[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10795-10827]
[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

[[Page 10796]]

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2822 and that I may include 
tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter of Georgia). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2822.
  Will the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1446


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 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 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
June 25, 2015, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Benishek) had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 
76, line 4.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I would encourage Members who have striking 
amendments to come to the floor immediately.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  capital improvement and maintenance

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $357,363,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for construction, capital improvement, maintenance 
     and acquisition of buildings and other facilities and 
     infrastructure; and for construction, reconstruction, 
     decommissioning of roads that are no longer needed, including 
     unauthorized roads that are not part of the transportation 
     system, and maintenance of forest roads and trails by the 
     Forest Service as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 
     U.S.C. 101 and 205: Provided, That $40,000,000 shall be 
     designated for urgently needed road decommissioning, road and 
     trail repair and maintenance and associated activities, and 
     removal of fish passage barriers, especially in areas where 
     Forest Service roads may be contributing to water quality 
     problems in streams and water bodies which support 
     threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or community 
     water sources: Provided further, That funds becoming 
     available in fiscal year 2016 under the Act of March 4, 1913 
     (16 U.S.C. 501) shall be transferred to the General Fund of 
     the Treasury and shall not be available for transfer or 
     obligation for any other purpose unless the funds are 
     appropriated: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     for decommissioning of roads, up to $14,743,000 may be 
     transferred to the ``National Forest System'' to support the 
     Integrated Resource Restoration pilot program.

                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of 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 the Forest 
     Service, $20,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

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

       Page 77, line 14, 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 Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, this amendment takes $1 million out of 
the Forest Service land acquisition account and then, for technical 
reasons, inserts it back into the same account with the intent to 
identify unused land for potential sale.
  The United States Federal Government currently owns around 640 
million acres of land. That is just a number. But that is 27 percent of 
the landmass in the United States, owned by Uncle Sam. That is the same 
size as all of Western Europe, if you can imagine that, that being 27 
percent of the United States landmass. The Forest Service alone owns 
over 230 million acres of this Federal land.
  This amendment is very simple. All it does is to have the Federal 
Government examine the land that it has in its possession for the 
potential sale back to Americans so that Americans can own America.
  We are not talking about National Forests. We are not talking about 
the Grand Canyon. We are talking about unused land that is owned by the 
Federal Government.
  It will have the Federal Government go through that land--27 percent 
of the landmass in the country--and decide whether some of that might 
actually be better to be in the possession and the property of 
Americans so that, if Americans then own the land, that land in some 
State--like Utah--can then be developed by Americans, and then those 
people can pay taxes on the land that would go to the State of Utah, 
for example. Right now the land is unused. It is not able to be 
productive.
  So that is what this amendment would do: have the Forest Service 
study the possibility of selling some of that unused land back to the 
United States.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

       For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of 
     the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the 
     Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San 
     Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests, 
     California, as authorized by law, $950,000, to be derived 
     from forest receipts.

            acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

       For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from 
     funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments, 
     public school districts, or other public school authorities, 
     and for authorized expenditures from funds deposited by non-
     Federal parties pursuant to Land Sale and Exchange Acts, 
     pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967 (16 U.S.C. 484a), to 
     remain available until expended (16 U.S.C. 460l-516-617a, 
     555a; Public Law 96-586; Public Law 76-589, 76-591; and 
     Public Law 78-310).

                         range betterment fund

       For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection, 
     and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the 
     prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on 
     lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant 
     to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, to remain 
     available until expended, of which not to exceed 6 percent 
     shall be available for administrative expenses associated 
     with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, protection, and 
     improvements.

    gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

       For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $45,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund 
     established pursuant to the above Act.

        management of national forest lands for subsistence uses

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage 
     Federal lands in Alaska for subsistence uses under title VIII 
     of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
     (Public Law 96-487), $2,441,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                        wildland fire management

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression 
     activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency 
     fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands

[[Page 10797]]

     under fire protection agreement, hazardous fuels management 
     on or adjacent to such lands, emergency rehabilitation of 
     burned-over National Forest System lands and water, and for 
     State and volunteer fire assistance, $2,373,078,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That such funds 
     including unobligated balances under this heading, are 
     available for repayment of advances from other appropriations 
     accounts previously transferred for such purposes: Provided 
     further, That such funds shall be available to reimburse 
     State and other cooperating entities for services provided in 
     response to wildfire and other emergencies or disasters to 
     the extent such reimbursements by the Forest Service for non-
     fire emergencies are fully repaid by the responsible 
     emergency management agency: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $6,914,000 of 
     funds appropriated under this appropriation shall be 
     available for the Forest Service in support of fire science 
     research authorized by the Joint Fire Science Program, 
     including all Forest Service authorities for the use of 
     funds, such as contracts, grants, research joint venture 
     agreements, and cooperative agreements: Provided further, 
     That all authorities for the use of funds, including the use 
     of contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, available 
     to execute the Forest and Rangeland Research appropriation, 
     are also available in the utilization of these funds for Fire 
     Science Research: Provided further, That funds provided shall 
     be available for emergency rehabilitation and restoration, 
     hazardous fuels management activities, support to Federal 
     emergency response, and wildfire suppression activities of 
     the Forest Service: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, $361,749,000 is for hazardous fuels management 
     activities, $19,795,000 is for research activities and to 
     make competitive research grants pursuant to the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act, (16 U.S.C. 1641 
     et seq.), $78,000,000 is for State fire assistance, and 
     $13,000,000 is for volunteer fire assistance under section 10 
     of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2106): Provided further, That amounts in this paragraph may 
     be transferred to the ``National Forest System'', and 
     ``Forest and Rangeland Research'' accounts to fund forest and 
     rangeland research, the Joint Fire Science Program, 
     vegetation and watershed management, heritage site 
     rehabilitation, and wildlife and fish habitat management and 
     restoration:  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 up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein may be 
     used by the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into 
     procurement contracts or cooperative agreements or to issue 
     grants for hazardous fuels management activities and for 
     training or monitoring associated with such hazardous fuels 
     management activities on Federal land or on non-Federal land 
     if the Secretary determines such activities implement a 
     community wildfire protection plan (or equivalent) and 
     benefit resources on Federal land: Provided further, That 
     funds made available to implement the Community Forest 
     Restoration Act, Public Law 106-393, title VI, shall be 
     available for use on non-Federal lands in accordance with 
     authorities made available to the Forest Service under the 
     ``State and Private Forestry'' appropriation: 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 
     of the funds provided for hazardous fuels management, not to 
     exceed $5,000,000 may be used to make grants, using any 
     authorities available to the Forest Service under the ``State 
     and Private Forestry'' appropriation, for the purpose of 
     creating incentives for increased use of biomass from 
     National Forest System lands: Provided further, That funds 
     designated for wildfire suppression, including funds 
     transferred from the ``FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve 
     Fund'', shall be assessed for cost pools on the same basis as 
     such assessments are calculated against other agency 
     programs: Provided further, That of the funds for hazardous 
     fuels management, up to $28,077,000 may be transferred to the 
     ``National Forest System'' to support the Integrated Resource 
     Restoration pilot program.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

       Page 79, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (decreased by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  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. POLIS. Madam Chair, we still see approximately 3,000 deaths, 
17,000 injuries, and $3 billion spent annually as a result of wildfires 
across the country.
  In many ways, wildfires lack parity with nearly every other natural 
disaster and are hugely underfunded when it comes to mitigation, 
prevention, and suppression.
  Despite the fact the fires often occur in rural communities with 
smaller populations, wildfires demand intensive resources, equipment, 
and infrastructure.
  The Volunteer Fire Assistance grant program is critical to moving the 
needle on wildfire management and supporting the men and women who 
serve in our volunteer fire agencies, including in my district in 
Colorado. Though this grant program is small and oriented towards 
lesser trafficked communities, its impact is incredible.
  The Volunteer Fire Assistance program provides matching funds to 
volunteer fire departments protecting communities with 10,000 or fewer 
residents to purchase equipment and training for use in wildland fire 
suppression.
  Volunteer fire departments provide nearly 80 percent of the initial 
attack on wildfires across the United States, but, unfortunately, these 
volunteer fire departments frequently lack the financial resources. And 
$1 million makes an enormous difference for our volunteer fire 
departments across the country.
  Unfortunately, in recent years, Federal funding for volunteer fire 
departments to prepare for wildland fire suppression has dwindled. VFA 
has seen funding reduced from $16 million in FY 2010 to $15.6 million 
in 2011 and approximately $13 million in FY 2012-2015.
  Additionally, the Rural Fire Assistance program, which has 
historically been funded at $7 to $10 million per year and provided 
matching grants to fire departments that agreed to assist in responding 
to wildland fires on Federal lands, