposes funding levels provided for the NPS Centennial. The 
     bill fails to provide adequate funding to prepare for the 
     Centennial in 2016, resulting in the delay of roughly 70 
     percent of line-item park construction projects and 36 
     percent of repair and rehabilitation projects, and forgoes 
     millions in matching private donations. The bill also fails 
     to provide funding for engaging youth and cultivating the 
     next generation of conservation-minded individuals, including 
     funding for transportation assistance to students from Title 
     I schools.
       Onshore Inspection Fees. The bill does not include a 
     proposal in the FY 2016 Budget request to institute a new 
     onshore oil and gas inspection fee program. The proposal, 
     which is similar to the program already in place for offshore 
     operations, would cover the cost of inspection activities and 
     reduce the net cost to taxpayers of operating the Bureau of 
     Land Management's (BLM) oil and gas program. Failure to adopt 
     the new fees and associated funding would hamper the BLM's 
     ability to protect human safety, conserve energy resources, 
     facilitate the proper reporting of oil and gas production, 
     and ensure environmental requirements are being followed in 
     all phases of development.
       State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. The Administration 
     opposes the 15 percent reduction to State and Tribal Wildlife 
     Grants compared to the FY 2016 Budget request. This important 
     program allows States and Tribes, key partners in 
     conservation, to strategically protect wildlife and conserve 
     habitat in a way that complements Federal investments and 
     yields better results for the public.
       Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). The bill provides $452 
     million for PILT, which the Administration has proposed to 
     fund through a separate mandatory appropriation in line with 
     its previous congressional enactment. While the 
     Administration appreciates the Committee's support for PILT, 
     inclusion of these funds in the bill comes at the expense of 
     all other programs funded by the bill.
       Carcieri Land into Trust. The bill fails to include the 
     provision in the FY 2016 Budget request to clarify and 
     reaffirm the Secretary of the Interior's authority to acquire 
     land in trust under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). In 
     Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 397 (2009), the Supreme Court 
     held that the Secretary could acquire land in trust under the 
     IRA only for tribes that were ``under Federal jurisdiction'' 
     in 1934. A legislative solution would help achieve the goals 
     of the IRA and tribal self-determination by clarifying that 
     DOI's authority under the law applies to all tribes, whether 
     recognized in 1934 or after. Such legislation would be 
     consistent with the longstanding policy of assisting Tribes 
     in establishing and protecting a land base sufficient to 
     allow them to provide for the health, welfare, and safety of 
     tribal members, and in treating all tribes equally for 
     purposes of setting aside lands for tribal communities.
       Hydraulic Fracturing: Section 439 of the bill would block 
     DOI from implementing, administering or enforcing the Bureau 
     of Land Management's recently-finalized Hydraulic Fracturing 
     rule. This would leave the agency reliant on 30-year old 
     requirements and prevent it from taking key steps to improve 
     the safety of oil and gas drilling activities and improve 
     opportunities for BLM to coordinate standards and processes 
     with States and Tribes to reduce administrative costs and 
     improve efficiency.
       Stream Buffer Regulation. Section 423 would prohibit DOI's 
     Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement from 
     updating 30-year-old stream protection regulations to reflect 
     modern science and technology and better protect people and 
     the environment, provide industry more certainty, and address 
     recent court decisions.
       Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting. Sections 421 
     and 424 would substantially impair the enforcement of a 
     longstanding ban on the use of lead ammunition in the hunting 
     of migratory waterfowl, and would complicate in other ways 
     the overall implementation of hunting, fishing, and 
     recreational shooting on public lands.
       Wildlife Trafficking. Section 120 would interfere with 
     ongoing Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) actions to combat 
     wildlife trafficking, curb the poaching of African Elephants, 
     and restrict trade in ivory, which would impair U.S. 
     leadership in the global fight against ivory poaching.
       Endangered Species Act Restrictions. Sections 117, 121, and 
     122 of the bill undercut the Endangered Species Act by 
     limiting the ability of the FWS to properly protect, based on 
     the best available science, a number of species, including 
     the greater sage grouse, northern long-eared bat, and certain 
     gray wolf populations. Language provisions, like those 
     affecting the sage grouse, would only create additional 
     uncertainty and undermine unprecedented efforts to conserve 
     the sagebrush landscape and the Western way of life.
       Federal Acknowledgement of American Indian Tribes. Language 
     under the heading ``Bureau of Indian Affairs, Administrative 
     Provisions'' in the bill would block DOI from finalizing, 
     implementing, administering, or enforcing the 
     Administration's proposed Federal acknowledgment rule, 
     preventing DOI's effort to improve the regulations governing 
     the process and criteria by which the Secretary of the 
     Interior acknowledges an Indian Tribe.


        DOI and Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service

       Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The Administration 
     objects to the drastic reduction of $152 million, or 38 
     percent, to the requested discretionary funding for DOI and 
     USDA LWCF programs. LWCF is a cornerstone of Federal 
     conservation and recreation preservation efforts. This 
     funding level would severely impede agency capacity to 
     further protect our Nation's natural heritage. To date, the 
     LWCF has contributed to the protection of key public lands, 
     such as Rocky Mountain National Park, Mount Rainier National 
     Park, and portions of the Appalachian Trail, among others, as 
     well as State and local recreation projects and important 
     cultural heritage sites.
       Wildland Fire Suppression. The Administration's cap 
     adjustment for wildfire suppression was not included in this 
     bill. Continued inaction on this proposal, which has 
     bipartisan support, would increase the likelihood of 
     disruptive funding transfers for suppression and away from 
     the very restoration and fire risk reduction programs that 
     are meant to restore landscapes and reduce suppression costs 
     and restore landscapes.
       Land Management Operations. The Administration opposes the 
     $502 million, or 8 percent, reduction to operational funding 
     to land management agencies, relative to the FY 2016 Budget 
     request. This reduction would undermine support for the 
     provision of basic public and business services that support 
     the long-term health and resilience of national parks, 
     forests, refuges, and other public lands.
       Water Rights on Federal Land. Section 434 prohibits 
     agencies from conditioning land use authorizations on the 
     transfer, relinquishment, or impairment of a water right,

[[Page 10565]]

     or on the acquisition of a water right in the name of the 
     United States. This language is unnecessary for its intended 
     purpose, and would preclude land management agencies from 
     protecting the public interest. The provision would eliminate 
     the ability of land management agencies to maintain 
     sufficient water for other congressionally-designated 
     purposes and ensure water rights are tied to the activities 
     for which they were developed. These restrictions would also 
     hamper cooperative work with land users to improve land 
     conditions, such as range improvements, or conduct habitat 
     mitigation activities as part of land use agreements.


            Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service

       Land Management Improvements. The bill provides $357 
     million for capital improvement and maintenance of the 
     national forest system, a 5 percent increase from the FY 2016 
     Budget request. While the Administration supports the capital 
     improvement and maintenance of the Nation's public forests in 
     order to increase its health, resilience, and accessibility, 
     the increase in this bill comes at the expense of other 
     needed priorities.


                Department of Health and Human Services

       Indian Health Service (IHS) Topline. The Administration 
     strongly opposes the reduction to funding for Native American 
     health care programs and facilities of the Indian Health 
     Service (IHS) by $300 million, or 6 percent, below the FY 
     2016 Budget request. This would result in inadequate funding 
     for the provision of health care to a population that is 
     sicker and poorer compared to national averages. For example, 
     compared to the FY 2016 Budget request, the bill reduces 
     funding by nearly $50 million for Purchased and Referred 
     Care, a program that supports health care not available in 
     IHS and tribal facilities, which would exacerbate existing 
     levels of denied care and waiting lists for services.
       Contract Support Costs. The Administration objects to the 
     limitation in funding for tribal Contract Support Costs (CSC) 
     for BIA and IHS. Specifically, the bill would limit funding 
     for CSC that could perpetuate the funding issues described in 
     the Supreme Court's Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter decision. 
     The Congress should pursue a long-term solution for CSC 
     appropriations, providing an increase in funding in FY 2016 
     as part of a transition to a new three-year mandatory funding 
     stream in FY 2017, as proposed in the President's Budget.


                            Other Provisions

       Smithsonian Institution. The bill reduces funding for the 
     Smithsonian Institution by $116 million, or 12 percent, below 
     the FY 2016 Budget request--a reduction that can be expected 
     to reduce public access to the Smithsonian as well as 
     increase safety concerns through delays in planned 
     renovations. With over 30 million visits to Smithsonian 
     facilities recorded in 2014, it is important to ensure the 
     museums, galleries, National Zoological Park, and nine 
     research facilities that make up the world's largest museum 
     and research complex remain open, maintained, and available 
     to the generations of Americans who make use of this unique 
     institution each year. Specifically, the bill reductions 
     would delay renovation for the National Air and Space Museum, 
     where the museum has had to establish temporary covered 
     walkways to protect the public from potential falling debris 
     from its facade, and would reduce operating hours for the 
     museums, including the new National Museum of African 
     American History and Culture.
       Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA 
     Act). The Administration urges the Congress to fully fund the 
     FY 2016 Budget requests for DOI and EPA to implement the DATA 
     Act. This funding would support efforts to provide more 
     transparent Federal spending data, such as updating 
     information technology systems, changing business processes, 
     and employing a uniform procurement instrument identifier.
       U.S. Digital Service Team. The Administration urges the 
     Congress to fully fund the FY 2016 Budget requests for DOI 
     and EPA to develop U.S. Digital Service teams. This funding 
     would support managing the agency's digital services that 
     have the greatest impact to citizens and businesses.


                        Constitutional Concerns

       Several provisions in the bill raise separation of powers 
     concerns.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the 
     Congress as the FY 2016 appropriations process moves forward.

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our constituents to be good 
stewards of the environment, to be protectors of public health, and to 
be defenders of the public good. We can do better than what this bill 
offers. H.R. 2822 falls short of our responsibilities to present and 
future generations. As such, I cannot support the bill in its current 
form.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the full 
committee chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2016 Department of 
the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. This is the eighth of 
the 12 individual bills that have made it to the floor. That is a 
record pace, by the way. It is the fastest that these bills have come 
before the House since at least 1974, when the Budget Control Act came 
into being.
  This bill, as the chairman said, provides just over $30 billion in 
discretionary funding for programs that preserve and nurture our 
Nation's unique natural and cultural heritage. This fulfills our 
responsibility to the American taxpayers to provide funding for these 
important programs within a smart and sustainable budget.
  Our responsibility to the American taxpayers, of course, doesn't end 
there. The people of this Nation expect their government to act in a 
way that fosters economic development and job creation. This current 
administration has been neglecting that duty, instead choosing to push 
a regulatory agenda that would create an environment hostile to 
economic growth, that would put our energy independence at risk, and 
that could cost thousands of hard-working Americans their jobs.
  So this bill takes important steps to stop this harmful executive 
overreach. First and foremost, we limit funding for the Environmental 
Protection Agency, cutting its funding by 9 percent from last year.
  The bill also prohibits the EPA from implementing a litany of its 
egregious, expensive regulations, including applying new greenhouse gas 
regulations for power plants, updating existing ozone regulations, and 
changing the definitions of ``navigable waters'' and ``fill material,'' 
all of which could spell disaster for our economy.

                              {time}  1315

  The bill also prevents the Bureau of Land Management from hampering 
economic growth by halting increases in oil and gas inspection fees and 
from burdening ranchers with higher grazing fees.
  Provisions like these will help get the government out of the way of 
growth, preventing the overregulation and overtaxation of American 
business and industry, and keeping down manufacturing costs and utility 
bills for families across the country.
  In addition, the bill also focuses funding on other important 
Department of the Interior related programs. For instance, the bill 
creates a new $30 million program to help accelerate the reclamation of 
abandoned mine lands, boosting local community redevelopment.
  The bill also fulfills our moral and legal obligations to American 
Indians and Alaska Natives, increasing funding for programs that will 
help improve education systems, health facilities, and other 
infrastructure.
  The bill prioritizes the prevention of and preparation for wildland 
fires, increasing funding for these programs billwide by $52 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a fine appropriations bill that we have before 
us today. I want to commend Chairman Calvert for his good work on this 
bill. He, the ranking member, and the subcommittee have done a thorough 
job on the bill, and I am proud to support it. I also want to thank the 
staff for their work to bring this bill to the floor today.
  This is the maiden voyage, Mr. Chairman, of this cardinal, this new 
chairman, the new chairman of this subcommittee. This is his first 
bill, and it is a good one. I want to salute him and his staff for 
doing a great job in putting together a bill that was tough to put 
together. Congratulations to you.
  Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to recognize 
one of my staff members, Mike Robinson, who will be moving on to 
greener pastures next week.
  Mike started working for me nearly 20 years ago and has had several 
tenures in my personal office. Four years ago, he joined the 
Appropriations Committee, the front office, as coalitions and Member 
services director.

[[Page 10566]]

  Many of our colleagues have gotten a chance to know Mike over these 
past 4 years. He has answered your questions. He has helped you offer 
amendments. He has helped guide dozens of appropriations bills to 
passage. He has been an integral part of the staff over these years, 
and we will miss him greatly when he departs.
  Thank you, Mike, for all of your hard work. We are very grateful to 
you.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriations bill that puts our Nation's 
economy first. It preserves the role of the Federal Government, making 
sure the government is doing its job well, not in a way that intrudes 
into the lives of American businesses or the American people, but in a 
way that encourages our economy to grow and thrive, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Calvert; 
Chairman Rogers; as well as my good friend Betty McCollum, who is doing 
an outstanding job in her first year as ranking member of the 
subcommittee; and all the hard-working staff on both sides of the 
aisle.
  However, while I appreciate the chairman's willingness to accommodate 
some Democratic priorities, this is the latest in a series of bills 
that drastically shortchanges job-creating investments and vital 
environmental protections, while carrying a wish list of special 
interest giveaways that hurt hard-working American families' health and 
safety.
  The President proposed to end sequestration through more reasonable 
and realistic budgeting 4 months ago, but Republicans have yet to 
engage on finding a workable solution. How much longer do we have to 
play this charade, the Republican shutdown strategy, before the House 
considers bills that could be enacted?
  Refusing to adopt a sufficient overall allocation for discretionary 
investments has led to a bill that severely underfunds far too many 
priorities.
  The EPA would be slashed $1.17 billion below the President's request, 
$718 million below the 2015 enacted level. Such a draconian cut would 
take EPA investments back to 1997 levels.
  Capital programs are dramatically underfunded, with Indian Health 
facilities receiving $173 million less than the President's request.
  Over half a billion dollars in cuts to the State revolving funds 
endanger our Nation's water infrastructure, cutting 32,000 construction 
jobs on 207 projects, risking public health with fewer water and 
drinking water projects.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which conserves irreplaceable 
lands and improves outdoor recreation opportunities, would be cut by 30 
percent below the current level.
  Unsurprisingly, the majority seeks to dismantle critical 
environmental protections in the bill that are supposed to advance 
environmental initiatives.
  In a demonstration of solidarity with climate change deniers and the 
coal industry, the majority would prevent the administration from 
advancing new rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  Despite the fact that it harmonizes existing activities to protect 
the environment, 2.8 million ocean industry jobs, $282 billion in GDP 
generated by ocean industries in coastal States, the National Ocean 
Policy's implementation would be blocked.
  Once again, the majority has waged war on the Endangered Species Act, 
placing politics above science and jeopardizing the protection of 
precious species, including wolves.
  Instead of allowing the United States to lead the world to end the 
trade of ivory, the Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts would be rolled 
back.
  Given the number of unnecessary riders, it is particularly 
disappointing that the majority didn't include our colleague, Mr. 
Simpson's wildfire bill, an excellent proposal that would improve our 
ability to prepare for and respond to disasters.
  Democrats are more than willing to find a balanced and fiscally 
responsible way to lift the sequester that is strangling our 
investments in America's future and invest in a stronger defense, 
better infrastructure, and bigger paycheck for America's hard-working 
families.
  I hope that, as we move forward, this bill makes those investments 
and sheds unnecessary policy changes. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this misguided bill.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), our new hard-working 
member.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my 
appreciation to your hard work and to the ranking member, to your 
staff, and all who have worked so hard on this legislation.
  This bill is notable for what it funds and what it doesn't fund.
  West Virginians, we love our clean water. We love clean air. We love 
our mountains and our forests and our rivers.
  What West Virginians do not love is this President's war on coal. 
This week, petitions from 26,000 West Virginians were delivered to my 
office asking the President to stop the war on coal. West Virginia's 
jobs and our citizens' livelihoods are on the line. The President has 
requested hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on new regulations, 
programs, and an army of lawyers to defend his illegal regulatory 
overreach.
  Our State has lost 7,000 coal jobs in just the last 3 years of this 
administration. Today, we say ``no'' to funding the war on coal, ``no'' 
to regulatory overreach. We do cut the EPA's budget by more than $1 
billion from what was requested. We halt harmful, job-killing rules on 
new and existing coal-fired power plants.
  We say no to changing the definition of navigable waters and fill 
material, no to imposing ozone regulations that are simply 
unachievable, and no to imposing the stream buffer zone rule.
  The Administrator of the EPA even refused to come to West Virginia to 
talk to our communities and hard-working coal miners, but instead, when 
she refused, I brought coal miners to the Appropriations Committee to 
tell their story, and it was a powerful story.
  Today, I am here with 26,000 other voices to make sure they are heard 
here at the Capitol.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. Thank you for the hard 
work.
  I would appreciate a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Kilmer), a member of the subcommittee who is very 
valued.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the 
subcommittee chairman, my friend from California, and the ranking 
member, my friend from Minnesota, for the hard work that they have put 
into today's bill.
  As a new member of the committee, I have gotten to see firsthand the 
enormous amount of work that went into the product that we have before 
us today, and it is, frankly, a testament to the hard work of the 
Appropriations Committee staff that we have been able to get to this 
point.
  I want to begin by expressing support for a number of really 
important provisions in the bill that I think are critical points of 
progress. In a very tough budget environment, this bill boosts funding 
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, 
increasing the Federal commitment to addressing the needs of Indian 
Country.
  Coming from timber country, I can say that there is also a very 
strong effort here to ensure that the Forest Service can responsibly 
increase harvest levels on our national forests, as well as supporting 
new tools, such as collaboratives, that have the potential to bring 
folks together in a way that reduces the litigation risk surrounding 
these projects.
  Of course, I would love for us to be able include in this bill Mr. 
Simpson's legislation addressing wildfire disaster funding. I have 
heard from so many people in my neck of the woods just how important it 
is that we get this taken care of it.

[[Page 10567]]

  The bill also provides essential resources to support recovery 
efforts in the Puget Sound. As both the chairman and ranking member of 
the subcommittee know, this is big deal, both for our natural 
environment and for our economy; and I will continue working with them 
to make sure we are dedicating the needed resources for this critical 
effort.
  Unfortunately, I will have to oppose the bill before us today. This 
bill comes in at $2 billion below the President's budget request. It 
would cut funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It fails to 
make needed investments in the National Park System and takes a meat 
axe to the Environmental Protection Agency and the programs that 
protect clean water.
  Mr. Chairman, to conclude, let me just say we need to come together 
in a bipartisan way to end sequestration, to remove these budget caps, 
and to work on bipartisan bills that make the investments our Nation 
needs to boost economic development and protect our natural resources 
for future generations.
  I hope we do that, and I am eager to be a partner in doing that.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank 
you and the Appropriations Committee for its hard work on bringing this 
important legislation to the floor.
  As you know, we have been working with your staff on an issue of 
great importance to the Port of Savannah, which services 40 percent of 
American consumers.
  Since 1940, the National Park Service has leased a small parcel of 
land on Cockspur Island within the Fort Pulaski National Monument to 
the Savannah Bar Pilots. The bar pilots help navigate large ships 
through the Savannah River channel to the port and have done so from 
Cockspur Island since as far as back as the 1730s.
  In 2011, at the request of the Park Service, Congress passed 
legislation to change the relationship between the bar pilots and the 
Park Service. With enactment of the Fort Pulaski National Monument 
Lease Authorization Act, Public Law 112-69, the relationship between 
the bar pilots and Park Service was shifted from a series of special 
use permits to a noncompete lease of up to 10 years.

                              {time}  1330

  At the time of consideration of the legislation, the Congressional 
Budget Office estimated the annual lease fee for the bar pilots would 
be $25,000, a slight increase from their existing rate based on a 2008 
appraisal conducted by the Park Service.
  It has come to my attention that the Park Service is attempting to 
use passage of the legislation to increase the lease fee by as much as 
tenfold. This is extremely problematic because such an increase could 
threaten to force the bar pilots off Cockspur Island.
  Simply given their history on the island, the idea of forcing the bar 
pilots to relocate is inappropriate, in and of itself. However, this is 
more troubling when you realize that pilotage services are required by 
law, so vessels are required to use their services to move in and out 
of the Port of Savannah, and there is no other known location from 
which pilots could operate more efficiently.
  Moving the facility could lead to longer transit times for vessels, 
increased safety risk in foul weather, delays in ship movement, and 
greater fuel usage for pilots and vessels waiting to call on the Port 
of Savannah.
  The resulting environmental and economic harm would significantly 
increase costs and could threaten growth at the Port of Savannah just 
as the Federal Government embarks on the construction phase of the $706 
million Savannah Harbor Expansion Project.
  The legislation passed in 2011 was intended to create a long-term fix 
to the permitting issue, not to create an outlet by which the National 
Park Service could continuously raise fees to exorbitant levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I would request your support of our efforts to find an 
equitable and timely resolution to this matter that reflects Congress' 
intent and establishes a process for ensuring that the pilots are 
charged only fair market value in line with previous National Park 
Service appraisals and that they are able to continue operating from 
their current location on Cockspur Island.
  Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this 
matter to my attention. I share your concerns that this change could 
negatively impact the growth at the Port of Savannah just as work 
begins on the expansion project.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  I would note that, in testimony before the Senate, National Park 
Service Associate Director Stephen Whitesell testified that the 
Savannah bar pilots have operated ``with virtually no adverse impact on 
park resources, on the visitor experience, or on park operations.''
  The legislation that passed at the request of the Park Service in 
2011 was supposed to simply improve the legal basis through which the 
bar pilots and the Park Service entered into a contract.
  I am committed to continuing to work with you to find an equitable 
and timely solution to this matter that ensures the Fort Pulaski 
National Monument Lease Authorization Act is appropriately implemented 
and that the bar pilots are not forced to move from Cockspur Island.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to 
this issue and for your service in shepherding this important 
legislation through the legislative process.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a colleague of mine on the Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Minnesota, 
Ranking Member McCollum, as well as Chairman Ken Calvert of California 
for working with me to include important language relative to the 
National Park Service.
  Specifically, the report addresses a threat to a significant part of 
the history of the region I represent, the Battle of Lake Erie that 
paved the way for America's expansion beyond 13 colonies, commemorated 
by Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial at Put-In-Bay, 
Ohio.
  Perry's Memorial is at the heart of coastal tourism in Ohio, 
attracting 130,000 visitors just last year, and more than double as 
many people were reached through their educational activities.
  Despite its popularity, this site has been unnecessarily targeted for 
consolidation. The idea that resources and, more importantly, 
management of this popular site would shift to a noncontiguous, smaller 
installation in a different State is both concerning and, frankly, 
quite puzzling.
  Reporting requirements included with the bill are there to ensure 
that Perry's Memorial will continue operating as a stand-alone site.
  I would also ask the chairman and ranking member to continue working 
with me to address this need moving forward to ensure that this 
misguided consolidation plan is stopped.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I am certainly happy to continue to work with 
the gentlewoman from Minnesota and to address her concerns as this 
process continues.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the ranking 
member.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. The gentlewoman from Ohio has my commitment to work 
with the chairman to resolve it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank both the chairman and ranking member.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2822, the 
Department of the Interior, Environment,

[[Page 10568]]

and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016.
  This bill responsibly ensures the EPA's regulatory overreach is 
checked by Congress. Key provisions included will stop the EPA's most 
burdensome and damaging regulations and encourage opportunities for 
water infrastructure investment.
  This bill ensures that the EPA cannot use resources to expand the 
definitions of the ``waters of the United States'' and ``fill 
material'' beyond what Congress wrote in the Clean Water Act. As the 
King v. Burwell case just taught us, this administration is eager to 
redefine words to suit their purposes. This House must stand up to 
them, and in this bill, we are.
  These key provisions are excellent backstops for ensuring the EPA's 
clean water rule does not move forward in implementation because this 
rule is nothing more than a Federal power grab and a substantial 
expansion of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Even the agencies 
implementing this rule have concerns about the clarity of its changes.
  I am also pleased to see the committee supports an integrated 
planning approach to help communities affordably manage and meet their 
burdensome regulatory obligations under the Clean Water Act. 
Communities face enormous financial pressure to have quality services 
for its residents, including clean water. This approach can potentially 
save ratepayers millions of dollars while focusing clean water 
investments in a way that ensures the greatest water quality benefit.
  Lastly, this bill encourages the implementation of the bipartisan 
pilot program, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, better 
known as WIFIA, that was authorized under WRRDA in 2014.
  Provisions offered in this legislation will set the stage for EPA to 
implement WIFIA loans in fiscal years 2017 to provide credit assistance 
for water resource infrastructure projects and act as a complement to 
the major source of Federal investment in water infrastructure, the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, known as the SRF. This program will 
provide communities increased options and flexibility for funding their 
critical water infrastructure projects.
  I thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for recognizing 
the importance of these provisions and for putting together a bill that 
sets appropriate levels for agencies and programs.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree), a thoughtful and valued member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. PINGREE. I thank the ranking member for yielding me time and for 
the nice comments and the ability to work with her on the committee. I 
do appreciate the work of the Chair and the ranking member very much on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chair, there are so many important programs that are funded in 
the Department of Interior Appropriations bill. I am proud to be on 
this committee and particularly to serve on this subcommittee.
  Today's bill was written by a very good chairman in conjunction with 
a great ranking member, but at the end of the day, the funding levels 
are still too low. We cannot get bipartisan support on this bill when 
there are not enough dollars to go around. The reality is we need to 
get rid of the sequester, roll back the Budget Control Act caps, and 
pass these bills with funding levels that move our country forward, not 
backward.
  As so many of my colleagues have stated, when adjusted for inflation, 
this bill provides less than the appropriated levels in FY 2005. That 
is just not sufficient for the vital programs in this bill, programs 
that monitor and protect the water we drink and the air we breathe and 
regulate the products we use.
  There are some highlights in today's bill, such as the Bureau of 
Indian Education construction budget and the Forest Legacy program and 
the international forestry accounts, and I am glad to see them there, 
but there is so much more to be concerned about.
  I am deeply disappointed in the cut to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
endangered species listing program, which is cut by 50 percent, and the 
overall Land and Water Conservation Fund cuts. This overall Land and 
Water Conservation Fund level is 20 percent less than last year, and 
that is very frustrating, knowing how important this program is to 
every single congressional district in the country.
  I am concerned that programs such as the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval 
Partnership Program are funded at last year's level--and no higher--
when we really need to understand the diseases that affect our fish and 
establish treatment options to protect them.
  The U.S. Geological Survey that funds critical research programs and 
the monitoring of climate change, stormwater gauges, earthquake and 
weather research is also funded only at last year's level.
  The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the 
Humanities were denied the additional resources they requested, 
including funds that would have been used to increase programming for 
our veterans and wounded warriors.
  For those of us in Maine who are so proud of our national park, 
Acadia National Park, and are strong supporters of parks across the 
country, there is simply not enough funding. There are not enough 
dollars for the improvements and maintenance that is needed in any 
given year, but particularly needed in this special centennial year.
  The National Park centennial is a once in a lifetime opportunity for 
us to highlight our parks and help millions of Americans who have not 
been to a national park before to see our Nation's greatest treasures.
  Again, I recognize completely the position that this subcommittee and 
our other subcommittees have been in because of the Budget Control Act 
caps, but these programs deserve more.
  I look forward to working with our chair and ranking member as this 
bill moves forward, to try to improve the areas that still need 
attention.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, it is my pleasures to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of H.R. 2822, the 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2016.
  It is no secret that the EPA is out of control. I think everybody 
across this great land knows that. A few weeks ago, the EPA issued 
their final rule to redefine waters of the U.S., completely ignoring 
the will of the House and stakeholders all across America.
  Under this rule change, waters of the U.S. would now include smaller 
bodies of water and even some dry land. In fact, this new definition 
would extend the EPA's regulatory reach to seemingly any body of water, 
including that water puddled in your ditch after a rain storm. Yes, you 
heard me right.
  I have heard from small-business owners, farmers, Realtors, and 
homebuilders in my district; and they are all concerned about the 
negative impact this rule could have--and rightly so. This rule is so 
broad that it could very well require them to get permission from a 
Federal bureaucrat before acting on their own property.
  I commend Chairman Calvert and the other members of the committee for 
including language in this appropriations bill to prohibit any funds 
from being used to implement this new rule.
  I am proud to support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
left?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 9 minutes remaining.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a valued Member of this body.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman, my friend, for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose this legislation for many reasons 
but, in particular, because it vastly underfunds the operation of our 
national parks, as well as many other important priorities.

[[Page 10569]]

  Next August, the National Park Service will celebrate its 100th 
anniversary. Our national parks are the envy of the world and serve as 
a model for their emphasis on conservation.
  The National Park System accounts for more than 400 parks, heritage 
areas, monuments, and the historical sites; occupies more than 84 
million acres of land in all 50 States; and is home to more than 1,000 
endangered or threatened animal species. It is the responsibility of 
the National Park Service to preserve these sites so that future 
generations may enjoy them.
  Our national parks tell a rich story of our stunning landscapes, 
natural wonders, and historic sites. From Yosemite National Park in 
California to Mammoth Cave--the world's longest known cave system, in 
Kentucky--to the Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina, 
our national parks are an essential part of the American fabric and 
have been called America's best idea.
  This bill appropriates approximately $2.33 billion for the operation 
of the National Park System over the next year. This is more than $187 
million below the amount that was requested by the President. This 
account funds the critical needs of our National Park System, such as 
support services for new responsibilities within the system, resource 
stewardship, and facilities management.
  The National Park System is a significant driver of economic 
activity. More than 275 million people visit our national parks each 
year. In 2013, it was estimated that every dollar invested in the 
National Park Service saw a return of $10.
  We need to do better in ensuring that this economic engine and beacon 
of American tourism is operating at the highest level so that it can 
continue to fulfill its vital economic, environmental, and cultural 
role.
  Ensuring that the National Park Service has proper funding for 
operation ensures that we are able to preserve the story of our 
country's development into the Nation that it is today.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, the Blackstone River Valley 
National Historical Park, created last year after I sponsored 
legislation in the House in cooperation with Senator Jack Reed in the 
Senate, marks the birthplace of the American industrial revolution.
  Sites like old Slater Mill in Pawtucket and the Museum of Work and 
Culture in Woonsocket help tell the story of how America became an 
economic superpower.

                              {time}  1345

  It embodies our Nation's economic, environmental, social, and 
cultural transformation. In the best spirit of the National Park 
Service, the Blackstone River Valley tells a nationally significant 
multidimensional story. It illustrates how a beautiful natural 
landscape and powerful waterways fueled the industrial revolution and 
launched far-reaching changes to our Nation's economy and social 
structure.
  Blackstone serves only as one example of why it is essential that our 
national parks are properly funded and are able to operate in a manner 
in which millions of Americans continue to appreciate the storied 
history of our Nation.
  It is long past time to end sequester and set spending levels that 
meet our current responsibilities to be good stewards of the 
environment and protect the natural beauty of America.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CALVERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Titus), a valued Member of this body.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the 
time.
  You know, my Republican colleagues have made no secret about the fact 
that they want to strangle the EPA and undermine its vital 
environmental work, but they make little mention of how this bill also 
threatens our national security.
  I represent Las Vegas, which is the home of a number of critical 
radiation response programs, including one of the only two EPA mobile 
field labs that can quickly be deployed should a radiological incident 
occur anywhere in the West. They can process air, soil, and water 
samples.
  Because of ongoing budget cuts led by the Republicans, however, EPA 
will soon be moving this unit to Montgomery, Alabama, and 
decommissioning its other mobile lab. That will leave the whole country 
with only one EPA radiation response lab, which will be located over 
2,000 miles from Los Angeles, 2,600 miles from Seattle, and 1,800 miles 
from Las Vegas and the Nevada test site.
  Now, Republicans may be willing to gamble our health and safety to 
satisfy their corporate friends, but I am not, and that is why I am 
asking my colleagues to vote against this legislation and fund our 
agencies at levels necessary to protect our national security.
  Mr. CALVERT. I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an update on the Member 
that I am waiting for.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I will just say that this is a good bill. 
A lot of work has gone into it, and I would make sure that everyone 
votes for it because it is a fine bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise today because I believe every child in 
every school should receive an excellent education.
  It is a goal that I have worked toward as Chairman of the Education 
and the Workforce Committee, and one I know many in this House share. I 
would like to especially thank the Committee Chairmen Rogers and 
Calvert, and Ranking Members Lowey and McCollum, for working with me to 
address the challenges facing Native American students.
  Earlier this year I visited the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School of the Leech 
Lake Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota. At the school, thin metal walls are 
all that separate students from harsh winters and blankets hang over 
the doors in a desperate attempt to keep out the cold air. When winds 
reach a certain strength at the ``Bug School,'' students are forced to 
evacuate the building--often in below-zero temperatures. On many cold 
and windy winter days, Bug School students keep their winter jackets on 
all day, to save time during evacuation.
  Mr. Chair, this is unacceptable. These children deserve much better. 
It's incumbent on the Administration and this Congress to get to the 
bottom of this.
  The Education and the Workforce Committee recently held hearings to 
examine the deplorable conditions affecting Native American schools--an 
issue that in recent months has received national attention thanks to 
the investigative work of the Star Tribune.
  Mr. Chair, the federal government promised to provide Native American 
students a quality education in a manner that preserves their heritage, 
and we are failing to keep that promise.
  Accordingly, I sent a letter to my colleagues on the House Committee 
on Appropriations this year requesting an increase of nearly $60 
million more than last year's budget for Bureau of Indian Education 
schools.
  I am pleased the Department of Interior appropriations bill, through 
the hard work of the Chairmen and Ranking Members, reflects my request 
and recognizes that we cannot continue to fail meeting our commitment.
  While additional resources are certainly important, they are only 
part of what is needed in a long-term solution. We still must work 
together in a bipartisan manner to untangle the maze of bureaucracy 
that continues to plague BIE schools and students.
  Mr. Chair, these unique, vulnerable children have waited long enough 
for the federal government to live up to its promises and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill which is an important step toward our 
goal of providing an excellent education for all our children.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank our Ranking Member, Congresswoman 
McCollum, for her tremendous leadership of this Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chair, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Interior and Environment bill 
before us would place health and safety of all Americans at risk. It 
dangerously cuts funding by $246 million from FY 2015 levels and is 
$3.1 billion less than the President's FY2016 request.
  The deep cuts to this bill would undermine our air quality, land, 
water and conservation funding and will have devastating impacts on

[[Page 10570]]

all communities in my home state of California and across the country.
  What's worse--this bill slashes funding for the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) by more than 700 million dollars--from FY2015 
levels and funds the agency at more than a billion dollars less than 
the President's FY2016 request. These profound cuts would significantly 
harm the Clean Water Fund and the Safe Drinking Water Fund--critical 
programs that ensure the safety of our drinking water and our children.
  It also includes $40 million in cuts to the Historic Preservation 
Fund (HPP), which would weaken the National Park Service's (NPS) 
ability to preserve sites significant in the Civil Rights Movement. 
This includes sites like the Selma to Montgomery National Historic 
Trail, where I marched this spring to commemorate the 50th anniversary 
of ``Bloody Sunday.''
  Furthermore, there are also egregious policy riders in this bill that 
would block clean air protections, such as the EPA's Clean Power Plan.
  Too many families, particularly those in low-income, vulnerable 
communities, already suffer from poor air quality because of dirty 
carbon pollution.
  We know that communities of color are disproportionately affected by 
pollution-related illnesses, including asthma. According to the 
American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology, one in six African 
American and one in nine Latino children suffer from asthma.
  There are other toxic policy riders that would block the protection 
of our imperiled wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, like the 
Greater Sage Grouse population.
  The Endangered Species Act is the only law that has safeguarded more 
than 2,000 plants and wildlife from extinction. This law enjoys broad 
support from nearly 85 percent of Americans. And yet here we are again, 
with a bill that seeks to undermine decades of animal protection and 
runs counter to vast public support.
  Mr. Chair, we need to continue to fight to defend our environment, 
address climate change, and make real, meaningful impacts on reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions so we can protect our environment, our 
children and our future.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us does just the opposite.
  I hope that as this process moves forward, we can address the 
insufficient funding allocations and backwards policy riders that would 
harm every American and put our precious environment at risk.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment each amendment shall 
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. No pro 
forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for 
the purpose of debate. The chair of the Committee of the Whole may 
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2822

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management

                   management of lands and resources

       For necessary expenses for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands 
     pursuant to section 1010(a) of Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 
     3150(a)), $1,015,046,000, to remain available until expended, 
     including all such amounts as are collected from permit 
     processing fees, as authorized but made subject to future 
     appropriation by section 35(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Mineral 
     Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191), except that amounts from permit 
     processing fees may be used for any bureau-related expenses 
     associated with the processing of oil and gas applications 
     for permits to drill and related use of authorizations; of 
     which $3,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2016 
     subject to a match by at least an equal amount by the 
     National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for cost-shared 
     projects supporting conservation of Bureau lands; and such 
     funds shall be advanced to the Foundation as a lump-sum grant 
     without regard to when expenses are incurred.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from Texas 
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really relatively 
simple. It takes $1 million from the Bureau of Land Management's 
management of lands account and inserts it right back into the account 
with the intent of identifying unused land for potential sale to 
Americans.
  The service charges, deposits, and forfeitures account already has 
the authority to dispose of land under the Bureau of Land Management, 
but is not specifically appropriated funds.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, the United States Government owns and controls 
640 million acres of American land. This is 27 percent of the entire 
landmass in the United States. If you take all of the countries in 
Western Europe, the United States Government, Uncle Sam, owns that much 
land and more.
  In this poster to my left, the red portions of the poster identify 
land that is owned by Uncle Sam, the Federal Government. The white 
portions, of course, are land that is owned by private entities. 
Included in the red area is Alaska. The red area represents 27 percent 
of the landmass in the United States. A lot of this land is unused, and 
it is not even managed by the Federal Government. It is just sitting in 
these different parts of the country.
  This amendment is very simple. It tells the Bureau of Land Management 
to study the possibility of selling some of this land back to 
Americans. Let Americans own America, not all of it. We are not talking 
about the national parks, the national forests. We are not talking 
about Yosemite. We are talking about the unused abandoned land in the 
United States, but yet it is still owned by this Federal Government.
  That is what this amendment does; it is to require a study take 
place.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be adopted.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe of Texas).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       On page 2, line 20, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       On page 62, line 8, insert ``(reduced by $12,307,693)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       On page 75, line 14, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from Texas 
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment, along 
with my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and my friend from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  This amendment will address an energy infrastructure issue that faces 
our Nation today, as well as continuing

[[Page 10571]]

regulatory overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  We all know that the American shale revolution has dramatically 
improved our energy security at home and our economic opportunity for 
hard-working Americans. The United States is now the number one 
producer of oil and gas in the world, yet we are in the midst of new 
challenges due to a lack of appropriate infrastructure to bring those 
resources to our consumers.
  Also, the EPA has recently reported that methane emissions from oil 
and gas wells are down 79 percent since 2005, and total methane 
emissions from natural gas systems are down 11 percent since that same 
year. However, the administration intends to propose another regulation 
that only results in more bureaucratic red tape and higher energy 
costs. This does nothing to address the underlying issue.
  There is a better solution, which not only achieves lower greenhouse 
gas emissions, but also improves the outcomes for the American 
taxpayer.
  My amendment would increase the amount of funds made available to 
both the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service by $5 
million each to help expedite the approval of additional pipeline 
infrastructure that would more efficiently and more cleanly deliver our 
taxpayer-owned resources to consumers. This will ensure that the BLM 
and the Forest Service have the appropriate resources to permit rights-
of-way for gathering lines on Federal lands. This increase would be 
offset by a very modest reduction of less than one-half of 1 percent to 
the EPA environmental programs and management accounts.
  It is important that we safely bring these natural resources to 
market using the latest low-emissions, cutting-edge technology. 
Permitting and constructing this critical infrastructure is beneficial 
to the environment since natural gas could be transported, processed, 
and sold to consumers instead of being vented or flared, which creates 
the greenhouse gas problems.
  Finally, constructing more pipelines furthers our country's ongoing 
energy renaissance, while creating more jobs and growing our economy. A 
recent API study shows over 1.1 million jobs on average per year and 
over $1.1 trillion in capital investments will be generated by updating 
our domestic midstream infrastructure.
  So, in a nutshell, my amendment provides three great outcomes: first, 
it reduces greenhouse gas emissions; second, it provides critical 
infrastructure to safely transport taxpayer-owned resources to consumer 
markets; and third, it promotes good-paying American jobs for these 
hard-working American families.
  I also want to take a second to compliment and thank my friend from 
California (Mr. Calvert) and all of the subcommittee members and all of 
the subcommittee staff for such a great job on this Interior 
Appropriations bill.
  I urge our Members to support my amendment and to support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLORES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. I like the amendment. I would accept that amendment.
  Mr. FLORES. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would cut $12 
million from the Environmental Protection Agency program and shift $5 
million to the Bureau of Land Management and $5 million to the Forest 
Service.
  Now, I know cutting the EPA is an easy target for many of my 
colleagues across here on the other side of the aisle, but I want to 
assure my colleagues and understand if this amendment were to be 
adopted, this account funds program is important to both sides of the 
aisle. For example, it includes permitting for construction projects 
across the country; toxic risk prevention, part of the successful 
brownfields program; pesticide licensing; indoor air quality; 
radiation.
  Quite frankly, the EPA's work goes beyond the political talking point 
of various regulations, and it is necessary to keep this valuable 
Agency able to do the functions it needs to do to protect public 
health.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that everybody knows 
that this cuts one-half of 1 percent from the EPA to hopefully help 
stop them from pursuing a regulatory scheme where the industry is 
already working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and then it takes 
that money and puts it into accounts where we actually achieve 
greenhouse gas reductions and we bring taxpayer-owned resources to 
market in a clean, safe, and efficient way.

                              {time}  1400

  My amendment accomplishes all of those things: reduces greenhouse gas 
emissions, better jobs, and better infrastructure for hard-working 
Americans.
  Again, I ask all Members to support my amendment and to support the 
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $14,000,000)''.
       Page 18, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $11,611,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from 
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the previous debate, I 
would certainly agree we have made great strides in America in 
accessing oil and gas, so much so that we have now become almost energy 
independent, all for the good. All of that has happened in the last 7 
to 8 years, and we are thankful for that.
  However, this appropriation has more money than needed. The 
administration has asked for about $32 million less.
  I would like my colleagues to take a look at where we really do need 
to spend some money. This amendment that I am proposing deals with 
this. This is California's water situation today. The great Central 
Valley of California is rapidly depleting its aquifers. The water 
resources that agriculture and communities depend upon are rapidly 
depleting.
  This amendment would move about $11,611,000 to the USGS, to 
Geological Survey, for the purposes of studying the aquifers of 
California. Now, keep in mind that the State of California voters 
approved a $7 billion bond act of which a good portion of that money is 
for underground aquifer storage.
  We have to have the science; we have to have the engineering to go 
with it, and this amendment would provide the additional money that the 
USGS needs in order to do the surveys and the engineering and 
understanding the geology of those areas where we might be able to have 
the aquifers replenished. That is what it is all about.
  This leaves plenty of money behind for the purposes that the 
committee has identified in the approval and the permitting of mineral 
and gas and oil resources.
  I see my colleague from California, who is well aware of these 
issues, including aquifers in the San Fernando and the Santa Anna 
aquifer area, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Marchant). The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I don't necessarily oppose where the 
gentleman wants to go; I just oppose the offset right now because, 
under the budget scenario that we are operating under, we obviously 
have cut back a lot of these agencies somewhat.

[[Page 10572]]

  I am sympathetic to the job that the United States Geological Survey 
has. As you know, in California, we probably have the most adjudicated 
water rights in the world. I will work on this in the future as this 
process moves forward.
  If it is necessary, after some conversations with USGS, that they 
need additional resources, I will be happy to work with the gentleman 
to attempt to do so, but this offset, we could not accept at this time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
  Certainly, the chairman understands the issues of water in 
California, as well as anyone does, and also understands that, in order 
for us to meet the current and certainly any future drought, we are 
going to have to use the aquifers, which will require the services and 
the knowledge and capability of the U.S. Geological Survey to fully 
comprehend the potential that the various aquifers have throughout the 
State, those in southern California, as well as the Central Valley and 
coastal areas.
  I would be delighted working with the chairman as the process moves 
along and see if we might be able to find sufficient money and address 
the specific needs of aquifer surveys by the USGS. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman on that.
  Rather than taking a ``no'' vote on this and going to a vote, I heard 
the gentleman suggest that we can work together and quite possibly 
solve this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho

  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $25,325,000)''.
       Page 132, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,325,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Calvert and the 
ranking members for the fine work they have done on H.R. 2822. I think, 
overall, it is a great bill.
  What my amendment does is move over $25 million from the Bureau of 
Land Management's law enforcement activities and transfer that money 
into the deficit savings account.
  Just a brief cap, BLM, Bureau of Land Management, has a force of 
roughly 200 uniformed officers and 70 criminal investigators on staff 
enforcing a wide range of laws. In addition, the FBI has 35,000 agents; 
the Department of Homeland Security has over 70,000 enforcement agents; 
the IRS has over 3,700 criminal investigation employees, including 
2,600 special agents; the ATF has over 2,500 special agents; and the 
DEA has over 5,000.
  With just those five agencies, there are over 115,000 national law 
agents in just these five agencies. I feel that we have enough Federal 
agencies to deal with the problem to enforce the laws on the books, 
especially when we are talking about the violations on Federal lands.
  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, the gentleman's amendment would cut $25 
million from the Bureau of Land Management program and put the savings 
into the so-called spending reduction account.
  The gentleman pointed out that he plans on reducing that amount on 
law enforcement in the Bureau of Land Management. The employees who are 
out doing this work are already overstretched and find themselves 
sometimes in very dangerous positions.
  The BLM is the caretaker of our Nation's public lands. They protect 
one-eighth of the country. I think that we should make sure that BLM 
law enforcement is able to do their job, do their job safely, come home 
to their families, and protect America's resources.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOHO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I am a westerner. 
As was pointed out by Mr. Poe, a significant amount of the West is in 
BLM control. In dealing with the BLM over the years, they have a lot of 
land mass that they deal with, and they also work with the Native 
American tribes and others dealing with really a restricted number of 
law enforcement.
  We have commented and criticized about how well they operate, but I 
would hope that we didn't have to do this because there is a 
considerable need for some law enforcement in those vast areas in which 
the Federal Government owns throughout the Western United States.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. This amendment is about 
priorities.
  I think with the state of the economy that we are on both sides, I 
don't have to remind people that we have the debt ceiling coming up, 
and we are short of money; we have the highway trust fund that is going 
to come up again at the end of July, and we are short of money. I 
believe that the Federal Government has enough agents and more than 
enough debt for sure.
  I just encourage people to vote in favor of this amendment.
  We get people from our district, and they talk to us about what 
happened out in Nevada with the Cliven Bundy case. When you have the 
Bureau of Land Management with SWAT capabilities showing up like they 
do, we get asked: Why are agencies like this having that kind of 
tactical gear? Why do they have that kind of capacity?
  This is not to weaken them in a sense, and we do have to patrol those 
areas. I just think, at this point in time, that $25 million would 
serve our debt.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this bill already is $246 million below 
the FY 2015-enacted level. This amendment only causes further damage.
  Let's look at what has been happening over the past decade. As the 
funding has decreased, we know from committee hearings that the demands 
on the BLM have increased. There are more oil and gas leases to manage 
to make sure that they are properly protected.
  These issues that we deal with in the Bureau of Land Management, also 
with law enforcement, is working directly with the public sometimes who 
are out recreating and accessing these lands.
  I would just like, once again, to reiterate my strong opposition to 
cutting law enforcement for BLM.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, in lieu of what the chairman is saying, I 
will withdraw the amendment at this time if we can have a serious 
discussion about the debt before September.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,010,000)''.
       Page 8, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,902,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

[[Page 10573]]


  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this bill deals with the very real 
problem for delivering water to southern California.
  Those people who are familiar with the way in which the California 
water system works, water flows down the Sacramento River--I will just 
put this up here--water comes down the Sacramento River from the north 
and up the San Joaquin from the south.
  It all gets to the delta where the massive pumps at Tracy pick the 
water up, put it in the canals, and send it to the San Joaquin Valley 
and then on to southern California, Los Angeles, Orange County, and 
other cities in that massive urban area.
  There is a problem in the delta, a lot of problems. One of the 
problems is aquatic plants. The delta is being totally overrun by water 
hyacinths. Other parts of the United States and the West are also 
finding these invasive water aquatic plants plugging their pumps, 
reducing water supply, eliminating opportunities for boating, 
recreation, fishing, and the like.
  What this amendment does is address that problem by adding $3,902,000 
to the aquatic habitat and species conservation fund, thereby allowing 
the Federal agencies to work with the State and local agencies to 
attack the aquatic plants.
  Specifically in the delta, those who want to have more water flowing 
south to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California's great 
metropolitan areas, including Orange County, ought to be in favor of 
unplugging the pumps and getting the water hyacinths reduced in the 
delta.
  That is what we would do. It is a very real problem; it is a problem 
that exists today, and it is also money that comes from some 32 million 
more dollars in this Bureau of Land Management oil and gas permitting 
account than the President thought necessary. Surely, there is a little 
bit of room to move around so that southern California can have the 
water that it needs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is 
attempting to do, again, on the offset.
  Right now, the BLM is involved in this issue of the sage-grouse in 
the West. We, in effect, gave both the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service additional resources in order for us not to be in a position to 
list the sage-grouse so as to make sure that we do what is necessary in 
the sage ecosystem.
  At the same time, we have plussed up conservation accounts within the 
Fish and Wildlife Service for those types of invasive species. We have 
a number of invasive species, not just in the plant world, but, 
obviously, we have this invasive clam, as you mentioned, that is 
stuffing up the quagga mussel, and that is causing disruptions 
throughout the West.
  I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do. It is just that we 
are under the budget allocations we have. We have done what we can in 
both of these accounts, which is to do good work on conservation and to 
make sure we conserve species and get rid of bad species throughout the 
United States. I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, 
and I will work with him in the future on the other issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the chairman is quite correct. We do 
have a problem. We do have quagga mussels. We have this particular one, 
the water hyacinths, and there are other aquatic invasive species that 
are causing havoc throughout the United States--certainly, the quagga 
mussel in the East, along the Great Lakes, Chicago and the rest--and 
certainly in California. The energy systems at Hoover Dam, on the 
Colorado River, are impeded by quagga mussels, and there is the delta 
with water hyacinths, and there are other lakes and streams throughout 
the West.
  If we let this problem continue to grow, we are going to continue to 
have less water and less power available to us. This is just under $4 
million coming out of an account that was plussed up by some $32 
million over and above what the administration thought necessary. I 
would remind all of us that the administration has done a rather good 
job on permitting, so much so that we now have the greatest production 
of oil and gas ever in the United States, so much so that we are on the 
verge of becoming energy sufficient.
  Do we need another $32 million to do what is already being done, or 
would that $4 million of that $32 million be better spent in dealing 
with the very real problem of trying to get water to the pumps so it 
can go south to Orange County and to Los Angeles and to San Joaquin 
County?
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you, but I am going to 
ask for a vote on this one.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the plus up in the BLM account 
was primarily to help resolve the issue in 11 States involving the 
sage-grouse, which is close to a listing, and we have a plus up in the 
Fish and Wildlife Service accounts to recognize a real problem that 
hits 11 Western States.
  We do not underestimate the problems in the West as they involve the 
drought, and we are going to continue to work on that. Again, I would 
oppose this based upon the offset.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, $39,696,000 is for Mining Law Administration 
     program operations, including the cost of administering the 
     mining claim fee program, to remain available until expended, 
     to be reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited 
     to this appropriation from mining claim maintenance fees and 
     location fees that are hereby authorized for fiscal year 
     2016, so as to result in a final appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $1,015,046,000, and $2,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, from communication site rental fees 
     established by the Bureau for the cost of administering 
     communication site activities.

                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and 
     318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative 
     expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, $7,250,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Guinta

  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 8, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $11,000,000)''.
       Page 9, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 16, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 62, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 77, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 105, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. GUINTA (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from New Hampshire and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to the 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill in order to increase funding by $16

[[Page 10574]]

million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Since 1977, LWCF receipts have been collected annually to 
specifically fund Federal land acquisition, conserve threatened and 
endangered species, and provide grants to States. However, more than 
$18 billion has been syphoned from the LWCF trust fund since the 
program's inception in 1965, diverted from their original conservation 
purpose. Despite a history of underfunding, the LWCF remains a crucial 
Federal program to conserve our Nation's land, water, historic, and 
recreational heritage.
  As those in my home State of New Hampshire know, we are lucky to call 
one of the most pristine ecological environments in the Nation our 
home, and we understand firsthand LWCF's impact on both our State's 
natural resources and on our access to hunting, fishing, and outdoor 
activities. The LWCF is also an essential tool to expand public lands 
and to protect national parks, national wildlife refuges, national 
forests, wild and scenic river corridors, national scenic and historic 
trails, the Bureau of Land Management lands, and other Federal areas.
  I applaud the Appropriations Committee for its hard work on this 
important bill as it does prevent harmful executive overreach, reduces 
regulatory burdens on job creators and local communities, and it finds 
important savings for taxpayers. I certainly urge my colleagues to 
support the underlying bill, but given the importance of the LWCF 
programs across the country and in New Hampshire, I believe more robust 
funding for this particular program is important for the reasons I have 
stated.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, as the gentleman knows, the bill already 
provides $87 million for other land acquisition. Our intent was to 
needle a Federal land acquisition program that has strong support in 
the East--certainly, in New Hampshire--and lukewarm support in the 
West, where the government already owns a significant amount of real 
estate in the Western United States. When the conference begins on this 
bill with the Senate, Congress will exercise its power of the purse by 
selecting projects from the President's budget to improve recreational 
access that have strong local, State, and congressional support.
  I will work with the gentleman. I know he is a strong advocate of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, but this amendment might leave 
advocates on both sides of the aisle with some difficult and 
unnecessary choices. Therefore, I ask the gentleman to consider 
withdrawing his amendment, knowing I will be working with him in the 
future to see if we can't be of assistance through the conference 
process.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman, and I look forward to 
working with him on this particular issue as it is important and 
critical to New Hampshire.
  I recognize the differences between the East and the West and the 
challenges that we do face. Certainly, I support, again, the underlying 
bill, and I look forward to working with the chairman on this very 
important issue in New Hampshire.
  Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3. line 25, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, to everyone here, this is one of those 
amendments that really becomes a talking point amendment, but this is 
something we need to talk about. Our colleague, a moment ago, raised 
the question of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition to 
the words that he spoke, we need to be aware that, later this next 
month--in about 100 days, actually. I guess that is more than a month--
the Land and Water Conservation Fund is going to disappear. It needs to 
be reauthorized, and I see on the floor here today the men and women 
who are in a position to make that happen.
  We really cannot lose this program. For example, there are projects 
in the Sequoia National Forest, which is in the majority leader's 
district, that were funded through the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. There is a Galloway Park playground expansion in Clark County, 
Ohio. I think we know in whose district that is--the Speaker's 
district. The chairman of the subcommittee here is from San Bernardino. 
There is the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, 
and there is a Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway. I am sure the 
chairman is familiar with that parkway. These are all Land and Water 
Conservation projects that, over the years, have been in place. We have 
100 days, and we have got some work to do here.
  Is the money available? Yes. There is $18 billion in the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, should it continue to exist, that has not been 
spent. It is sitting there. Well, I guess there is an IOU there. 
Actually, the cash isn't there. There is an IOU because, over the 
years, we have diverted money from the original purpose and law to 
transfer that money over to all kinds of projects. Perhaps some of it 
even went to debt reduction. Nonetheless, it has not been used for its 
intended purpose and legal purpose, which is for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. Every year, over $900 million of royalties comes in 
from the oil and gas and energy companies for the public resources that 
they mine or pump out of the earth. Only a small fraction of that money 
has ever gone to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  I want all of us to pay attention to this extraordinarily important 
program--a program that I was able to work with when I was Deputy 
Secretary at the Department of the Interior, overseeing the projects in 
all of our districts--parks, local parks, some of the big national 
parks, including national forests, such as the one in Mr. McCarthy's 
district.
  Why are we not moving aggressively to reauthorize the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund? Why is it that, every year, we deny the public, 
whether it is a playground or a swimming pool or a park expansion 
playground in Ohio, the opportunity for better lives in their own 
communities?
  I do not understand, and I don't think that if any of us were to 
think about this for any amount of time that we would not say, yes, 
let's reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Let's not let 
it expire. Let's make sure that the money that was intended for it--the 
royalties from the resources of this great Nation--be spent on 
providing for the projects that all of America can enjoy. That is what 
it is all about.
  I don't know if I will go to a vote on this one, but I have, in my 
view here, leaders in the House who really have the power and, I think, 
the obligation to make sure the LWCF, the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, is reauthorized and that we adequately fund it. I achieved, at 
least, my own goal of talking about something that I believe to be 
important.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

[[Page 10575]]

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein, 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $110,602,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all 
     receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested 
     Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a 
     charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and 
     shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of 
     title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181f).

                           range improvements

       For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751), notwithstanding any 
     other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received 
     during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the 
     Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315b, 315m) and the amount 
     designated for range improvements from grazing fees and 
     mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands 
     transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses.

               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

       For administrative expenses and other costs related to 
     processing application documents and other authorizations for 
     use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of 
     providing copies of official public land documents, for 
     monitoring construction, operation, and termination of 
     facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for 
     rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be 
     collected under Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), 
     and under section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 
     185), to remain available until expended: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section 
     305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys 
     that have been or will be received pursuant to that section, 
     whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or settlement, 
     if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section 305(c) of 
     that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available and may be 
     expended under the authority of this Act by the Secretary to 
     improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public lands 
     administered through the Bureau of Land Management which have 
     been damaged by the action of a resource developer, 
     purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person, without 
     regard to whether all moneys collected from each such action 
     are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the action: 
     Provided further, That any such moneys that are in excess of 
     amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land for which 
     funds were collected may be used to repair other damaged 
     public lands.

                       miscellaneous trust funds

       In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under 
     existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as 
     may be contributed under section 307 of Public Law 94-579 (43 
     U.S.C. 1737), and such amounts as may be advanced for 
     administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and costs of 
     making conveyances of omitted lands under section 211(b) of 
     that Act (43 U.S.C. 1721(b)), to remain available until 
     expended.

                       administrative provisions

       The Bureau of Land Management may carry out the operations 
     funded under this Act by direct expenditure, contracts, 
     grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable agreements 
     with public and private entities, including with States. 
     Appropriations for the Bureau shall be available for 
     purchase, erection, and dismantlement of temporary 
     structures, and alteration and maintenance of necessary 
     buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the United 
     States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau; 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on the Secretary's certificate, not to 
     exceed $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding Public Law 90-
     620 (44 U.S.C. 501), the Bureau may, under cooperative cost-
     sharing and partnership arrangements authorized by law, 
     procure printing services from cooperators in connection with 
     jointly produced publications for which the cooperators share 
     the cost of printing either in cash or in services, and the 
     Bureau determines the cooperator is capable of meeting 
     accepted quality standards: Provided further, That projects 
     to be funded pursuant to a written commitment by a State 
     government to provide an identified amount of money in 
     support of the project may be carried out by the Bureau on a 
     reimbursable basis. Appropriations herein made shall not be 
     available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild 
     horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its 
     contractors or for the sale of wild horses and burros that 
     results in their destruction for processing into commercial 
     products.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service

                          resource management

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, as authorized by law, and for scientific 
     and economic studies, general administration, and for the 
     performance of other authorized functions related to such 
     resources, $1,220,343,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017: Provided, That not to exceed $10,257,000 
     shall be used for implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and 
     (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533) (except for processing petitions, developing and 
     issuing proposed and final regulations, and taking any other 
     steps to implement actions described in subsection (c)(2)(A), 
     (c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii)).

                              {time}  1430


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Clawson of Florida

  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. I have an amendment for consideration, 
please.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 8, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,200,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and also try to 
improve just a little bit on a very good bill.
  My congratulations to the team and to the ranking member and to the 
chairman.
  Included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife resource management account is 
funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System. By my amendment, we 
ask that an extra $1 million be added to this account. We are 
offsetting the increase by taking $1 million from the $2.4 billion 
Environmental Protection Agency programs and management account, hardly 
a stretch.
  The National Wildlife Refuge System has grown to over 563 national 
wildlife refuge and 38 wetland management districts, 150 million acres 
in all. We have several of these national wildlife refuges in my 
district or near my district, including J.N. ``Ding'' Darling National 
Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island and the Florida Panther National 
Wildlife Refuge outside of Naples.
  The ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge, in particular, sets 
itself apart as a leading contributor to the economy, with 816,000 
visitors a year. Importantly, my hero, my mother, loves to go there, 
and I love to take her there in the autumn of her lifetime. I ask my 
fellow Members to support this $1 million adjustment to these national 
treasures.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment. I 
certainly support it and would ask Members to vote ``aye'' on the 
amendment.
  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the 
ranking member.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson of Florida).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              construction

       For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of 
     buildings and other facilities required in the conservation, 
     management, investigation, protection, and utilization of 
     fish and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and 
     interests therein; $13,144,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.), 
     including administrative expenses, and for acquisition of 
     land or waters, or interest therein, in accordance with 
     statutory authority applicable to

[[Page 10576]]

     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, $27,500,000, to 
     be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds appropriated for specific land acquisition projects may 
     be used to pay for any administrative overhead, planning or 
     other management costs.

            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1535), $50,095,000, 
     to be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 
     to remain available until expended.

                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $13,228,000.

               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4401 et 
     seq.), $35,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                neotropical migratory bird conservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Neotropical 
     Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), 
     $3,660,000, to remain available until expended.

                multinational species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the Asian Elephant 
     Conservation Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 4261 et seq.), the 
     Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301 
     et seq.), the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 
     6301 et seq.), and the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004 
     (16 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), $9,561,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                    state and tribal wildlife grants

       For wildlife conservation grants to States and to the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 
     and Indian tribes under the provisions of the Fish and 
     Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 
     Act, for the development and implementation of programs for 
     the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species 
     that are not hunted or fished, $59,195,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the amount 
     provided herein, $4,084,000 is for a competitive grant 
     program for Indian tribes not subject to the remaining 
     provisions of this appropriation: Provided further, That 
     $5,987,000 is for a competitive grant program to implement 
     approved plans for States, territories, and other 
     jurisdictions and at the discretion of affected States, the 
     regional Associations of fish and wildlife agencies, not 
     subject to the remaining provisions of this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall, after deducting 
     $10,071,000 and administrative expenses, apportion the amount 
     provided herein in the following manner: (1) to the District 
     of Columbia and to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each a 
     sum equal to not more than one-half of 1 percent thereof; and 
     (2) to Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, each a sum equal to not more than one-fourth of 1 
     percent thereof: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     apportion the remaining amount in the following manner: (1) 
     one-third of which is based on the ratio to which the land 
     area of such State bears to the total land area of all such 
     States; and (2) two-thirds of which is based on the ratio to 
     which the population of such State bears to the total 
     population of all such States: Provided further, That the 
     amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be adjusted 
     equitably so that no State shall be apportioned a sum which 
     is less than 1 percent of the amount available for 
     apportionment under this paragraph for any fiscal year or 
     more than 5 percent of such amount: Provided further, That 
     the Federal share of planning grants shall not exceed 75 
     percent of the total costs of such projects and the Federal 
     share of implementation grants shall not exceed 65 percent of 
     the total costs of such projects: Provided further, That the 
     non-Federal share of such projects may not be derived from 
     Federal grant programs: Provided further, That any amount 
     apportioned in 2016 to any State, territory, or other 
     jurisdiction that remains unobligated as of September 30, 
     2017, shall be reapportioned, together with funds 
     appropriated in 2018, in the manner provided herein.

                       administrative provisions

       The United States Fish and Wildlife Service may carry out 
     the operations of Service programs by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable 
     agreements with public and private entities. Appropriations 
     and funds available to the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service shall be available for repair of damage to public 
     roads within and adjacent to reservation areas caused by 
     operations of the Service; options for the purchase of land 
     at not to exceed $1 for each option; facilities incident to 
     such public recreational uses on conservation areas as are 
     consistent with their primary purpose; and the maintenance 
     and improvement of aquaria, buildings, and other facilities 
     under the jurisdiction of the Service and to which the United 
     States has title, and which are used pursuant to law in 
     connection with management, and investigation of fish and 
     wildlife resources: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 
     501, the Service may, under cooperative cost sharing and 
     partnership arrangements authorized by law, procure printing 
     services from cooperators in connection with jointly produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share at least one-
     half the cost of printing either in cash or services and the 
     Service determines the cooperator is capable of meeting 
     accepted quality standards: Provided further, That the 
     Service may accept donated aircraft as replacements for 
     existing aircraft: Provided further, That notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, all fees collected for non-toxic shot review and 
     approval shall be deposited under the heading ``United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service--Resource Management'' and shall be 
     available to the Secretary, without further appropriation, to 
     be used for expenses of processing of such non-toxic shot 
     type or coating applications and revising regulations as 
     necessary, and shall remain available until expended.

                         National Park Service

                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service and for the general administration of 
     the National Park Service, $2,327,811,000, of which 
     $10,001,000 for planning and interagency coordination in 
     support of Everglades restoration and $96,961,000 for 
     maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation projects for 
     constructed assets shall remain available until September 30, 
     2017.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Clawson of Florida

  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 14, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``increased by $1,000,000''.
       Page 14, line 10, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``increased by $1,000,000''.
       Page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``reduced 
     by $1,250,000''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, by this amendment, we are 
asking for an additional $1 million to be put towards Everglades 
restoration to be paid for with a decrease in the Environmental 
Protection Agency's environmental programs and management account.
  I first want to say that I am grateful to my Democratic colleague 
from Florida, Patrick Murphy, who has supported me on this and 
repeatedly supports our important Everglades initiatives.
  Shortly after retiring from the private sector 3 years ago, I took a 
walk in the Gulf with my father. When we waded into the Gulf, we got to 
about knee depth of water, and we looked down and we couldn't see our 
toes because that was a bad year for all the discharges into the Gulf 
of Mexico.
  So my dad said to me: Can you do something about this? Just get 
involved.
  I said: Dad, what can a retired auto parts executive do to help this 
situation?
  He said: If you get involved, you will figure out what to do.
  From there, I got involved in local matters and then eventually came 
here to Congress.
  In Florida, we are indeed blessed to have an extensive network of 
over 1.5 million acres of freshwater and saltwater, known as Everglades 
National Park. It is the largest remaining subtropical wilderness in 
the United States, and it serves as home to numerous beautiful species, 
including a number of endangered species. For these reasons, we must 
guarantee the Everglades continue to reflect our shared values of 
healthy landscape through effective stewardship and conscientious 
management, and that is why I offer this amendment today.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. I know he has been a champion for the Everglades. It is 
certainly a

[[Page 10577]]

concern of this committee. I want to get out there and look at those 
pythons in the Everglades. I understand they are all over the place.
  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. There are too many of them.
  Mr. CALVERT. Yes, too many, that is the problem.
  I would be happy to support this amendment. I would urge an ``aye'' 
vote when it comes up.
  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Sewell of Alabama

  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 14, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 14, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,500,000)''.
       Page 15, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,500,000)''.
       Page 36, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $7,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Alabama.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the subcommittee chairman, as 
well as the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking 
member, for their hard work in shepherding this important legislation 
to the floor and, most importantly, for working with me and my staff to 
propose this amendment and to make sure that it is budget neutral.
  On the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, we need to invest 
in the National Park Service sites associated with the civil rights 
movement, not cut necessary funding. Seminal locations such as the 
Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail, Little Rock Central High 
School National Historic Site, Brown v. Board of Education National 
Historic Site, and the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site 
tell the story of the struggle for civil rights and voting rights in 
this country. It is our obligation to preserve these prominent 
locations for future generations.
  My amendment increases funding by $2.5 million for the documentation 
and preservation of civil rights history as well as restores $2.5 
million for the rehabilitation and preservation of historic sites on 
the campuses of Historically Black Colleges, and $2 million additional 
for competitive grants for the civil rights initiative to preserve 
sites of the civil rights movement.
  Institutions such as Miles College in Alabama and Tougaloo College in 
Mississippi served as a base for students who were involved in the 
civil rights movement. Some projects that would benefit would include 
digitizing the archives at places like Tuskegee University, where the 
Tuskegee Airmen as well as the records and papers of Booker T. 
Washington and George Washington Carver reside. Other sites that would 
benefit from this funding include the Carter G. Woodson Home National 
Historic Site in Washington, D.C., the Selma Interpretive Center at 
Selma University, the Selma to Montgomery Interpretive Center at 
Alabama State University, and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad 
National Historic Park in Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years, as the Representative of the 
Seventh Congressional District and a proud product of Selma, Alabama, 
my native hometown, it has been an honor to not only represent this 
wonderful district, but to protect the legacy of those that came before 
us and to make sure that the history of the movement is preserved for 
future generations.
  It was my high honor on March 7, 2015, to welcome President and Mrs. 
Obama as well as President and Mrs. George W. Bush, along with 100 
Members of Congress and the Senate, Republican and Democrat, to my 
hometown of Selma, where we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the 
Selma to Montgomery March. Let us try to preserve that history and 
continue to show our commitment to the legacy of John Lewis and those 
brave Freedom Fighters who changed the Nation as well as this world by 
their quest for equality and justice for all.
  I want to again thank the subcommittee chair, Mr. Calvert, and I want 
to thank the ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for their dedication and 
commitment to this preservation. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Sewell amendment and commit ourselves to the task of preserving the 
civil rights and voting rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. I claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for a fine 
amendment and the great work that she has done working with both the 
majority and minority staff in fashioning this amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the generosity 
of yielding to me.
  I also support the Sewell amendment to increase funding for the 
President's civil rights initiative. I remain a strong supporter of the 
President's initial request for $50 million for the civil rights 
initiative. While the gentlewoman's amendment would increase funding by 
$7 million, we still have a long way to go to get the adequate funding 
for these very important sacred places, I might add, in our Nation's 
history, to protect them.
  I appreciate the majority's willingness to accept this amendment, and 
I thank the sponsor for offering it.
  I thank the gentleman, once again, for his kindness in yielding.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I just want to again reiterate 
my thanks. In this commemorative year of the Selma to Montgomery March 
and so many pivotal moments, including our upcoming 50th anniversary of 
the signing of the Voting Rights Act, I thank you for your commitment 
to making sure that we preserve these wonderful sites for future 
generations.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, I wish to join my colleague from Alabama, 
Congresswoman Sewell, to support this amendment, which would restore 
necessary funding for preserving our nation's Civil Rights history.
  This amendment would increase funding by $2.5 million for 
documentation and preservation of Civil Rights history, as well as 
restoring $2.5 million for the rehabilitation and preservation of 
historic sites on the campuses of HBCUs. In my own state of Maryland, 
the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument in Dorchester 
is currently putting together educational programming in conjunction 
with the Harriet Tubman State Park, which is slated to open later this 
year.
  This National Monument is an important part of telling our American 
story--especially in light of the fact that, currently, only 26 of our 
nation's 460 national parks have a primary focus on African-American 
history.
  It is our responsibility as federal representatives to come together 
in order to preserve the history of our nation and its people. We must 
keep this commitment to preserve the legacy of the Civil Rights 
Movement, and the land and structures that will keep that legacy alive.
  I encourage all of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, to 
support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 14, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.


[[Page 10578]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will help ensure that all 
communities are able to participate in decisions that shape the 
National Park Service. Environmental justice is defined as the fair 
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people--regardless of race, 
color, national origin, or income--with respect to our Nation's 
environmental laws and policies. This amendment represents an important 
step towards that goal.
  The NPS has a robust planning, environment, and public comment 
database and Web site, known as PEPC.

                              {time}  1445

  This Web site is used for consultation and providing information on 
planning issues such as management plans, construction projects, 
environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements. This 
Web site is how the users of the National Park Service can participate 
in NPS decisionmaking.
  Unfortunately, however, PEPC is only available in English--no 
Spanish, none of the Asian languages spoken by the fastest growing 
segment of our population, and none of the indigenous languages of our 
Native American brothers and sisters.
  To address this shortcoming, my amendment will provide $1 million to 
update PEPC. This funding will provide translation of the contents of 
PEPC to the public, the ability of the public to provide input into the 
PEPC process in the most commonly spoken languages, and informing 
affected communities of the improvements.
  Mr. Chairman, America is becoming more and more diverse every day, 
and our land management agencies must adapt to it. It is critical that 
new and growing community can access our public lands and services. 
They are the new users and stewards that Federal land management 
agencies such as the National Park Service must engage as it prepares 
for its centennial.
  To reach these Americans, the NPS will need improved tools to clearly 
communicate with people who may struggle to comprehend materials in 
English. That is exactly what my amendment intends to accomplish. This 
measure will help the Park Service and the Department of the Interior 
to achieve their performance benchmarks.
  One of the key measures of the Department's environmental justice 
outcomes is outreach to minority and underserved communities. Executive 
Order 13116 states that all Federal agencies shall provide access to 
services for persons with limited English proficiency. By offering a 
Web interface in multiple languages, NPS will increase its relevance to 
minority communities and help the Department of the Interior to make 
progress towards this very important requirement.
  Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that engaging the public on important 
decisions that affect their communities is a linchpin of our system of 
government. When all communities are afforded access to the 
decisionmaking process, we improve the outcomes of those decisions and 
we strengthen our democracy.
  I hope all Members will join me in supporting this critical 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer

  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 14, after line 14, insert the following:

                    emergency infrastructure repairs

       For expenses necessary for emergency infrastructure repairs 
     related to the National Park Service deferred maintenance 
     backlog, $11,500,000,000, to remain available until expended.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from Virginia and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to provide 
$11.5 billion to fund emergency infrastructure repairs related to the 
National Park Service deferred maintenance backlog.
  Mr. Chair, earlier this month, the National Park Service, at the 
recommendation of the Department of Transportation, took the 
precautionary measure of closing two lanes on the iconic Arlington 
Memorial Bridge, one of the most important entrances to the Nation's 
Capital and a major artery for many of my constituents commuting to 
work every day.
  The crisis of the Memorial Bridge, whose replacement will cost a 
startling $250 million, demonstrates the degradation of park 
infrastructure throughout the country. It also shows the extent of the 
backlog and the need to provide funds to ensure reliability for the 
economy as well as the safety of the public.
  The backlog has also grown because of a steady decline in the 
construction account. Over the last decade, there has been a 62 percent 
decline, $227 million in today's dollars. The Park Service receives 
only 58 cents out of every dollar needed just to keep the backlog from 
growing.
  Mr. Chair, the United States is the richest country in the history of 
mankind. We are the democratic leader, the military leader, the human 
rights leader, the financial leader of all the world. Can we not also 
be the investment leader?
  This country needs to be the country that invests in our 
infrastructure today for our children and our grandchildren tomorrow.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of increased funding for 
the National Park Service in order to address the deferred maintenance 
backlog.
  Despite its significant and multifaceted contributions to our 
country, the National Park Service budget has been shrinking, 
compromising its ability to adequately protect our treasured national 
history. Shrinking appropriations and increasing wear and tear on aging 
infrastructure has led to a maintenance backlog of approximately $11.5 
billion dollars, including dilapidated visitor centers, unmaintained 
trails, and failing water treatment facilities.
  More than half of the maintenance backlog, approximately $6 billion, 
is comprised of transportation projects that require funding through 
the Highway Trust Fund, not the Park Service. The Arlington Memorial 
Bridge, which is so important to our nation, connecting the Lincoln 
Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery, is so badly corroded that it 
must be partially shut down for six to nine months. In fact, the 
estimated total cost of repairs for the bridge is more than the entire 
annual allocation to the Park Service from the Highway Trust Fund.
  This trend is completely unsustainable if we want our children and 
grandchildren to have the same opportunity to visit and enjoy some of 
our nation's most iconic sites.
  At recent hearings on the Natural Resources Committee, I have heard 
many of my colleagues express their frustrations with the maintenance 
backlog. This is our opportunity to address the problem, but we are 
once again kicking the can down the pothole riddled, crumbling road.
  Next year is the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service, 
which will bring even more visitors to our parks. I urge my colleagues 
to not only address the maintenance backlog at the National Park 
Service, but to come together and pass a long-term fix for the Highway 
Trust Fund so that we can address the maintenance backlog.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment 
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill.
  The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House 
Resolution 5, 114th Congress, which states:
  ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments 
proposing an

[[Page 10579]]

equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 
2(f) of rule XXI.''
  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of increased funding for 
the National Park Service in order to address the deferred maintenance 
backlog.
  Despite its significant and multifaceted contributions to our 
country, the National Park Service budget has been shrinking, 
compromising its ability to adequately protect our treasured national 
history.
  Shrinking appropriations and increasing wear and tear on aging 
infrastructure has led----
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman must confine her remarks to the 
point of order.
  Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, the Interior Subcommittee has done its best 
to invest in parks, but given its insufficient allocation, this was the 
only meaningful way for the very obvious need for the $11.5 billion for 
infrastructure.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from California makes a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia violates section 
3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5.
  Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment 
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
  As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from California, the 
amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. 
Therefore, the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership 
     programs, environmental compliance and review, international 
     park affairs, and grant administration, not otherwise 
     provided for, $62,467,000.

                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the National 
     Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 
     $60,910,000, to be derived from the Historic Preservation 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2017, of 
     which $500,000 is for competitive grants for the survey and 
     nomination of properties to the National Register of Historic 
     Places and as National Historic Landmarks associated with 
     communities currently underrepresented, as determined by the 
     Secretary, and of which $4,500,000 is for competitive grants 
     to preserve the sites and stories of the Civil Rights 
     movement: Provided, That such competitive grants shall be 
     made without imposing the matching requirements in Section 
     102(a)(3) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470(a)(3)).

                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair, or replacement of 
     physical facilities, including modifications authorized by 
     section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8), $139,555,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for any project 
     initially funded in fiscal year 2016 with a future phase 
     indicated in the National Park Service 5-Year Line Item 
     Construction Plan, a single procurement may be issued which 
     includes the full scope of the project: Provided further, 
     That the solicitation and contract shall contain the clause 
     availability of funds found at 48 CFR 52.232-18.

                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2016 by 
     section 9 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-10a) is rescinded.

                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), 
     including administrative expenses, and for acquisition of 
     lands or waters, or interest therein, in accordance with the 
     statutory authority applicable to the National Park Service, 
     $84,367,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended, of 
     which $48,117,000 is for the State assistance program and of 
     which $9,000,000 shall be for the American Battlefield 
     Protection Program grants as authorized by section 7301 of 
     the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-11).

                          centennial challenge

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of 
     section 814(g) of Public Law 104-333 (16 U.S.C. 1f) relating 
     to challenge cost share agreements, $20,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for Centennial Challenge projects 
     and programs: Provided, That not less than 50 percent of the 
     total cost of each project or program shall be derived from 
     non-Federal sources in the form of donated cash, assets, or a 
     pledge of donation guaranteed by an irrevocable letter of 
     credit.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Tsongas

  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 16, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000) (reduced by $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is intended to recognize the National Park Service's 
Centennial Challenge and the importance of funding the program at the 
level requested by President Obama and the National Park Service.
  Next year is the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service, a 
milestone in this country's history that we as a nation should be proud 
of and celebrate. For a century now, the national parks have preserved 
and protected our Nation's natural, cultural, and historic resources 
for the use and enjoyment of future generations. I am proud to 
represent two national parks.
  In my hometown, the Lowell National Historic Park was the first urban 
national park of its kind, commemorating, preserving, and protecting 
the catalytic role the city played in spawning America's Industrial 
Revolution.
  Minute Man National Historic Park is just down the road in Concord, 
where visitors can see firsthand where the shot heard 'round the world 
was fired and where the American Revolution began.
  The many visitors to both sites are grateful that our country has 
made the commitment to protecting our history and our landscapes for 
future generations, coming away awed and inspired by the sites that 
have shaped who we are as a people.
  The upcoming centennial is a tremendous opportunity to increase 
public engagement with our parks so that we may not only celebrate the 
places we love to visit with family and friends, but also make the 
necessary investments that will prepare our parks for the next 100 
years.
  Despite its significant and multifaceted obligations, the Park 
Service budget has been shrinking, compromising its ability to ensure 
adequate protection to our treasured national history.
  Since 2010, there has been more than a 7 percent, or $178 million in 
today's dollars, reduction in the account to operate national parks. 
Over the last decade, there has been a 62 percent, or $227 million in 
today's dollars, decline in the National Park Service construction 
account. This has led to an enormous deferred maintenance backlog, 
totaling $11.5 billion of dilapidated visitor centers, unmaintained 
trail centers, and failing water treatment facilities.
  Historically, our parks have had bipartisan support. To mark the 50th 
anniversary of the National Park Service in 1966, President Eisenhower 
initiated Mission 66, which invested more than $1 billion in 
improvements to visitor facilities throughout the park system.
  Ten years ahead of the 100th anniversary, President George W. Bush 
launched the Centennial Initiative, a 10-year, $3 billion plan to 
restore the parks through a combination of public and private funding. 
That effort was never fully realized, but President Obama revived the 
initiative ahead of the 2016 centennial celebration.

[[Page 10580]]

  In the FY15 omnibus spending bill, Congress provided $10 million to 
reinvigorate the Centennial Challenge. The initial $10 million Federal 
investment was matched by an additional $16 million in private 
donations for signature centennial projects.
  In total, 106 projects were selected throughout the country to 
improve visitor services, chip away at the deferred maintenance 
backlog, and support youth programs. Over 200 projects were submitted, 
demonstrating the high demand for additional money to be matched by 
private contributions.
  Given the overwhelming success from the $10 million investment this 
year, Congress should strongly consider increasing funding levels for 
the Centennial Challenge in 2017.
  I understand that this is a difficult task, given the inadequate 
funding allocation provided for the Interior Department under the 
Budget Control Act and sequestration. I regret that we were unable to 
do so through this amendment. The funding allocation for the National 
Park Service represents yet another example of why Congress must work 
together on a bipartisan basis to end sequestration.
  I hope that we can find a way to support the Centennial Challenge and 
the President's budget request for the National Park Service so that we 
not only celebrate the places we love to visit with family and friends, 
but to make the necessary investments that will prepare our parks for 
the next 100 years.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer.)
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Representative Tsongas' 
amendment to support the National Park Service's Centennial Challenge.
  As a former National Park Service Ranger, I am proud to serve as a 
Congressional Friend of the National Park Service Centennial, and I 
eagerly await the centennial in 2016: Find Your Park.
  As the NPS approaches its centennial year, it is important to ensure 
they have the resources they need to enter into the second century of 
service to the American people. The Interior Subcommittee has tried its 
very best to invest in parks, given its insufficient allocation; but 
with the centennial approaching and the buildup of park needs, this 
level is not remotely enough for parks.
  Recognizing the serious impact of both the Budget Control Act and 
emergency wildfire suppression on the Interior allocation, Congress 
still must find a way to meet the needs of parks by securing another 
budget deal to get rid of the threat of sequester. There is no better 
time than the centennial for a robust investment in our national parks 
by Congress and the American people. It is time to make our national 
parks a national priority.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       administrative provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       In addition to other uses set forth in section 407(d) of 
     Public Law 105-391, franchise fees credited to a sub-account 
     shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary, without 
     further appropriation, for use at any unit within the 
     National Park System to extinguish or reduce liability for 
     Possessory Interest or leasehold surrender interest. Such 
     funds may only be used for this purpose to the extent that 
     the benefitting unit anticipated franchise fee receipts over 
     the term of the contract at that unit exceed the amount of 
     funds used to extinguish or reduce liability. Franchise fees 
     at the benefitting unit shall be credited to the sub-account 
     of the originating unit over a period not to exceed the term 
     of a single contract at the benefitting unit, in the amount 
     of funds so expended to extinguish or reduce liability.
       For the costs of administration of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund grants authorized by section 105(a)(2)(B) 
     of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (Public Law 
     109-432), the National Park Service may retain up to 3 
     percent of the amounts which are authorized to be disbursed 
     under such section, such retained amounts to remain available 
     until expended.
       National Park Service funds may be transferred to the 
     Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of 
     Transportation, for purposes authorized under 23 U.S.C. 204. 
     Transfers may include a reasonable amount for FHWA 
     administrative support costs.

                    United States Geological Survey

                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the 
     mineral and water resources of the United States, its 
     territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by 
     43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their 
     mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to 
     power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30 
     U.S.C. 641); conduct inquiries into the economic conditions 
     affecting mining and materials processing industries (30 
     U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and related 
     purposes as authorized by law; and to publish and disseminate 
     data relative to the foregoing activities; $1,045,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2017; of which 
     $57,637,189 shall remain available until expended for 
     satellite operations; and of which $7,280,000 shall be 
     available until expended for deferred maintenance and capital 
     improvement projects that exceed $100,000 in cost: Provided, 
     That none of the funds provided for the ecosystem research 
     activity shall be used to conduct new surveys on private 
     property, unless specifically authorized in writing by the 
     property owner: Provided further, That no part of this 
     appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half the 
     cost of topographic mapping or water resources data 
     collection and investigations carried on in cooperation with 
     States and municipalities.

                       administrative provisions

       From within the amount appropriated for activities of the 
     United States Geological Survey such sums as are necessary 
     shall be available for contracting for the furnishing of 
     topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or other 
     specialized surveys when it is administratively determined 
     that such procedures are in the public interest; construction 
     and maintenance of necessary buildings and appurtenant 
     facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging stations and 
     observation wells; expenses of the United States National 
     Committee for Geological Sciences; and payment of 
     compensation and expenses of persons employed by the Survey 
     duly appointed to represent the United States in the 
     negotiation and administration of interstate compacts: 
     Provided, That activities funded by appropriations herein 
     made may be accomplished through the use of contracts, 
     grants, or cooperative agreements as defined in section 6302 
     of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That the 
     United States Geological Survey may enter into contracts or 
     cooperative agreements directly with individuals or 
     indirectly with institutions or nonprofit organizations, 
     without regard to 41 U.S.C. 6101, for the temporary or 
     intermittent services of students or recent graduates, who 
     shall be considered employees for the purpose of chapters 57 
     and 81 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     compensation for travel and work injuries, and chapter 171 of 
     title 28, United States Code, relating to tort claims, but 
     shall not be considered to be Federal employees for any other 
     purposes.

                   Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

                        ocean energy management

       For expenses necessary for granting leases, easements, 
     rights-of-way and agreements for use for oil and gas, other 
     minerals, energy, and marine-related purposes on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf and approving operations related thereto, 
     as authorized by law; for environmental studies, as 
     authorized by law; for implementing other laws and to the 
     extent provided by Presidential or Secretarial delegation; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements, 
     $167,270,000, of which $70,648,000, is to remain available 
     until September 30, 2017 and of which $96,622,000 is to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That this total 
     appropriation shall be reduced by amounts collected by the 
     Secretary and credited to this appropriation from additions 
     to receipts resulting from increases to lease rental rates in 
     effect on August 5, 1993, and from cost recovery fees from 
     activities conducted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 
     pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, including 
     studies, assessments, analysis, and miscellaneous 
     administrative activities: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated shall be reduced as such collections are 
     received during the fiscal year, so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $70,648,000: Provided further, That not to exceed $3,000 
     shall be available for reasonable expenses related to 
     promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup activities.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capps

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page 10581]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 21, line 3, after each of the first and second dollar 
     amounts, insert ``(reduced by $5,434,000)''.
       Page 64, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,434,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, drilling for and transporting oil and gas 
is a dirty and dangerous business. There is no disputing that.
  No matter what assurances are given by the oil industry, spills do 
happen, and they will continue to happen as we depend on fossil fuels 
for our energy needs.
  Sadly, my constituents in Santa Barbara, California, are far too 
familiar with this reality. Just over a month ago, on May 19, over 
100,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from the Plains All American 
pipeline along the Gaviota Coast. The oil spilled down a hill, through 
a culvert, and into the ocean, eventually spreading thick, black tar 
along nearly 100 miles of coastline.
  This was a unique spill, in that it impacted both land and ocean, 
requiring both the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, as well as 
the Coast Guard to respond to and lead the cleanup effort.
  When it comes to oil spills, the damage gets worse by the minute, so 
ensuring that spill response teams are properly trained and prepared to 
respond quickly is essential to minimizing the impacts. This is 
precisely why the EPA has jurisdiction over the inland oil spill 
program.
  The EPA uses this funding to prevent, to prepare for, and to respond 
to oil spills associated with the more than 600,000 oil storage 
facilities that the Agency regulates. The EPA's oil program also 
provides oil spill response resources and training for States, 
localities, and tribal governments.
  Despite its scope and importance, this program has been seriously 
underfunded for years, and H.R. 2822 only makes things worse by funding 
this program at nearly 25 percent less than the President requested.
  My amendment would simply increase funding for this program by $5.4 
million, to match the President's requested amount of $23.4 million for 
fiscal year 2016. This modest increase in funding would help ensure 
that EPA can do its job to help protect coastal areas, like the one I 
represent, from the impacts of oil spills.
  The funding increase, however, would be offset by reducing the 
conventional energy account at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
or BOME, by an equal amount.
  I want to be clear. This funding reduction for BOME is intended to 
target the funding used for new offshore oil and gas leasing. BOME will 
continue to fund safety operations and environmental assessments.
  The new 5-year offshore oil and gas program being drafted by BOME 
calls for 14 potential lease sales, including in some new areas off the 
East Coast. Expanding drilling by cutting funding for oil spill cleanup 
is incredibly irresponsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spent my entire career in Congress fighting to 
stop offshore drilling because I firmly believe the risks outweigh the 
benefits. Perhaps the current majority does not agree with me on this 
goal.
  I hope we can at least all agree that we should not be expanding oil 
drilling unless we are properly preparing for the spills that will 
inevitably occur. As long as we drill for oil, there will be oil 
spills, and the economic and ecological risks of these spills only 
increases when the oil is extracted offshore.
  While the Coast Guard is responsible for responding to offshore 
spills, the recent spill in my district shows that offshore drilling 
can also have onshore impacts, especially for coastal communities like 
those I represent.
  The oil that spilled from the Plains All American pipeline was 
extracted just a few miles offshore in Federal waters. It was then 
pumped onshore to a holding facility, and it continued through the 
pipeline that ruptured. This offshore oil spilled from the pipeline, 
down a hillside, on to the beach, and back into the ocean under which 
it had been extracted.
  Drilling and spill cleanup are inextricably linked. The least we can 
do is ensure that the EPA has the resources it needs to ensure that the 
spills are quickly and properly cleaned up when they inevitably happen.
  This is precisely what my amendment seeks to achieve. I urge my 
colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. As in the case with many of the amendments today before 
us, I cannot support the offset. Let me say this: EPA may be reimbursed 
for oil spill response activities from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
Fund.
  Now, personally, I think EPA should have direct access to that trust 
fund to avoid the delays, these administrative reimbursement delays, 
when responding to an oil spill such as what happened in California. 
However, that is an authorizing issue, not an appropriating issue.
  That is the proper place because those dollars will be there 
eventually to clean that up, and we just need to clean up the 
bureaucracy to have more immediacy in that process.
  This offset, I cannot support; and so, for that reason, I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers. I am 
prepared to close. In closing, I would like to reiterate two points.
  First, that oil and gas exploration is inherently dangerous, there is 
no disputing that. Spills do happen. Unfortunately, my district 
observed these consequences firsthand during the Plains pipeline spill 
just over a month ago.
  Second, if we are going to continue to extract, to transport, and to 
utilize oil, we need to be prepared for the inevitability of these 
spills. The EPA's inland oil spill program is intended for just this 
purpose, to be prepared to respond to the inevitable.
  It is irresponsible to develop new oil extraction, including 
offshore, without being prepared to respond to its risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment. I don't agree to the offset. The fact that we have an Oil 
Spill Liability Trust Fund, that should be accessed.
  I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman to work with the 
authorizers where we can get more immediate response to these kinds of 
activities that happen from time to time around the country, but I urge 
a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

             offshore safety and environmental enforcement

       For expenses necessary for the regulation of operations 
     related to leases, easements, rights-of-way and agreements 
     for use for oil and gas, other minerals, energy, and marine-
     related purposes on the Outer Continental Shelf, as 
     authorized by law; for enforcing and implementing laws and 
     regulations as authorized by law and to the extent provided 
     by Presidential or Secretarial delegation; and for matching 
     grants or cooperative agreements, $123,354,000, of which 
     $66,147,000 is to remain available until September 30, 2017, 
     and of which $57,207,000 is to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That this

[[Page 10582]]

     total appropriation shall be reduced by amounts collected by 
     the Secretary and credited to this appropriation from 
     additions to receipts resulting from increases to lease 
     rental rates in effect on August 5, 1993, and from cost 
     recovery fees from activities conducted by the Bureau of 
     Safety and Environmental Enforcement pursuant to the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act, including studies, assessments, 
     analysis, and miscellaneous administrative activities: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced as such collections are received during the fiscal 
     year, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $66,147,000.
       For an additional amount, $65,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, to be reduced by amounts collected by the 
     Secretary and credited to this appropriation, which shall be 
     derived from non-refundable inspection fees collected in 
     fiscal year 2016, as provided in this Act: Provided, That to 
     the extent that amounts realized from such inspection fees 
     exceed $65,000,000, the amounts realized in excess of 
     $65,000,000 shall be credited to this appropriation and 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That for 
     fiscal year 2016, not less than 50 percent of the inspection 
     fees expended by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
     Enforcement will be used to fund personnel and mission-
     related costs to expand capacity and expedite the orderly 
     development, subject to environmental safeguards, of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf pursuant to the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), including the 
     review of applications for permits to drill.

                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016, 
     title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII, 
     section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $14,899,000, 
     which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund, to remain available until expended.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95, $123,253,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2017: Provided, That appropriations for the Office of Surface 
     Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for the travel 
     and per diem expenses of State and tribal personnel attending 
     Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
     sponsored training.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Johnson of Ohio

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 65, lines 5 and 10, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to thank 
Chairman Calvert and the subcommittee for a great underlying piece of 
legislation. We have got a great appropriations bill here, and I look 
forward to supporting it.
  My amendment to the FY 2016 Interior and Environment Appropriations 
bill will keep the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement's spending in check with the agency's obligation. 
Specifically, it will reduce OSM's regulation and technology budget by 
$2 million and transfer those funds to the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Funds.
  According to OSM, States and tribes perform 97 percent of the 
regulatory activity relating to surface coal mining in the United 
States; yet OSM receives 25 percent of the staffing resources to 
perform 3 percent of the work.
  This amendment will help bring spending in parity with the work done 
by OSM.
  Although the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, or SMCRA, 
was enacted to allow States with approved programs to assume exclusive 
jurisdiction of mining in their States, under the current 
administration, OSM has increasingly used its inflated budget to 
improperly usurp the lawful decisions of State regulators.
  This amendment will help curtail excessive Federal interference and 
restore the State's role in surface mining regulation. For instance, 
over the past 5 years, OSM has spent more than $10 million of its 
disproportionately large budget to pursue a wholesale regulatory 
rewrite of the agency's regulatory program.
  Dubbed the ``stream protection rule'' by the agency, this massive 
regulatory undertaking has little to do with protecting streams and 
more to do with riding roughshod over State regulating programs and the 
role of other agencies, including State Clean Water Act regulators.
  During its pursuit of the stream protection rule, OSM has completely 
cut States out of the process, in violation of its legal obligations 
under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  My amendment will help restrain the resources of the agency from 
promulgating a rule made without State consultation and in violation of 
NEPA.
  In fact, 10 States initially signed a memorandum of understanding 
with OSM and agreed to serve as cooperating agencies for the 
development of the environmental impact statement to accompany the so-
called stream protection rule.
  Of those 10 States, six have withdrawn their respective MOUs due to 
lack of consultation from OSM. These States include Alabama, New 
Mexico, Utah, Texas, Kentucky, and West Virginia. More States are 
expected to withdraw. While Wyoming is still a cooperating agency, they 
have requested that their State seal be removed from the EIS.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow colleagues to support this amendment 
that will keep spending in check with the OSM's statutory 
responsibilities.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
understand there is a level of frustration regarding the Office of 
Surface Mining's continued use of funds to develop the stream buffer 
rule, and we attempted to address that through the bill language to 
limit funding.
  I certainly support what you are doing for water infrastructure. It 
is a good amendment that will leverage jobs, and I urge an ``aye'' 
vote.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to 
my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
Congressman Johnson's amendment to cut $2 million from the Office of 
Surface Mining regulatory and technology budget and transfer those 
funds to the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
  This amendment will cut funding for an office that has launched an 
all-out war on coal in my home State of West Virginia. The Office of 
Surface Mining's stream protection rule is intentionally designed to 
shut down all surface mining and a significant section of underground 
mining in the Appalachian region.

                              {time}  1515

  A 2012 study found the rewrite of the stream protection rule is 
estimated to cost nearly 80,000 direct coal-related jobs. The coal 
industry is vital to West Virginia and my district. Coal supports over 
90 percent of the power generation in my State. It is crucial that we 
cut the funding for the Office of Surface Mining before they can do any 
more damage.
  I thank my colleague for offering this amendment and urge its 
passage.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank subcommittee Chairman 
Calvert again for supporting this amendment.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote by my colleagues.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for costs to review, administer, and enforce 
     permits issued by the Bureau pursuant to section 507 of 
     Public Law 95-87 (30 U.S.C. 1257), $40,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That fees assessed and 
     collected by the Office pursuant to such section 507 shall be 
     credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended:

[[Page 10583]]

     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     general fund shall be reduced as collections are received 
     during the fiscal year, so as to result in a fiscal year 2016 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $123,253,000.

                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 
     $27,303,000, to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned 
     Mine Reclamation Fund and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the Department 
     of the Interior is authorized to use up to 20 percent from 
     the recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the United States 
     Government to pay for contracts to collect these debts: 
     Provided further, That funds made available under title IV of 
     Public Law 95-87 may be used for any required non-Federal 
     share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal 
     Government for the purpose of environmental restoration 
     related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from 
     abandoned mines: Provided further, That such projects must be 
     consistent with the purposes and priorities of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided further, That 
     amounts provided under this heading may be used for the 
     travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal personnel 
     attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement sponsored training.
       In addition, $30,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for grants to States for reclamation of abandoned 
     mine lands and other related activities in accordance with 
     the terms and conditions in the report accompanying this Act: 
     Provided, That such additional amount shall be used for 
     economic and community development in conjunction with the 
     priorities in section 403(a) of the Surface Mining Control 
     and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1233(a)): Provided 
     further, That such additional amount shall be distributed in 
     equal amounts to the 3 Appalachian States with the greatest 
     amount of unfunded needs to meet the priorities described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of such section: Provided further, 
     That such additional amount shall be allocated to States 
     within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho

  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 25, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $29,904,000)''.
       Page 132, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $29,904,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, after speaking with Chairman Calvert and 
Chairman Rogers with help on future amendments, I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Griffith

  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 26, line 7, strike ``3'' and insert ``6''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, expanding the number of Appalachian 
States eligible for this program from three to six will allow 
additional States, including Virginia, to be able to participate. The 
committee and the subcommittee came up with a great idea. I just want 
to make sure it is expanded so that more States can benefit.
  The Kentucky Coal Association was in this week for a press 
conference, and one of their members said to me at that time that the 
sickness that has been in Kentucky is now spreading to Virginia, and 
they are absolutely right.
  In 1 year's time, my district has lost hundreds of coal mine jobs due 
to this administration's burdensome regulations on the coal industry; 
but it is not just the coal mine jobs. Many more jobs in related 
industries have also been lost.
  With those jobs, jobs in things as diverse as the hardware store, the 
Long John Silver's--you name it--are being lost throughout the coal 
country of Appalachian Virginia.
  The downturn of the coal industry in my district has led to many 
economic difficulties for many of my constituents and the local 
governments. I believe it is critical that we work to find ways to 
provide assistance throughout all of the Appalachian coal country, and 
my amendment would go part of the way to helping restore some economic 
vitality to my district.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the committee, as the gentleman knows, has 
included this as a pilot program to test in a few States how community 
and economic redevelopment can combine in conjunction with reclamation 
of abandoned mine lands.
  These funds will be provided to States with the largest unfunded 
needs to date. If you expand that to include six States, this pilot 
then starts to look more like a program, and that is not the 
committee's intent. The committee believes that the lessons learned 
from this pilot will inform changes, both pros and cons, under the 
reauthorization of the underlying law.
  I want to work with the gentleman in the future as this pilot moves 
forward. When we have more information, we can potentially, next year, 
reexamine this.
  I would ask the gentleman if he would withdraw the amendment. I would 
certainly be happy to work with him in the future. I know the full 
committee chairman is certainly in the interest of him to address the 
needs of his constituents. We are certainly sympathetic to that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no quarrel with the 
committee or the committee chairman or the subcommittee chairman.
  I think this is a great pilot project, which was why I thought it was 
a brilliant idea, which is why I wanted to at least put this on the 
table.
  It is not my habit to offer and then withdraw. Sometimes, you lose; 
and I understand that is probably the case. I did want to put it on the 
table, and I do appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would just reluctantly oppose this 
amendment at this time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education

                      operation of indian programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian 
     programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of 
     November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.), the Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 
     2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 
     (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), $2,505,670,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2017, except as otherwise provided 
     herein; of which not to exceed $8,500 may be for official 
     reception and representation expenses; of which not to exceed 
     $74,809,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments: 
     Provided, That in cases of designated Federal disasters, the 
     Secretary may exceed such cap, from the amounts provided 
     herein, to provide for disaster relief to Indian communities 
     affected by the disaster: Provided further, That federally 
     recognized Indian tribes and tribal organizations of 
     federally recognized Indian tribes may use their tribal 
     priority allocations for unmet welfare assistance costs: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $619,827,000 for school 
     operations costs of Bureau-funded schools and other education 
     programs shall become available on July 1, 2016, and shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $48,785,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for housing improvement, road maintenance, attorney 
     fees, litigation support, land records improvement, and the 
     Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program: Provided further, That any 
     forestry

[[Page 10584]]

     funds allocated to a federally recognized tribe which remain 
     unobligated as of September 30, 2017, may be transferred 
     during fiscal year 2018 to an Indian forest land assistance 
     account established for the benefit of the holder of the 
     funds within the holder's trust fund account: Provided 
     further, That any such unobligated balances not so 
     transferred shall expire on September 30, 2018: Provided 
     further, That in order to enhance the safety of Bureau field 
     employees, the Bureau may use funds to purchase uniforms or 
     other identifying articles of clothing for personnel: 
     Provided further, That $272,000,000 shall be for payments to 
     Indian tribes and tribal organizations for contract support 
     costs associated with contracts, grants, self-governance 
     compacts, or annual funding agreements between the Bureau and 
     an Indian tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.) prior to or during fiscal year 2016, and shall 
     remain available until expended.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,304,000)''.
       Page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $61,304,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a straightforward 
amendment to ensure local schools within the Bureau of Indian Education 
have the resources necessary to provide gainful education in quality 
facilities at a level on par with their peers in other non-Bureau 
funded schools.
  This amendment is also offered and supported by a bipartisan group of 
my colleagues, including Representatives Cramer, Rokita, Noem, 
Kirkpatrick, and Sinema.
  Our amendment redirects funds from administrative accounts within the 
EPA to the Operation of Indian Programs account with the intent of 
those funds going to the BIE and evenly allocated between the education 
construction, replacement facilities construction account and the 
elementary and secondary programs, facilities operations account.
  Currently, more than one-third of Bureau-funded facilities are in 
substandard or poor condition. A sizable volume of research, including 
investigations by the Government Accountability Office, have 
established a direct correlation between facility conditions and poor 
student outcomes within the BIE.
  The United States Government has trust responsibilities to Indian 
tribes and Indian education. This amendment supports the trust 
responsibility by helping to provide high-quality education in an 
environment that is safe, healthy, and conducive for learning.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I thank the supporters 
of the amendment, and I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
great work on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I know there is no doubt that Indian 
Country, especially Indian education, is a nonpartisan priority of this 
entire subcommittee. We are committed to building upon the bipartisan 
work of former subcommittee chairmen Mike Simpson, Jim Moran, Norm 
Dicks, and certainly Ranking Member Betty McCollum.
  We all agree that there are great needs in Indian Country, especially 
in education. In fact, we were in Arizona recently at both the Navajo 
and Hopi reservations and saw firsthand the need for education in this 
country.
  Although I am proud of what we have done for Indian Country in this 
bill, that said, I understand where the gentleman is coming from. I 
recognize there is so much more to do on Indian education that can and 
should be done.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California and the 
ranking member for their help.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), my 
friend.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Gosar, Mr. Calvert, and Ms. 
McCollum for their help in all this.
  This amendment, which I support, would fund the BIE to the 
administration's fiscal year 2016 request, but unlike that request, it 
is paid for and adheres to our budget cap.
  This year, as the chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary and 
Secondary Education Subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to visit 
several BIE schools in Arizona and Minnesota.
  During these visits, I have seen firsthand the challenges that the 
BIE faces. These challenges consist of crumbling school buildings, 
inadequate technology and Internet connectivity, transportation issues, 
and inconsistent management.
  These are all serious challenges, and they are all well documented by 
my official visits, by committee hearings--such as those being done by 
Mr. Calvert's subcommittee and mine--by GAO reports, and by the media.
  This increase in funds will help address the identified challenges by 
providing the resources needed to improve the academic achievement and 
increase the graduation rates of Native American students that attend 
BIE schools. This is the goal of all of us for Native American 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I look at this as a bipartisan issue and appreciate my 
colleagues' support of Mr. Gosar's amendment.
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
support and my colleague from Indiana for speaking on behalf of this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              construction

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands; 
     and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law 
     87-483, $187,620,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the 
     construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be 
     transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available 
     to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway 
     Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management 
     costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds 
     provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 
     13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2016, in implementing 
     new construction, replacement facilities construction, or 
     facilities improvement and repair project grants in excess of 
     $100,000 that are provided to grant schools under Public Law 
     100-297, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the 
     Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for 
     Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the 
     regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants 
     shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the 
     Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a 
     schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided 
     further, That in considering grant applications, the 
     Secretary shall consider whether such grantee would be 
     deficient in assuring that the construction projects conform 
     to applicable building standards and codes and Federal, 
     tribal, or State health and safety standards as required by 
     25 U.S.C. 2005(b), with respect to organizational and 
     financial management capabilities: Provided further, That if 
     the Secretary declines a grant application, the Secretary 
     shall follow the requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2504(f): 
     Provided further, That any disputes between the Secretary and 
     any grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the 
     disputes provision in 25 U.S.C. 2507(e): Provided further, 
     That in order to ensure timely completion of construction 
     projects, the Secretary may assume control of a project and 
     all funds related to the project, if, within 18 months of the 
     date of enactment of this Act, any grantee receiving funds 
     appropriated in this Act or in any prior Act, has not 
     completed the planning and design phase of the project and 
     commenced construction: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation may be reimbursed

[[Page 10585]]

     from the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians 
     appropriation for the appropriate share of construction costs 
     for space expansion needed in agency offices to meet trust 
     reform implementation.

 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For payments and necessary administrative expenses for 
     implementation of Indian land and water claim settlements 
     pursuant to Public Laws 99-264, 100-580, 101-618, 111-11, and 
     111-291, and for implementation of other land and water 
     rights settlements, $65,412,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                 indian guaranteed loan program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans and insured loans, 
     $7,731,000, of which $1,045,000 is for administrative 
     expenses, as authorized by the Indian Financing Act of 1974: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, 
     any part of which is to be guaranteed or insured, not to 
     exceed $100,496,183.

                       administrative provisions

       The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of 
     Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, compacts, and grants, either directly or in 
     cooperation with States and other organizations.
       Notwithstanding 25 U.S.C. 15, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     may contract for services in support of the management, 
     operation, and maintenance of the Power Division of the San 
     Carlos Irrigation Project.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office 
     oversight and Executive Direction and Administrative Services 
     (except executive direction and administrative services 
     funding for Tribal Priority Allocations, regional offices, 
     and facilities operations and maintenance) shall be available 
     for contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative agreements 
     with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the provisions of the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal Self-Governance 
     Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
       In the event any tribe returns appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, this 
     action shall not diminish the Federal Government's trust 
     responsibility to that tribe, or the government-to-government 
     relationship between the United States and that tribe, or 
     that tribe's ability to access future appropriations.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Education, other than the 
     amounts provided herein for assistance to public schools 
     under 25 U.S.C. 452 et seq., shall be available to support 
     the operation of any elementary or secondary school in the 
     State of Alaska.
       No funds available to the Bureau of Indian Education shall 
     be used to support expanded grades for any school or 
     dormitory beyond the grade structure in place or approved by 
     the Secretary of the Interior at each school in the Bureau of 
     Indian Education school system as of October 1, 1995, except 
     that the Secretary of the Interior may waive this prohibition 
     to support expansion of up to one additional grade when the 
     Secretary determines such waiver is needed to support 
     accomplishment of the mission of the Bureau of Indian 
     Education. Appropriations made available in this or any prior 
     Act for schools funded by the Bureau shall be available, in 
     accordance with the Bureau's funding formula, only to the 
     schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996, 
     and to any school or school program that was reinstated in 
     fiscal year 2012. Funds made available under this Act may not 
     be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded 
     school (as that term is defined in section 1141 of the 
     Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2021)), except that a 
     charter school that is in existence on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and that has operated at a Bureau-
     funded school before September 1, 1999, may continue to 
     operate during that period, but only if the charter school 
     pays to the Bureau a pro rata share of funds to reimburse the 
     Bureau for the use of the real and personal property 
     (including buses and vans), the funds of the charter school 
     are kept separate and apart from Bureau funds, and the Bureau 
     does not assume any obligation for charter school programs of 
     the State in which the school is located if the charter 
     school loses such funding. Employees of Bureau-funded schools 
     sharing a campus with a charter school and performing 
     functions related to the charter school's operation and 
     employees of a charter school shall not be treated as Federal 
     employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including 
     section 113 of title I of appendix C of Public Law 106-113, 
     if in fiscal year 2003 or 2004 a grantee received indirect 
     and administrative costs pursuant to a distribution formula 
     based on section 5(f) of Public Law 101-301, the Secretary 
     shall continue to distribute indirect and administrative cost 
     funds to such grantee using the section 5(f) distribution 
     formula.
       Funds available under this Act may not be used to establish 
     satellite locations of schools in the Bureau school system as 
     of September 1, 1996, except that the Secretary may waive 
     this prohibition in order for an Indian tribe to provide 
     language and cultural immersion educational programs for non-
     public schools located within the jurisdictional area of the 
     tribal government which exclusively serve tribal members, do 
     not include grades beyond those currently served at the 
     existing Bureau-funded school, provide an educational 
     environment with educator presence and academic facilities 
     comparable to the Bureau-funded school, comply with all 
     applicable Tribal, Federal, or State health and safety 
     standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 
     demonstrate the benefits of establishing operations at a 
     satellite location in lieu of incurring extraordinary costs, 
     such as for transportation or other impacts to students such 
     as those caused by busing students extended distances: 
     Provided, That no funds available under this Act may be used 
     to fund operations, maintenance, rehabilitation, construction 
     or other facilities-related costs for such assets that are 
     not owned by the Bureau: Provided further, That the term 
     ``satellite school'' means a school location physically 
     separated from the existing Bureau school by more than 50 
     miles but that forms part of the existing school in all other 
     respects: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Secretary to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     proposed rule entitled ``Federal Acknowledgement of American 
     Indian Tribes'' published by the Department of the Interior 
     in the Federal Register on May 29, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 30766 
     et seq.).

                          Departmental Offices

                        Office of the Secretary

                        departmental operations

       For necessary expenses for management of the Department of 
     the Interior, including the collection and disbursement of 
     royalties, fees, and other mineral revenue proceeds, and for 
     grants and cooperative agreements, as authorized by law, 
     $717,279,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017; 
     of which not to exceed $15,000 may be for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and of which up to $1,000,000 
     shall be available for workers compensation payments and 
     unemployment compensation payments associated with the 
     orderly closure of the United States Bureau of Mines; and of 
     which $8,128,000 for the Office of Valuation Services is to 
     be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 
     shall remain available until expended; and of which 
     $38,300,000 shall remain available until expended for the 
     purpose of mineral revenue management activities: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, $15,000 
     under this heading shall be available for refunds of 
     overpayments in connection with certain Indian leases in 
     which the Secretary concurred with the claimed refund due, to 
     pay amounts owed to Indian allottees or tribes, or to correct 
     prior unrecoverable erroneous payments.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sablan

  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 36, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 38, line 6, after each of the first and second dollar 
     amounts, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from the Northern Mariana Islands and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding for 
territorial assistance initiatives managed by the Interior Department.
  The assistance benefits the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, which I represent, but also the United States territories of 
American Samoa, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands, as well as 
America's allies in the Pacific, the Republic of Palau, the Federated 
States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

                              {time}  1530

  The assistance will continue our commitment to help all of these 
areas to develop economically and become more self-sufficient.
  Mr. Chairman, much remains to reach these goals. The 2010 Census 
revealed that poverty levels in the islands remain three to five times 
the national average, and median income in the Northern Marianas is 
only $20,000 compared to $53,000 nationwide.
  The most recent gross domestic product data for the islands, reported 
by

[[Page 10586]]

the Bureau of Economic Analysis, found that in the Virgin Islands, real 
GDP declined 5.4 percent in 2013 and declined 2.4 percent in American 
Samoa. In contrast, the real GDP for the United States, excluding the 
territories, increased 2.2 percent in 2013. So we have a lot of 
catching up to do.
  Interior has been very responsible in recent years, focusing 
technical assistance funds in a way that really will help our areas 
develop economically. I am thinking in particular of the Empowering 
Insular Communities program, which is helping us move imported fuels--
that are costly and take money out of our economies--to greater use of 
locally available energy sources.
  I am thinking about the Insular Areas: Assessment of Buildings and 
Classrooms Initiative, just like the preceding amendment. This program 
found that only 38 percent of insular schools are in acceptable 
condition and identified specifically those schools where there are 
safety hazards for students. The ABC Initiative is systematically 
upgrading that infrastructure so our children have schools that are 
conducive to learning and are safe. Developing those human resources is 
the surest way to raise our economy. We need to give Interior the 
resources to continue--and finish--that initiative.
  The additional $5 million my amendment provides can be used for these 
or any of the other territorial assistance programs, such as the Coral 
Reef Initiative, brown tree snake control, or compact impact to areas 
negatively affected by United States immigration policies.
  Mr. Chairman, all of these programs are works in progress. We should 
provide more funding for them, and technical assistance funding should 
remain focused on programs that the Department has already begun and 
invested in. I appreciate the past support for the program and, even in 
these challenging fiscal times, I urge your support for increased 
funding for assistance to territories for fiscal year 2016.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. I want the gentleman to know that I understand that the 
territories would benefit greatly from additional funding. We funded 
the assistance to territories at the FY15-enacted levels. We level-
funded that because we know that the money is needed, and we know that 
we have responsibilities in the territories. However, the offset right 
now, we have cut back that particular operation considerably, so I 
would oppose that offset. But I would be more than happy to work with 
the gentleman as we move this process along, along with the ranking 
member, to see if we can't get additional funds as we move this process 
along.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's intent, but we 
would have to reluctantly oppose this amendment at this time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the chairman's offer to work 
with me because I will look him up and work with him and his 
subcommittee. But let me just make a small point here of what this 
technical assistance money means to us.
  The States are eligible for thousands of Federal programs that help 
States do one thing or another, from social to educational to 
infrastructure projects. For the territories, there are only 700-some 
programs where the territories are eligible. So there is a difference.
  So this small pot of technical assistance money is a program that 
provides grants to help the territories pick themselves up and wipe off 
the dust. It is just a small amount of money. Five million goes a long 
way, Mr. Chairman, when it is fixing the schools that the Army Corps 
has already identified. I understand there are 1,500 school buildings, 
and 62 percent of them are not safe, and only 38 percent are declared 
safe. So just like we do for the Bureau of Indian Education, we are 
also asking that we increase this money.
  So I will also work with the chair, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SABLAN. 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 the Northern 
Mariana Islands will be postponed.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the chairman 
is looking towards working more for putting dollars into Indian 
education, as Mr. Gosar's amendment did, and the bipartisan way in 
which this bill has been proceeding forward, and I yield to the 
chairman.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to work with the 
young lady to get additional funding for Indian education at any time 
in the future, and we can continue to work together to do that.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the Parliamentarian's patience and 
the majority's patience while we get another copy of the amendment 
presented to the body for consideration. I thank everyone for their 
courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, Minnesota is a great State, and we would like to have 
the gentleman from California there so the gentleman can see our great 
lakes and our great water.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, could the gentlewoman please ship some of 
that water to California?
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time and my water, we would love to have 
the gentleman there, and when the water is very hard, it freezes, and 
then the gentleman can try ice fishing, which is a great sport.
  Mr. Chair, I think the amendment is coming to the desk. Once more, I 
thank you very much for your patience, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 36, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,913,000)''.
       Page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,913,000)''.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman from Florida and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the House's 
consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to restore 
brownfields funding to fiscal year 2015 levels and to make the point 
that when we help redevelop contaminated properties, we generate a 
large return on investments that lift our communities back home.
  My amendment increases EPA's Environmental Programs and Management 
account by a modest $1.9 million to be offset by the same amount from 
the Office of the Secretary. Even with this modest boost, the proposed 
bill on the floor, unfortunately, would remain $4 million below the 
budget request.

[[Page 10587]]

  Mr. Chairman, when a contaminated property achieves a brownfields 
designation and a grant, local communities and businesses can clean up 
the property and put the property back into use. This type of economic 
redevelopment is key to our neighborhoods and communities, rural or 
urban. It increases property values and creates jobs with just a little 
bit of seed money from the EPA through brownfields.
  A 2014 study concluded that cleaning up brownfields leads to nearby 
residential property value increases of 4.9 to 11 percent. Another 2007 
study found that an average of 10 jobs are created for every acre of 
brownfields redevelopment. And based on historical data, we know that 
$1 of the EPA's brownfields funding leverages between $17 and $18 in 
other public and private financing.
  Mr. Chairman, I have witnessed great success in brownfields 
redevelopment back home in the Tampa Bay area. For example, when the 
existence of the Old Mercy Hospital in Midtown St. Petersburg was in 
jeopardy due to environmental contamination on the site, the city of 
St. Petersburg and the EPA stepped in to turn the Old Mercy Hospital 
into a flourishing community health center. The project created 80 
jobs, saved existing jobs, created new jobs, and it stands now as the 
Johnnie Ruth Clarke Community Health Center, which is the linchpin to 
Midtown St. Petersburg community redevelopment efforts.
  Similarly, in Tampa, the Tampa Family Health Centers have redeveloped 
a number of brownfields sites, including one on the site of a closed 
car dealership, that have had a very positive impact beyond the health 
care of thousands and thousands of my neighbors in a severely 
underserved area. It is one of the primary examples of the growing 
healthfields initiative which targets redevelopment through brownfields 
to help improve access to health services for our neighbors.
  Mr. Chairman, the return on investment is so great across America. 
The Congress must invest much more in our communities, and brownfields 
redevelopment is simply smart policy, especially in places where these 
resources are scarce. It is also a critical part of EPA's environmental 
justice efforts and its Environmental Justice 2020 Action Agenda 
framework. When the EPA released its Environmental Justice 2020 
framework, I convened local community leaders across the Tampa Bay area 
to solicit their opinions, and brownfields redevelopment was at the top 
of their list.
  Mr. Chairman, we can do better here, and I hope as the appropriations 
process goes on we will find ways to help communities redevelop with 
this small seed money through the brownfields initiative.
  I would like to thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Castor amendment to revitalize our 
communities back home, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentlewoman was able to share 
this amendment with both the majority and the minority in the committee 
where we could have reviewed it. But saying that, I still must oppose 
the amendment because of the offset.
  Mr. Chairman, the offset obviously would take money from the 
Secretary and move it over to the EPA, and at this time we have used 
the Secretary's Office tremendously as an offset already, and I am 
afraid that this may start affecting other programs within the 
Department of the Interior. So I would have to oppose this amendment.
  The gentlewoman's amendment won't increase the cleanup of a 
brownfields site, it will only pay for salaries over at the EPA, and I 
believe that we don't need to do any more for the EPA than has already 
been done.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is an important account to 
beef up. Remember, we are under the sequester caps, and then we are $4 
million under the budget request even with this amendment.
  Now, the Secretary's Office is the best place to go for an offset. 
The Secretary's account is $452 million above fiscal year 2015 levels 
and $389 million above the budget request.

                              {time}  1545

  I would put to you that it would be a better investment for our 
communities back home to allow them this little seed money, this little 
matching money, to redevelop properties, rather than fund the 
bureaucracy at the EPA.
  I urge approval of the Castor amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 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 Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       administrative provisions

       For fiscal year 2016, up to $400,000 of the payments 
     authorized by the Act of October 20, 1976 (31 U.S.C. 6901-
     6907) may be retained for administrative expenses of the 
     Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program: Provided, That no payment 
     shall be made pursuant to that Act to otherwise eligible 
     units of local government if the computed amount of the 
     payment is less than $100: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may reduce the payment authorized by 31 U.S.C. 
     6901-6907 for an individual county by the amount necessary to 
     correct prior year overpayments to that county: Provided 
     further, That the amount needed to correct a prior year 
     underpayment to an individual county shall be paid from any 
     reductions for overpayments to other counties and the amount 
     necessary to cover any remaining underpayment is hereby 
     appropriated and shall be paid to individual counties: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount made available by 
     this title for ``Office of the Secretary--Departmental 
     Operations'', $452,000,000 shall be available to the 
     Secretary of the Interior for an additional amount for fiscal 
     year 2016 for payments in lieu of taxes under chapter 69 of 
     title 31, United States Code.

                            Insular Affairs

                       assistance to territories

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and other 
     jurisdictions identified in section 104(e) of Public Law 108-
     188, $85,976,000, of which: (1) $76,528,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for territorial assistance, 
     including general technical assistance, maintenance 
     assistance, disaster assistance, coral reef initiative 
     activities, and brown tree snake control and research; grants 
     to the judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and 
     expenses, as authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to 
     the Government of American Samoa, in addition to current 
     local revenues, for construction and support of governmental 
     functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as 
     authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as 
     authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
     241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $9,448,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2017, for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of Insular Affairs: Provided, That all financial 
     transactions of the territorial and local governments herein 
     provided for, including such transactions of all agencies or 
     instrumentalities established or used by such governments, 
     may be audited by the Government Accountability Office, at 
     its discretion, in accordance with chapter 35 of title 31, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That Northern Mariana 
     Islands Covenant grant funding shall be provided according to 
     those terms of the Agreement of the Special Representatives 
     on Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern 
     Mariana Islands approved by Public Law 104-134: Provided 
     further, That the funds for the program of operations and 
     maintenance improvement are appropriated to institutionalize 
     routine operations and maintenance improvement of capital 
     infrastructure with territorial participation and cost 
     sharing to be determined by the Secretary based on the 
     grantee's commitment to timely maintenance of its capital 
     assets: Provided further, That any appropriation for disaster 
     assistance under this

[[Page 10588]]

     heading in this Act or previous appropriations Acts may be 
     used as non-Federal matching funds for the purpose of hazard 
     mitigation grants provided pursuant to section 404 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c).


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Plaskett

  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 2822.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 38, line 6, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $13,684,000) (increased by $13,684,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, as one of the five Members of Congress 
representing America's offshore territories and as the Representative 
from the U.S. Virgin Islands, I am disappointed to see the underfunding 
made to the FY16 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill.
  Aside from the underfunding to environmental protection programs that 
protect important natural resources and, among a myriad of things, 
assures Americans have access to clean water, the cuts to this bill 
come largely at the expense of America's island territories.
  The Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
Northern Marianas have been a part of this great Nation for more than a 
century. Since then, this country has augmented the support to critical 
areas of activity by the respective local governments in these 
territories.
  This is done, largely in part, through the Interior's territorial 
assistance activity, in which this bill proposes to underfund by 
$13,684,000.
  Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable. Funding through Interior's 
territorial assistance activity go toward many important functions in 
these territories, like capital improvement projects. These capital 
improvement projects, CIP, funds address a variety of infrastructure 
needs in the U.S. territories, including critical infrastructure such 
as hospitals, schools, wastewater, and solid waste systems.
  For example, funding through CIP helped the Virgin Islands Waste 
Management Authority complete the repair of a severely deteriorated 
force main water line that threatened to leak in nearby ocean water.
  Improvements to critical infrastructure not only benefit the current 
population of these territories and the businesses that invest in those 
communities, but lay the groundwork to attract new investment to the 
territories, which promotes economic development and self-sufficiency.
  An example of the importance of this funding to the territories is 
highlighted in the fiscal year '16 budget request, in which my home 
district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, proposes to use approximately $2 
million to address health and safety deferred maintenance items that 
have been identified in Interior's insular assessment of buildings and 
classrooms initiative. This is imperative, as our schools are not 
structurally sound or conducive to the healthy learning environment.
  Many of the schools in the Virgin Islands are overrun with mold and 
have severe structural deficiencies, some of which are over a half a 
century old.
  The St. Croix Central High School had to close its doors last year 
because of noxious odors that made teachers and students sick. This 
recurring incident began midway through the 2013 school year and forced 
the entire student body of more than 1,000 students to join a similarly 
populated high school in double session for the remainder of the school 
year.
  This coming fall, the Virgin Islands government will again close 
schools on the island of St. Croix, but this time, students from three 
schools will be relocated to other schools for at least an entire 
school year, maybe longer, while the local government works to repair 
the severely decrepit buildings that house those young people.
  Mr. Chairman, there hasn't been a school built in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands in the last two decades. The children in my home district, as 
well as in the other five territories, deserve better and need the 
assistance afforded through this funding.
  A breakdown of CIP expenditures in 2014 underscores how important 
this funding is to not only students in our territories, but also to 
our senior citizens as well. Construction or repair to schools and 
hospitals account for nearly half the total amount of CIP expenditures 
last year.
  In St. Croix, our hospital is without an adequate mental health 
facility, as well as St. Thomas, and there are few assisted living 
facilities and a growing population of aging citizens.
  The U.S. Virgin Islands also proposes to use $1 million in 2016 CIP 
funding for structural renovations and equipment upgrades at a variety 
of public libraries on the islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. 
John. These repairs and upgrades will help provide a safe, secure, and 
comfortable location for citizens to use library archives and public 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, the people living in America's island territories are 
citizens of this great Nation, the same as people living in Alaska, 
Hawaii, and the 48 contiguous States. We are constitutionally entitled 
to fair and equal representation and full inclusion by this House, as 
well as by this government.
  I look forward to continuing to work on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to also point out that unlike the States, the 
Virgin Islands and the other territories are not part of the formula 
grants that the other locations have. We do not receive the same 
funding for grants, programs that provide technical assistance, jobs, 
or infrastructure.
  In fact, today, with the announcement of the Supreme Court, while we 
are thankful for the rest of the United States, with the Affordable 
Care Act, we are not included in it to the full extent the other States 
are.
  I am asking, Mr. Chairman, at this time, that this body, as well as 
this Congress and, in fact, the Federal Government, look to the Virgin 
Islands and look to including us and all of the territories in full 
inclusion.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      compact of free association

       For grants and necessary expenses, $3,318,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as provided for in sections 
     221(a)(2) and 233 of the Compact of Free Association for the 
     Republic of Palau; and section 221(a)(2) of the Compacts of 
     Free Association for the Government of the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, as 
     authorized by Public Law 99-658 and Public Law 108-188.

                       Administrative Provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       At the request of the Governor of Guam, the Secretary may 
     transfer discretionary funds or mandatory funds provided 
     under section 104(e) of Public Law 108-188 and Public Law 
     104-134, that are allocated for Guam, to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for the subsidy cost of direct or guaranteed 
     loans, plus not to exceed three percent of the amount of the 
     subsidy transferred for the cost of loan administration, for 
     the purposes authorized by the Rural Electrification Act of 
     1936 and section 306(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act for construction and repair projects in Guam, 
     and such funds shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That such 
     loans or loan guarantees may be made without regard to the 
     population of the area, credit elsewhere requirements, and 
     restrictions on the types of eligible entities under the 
     Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and section 306(a)(1) of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act: Provided 
     further, That any funds transferred to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall be in addition to funds otherwise made 
     available to make or guarantee loans under such authorities.

                        Office of the Solicitor

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $65,142,000.

[[Page 10589]]



                      Office of Inspector General

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $50,047,000.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 41, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       On page 102, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chair and the ranking 
member of this appropriations process for the Interior and Environment 
for their indulgence and their understanding of how much a part of the 
lives of Americans this legislation is from my amendment dealing with 
the culture and history of this Nation to that of clean water, clean 
air, our Federal parks, our forestry. This is a vital piece of the 
livelihood and the life of America.
  Among other agencies that the legislation funds is the Smithsonian 
Institution, which operates our national museums, including the Air and 
Space Museum, the Museum of African Art, the American Art Museum, and 
the National Portrait Gallery. It also operates the national treasure, 
the National Zoo.
  My amendment is simple. It sends a very important message from the 
Congress of the United States to infuse into the people cultural and 
appreciation for the respect and holding of wild animals, for the 
forests, for the number of assets that we should hold very dear, and it 
increases the Smithsonian Institution by $1.5 million.
  Mr. Chairman, the Smithsonian's outreach programs bring scholars in 
art, history, and science out of the Nation's attic and into their own 
backyard. Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian.
  In order to fill the Smithsonian's mission, the increase and 
diffusion of knowledge, the Smithsonian seeks to serve on an even 
greater audience by bringing it to the communities, to the people who 
otherwise would be deprived, or the institutions that would otherwise 
be deprived of this kind of cultural exchange.
  This money is not a lot of money, but it is an important statement 
for those who seek to be connected to the cultural history of America.
  The Smithsonian's outreach program serves millions of Americans, 
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 States 
through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of 
educational resources.
  Smithsonian outreach programs work in close cooperation with 
Smithsonian museums and research centers, as well as with 144 affiliate 
institutions, and others across the Nation. Smithsonian outreach 
activities support community-based cultural and educational 
organizations.
  It reaches out to African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino 
Americans, Native Americans, new Americans, and all Americans from 
kindergarten to college to our senior citizens.
  What can we do to help this outreach expand? We can provide this 
simple amendment of $1.5 million to create more mobile museums talking 
about the extensive history that we have. These mobile museums then 
connect with our museums that we have.
  The African American Museum in Houston is one of those that needs the 
bridge that the Smithsonian has. It is a museum that has reached 
prominence, but not the ability to reach a lot of people. This is an 
opportunity to boost the Smithsonian in order to ensure that we have 
that kind of outreach.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment only because of the offset.
  The offset that we are talking about is taking money of the inspector 
general's office, which is our auditors, and we desperately need 
auditors in the Federal Government. We, as appropriators, are very 
reluctant to cut the inspector general's office in general.
  I want to work with the gentlewoman. I recognize her passion to make 
sure that the good work that the Smithsonian does gets out to the 
general community throughout the United States. I am a big supporter of 
the Smithsonian. We have level-funded the Smithsonian Institution this 
year. Obviously, we are operating under difficult budget constraints.
  We certainly support what the gentlewoman wants to do; we just don't 
support the offset in which she wants to do it with.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think we have had an opportunity to be on the 
floor together over the years. Thank you so very much. I want to thank 
the ranking member and the leadership on the committee.
  My question would be--obviously, this appropriations process is a 
bill here in the House and then there is conference--what would be the 
immediate strategy of working with you on this goal that we both would 
have?
  Mr. CALVERT. We will continue to work with the gentlewoman as this 
process moves forward and with the ranking member, Ms. McCollum.
  Who knows, there may be something that happens between A and B, and 
we may have some additional resources, who knows; but we will certainly 
work with you to find out if we do.
  I know that if we can help the Smithsonian Institution out, it is 
really at the top of our list.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me, first of all, thank the ranking member for all the hard work 
that has been done and the chairman. It is a passion for reaching out 
and touching museums like the Houston African American Museum that has, 
as its curator, an excellent leader in John Guess.
  I would say to museums like that to allow me to take up the chairman 
and the ranking member's leadership and begin to look for what may be 
an extra opportunity to infuse dollars to get the culture of America to 
reach out to all over.
  With that, in the spirit of collaboration and collegiality, I am 
going to at this time withdraw in a friendly manner the Jackson Lee 
amendment with a very hopeful commitment to be able to help museums 
like the Houston African American Museum and many others that really 
benefit from this connection.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlewoman for her generosity, and I will 
continue to work with her as this process moves forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, in concluding, there 
are many things that this bill does. I am hoping that we will rid 
ourselves of sequester to let it do more, and one of the things would 
be this outreach that brings us together as a Nation in a positive way.
  I cannot say good accolades about Houston museums in general, the 
Buffalo Soldiers National Museum, the Houston African American Museum 
that has a great purpose, and other museums that I hope we can address 
the Smithsonian's outreach capability.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my 
amendment to H.R. 2822, the ``Interior and Environment Appropriations 
Act of 2016.''
  Let me also thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for 
their leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor.
  Among other agencies, this legislation funds the Smithsonian 
Institution, which operates our national museums, including the Air and 
Space Museum; the Museum of African Art;

[[Page 10590]]

the Museum of the American Indian; and the National Portrait Gallery.
  The Smithsonian also operates another national treasure: the National 
Zoo.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important 
message from the Congress of the United States.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment provides that increases funding for the 
Smithsonian Institution by $1.5 million to fund outreach programs 
administered by the Smithsonian Institution.
  Mr. Chair, the Smithsonian's outreach programs bring Smithsonian 
scholars in art, history and science out of ``the nation's attic'' and 
into their own backyard.
  Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian in Washington, 
D.C.
  But in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, ``the increase and 
diffusion of knowledge,'' the Smithsonian seeks to serve an even 
greater audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities 
who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history 
offered by the Smithsonian.
  The Smithsonian's outreach programs serve millions of Americans, 
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 
states, through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of 
educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, 
training programs, and websites.
  Smithsonian outreach programs work in close cooperation with 
Smithsonian museums and research centers, as well as with 144 affiliate 
institutions and others across the nation.
  The Smithsonian's outreach activities support community-based 
cultural and educational organizations around the country.
  They ensure a vital, recurring, and high-impact Smithsonian presence 
in all 50 states through the provision of traveling exhibitions and a 
network of affiliations.
  Smithsonian outreach programs increase connections between the 
Institution and targeted audiences (African American, Asian American, 
Latino, Native American, and new American) and provide kindergarten 
through college-age museum education and outreach opportunities.
  These outreach programs enhance K-12 science education programs, 
facilitate the Smithsonian's scholarly interactions with students and 
scholars at universities, museums, and other research institutions; and 
disseminate results related to the research and collections strengths 
of the Institution.
  The programs that provide the critical mass of Smithsonian outreach 
activity are:
  1. the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES);
  2. the Smithsonian Affiliations, the Smithsonian Center for Education 
and Museum Studies (SCEMS);
  3. National Science Resources Center (NSRC);
  4. the Smithsonian Institution Press (SIP);
  5. the Office of Fellowships (OF); and
  6. the Smithsonian Associates (TSA), which receives no federal 
funding.
  To achieve the goal of increasing public engagement, SITES directs 
some of its federal resources to develop Smithsonian Across America: A 
Celebration of National Pride.
  This ``mobile museum,'' which will feature Smithsonian artifacts from 
the most iconic (presidential portraits, historic American flags, Civil 
War records, astronaut uniforms, etc.) to the simplest items of 
everyday life (family quilts, prairie schoolhouse furnishings, historic 
lunch boxes, multilingual store front and street signs, etc.), has been 
a long-standing organizational priority of the Smithsonian.
  SITES ``mobile museum'' is the only traveling exhibit format able to 
guarantee audience growth and expanded geographic distribution during 
sustained periods of economic retrenchment, but also because it is 
imperative for the many exhibitors nationwide who are struggling 
financially yet eager to participate in Smithsonian outreach.
  For communities still struggling to fully recover from the economic 
downturn, the ability of museums to present temporary exhibitions, the 
``mobile museum'' promises to answer an ever-growing demand for 
Smithsonian shows in the field.
  A single, conventional SITES exhibit can reach a maximum of 12 
locations over a two- to three-year period.
  In contrast, a ``mobile museum'' exhibit can visit up to three venues 
per week in the course of only one year, at no cost to the host 
institution or community.
  The net result is an increase by 150 in the number of outreach 
locations to which SITES shows can travel annually.
  And in addition to its flexibility in making short-term stops in 
cities and towns from coast-to-coast, a ``mobile museum'' has the 
advantage of being able to frequent the very locations where people 
live, work, and take part in leisure time activities.
  By establishing an exhibit presence in settings like these, SITES 
will not only increase its annual visitor participation by 1 million, 
but also advance a key Smithsonian performance objective: to develop 
exhibit approaches that address diverse audiences, including population 
groups not always affiliated with mainstream cultural institutions.
  SITES also will be the public exhibitions' face of the Smithsonian's 
National Museum of African American History and Culture, as that new 
Museum comes online.
  Providing national access to projects that will introduce the 
American public to the Museum's mission, SITES in FY 2008 will tour 
such stirring exhibitions as NASA ART: 50 Years of Exploration; 381 
Days: The Montgomery Bus Boycott Story; Beyond: Visions of Planetary 
Landscapes; The Way We Worked: Photographs from the National Archives; 
and More Than Words: Illustrated Letters from the Smithsonian's 
Archives of American Art.
  To meet the growing demand among smaller community and ethnic museums 
for an exhibition celebrating the Latino experience, SITES provided a 
scaled-down version of the National Museum of American History's 4,000-
square-foot exhibition about legendary entertainer Celia Cruz.
  Two 1,500-square-foot exhibitions, one about Crow Indian history and 
the other on basket traditions, will give Smithsonian visitors beyond 
Washington a taste of the Institution's critically acclaimed National 
Museum of the American Indian.
  Two more exhibits, ``In Plane View'' and ``Earth from Space,'' 
provided visitors an opportunity to experience the Smithsonian's 
recently opened, expansive National Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy 
Center.
  For almost 30 years, The Smithsonian Associates--the highly regarded 
educational arm of the Smithsonian Institution--has arranged Scholars 
in the Schools programs.
  Through this tremendously successful and well-received educational 
outreach program, the Smithsonian shares its staff--hundreds of experts 
in art, history and science--with the national community at a local 
level.
  The mission of Smithsonian Affiliations is to build a strong national 
network of museums and educational organizations in order to establish 
active and engaging relationships with communities throughout the 
country.
  There are currently 138 affiliates located in the United States, 
Puerto Rico, and Panama.
  By working with museums of diverse subject areas and scholarly 
disciplines, both emerging and well-established, Smithsonian 
Affiliations is building partnerships through which audiences and 
visitors everywhere will be able to share in the great wealth of the 
Smithsonian while building capacity and expertise in local communities.
  The National Science Resources Center (NSRC) strives to increase the 
number of ethnically diverse students participating in effective 
science programs based on NSRC products and services.
  The Center develops and implements a national outreach strategy that 
will increase the number of school districts (currently more than 800) 
that are implementing NSRC K-8 programs.
  The NSRC is striving to further enhance its program activity with a 
newly developed scientific outreach program introducing communities and 
school districts to science through literacy initiatives.
  In addition, through the building of the multicultural Alliance 
Initiative, the Smithsonian's outreach programs seek to develop new 
approaches to enable the public to gain access to Smithsonian 
collections, research, education, and public programs that reflect the 
diversity of the American people, including underserved audiences of 
ethnic populations and persons with disabilities.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment and 
thank Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt for their courtesies, 
consideration, and very fine work in putting together this excellent 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time and 
begin to work the process to provide funding to the Smithsonian for 
that purpose.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians

                         federal trust programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the operation of trust programs for Indians by direct 
     expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and 
     grants,

[[Page 10591]]

     $139,029,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $22,120,000 from this or any other Act, may be 
     available for historical accounting: Provided, That funds for 
     trust management improvements and litigation support may, as 
     needed, be transferred to or merged with the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education, ``Operation of Indian 
     Programs'' account; the Office of the Solicitor, ``Salaries 
     and Expenses'' account; and the Office of the Secretary, 
     ``Departmental Operations'' account: Provided further, That 
     funds made available through contracts or grants obligated 
     during fiscal year 2016, as authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall 
     remain available until expended by the contractor or grantee: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary shall not be required to provide a 
     quarterly statement of performance for any Indian trust 
     account that has not had activity for at least 15 months and 
     has a balance of $15 or less: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall issue an annual account statement and 
     maintain a record of any such accounts and shall permit the 
     balance in each such account to be withdrawn upon the express 
     written request of the account holder: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $50,000 is available for the Secretary to make 
     payments to correct administrative errors of either 
     disbursements from or deposits to Individual Indian Money or 
     Tribal accounts after September 30, 2002: Provided further, 
     That erroneous payments that are recovered shall be credited 
     to and remain available in this account for this purpose: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall not be required to 
     reconcile Special Deposit Accounts with a balance of less 
     than $500 unless the Office of the Special Trustee receives 
     proof of ownership from a Special Deposit Accounts claimant.

                        Department-wide Programs

                        wildland fire management

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, fire 
     suppression operations, fire science and research, emergency 
     rehabilitation, hazardous fuels management activities, and 
     rural fire assistance by the Department of the Interior, 
     $804,795,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $6,127,000 shall be for the renovation or 
     construction of fire facilities: Provided, That such funds 
     are also available for repayment of advances to other 
     appropriation accounts from which funds were previously 
     transferred for such purposes: Provided further, That of the 
     funds provided $164,000,000 is for hazardous fuels management 
     activities: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     $18,035,000 is for burned area rehabilitation: Provided 
     further, That persons hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1469 may be 
     furnished subsistence and lodging without cost from funds 
     available from this appropriation: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received by a bureau or 
     office of the Department of the Interior for fire protection 
     rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq., protection of 
     United States property, may be credited to the appropriation 
     from which funds were expended to provide that protection, 
     and are available without fiscal year limitation: Provided 
     further, That using the amounts designated under this title 
     of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior may enter into 
     procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements, for 
     hazardous fuels management and resilient landscapes 
     activities, and for training and monitoring associated with 
     such hazardous fuels management and resilient landscapes 
     activities on Federal land, or on adjacent non-Federal land 
     for activities that benefit resources on Federal land: 
     Provided further, That the costs of implementing any 
     cooperative agreement between the Federal Government and any 
     non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by 
     the affected parties: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act, the 
     Secretary, for purposes of hazardous fuels management and 
     resilient landscapes activities, may obtain maximum 
     practicable competition among: (1) local private, nonprofit, 
     or cooperative entities; (2) Youth Conservation Corps crews, 
     Public Lands Corps (Public Law 109-154), or related 
     partnerships with State, local, or nonprofit youth groups; 
     (3) small or micro-businesses; or (4) other entities that 
     will hire or train locally a significant percentage, defined 
     as 50 percent or more, of the project workforce to complete 
     such contracts: Provided further, That in implementing this 
     section, the Secretary shall develop written guidance to 
     field units to ensure accountability and consistent 
     application of the authorities provided herein: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this heading may be 
     used to reimburse the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     and the National Marine Fisheries Service for the costs of 
     carrying out their responsibilities under the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to consult and 
     conference, as required by section 7 of such Act, in 
     connection with wildland fire management activities: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the Interior may use wildland 
     fire appropriations to enter into leases of real property 
     with local governments, at or below fair market value, to 
     construct capitalized improvements for fire facilities on 
     such leased properties, including but not limited to fire 
     guard stations, retardant stations, and other initial attack 
     and fire support facilities, and to make advance payments for 
     any such lease or for construction activity associated with 
     the lease: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the 
     transfer of funds appropriated for wildland fire management, 
     in an aggregate amount not to exceed $50,000,000, between the 
     Departments when such transfers would facilitate and expedite 
     wildland fire management programs and projects: Provided 
     further, That funds provided for wildfire suppression shall 
     be available for support of Federal emergency response 
     actions: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be available for assistance to or through the 
     Department of State in connection with forest and rangeland 
     research, technical information, and assistance in foreign 
     countries, and, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
     State, shall be available to support forestry, wildland fire 
     management, and related natural resource activities outside 
     the United States and its territories and possessions, 
     including technical assistance, education and training, and 
     cooperation with United States and international 
     organizations.

                flame wildfire suppression reserve fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for large fire suppression 
     operations of the Department of the Interior and as a reserve 
     fund for suppression and Federal emergency response 
     activities, $92,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such amounts are only available for transfer 
     to the ``Wildland Fire Management'' account following a 
     declaration by the Secretary in accordance with section 502 
     of the FLAME Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 1748a).

                    central hazardous materials fund

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and any of its component offices and bureaus for the response 
     action, including associated activities, performed pursuant 
     to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), $10,010,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

           natural resource damage assessment and restoration

                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment, restoration 
     activities, and onshore oil spill preparedness by the 
     Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 
     the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and 
     Public Law 101-337 (16 U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), $7,689,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                          working capital fund

       For the operation and maintenance of a departmental 
     financial and business management system, information 
     technology improvements of general benefit to the Department, 
     and the consolidation of facilities and operations throughout 
     the Department, $56,529,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in 
     this Act or any other Act may be used to establish reserves 
     in the Working Capital Fund account other than for accrued 
     annual leave and depreciation of equipment without prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may assess reasonable charges to State, local and 
     tribal government employees for training services provided by 
     the National Indian Program Training Center, other than 
     training related to Public Law 93-638: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary may lease or otherwise provide space and 
     related facilities, equipment or professional services of the 
     National Indian Program Training Center to State, local and 
     tribal government employees or persons or organizations 
     engaged in cultural, educational, or recreational activities 
     (as defined in section 3306(a) of title 40, United States 
     Code) at the prevailing rate for similar space, facilities, 
     equipment, or services in the vicinity of the National Indian 
     Program Training Center: Provided further, That all funds 
     received pursuant to the two preceding provisos shall be 
     credited to this account, shall be available until expended, 
     and shall be used by the Secretary for necessary expenses of 
     the National Indian Program Training Center: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary may enter into grants and 
     cooperative agreements to support the Office of Natural 
     Resource Revenue's collection and disbursement of royalties, 
     fees, and other mineral revenue proceeds, as authorized by 
     law.

                        administrative provision

       There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available 
     resources within the Working Capital Fund, aircraft which may 
     be obtained by donation, purchase or through available excess 
     surplus property: Provided, That existing aircraft being 
     replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in value 
     used to offset the purchase price for the replacement 
     aircraft.

[[Page 10592]]



             General Provisions, Department of the Interior

                     (including transfers of funds)

               emergency transfer authority--intra-bureau

       Sec. 101.  Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation, which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.

             emergency transfer authority--department-wide

       Sec. 102.  The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the 
     emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oil spills or 
     releases of hazardous substances into the environment; for 
     the prevention, suppression, and control of actual or 
     potential grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands 
     under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the 
     authority in section 417(b) of Public Law 106-224 (7 U.S.C. 
     7717(b)); for emergency reclamation projects under section 
     410 of Public Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year 
     funds available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
     and Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for wildland fire operations shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until the Secretary determines 
     that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations'' and 
     ``FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund'' shall be 
     exhausted within 30 days: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation, which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible: Provided further, That such 
     replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata 
     basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.

                        authorized use of funds

       Sec. 103.  Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     when authorized by the Secretary, in total amount not to 
     exceed $500,000; purchase and replacement of motor vehicles, 
     including specially equipped law enforcement vehicles; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.

            authorized use of funds, indian trust management

       Sec. 104.  Appropriations made in this Act under the 
     headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian 
     Education, and Office of the Special Trustee for American 
     Indians and any unobligated balances from prior 
     appropriations Acts made under the same headings shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer for Indian trust 
     management and reform activities. Total funding for 
     historical accounting activities shall not exceed amounts 
     specifically designated in this Act for such purpose.

           redistribution of funds, bureau of indian affairs

       Sec. 105.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any 
     Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base 
     funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring 
     funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies. No tribe shall receive a reduction in Tribal 
     Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 percent in fiscal 
     year 2016. Under circumstances of dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does not apply.

                 ellis, governors, and liberty islands

       Sec. 106.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire lands, 
     waters, or interests therein including the use of all or part 
     of any pier, dock, or landing within the State of New York 
     and the State of New Jersey, for the purpose of operating and 
     maintaining facilities in the support of transportation and 
     accommodation of visitors to Ellis, Governors, and Liberty 
     Islands, and of other program and administrative activities, 
     by donation or with appropriated funds, including franchise 
     fees (and other monetary consideration), or by exchange; and 
     the Secretary is authorized to negotiate and enter into 
     leases, subleases, concession contracts or other agreements 
     for the use of such facilities on such terms and conditions 
     as the Secretary may determine reasonable.

                outer continental shelf inspection fees

       Sec. 107. (a) In fiscal year 2016, the Secretary shall 
     collect a nonrefundable inspection fee, which shall be 
     deposited in the ``Offshore Safety and Environmental 
     Enforcement'' account, from the designated operator for 
     facilities subject to inspection under 43 U.S.C. 1348(c).
       (b) Annual fees shall be collected for facilities that are 
     above the waterline, excluding drilling rigs, and are in 
     place at the start of the fiscal year. Fees for fiscal year 
     2016 shall be:
       (1) $10,500 for facilities with no wells, but with 
     processing equipment or gathering lines;
       (2) $17,000 for facilities with 1 to 10 wells, with any 
     combination of active or inactive wells; and
       (3) $31,500 for facilities with more than 10 wells, with 
     any combination of active or inactive wells.
       (c) Fees for drilling rigs shall be assessed for all 
     inspections completed in fiscal year 2016. Fees for fiscal 
     year 2016 shall be:
       (1) $30,500 per inspection for rigs operating in water 
     depths of 500 feet or more; and
       (2) $16,700 per inspection for rigs operating in water 
     depths of less than 500 feet.
       (d) The Secretary shall bill designated operators under 
     subsection (b) within 60 days, with payment required within 
     30 days of billing. The Secretary shall bill designated 
     operators under subsection (c) within 30 days of the end of 
     the month in which the inspection occurred, with payment 
     required within 30 days of billing.

     bureau of ocean energy management, regulation and enforcement 
                             reorganization

       Sec. 108.  The Secretary of the Interior, in order to 
     implement a reorganization of the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
     Management, Regulation and Enforcement, may transfer funds 
     among and between the successor offices and bureaus affected 
     by the reorganization only in conformance with the 
     reprogramming guidelines described in the report accompanying 
     this Act.

  contracts and agreements for wild horse and burro holding facilities

       Sec. 109.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Interior may enter into multiyear 
     cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations and other 
     appropriate entities, and may enter into multiyear contracts 
     in accordance with the provisions of section 3903 of title 
     41, United States Code (except that the 5-year term 
     restriction in subsection (a) shall not apply), for the long-
     term care and maintenance of excess wild free roaming horses 
     and burros by such organizations or entities on private land. 
     Such cooperative agreements and contracts may not exceed 10 
     years, subject to renewal at the discretion of the Secretary.

                       mass marking of salmonids

       Sec. 110.  The United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     shall, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect 
     threatened and endangered species of salmon, implement a 
     system of mass marking of salmonid stocks, intended for 
     harvest, that are released from federally operated or 
     federally financed hatcheries including but not limited to 
     fish releases of coho, chinook, and steelhead species. Marked 
     fish must have a visible mark that can be readily identified 
     by commercial and recreational fishers.

                  exhaustion of administrative review

       Sec. 111.  Section 122(a)(1) of division E of Public Law 
     112-74 (125 Stat. 1013) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 
     2012 through 2016'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2012 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter''.

                     wild lands funding prohibition

       Sec. 112.  None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or 
     enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of 
     the Interior on December 22, 2010.

              bureau of indian education operated schools

       Sec. 113.  Section 115(d) of division E of Public Law 112-
     74 (25 U.S.C. 2000 note) is amended by striking ``2017'' and 
     inserting ``2027''.

[[Page 10593]]



                          volunteers in parks

       Sec. 114.  Section 102301(d) of title 54, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``$3,500,000'' and inserting 
     ``$7,000,000''.

              contracts and agreements with indian affairs

       Sec. 115.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2016, in carrying out work involving 
     cooperation with State, local, and tribal governments or any 
     political subdivision thereof, Indian Affairs may record 
     obligations against accounts receivable from any such 
     entities, except that total obligations at the end of the 
     fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources 
     available at the end of the fiscal year.

                             heritage areas

       Sec. 116. (a) Section 157(h)(1) of title I of Public Law 
     106-291 (16 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking 
     ``$11,000,000'' and inserting ``$13,000,000''.
       (b) Division II of Public Law 104-333 (16 U.S.C. 461 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) in sections 409(a), 508(a), and 812(a) by striking 
     ``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``$17,000,000''; and
       (2) in sections 208, 310, and 607 by striking ``2015'' and 
     inserting ``2017''.

                              sage-grouse

       Sec. 117.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to 
     write or issue pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533)--
       (1) a proposed rule for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 
     urophasianus);
       (2) a proposed rule for the Columbia basin distinct 
     population segment of greater sage-grouse.

                    offshore pay authority extension

       Sec. 118.  Section 117 of division G of Public Law 113-76 
     is amended by striking ``and 2015'' and inserting ``through 
     2017''.

                    onshore pay authority extension

       Sec. 119.  Section 123 of division G of Public Law 113-76 
     is amended by striking ``and 2015'' and inserting ``through 
     2017''.

                                 ivory

       Sec. 120.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to draft, prepare, implement, or 
     enforce any new or revised regulation or order that--
       (1) prohibits or restricts, within the United States, the 
     possession, sale, delivery, receipt, shipment, or 
     transportation of ivory that has been lawfully imported into 
     the United States;
       (2) changes any means of determining, including any 
     applicable presumptions concerning, when ivory has been 
     lawfully imported; or
       (3) prohibits or restricts the importation of ivory that 
     was lawfully importable into the United States as of February 
     1, 2014.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  Mr. GRIJALVA. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Michigan). The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Beginning at page 59, line 9, strike section 120.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service destroyed a 1-ton stockpile of illegal elephant ivory. Most of 
it was seized up from a Philadelphia antique dealer named Victor 
Gordon.
  For at least 9 years, Gordon imported and sold ivory from freshly 
killed African elephants in violation of U.S. law and the laws of the 
countries where the elephants were poached and the ivory stolen.
  How did he get away with this for so long? The ivory was doctored so 
that it looked old enough to pass through a loophole in the enforcement 
of the African Elephant Conservation Act, a law that was passed in 1989 
to end the commercial import and export of ivory.
  While a ton of ivory was confiscated, there is no way to know how 
much Gordon had sold during the previous decade or where it is now. All 
we know for certain is all of it was illegal, all of it is nearly 
impossible to distinguish from antique ivory, and anyone who bought it 
from Gordon, resells it, or buys it from a new owner is contributing to 
the ongoing slaughter of elephants and the criminal trafficking of 
ivory that supports organized crime and terrorism.
  This has got to stop. How many more Victor Gordons are out there? The 
amount is a question that can't be answered. The amount of ivory seized 
from his shop represents 100 elephants, roughly the same number killed 
every day in Africa.
  The photo we wanted to enlarge was a photo of an Africa elephant that 
had been killed and its head decapitated and the ivory butchered out of 
its head. Upon review, it was decided that it was too graphic and 
disturbing for the Chamber and for the floor, and we didn't bring that 
one.
  While much of this poaching is fueled by demand for ivory in Asia, a 
significant black market exists in the United States, as evidenced by 
the Gordon case and similar State level investigations in New York City 
and elsewhere.
  The only way--and I repeat--the only way to keep U.S. citizens from 
being involved, whether knowingly or unknowingly, in this elephant 
poaching and trafficking crisis is to close the enforcement loopholes 
and eliminate the commercial import, export, and trade of Africa 
elephant ivory in this country.
  That is precisely what the Obama administration is trying to do by 
proposing new rules to limit ivory trade in the United States. Instead 
of assisting in this important cause, House Republicans have slipped a 
rider into the appropriations bill to kill the new rule before it is 
even finalized.
  My amendment would remove this rider. Ending the commercial ivory 
trade does not mean taking away people's musical instruments, as some 
have said, ivory-handled pistols, or family heirlooms. Museum 
collections, scientific specimens, and sport-hunted trophies will also 
be allowed to move freely. Further, items containing very small amounts 
of ivory can be bought and sold.
  Profiteering off elephant parts will no longer be allowed, nor should 
it be. As long as ivory has monetary value, people will kill elephants 
to get it. Eliminating value will eliminate demand and that will reduce 
wildlife poaching and trafficking.
  I understand the administration's proposed ivory rule is due out very 
shortly, and in the interest of giving everyone a chance to review that 
rule, I will withdraw this amendment today.
  However, I will not hesitate to return with a similar amendment later 
if that is what it takes to remove this damaging rider from the bill.
  I ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       Reissuance of Final Rules

       Sec. 121.  Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall reissue the final rule published on December 
     28, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 81666 et seq.) and the final rule 
     published on September 10, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 55530 et seq.), 
     without regard to any other provision of statute or 
     regulation that applies to issuance of such rules. Such 
     reissuances (including this section) shall not be subject to 
     judicial review.

                        northern long-eared bat

       Sec. 122.  Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall amend the interim rule pertaining to the 
     northern long-eared bat published by the Department of the 
     Interior in the Federal Register on April 2, 2015 (80 Fed. 
     Reg. 17974 et seq.), only in such a way that--
       (1) take incidental to any activity conducted in accordance 
     with the habitat conservation measures identified at pages 
     18024 to 18205 of volume 80 of the Federal Register (April 2, 
     2015), as applicable, is not prohibited; and
       (2) the public comment period for such interim rule is 
     reopened for not less than 90 days.

                              echinoderms

       Sec. 123.  Section 14.21(a)(1) of title 50, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, is amended by inserting ``, including 
     echinoderms commonly known as sea urchins and sea 
     cucumbers,'' after ``products''.

               TITLE II--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         Science and Technology

       For science and technology, including research and 
     development activities, which shall include research and 
     development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; necessary 
     expenses for personnel and related costs and travel expenses;

[[Page 10594]]

     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; and other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development, 
     $704,918,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017: 
     Provided, That of the funds included under this heading, 
     $7,100,000 shall be for Research: National Priorities as 
     specified in the report accompanying this Act.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Langevin

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 61, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,625,000)''.
       Page 62, lines 8 and 13, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment, which I am offering with my good friends, Mr. Keating 
and Mr. Cicilline, will provide $1 million to the southern New England 
estuaries geographic program. This program was funded at $5 million 
last year and has been incredibly successful at leveraging resources, 
bringing stakeholders together, and increasing efficiencies.
  Estuaries are essential for healthy coastal ecosystems. They provide 
benefits of great economic and ecologic significance, including vital 
nesting and feeding habitats for aquatic plants and animals; yet they 
are increasingly affected by impacts of human activity along our 
coasts. These funds will be used to continue efforts to protect and 
restore our coasts and estuaries, which are critical for our 
environment and our economy.
  The southern New England estuaries geographic program supports 
projects and science to restore the health of southeastern New 
England's estuaries watersheds and coastal waters and ensure access now 
and in the future to resilient, self-sustaining ecosystems and 
associated populations of our fish and shellfish.
  I would like to take a moment to say that the account that we are 
reallocating from, EPA science and technology, is also critically 
important. While we would have liked to offer an amendment increasing 
the southern New England estuary geographic program to its full funding 
amount of $5 million, there were neither sufficient nor appropriate 
offsets in this bill to do so.
  Mr. Chair, I hope that as our appropriators go to conference with the 
Senate, they are able to restore the full funding amount of $5 million 
for this important program.
  I would also like to thank Congressman Keating, along with 
Congressman Cicilline, for being tremendous partners in ensuring that 
our southern New England estuaries are restored and stay healthy for 
generations to come.
  I would like to thank Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and 
their staffs who worked on this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the funding for the southern New 
England estuary geographic program.
  I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), my good 
friend and colleague, to speak on the amendment.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and friend for 
yielding.
  I also would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Keating, who 
unfortunately could not be with us today, for his hard work on this 
important issue, and I thank my colleague from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin) for his elegant words.
  Mr. Chairman, the estuaries in Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island and 
Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts face significant environmental 
challenges, many shared by estuaries across the country. These 
challenges include rivers and streams that are disconnected from the 
landscape, the loss of critical wetlands, the impacts of centuries of 
urbanization and development, and aging infrastructure.
  Southern New England estuaries are especially threatened by these 
challenges. Yet despite the harm that we know is being done to our 
estuaries, southern New England was the only geographic region in this 
bill which saw all of its estuary funding eliminated. While some 
geographic regions were underfunded compared to fiscal year 2016 
requests, most requests for geographic regions were either met or, in 
some cases, increased. Inexplicably, it was only southern New England 
that was singled out for complete elimination of funding for the next 
fiscal year.
  This amendment would restore a modest $1 million funding for southern 
New England estuaries program, as Congressman Langevin said. Then, at 
conference, we hope that full funding is restored.
  The southern New England watershed has experienced more than 400 
years of ecological degradation, which is further exacerbated by the 
effects of climate change. Rivers and waterways have become 
disconnected from the watershed, which has led to the absorption of 
nitrogen and other pollutants from sources such as septic systems, 
treatment plants, and storm water runoff.
  The funding provided to these geographic programs allows for 
essential collaboration between Federal entities, nonprofit and 
academic institutions, and other private entities to formulate 
innovative solutions and to produce new technologies to create cleaner 
and clearer waterways. For example, in fiscal year 2014, more than 
$65,000 in grants was awarded to the Narragansett Bay watershed. This 
funded projects run by Save the Bay in my district, including an 
education and awareness project for residents and businesses on 
Aquidneck Island as well as a partnership program involving the Rhode 
Island Coastal Resources Management Council to facilitate site visits 
to more than 200 shoreline rights-of-way to determine any needed levels 
of improvement to public access.
  Programs like these have proven to be effective. In fact, the 
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program was awarded a 2015 Environmental Merit 
Award from EPA New England for outstanding contributions on behalf of 
southern New England's public health and natural environment. These 
collaborative efforts throughout the southern New England region with 
continued funding will help to support projects to protect ecological 
habitats, foster self-sustaining ecosystems, and protect wildlife. 
Federal collaboration and investment is essential to helping local 
communities apply for and receive funding.
  I thank my colleague from Rhode Island and my colleague from 
Massachusetts for the great work they have done on this issue.
  I urge passage of this amendment by all of my colleagues.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I don't 
oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. I would be happy to work with the gentlemen, and I would 
urge acceptance of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of 
the amendment as well as my colleague and Mr. Keating. As I said, this 
is such an important amendment. It includes important funding for 
protecting our ecosystems.
  I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Environmental Programs and Management

       For environmental programs and management, including 
     necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel 
     and related costs and travel expenses; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; 
     purchase of reprints; library memberships in societies or 
     associations which issue publications to members only or at a 
     price to members lower than to

[[Page 10595]]

     subscribers who are not members; administrative costs of the 
     brownfields program under the Small Business Liability Relief 
     and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002; and not to exceed 
     $9,000 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $2,472,289,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017: 
     Provided, That of the funds included under this heading, 
     $12,700,000 shall be for Environmental Protection: National 
     Priorities as specified in the report accompanying this Act: 
     Provided further, That of the funds included under this 
     heading, $403,523,000 shall be for Geographic Programs 
     specified in the report accompanying this Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,212,000) (increased by $2,212,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Calvert and his 
staff for working with me on this amendment. It simply seeks to 
decrease and then increase by the same amount within the $2.5 billion 
appropriation for the environmental programs and management account 
within the Environmental Protection Agency. More specifically, my 
amendment seeks to remove and then reapply $2.2 million from that 
account.
  The intent behind my amendment is simple. It is to put the House on 
record of supporting a final funding amount of $27,310,000 for the 
National Estuary Program and coastal waterways.
  Currently, the report accompanying this bill calls for $25,098,000 
for the National Estuary Program and coastal waterways, which is 
$2,212,000 below both the Senate's proposed appropriations level and 
the President's request for fiscal year 2016. Hence, the amount 
specified in my amendment.
  The National Estuary Program and coastal waterways subaccount within 
the EPA does important work, including work in my State, especially on 
the Atlantic Coast. It addresses ocean acidification, seeks to remove 
coastal watersheds, furthers the National Estuary Program's restoration 
goals, and assists in the implementation of the very important Gulf of 
Mexico hypoxia action plan.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an area, a large area called the dead zone off 
of Louisiana that literally stinks. It has no fish. It has no 
recreational opportunities. It has no fishing. It is, in fact, a scar 
on the face of the Earth. Part of the funding for this program is used 
to try to overcome the hypoxia situation that has arisen off the coast 
of Louisiana that threatens to spread not only to Texas, Alabama, and 
Mississippi, but also to the coast of my State of Florida, eventually, 
if we do nothing about it.
  The estuarine regions of the United States comprise just 12 percent 
of land area of the United States, but they contain 43 percent of the 
U.S. population and provide 49 percent of all U.S. economic output. The 
economic value of coastal recreation alone in the United States--beach 
going, fishing, bird watching, snorkeling, diving, and so on--has 
conservatively been estimated by NOAA to be between $20 billion and $60 
billion annually.
  Clearly, the $2.2 million increase in funding for the National 
Estuary Program and coastal waterways that I am seeking will result in 
dramatic returns for the American economy, an enhanced quality of life 
for the American people, and eliminate that scar on the face of planet 
Earth that exists off the coast of Louisiana and should never be 
allowed to spread.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that you support this amendment, and I am 
thankful for your support. With that in mind, I will stop talking 
before I lose your support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Mooney of West Virginia

  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 62, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from West Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to the fiscal year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill that 
will help strengthen transparency and oversight at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA. My amendment simply provides $1 million in 
additional funding for the Office of Inspector General at the EPA.
  I thank Chairman Ken Calvert for working with me on this amendment.
  Under the current administration, the EPA has waged an all-out war on 
jobs in the beautiful Second District of West Virginia and on 
communities across America. With this backdrop, I think it is 
absolutely critical that we strengthen oversight and transparency at 
the EPA. Taxpayers deserve to know what is going on behind the curtain.
  The Office of the Inspector General plays a critical oversight role 
within the EPA. It is the independent office that works diligently to 
root out waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, a May 28, 2015, report 
found that two separate EPA employees were viewing pornography at work 
for up to 6 hours a day, and they were paid in the neighborhood of 
$120,000 a year while doing it.
  The same report found that Renee Page, who at the time was Director 
of the EPA's Office of Administration, allegedly sold jewelry and 
weight loss pills out of her office. But she didn't stop there with her 
abuses. She hired not one, not two, but 17 family members and friends 
for paid internships at the EPA.
  These are just two examples of the incredible abuses of public trust 
and of taxpayer dollars that occur at the EPA. Without rigorous 
oversight from the inspector general, these abuses might never have 
been exposed.
  My amendment provides additional oversight funding without increasing 
the budgetary impact of the fiscal year 2016 Interior Appropriations 
bill. We pull the money from the Office of Public Affairs, which is the 
office responsible for promoting the administration's radical 
environmental agenda, and use it instead for oversight.
  I would encourage my colleagues today to cast their vote in favor of 
my amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to support this 
amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's bringing it up, and I encourage 
everyone to adopt it.
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Mooney of West Virginia

  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 132, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from West Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would 
strike $2 million in funding from the

[[Page 10596]]

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy and transfer those 
funds to the deficit reduction account.
  The Office of Policy is located within the EPA Office of the 
Administrator and is the primary policy arm for the Agency, or what I 
have been calling the regulatory nerve center. The funding for this 
office directly supports this administration's radical regulatory 
agenda that is putting an alarming number of my constituents out of 
work, and they are not shy about it.
  The head of the EPA's Office of Policy, Joel Beauvais, on October 13, 
2014, boasted to a group of New York University law students that his 
office ``coordinates the process through which all of the EPA's rules 
are developed, including the clean power plan.''
  Well, the so-called clean power plan is projected to increase energy 
costs by as much as $479 billion over the next 15 years. For my 
constituents in the beautiful Second District of West Virginia, that 
means an average electricity price increase of 12 percent. This is 
something we cannot afford. Yesterday, on the floor of this Chamber, we 
passed the ratepayer protection plan, which will stop the clean power 
plan, but the Office of Policy is coordinating more than just the clean 
power plan. The EPA issues about 150 new regulations each year, and 
this office is right at the center.
  Another rule that deserves attention is the EPA's proposed ozone 
standard. The National Association of Manufacturers found that this new 
regulation could reduce the United States' GDP by $207 billion to $360 
billion annually, leading to 2.9 million fewer jobs between now and 
2040.
  It is clear that the EPA, under this administration, will continue to 
promote their radical environmentalist agenda through an enormous 
number of rules and regulations. We have to slow this process, and that 
is why I propose this amendment to cut the Office of Policy funding by 
$2 million. I would encourage my colleagues today to cast their vote in 
favor of my amendment.
  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 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. McCOLLUM. The gentleman's amendment would cut $2 million from the 
Office of Policy and Program and put the savings into the so-called 
spending reduction account. If enacted, this would cut an already 
barebones bill that is plagued by policy riders and further erode our 
environment.
  I am concerned that this cut could have great influence on what the 
policy division does in its relationship in working with States and 
divisions within States, community assistance, and its research 
division.
  I would also point out to my colleagues that the spending reduction 
account has never been enacted into law in the 4 years it has been 
proposed, so there really isn't an account I know of that has been 
authorized where this fund could go.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to keep the Office 
of Policy able to do its work that impacts on our States and local 
community.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. I agree with the gentleman's amendment. I would urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tipton

  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 62, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 79, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 80, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum 
for their collaborative efforts in putting together this bill that 
carefully and thoughtfully allocates limited resources in order to 
conserve and restore our Nation's precious natural resources.
  As you know, States across the Nation, especially those in the West, 
face widespread drought and deteriorating forest health conditions, all 
of which increase the risk of catastrophic wildfires and the tragic 
loss of life and property.
  Furthermore, these forest health conditions and the wildfires wreak 
havoc on species habitat; recreational economies; critical 
infrastructure; and clean, abundant water supplies.
  In 2014, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior 
agencies spent over $1.5 million in fire suppression costs to combat 
fires on more than $3.5 million acres of private, State, and Federal 
lands.
  These suppression costs will only continue to rise if we do not 
appropriately address the critical issues of wildfire preparation, 
including hazardous fuel management activities.
  For far too long, we have been addressing the problem after the fact. 
That course of action has led to decades of declining healthy forests 
and a staggering increase in the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires, 
putting people, communities, and ecosytems at risk.
  In fiscal year 2015, Congress provided a $75 million increase for 
hazardous fuels management. I applaud Chairman Calvert and my 
colleagues for spearheading these efforts, but we can do more.
  Today, I am offering a simple amendment that will bolster the 
wildfire management system account on the National Forest System lands 
by $20 million, allowing the Forest Service to be able to expand 
ongoing work on hazardous fuels reduction and fire mitigation projects.
  Quite simply, the cost of proactive healthy forest management is far 
less than the cost of wildfire suppression and cleaning up devastating 
aftermaths.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Pearce), a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado 
bringing this amendment.
  In the West, we are finding that our States are being burned up. They 
are burned up because the forests are simply full of fuel that has not 
been cut or logged for the last 20, 30 years. These are internal 
decisions that were created by an inappropriate listing of the spotted 
owl, declaring that timber reduction was the reason the spotted owl was 
going extinct.
  A couple of years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed that, 
saying: Oops, logging had nothing to do with it.
  It doesn't matter. Now, the damage is done. Our forests are chock-
full of fuels. It has been extraordinarily dry through the West. Small 
sparks set off tremendous blazes. The wind always blows in the West. We 
find these raging while fires that weren't in existence 30, 40, and 50 
years ago because nature was pretty well in harmony.
  The idea of the gentleman is simply to put more money into the fuels 
reduction account. That is a commonsense solution that will save us in 
the West, save our valuable resources, save our valuable forests, and 
it will make sense for the country.
  I support the amendment and would urge its adoption.
  Mr. TIPTON. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), 
the chairman.
  Mr. CALVERT. I certainly agree with you. We need to improve the 
condition

[[Page 10597]]

of our national forests. My home of California, as you know, is going 
through an exceptional drought. Colorado is just not sending enough 
water down the Colorado River, so you need to help us out a little bit.
  This hazardous fuel issue is a huge issue in my area. As you know, we 
have the blight issue that is just killing trees because we have too 
many trees in the forests, and it has weakened the forests.
  This is a good amendment, and I certainly urge its adoption.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, while I certainly appreciate the challenges 
that so many Western States are facing right now with the drought and 
very frightening wildfires, I need to oppose this.
  Unlike most programs in H.R. 2822, especially within the Forest 
Service, the base hazardous fuels program received a $10 million 
increase above the FY 2015 enacted level.
  There is a reduction in H.R. 2822 to the biomass grant portion of the 
hazardous fuels program, but I see nothing in this amendment that 
addresses that cut.
  We would all like to see increases in funding for many programs 
funded by the bill. Chairman Calvert has certainly been a strong 
advocate for a robust wildland fire program, including hazardous fuels. 
Coming from the fire-prone State of California, as he just mentioned, 
he knows as well as anyone that our fire programs needs support, and he 
has funded that accordingly.
  To provide what would be a record level of funding for hazardous 
fuels, the sponsor of this amendment would cut an additional $20 
million from the EPA, which is why I feel it is important to oppose 
this amendment.
  This bill already severely cuts the EPA's main operating account by 
$141.4 million, or 5 percent. I strongly oppose an amendment that takes 
more money from the already starved EPA. The very air we breathe and 
the water we drink are endangered by the funding and policy decisions 
made in this bill, and their consequences will be negatively felt in 
communities across this Nation.
  I know cutting EPA is an easy target for many of my colleagues across 
the aisle, but I want to make sure that my colleagues understand what 
this amendment would cut if it was adopted.
  This account funds programs that are important to both sides of the 
aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the 
country, toxics risk prevention, the cleanup of toxic waste sites, 
pesticide licensing, and radiation prevention.
  EPA's work goes beyond the political talking point of scary 
regulations and is necessary to keep vulnerable populations safe from 
environmental disasters. It is beyond reason, frankly, to cut the very 
Federal employees that have ably responded to the disasters such as the 
BP oil spill and the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008.
  I do not support gutting the EPA further, and I oppose this 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, the current Environmental Protection Agency 
likes to applaud itself that it is a champion of clean air and clean 
water. For those of us who live in the West, this is not a political 
talking point. This is reality.
  If you care about clean air, think about the carbon that is emitted 
from wildfires. Think about the devastation to the wildlife habitat as 
our forests burn. Think about clean water as ash is washed down through 
the ravines into very narrow watersheds where we have endangered 
species residing as well.
  I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that we actually put action through our 
words in terms of being proactive and in terms of addressing forest 
health. If you care about clean water, if you care about endangered 
species, if you care about clean air, this is an opportunity to 
actually allow us to be able to move the ball forward, to be able to 
address what the Environmental Protection Agency says it is about--that 
is clean air, clean water.
  This amendment will help achieve that goal, and encourage my 
colleagues to adopt it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $40,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2017.

                        Buildings and Facilities

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, 
     or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     $34,467,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Hazardous Substance Superfund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA), including sections 111(c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6), 
     and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611) $1,088,769,000, to remain 
     available until expended, consisting of such sums as are 
     available in the Trust Fund on September 30, 2015, as 
     authorized by section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and up to $1,088,769,000 
     as a payment from general revenues to the Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund for purposes as authorized by section 517(b) of 
     SARA: Provided, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     may be allocated to other Federal agencies in accordance with 
     section 111(a) of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, $8,459,000 shall be paid to 
     the ``Office of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain 
     available until September 30, 2017, and $16,217,000 shall be 
     paid to the ``Science and Technology'' appropriation to 
     remain available until September 30, 2017.

          Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by subtitle I of 
     the Solid Waste Disposal Act, $91,941,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $66,572,000 shall be for 
     carrying out leaking underground storage tank cleanup 
     activities authorized by section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act; $25,369,000 shall be for carrying out the other 
     provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in 
     section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code: Provided, That 
     the Administrator is authorized to use appropriations made 
     available under this heading to implement section 9013 of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide financial assistance to 
     federally recognized Indian tribes for the development and 
     implementation of programs to manage underground storage 
     tanks.

                       Inland Oil Spill Programs

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $17,944,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.

                   State and Tribal Assistance Grants

       For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, 
     including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and 
     performance partnership grants, $2,979,829,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which--
       (1) $1,018,000,000 shall be for making capitalization 
     grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title 
     VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and of which 
     $757,000,000 shall be for making capitalization grants for 
     the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under section 1452 
     of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Provided, That for fiscal 
     year 2016, funds made available under this title to each 
     State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization 
     grants and for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 
     capitalization grants may, at the discretion of each State, 
     be used for projects to address green infrastructure, water 
     or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally 
     innovative activities: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     section 603(d)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
     the limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution 
     control revolving fund that may be used by a State to 
     administer the fund shall not apply to amounts included as 
     principal in loans made by such fund in

[[Page 10598]]

     fiscal year 2016 and prior years where such amounts represent 
     costs of administering the fund to the extent that such 
     amounts are or were deemed reasonable by the Administrator, 
     accounted for separately from other assets in the fund, and 
     used for eligible purposes of the fund, including 
     administration: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2016, 
     notwithstanding the limitation on amounts in section 518(c) 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, up to a total of 
     2 percent of the funds appropriated, or $30,000,000, 
     whichever is greater, and notwithstanding the limitation on 
     amounts in section 1452(i) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, up 
     to a total of 2 percent of the funds appropriated, or 
     $20,000,000, whichever is greater, for State Revolving Funds 
     under such Acts may be reserved by the Administrator for 
     grants under section 518(c) and section 1452(i) of such Acts: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2016, notwithstanding 
     the amounts specified in section 205(c) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, up to 1.5 percent of the aggregate 
     funds appropriated for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 
     program under the Act less any sums reserved under section 
     518(c) of the Act, may be reserved by the Administrator for 
     grants made under title II of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act for American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Marianas, and United States Virgin Islands: Provided 
     further, That for fiscal year 2016, notwithstanding the 
     limitations on amounts specified in section 1452(j) of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act, up to 1.5 percent of the funds 
     appropriated for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 
     programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act may be reserved by 
     the Administrator for grants made under section 1452(j) of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act: Provided further, That 10 
     percent of the funds made available under this title to each 
     State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization 
     grants and 20 percent of the funds made available under this 
     title to each State for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 
     capitalization grants shall be used by the State to provide 
     additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of 
     forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants 
     (or any combination of these), and shall be so used by the 
     State only where such funds are provided as initial financing 
     for an eligible recipient or to buy, refinance, or 
     restructure the debt obligations of eligible recipients only 
     where such debt was incurred on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act;
       (2) $5,000,000 shall be for architectural, engineering, 
     planning, design, construction and related activities in 
     connection with the construction of high priority water and 
     wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico 
     Border, after consultation with the appropriate border 
     commission; Provided, That no funds provided by this 
     appropriations Act to address the water, wastewater and other 
     critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United 
     States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made 
     available to a county or municipal government unless that 
     government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or 
     other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the 
     development or construction of any additional colonia areas, 
     or the development within an existing colonia the 
     construction of any new home, business, or other structure 
     which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary 
     infrastructure;
       (3) $10,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of Alaska 
     to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs 
     of rural and Alaska Native Villages: Provided, That of these 
     funds: (A) the State of Alaska shall provide a match of 25 
     percent; (B) no more than 5 percent of the funds may be used 
     for administrative and overhead expenses; and (C) the State 
     of Alaska shall make awards consistent with the Statewide 
     priority list established in conjunction with the Agency and 
     the U.S. Department of Agriculture for all water, sewer, 
     waste disposal, and similar projects carried out by the State 
     of Alaska that are funded under section 221 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301) or the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
     seq.) which shall allocate not less than 25 percent of the 
     funds provided for projects in regional hub communities;
       (4) $75,000,000 shall be to carry out section 104(k) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), including grants, interagency 
     agreements, and associated program support costs: Provided, 
     That not more than 25 percent of the amount appropriated to 
     carry out section 104(k) of CERCLA shall be used for site 
     characterization, assessment, and remediation of facilities 
     described in section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II) of CERCLA;
       (5) $50,000,000 shall be for grants under title VII, 
     subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act of 2005;
       (6) $20,000,000 shall be for targeted airshed grants in 
     accordance with the terms and conditions of the report 
     accompanying this Act; and
       (7) $1,044,829,000 shall be for grants, including 
     associated program support costs, to States, federally 
     recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and 
     air pollution control agencies for multi-media or single 
     media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related 
     activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions 
     set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-134, and for 
     making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for 
     particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities 
     subject to terms and conditions specified by the 
     Administrator, of which: $47,745,000 shall be for carrying 
     out section 128 of CERCLA; $9,646,000 shall be for 
     Environmental Information Exchange Network grants, including 
     associated program support costs; $1,498,000 shall be for 
     grants to States under section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act, which shall be in addition to funds 
     appropriated under the heading ``Leaking Underground Storage 
     Tank Trust Fund Program'' to carry out the provisions of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in section 9508(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code other than section 9003(h) of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act; $17,848,000 of the funds available for 
     grants under section 106 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act shall be for State participation in national- and 
     State-level statistical surveys of water resources and 
     enhancements to State monitoring programs.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney

  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 65, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $861,000,000)''.
       Page 65, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $432,000,000)''.
       Page 65, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $429,000,000)''.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from California and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, although I had planned to withdraw my 
amendment, I feel it is important to discuss the Clean Water and Safe 
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and the benefits these funds 
provide to our Nation.
  Droughts are becoming more severe, which is putting an incredible 
strain on our water supply in California, and in my district, where we 
are experiencing a historic drought for the last 4 years. We have to 
manage our available water in smart and efficient ways.
  We lose an estimated 7 billion gallons of water a day from leaking 
pipes, with some cities losing as much as 30 percent of their water. At 
the same time, these cracks expose the water supply to an increasing 
number of waterborne diseases and contaminants. This means utilities 
face considerable challenges as they try to provide both adequate and 
safe drinking water to families and businesses.
  Upgrading our infrastructure would save trillions of gallons of water 
a year and make our water safer to drink, but the best part is that, 
according to the American Water Works Association, there are already 
enough shovel-ready water projects around the United States that would 
create work for more than 400,000 Americans, including almost 90,000 
direct construction jobs. These are jobs that would be welcomed with 
open arms in our towns and cities across the United States.
  Our Nation's water infrastructure is in desperate need of repair. 
According to an infrastructure needs survey by the EPA, nearly $335 
billion worth of repairs, upgrades, and replacements are needed by 
water systems in the next 20 years to continue providing safe drinking 
water and protecting public health. Almost $300 billion is needed to 
repair and replace wastewater and storm water pipes and treatment 
plants.
  Furthermore, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies estimate that utilities will 
need to spend $448 billion to $944 billion by 2050 just to deal with 
climate change impacts.
  Considering the significant water infrastructure needs our country is 
facing, the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds 
have never been more important.

                              {time}  1645

  These funds help finance projects that handle and treat domestic 
sewage

[[Page 10599]]

and storm water and deliver drinking water to homes and businesses. 
These infrastructure investments also create jobs and have a positive 
impact on the economy well beyond the amount spent.
  Unfortunately, the bill proposes significant--and I want to repeat 
that--significant reductions to drinking water SFRs and over a $400 
million cut in the Clean Water Act sewage treatment SFRs.
  The Nation's water infrastructure needs already exceed the available 
funding, and cutting the revolving funds by this much means that a 
greater number of deserving community projects will not be able to get 
done. This approach will only imperil our infrastructure and our 
healthy communities that it helps foster.
  Congress should commit to providing the necessary funding to maintain 
and upgrade our Nation's ailing water infrastructure and make sure that 
the green infrastructure is a critical part of that process.
  My State of California is doing its best to cope with a severe and 
ongoing drought, and Congress must do its best to fund and support the 
needed infrastructure and water quality enhancements that preserve our 
precious water resources and create a sustainable system.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 68, strike lines 1 and 2 and insert the following: ``: 
     Provided further, That an entity shall not be an eligible 
     recipient for a grant under this paragraph unless the entity 
     has experienced at least 15 percent population loss since 
     1970, as measured by data from the 2010 decennial census and 
     has experienced prolonged population, income, and employment 
     loss resulting in substantial levels of housing vacancy and 
     abandonment and such housing vacancies and abandonments are 
     concentrated in more than one neighborhood or geographic area 
     within a jurisdiction or jurisdictions.''.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from Michigan and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, my hometown of Flint, Michigan, has endured 
decades of job loss and population loss through the slow, painful 
erosion of our manufacturing base. Previous trade deals, population 
shifts, bad land use management, and trade deals like NAFTA, for 
example, have accelerated the job losses in my hometown.
  That has had the effect of reducing local revenues, creating lower 
housing prices, less local services, and less investments in things 
that matter the most, like infrastructure, including our own water 
system. To reinvest in those places costs money that the cities don't 
have.
  The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund was specifically designed to 
assist communities with maintaining and improving water infrastructure. 
This fund provides critical support to ensure safe, clean drinking 
water is available in our communities.
  Many of us represent communities, however, that have outstanding 
loans issued under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund from prior 
to 2009, and those loan funds are ineligible for certain types of help 
because of the timing of those loans.
  In Flint, our current water system loses over a third of the treated 
water due to decades-old delivery systems before it even reaches the 
faucets in homes and businesses. This city has relied on the Drinking 
Water State Revolving Fund to improve this system, but the challenge 
and the cost is immense.
  The cost is even more daunting when the city is working to pull 
itself out of an economic downturn that has lasted not just a few 
years, but has lasted decades.
  So we should, as Congress, give these communities the tools that they 
need to build bridges and roads, to fix their aging water systems, and 
bring, most importantly, economic development. My amendment would be an 
important step to doing this.
  First, it would allow current revolving loan funds to be used to 
provide loan forgiveness to cities that have outstanding loans, 
regardless of the date of the incurrence of that loan. Prior to 2009, 
those loans are not eligible for loan forgiveness. Loans incurred after 
2009 are actually eligible for forgiveness. So the first option, we 
would like to see those pre-2009 loans eligible for forgiveness.
  Second, the option to use new funds to provide loan forgiveness on 
prior loans is limited because these cities have had--this amendment 
would limit that loan forgiveness to cities that have had significant 
financial problems due to population loss, cities that have had a 
population loss of more than 15 percent since 1970 and also have a high 
rate of abandoned and vacant buildings--basically, the cities that are 
in no position right now to finance improvements to their system just 
because of the level of abandonment, the level of population loss, and 
the revenue loss associated with it.
  Allowing financially distressed cities like Flint to have loans 
forgiven will bring some stability to these communities and allow them 
to better serve their residents.
  So I ask for support for this amendment to help communities across 
the country, like Flint, the backbone of the American economy in the 
20th century, so that they can again become leaders in the 21st 
century.
  If we don't re-invest in those places and find ways to do that, we 
are going to have a difficult time having them join the economy in a 
way that really makes a difference for the people who live there.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment in a general appropriations bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, other than to say that I will continue to 
press every opportunity I have to find a way to help these communities.
  I understand the gentleman's point of order, and I will continue to 
work with him and any other Member of this body that will help me find 
a path forward to help communities like this community of Flint that is 
really struggling to deliver clean water to its residents.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring new 
determinations, such as levels of population loss and housing vacancy.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Administrative Provisions--Environmental Protection Agency

              (including transfer and rescission of funds)

       For fiscal year 2016, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and 
     6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement 
     directly Federal environmental programs required or 
     authorized by law in the

[[Page 10600]]

     absence of an acceptable tribal program, may award 
     cooperative agreements to federally recognized Indian tribes 
     or Intertribal consortia, if authorized by their member 
     tribes, to assist the Administrator in implementing Federal 
     environmental programs for Indian tribes required or 
     authorized by law, except that no such cooperative agreements 
     may be awarded from funds designated for State financial 
     assistance agreements.
       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is 
     authorized to collect and obligate pesticide registration 
     service fees in accordance with section 33 of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136w-
     8).
       Notwithstanding section 33(d)(2) of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 
     136w-8(d)(2)), the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency may assess fees under section 33 of FIFRA 
     (7 U.S.C. 136w-8) for fiscal year 2016.
       The Administrator is authorized to transfer up to 
     $300,000,000 of the funds appropriated for the Great Lakes 
     Restoration Initiative under the heading ``Environmental 
     Programs and Management'' to the head of any Federal 
     department or agency, with the concurrence of such head, to 
     carry out activities that would support the Great Lakes 
     Restoration Initiative and Great Lakes Water Quality 
     Agreement programs, projects, or activities; to enter into an 
     interagency agreement with the head of such Federal 
     department or agency to carry out these activities; and to 
     make grants to governmental entities, nonprofit 
     organizations, institutions, and individuals for planning, 
     research, monitoring, outreach, and implementation in 
     furtherance of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the 
     Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
       The Science and Technology, Environmental Programs and 
     Management, Office of Inspector General, Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
     Program Accounts, are available for the construction, 
     alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of 
     facilities provided that the cost does not exceed $150,000 
     per project.
       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall base agency policies and actions regarding air 
     emissions from forest biomass including, but not limited to, 
     air emissions from facilities that combust forest biomass for 
     energy, on the principle that forest biomass emissions do not 
     increase overall carbon dioxide accumulations in the 
     atmosphere when USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data show 
     that forest carbon stocks in the U.S. are stable or 
     increasing on a national scale, or when forest biomass is 
     derived from mill residuals, harvest residuals or forest 
     management activities. Such policies and actions shall not 
     pre-empt existing authorities of States to determine how to 
     utilize biomass as a renewable energy source and shall not 
     inhibit States' authority to apply the same policies to 
     forest biomass as other renewable fuels in implementing 
     Federal law.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer

  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 73, strike lines 8 through 23.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, my amendment would correct the assertion in 
this bill that all forest biomass is carbon neutral. The assertion is 
simply scientifically inaccurate.
  In 2012, EPA's Scientific Advisory Board directly challenged the 
claim that all forest biomass is carbon neutral, explaining that while 
some types of carbon biomass may indeed be, it is inappropriate to 
assume that all types of forest biomass are carbon neutral. This 
misperception could have serious consequences for wildlife habitat and 
for our ability to combat climate change in the coming years. In fact, 
numerous studies have underscored that using some types of forest 
biomass, particularly slow-growing trees, can actually increase 
atmospheric carbon for many decades.
  The New York Times this Tuesday mentioned a study commissioned by the 
State of Massachusetts that indicated that the climate impacts of 
burning wood were worse than those for coal for 45 years and worse than 
that for natural gas for 90 years.
  To know what types of biomass are truly low-carbon, scientists need 
to actually assess them, and treating all forest biomass as carbon 
neutral is risky. The Energy Information Administration has found that 
this will lead to a boom in the use of forest and other biomass for 
energy.
  While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, the resulting 
logging would have dire consequences for climate mitigation and 
wildlife habitat. It would also drive up the price of pulpwood and 
other lower grades of wood for wood-product industries.
  In my State of Virginia, local environmental organizations are 
concerned that if biomass is treated as carbon neutral, it would 
encourage Dominion Virginia Power to burn wood from forests to meet its 
emission reduction obligations. Dominion has already converted three of 
its existing coal plants to run on biomass fuel and has a hybrid energy 
center that can burn up to 20 percent biomass for fuel.
  I share the concern of these local groups that Virginia will become 
known as a State that harvests forests to reduce its dependence on 
coal, rather than developing renewable technologies that clearly reduce 
emissions, such as solar and wind. More broadly, I worry about the 
precedent that this will set for forest management policy in the U.S. 
and around the world.
  We have already seen that under the European Emissions Trading 
System, where biomass has a zero emissions rating, European companies 
have invested billions to convert coal plants to plants that can burn 
wood pellets, leading to an incredible demand for wood. Earlier this 
month, The Washington Post reported that Europe's climate policies have 
led to more U.S. trees being cut down as wood pellets are being 
exported to meet the demand for wood fuel.
  More than two dozen pellet factories have been constructed in the 
southeastern U.S. over the past decade, along with special port 
facilities in Virginia and Georgia to ship the wood to Europe. Demand 
for wood in Europe is so robust that wood pellet exports from the U.S. 
nearly doubled from 2012 to 2013 and are expected to nearly double 
again this year.
  We should not create artificial demand to meet scientifically 
unsubstantiated goals. It is critical that we make sure that the 
accounting used to estimate net biogenic emissions is scientifically 
accurate before we implement policies that might add carbon pollution 
rather than reduce it.
  Mr. Chair, I will withdraw this amendment, but I do so urging my 
colleagues to support policies that are scientifically accurate, and to 
realize that not all forest biomass is carbon neutral, and that the EPA 
should take that into consideration.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to 
more appropriately consider biomass.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moolenaar). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Of the unobligated balances available for ``State and 
     Tribal Assistance Grants'' account, $8,000,000 are 
     permanently rescinded: Provided, That no amounts may be 
     rescinded from amounts that were designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Concurrent 
     Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       For fiscal year 2016, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1377(f)), 
     the Administrator is authorized to use the amounts 
     appropriated for any fiscal year under section 319 of the Act 
     to make grants to federally recognized Indian tribes pursuant 
     to sections 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act.

                      TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service

                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $277,507,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the funds provided, $70,000,000 
     is for the forest inventory and analysis program.

                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management, 
     including treatments of pests, pathogens,

[[Page 10601]]

     and invasive or noxious plants and for restoring and 
     rehabilitating forests damaged by pests or invasive plants, 
     cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation 
     activities and conducting an international program as 
     authorized, $220,665,000, to remain available until expended, 
     as authorized by law; of which $50,660,000 is to be derived 
     from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

                         national forest system

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, $1,490,093,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds 
     provided, $40,000,000 shall be deposited in the Collaborative 
     Forest Landscape Restoration Fund for ecological restoration 
     treatments as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 7303(f): Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided, $355,000,000 shall be 
     for forest products: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, up to $81,941,000 is for the Integrated Resource 
     Restoration pilot program for Region 1, Region 3 and Region 
     4: Provided further, That of the funds provided for forest 
     products, up to $65,560,000 may be transferred to support the 
     Integrated Resource Restoration pilot program in the 
     preceding proviso: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may transfer to the Secretary of the Interior any 
     unobligated funds appropriated in a previous fiscal year for 
     operation of the Valles Caldera National Preserve.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Benishek

  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 75, line 14, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 76, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment 
to H.R. 2822, the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my district covers nearly half the State of Michigan 
and includes three Federal forests. These forests are a major vacation 
destination for people, not only in my district, but in districts of 
Members all across the country.
  Yet, sadly, many of our constituents arrive to the Federal forests of 
northern Michigan to find that the road to their favorite fishing spot 
or hiking trail or ORV path has been arbitrarily closed by the Forest 
Service, with no warning and no input from the local community.
  Mr. Chairman, the last thing that people want to do when they travel 
to the woods of northern Michigan with their families is to learn about 
the obscure policies of the U.S. Forest Service, a Federal agency that 
treats the forests like their personal property instead of a public 
resource for everyone to enjoy.

                              {time}  1700

  Activities like hunting, snowmobiling, fishing, and hiking all depend 
on access to these forests. And it is important to note that the 
outdoor economy contributes over $5.5 billion and 194,000 jobs to 
Michigan, most of which are in my district.
  My amendment is an opportunity to demonstrate to the Forest Service 
that their focus should be on making our forests more open and 
accessible to the American people. In practice, the amendment would 
reduce spending from the National Forest System vegetation and 
watershed program by $2 million and transfer those funds into the 
capital improvement and maintenance fund.
  Now, you might ask yourself, What does that have to do with opening 
forest roads?
  Well, I will tell you.
  According to the Forest Service, when work is necessary to open a 
road for access, they use the capital improvement and maintenance fund. 
If the Forest Service is working to close a road to appease 
environmentalists who don't want anyone to visit the forest, they use 
the vegetation and watershed line item.
  My amendment is simple. It gives more dollars to the Forest Service 
to keep roads open rather than closed. In addition, the CBO says that 
this change would save taxpayers $1 million for fiscal year 2016.
  Mr. Chairman, today I am standing up on behalf of my constituents in 
my district who want to use their forests responsibly, who want to 
teach their kids and grandkids how to hunt, fish, and snowmobile. They 
want to enjoy nature. Furthermore, I am standing up today for the small 
businesses that employ families throughout the outdoor economy.
  For example, I recently visited Extreme Power Sports in Gaylord, 
where they sell a variety of all-terrain vehicles, sleds, and safety 
gear. This small business sells ATVs and sleds to users all over the 
country who come to enjoy the trails and forests in our State and 
beyond.
  In addition to businesses like Extreme Power Sports, the hotels and 
restaurants around northern Michigan are supported by those who come to 
visit our forests year-round.
  Healthy, accessible forests are important for our way of life in 
northern Michigan and across the United States. All of our constituents 
deserve improved access to the forests, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENISHEK. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for raising these concerns about 
how the Forest Service is managing its roads and trails in Michigan. I 
will tell you that the same concerns exist around the country, in Idaho 
as well as other States, too.
  Chairman Calvert and the committee would be happy to work with you on 
this issue as the Interior bill moves through the process.
  If there is no objection, we would be willing to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
  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. 
Rouzer) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moolenaar, 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. 2822) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________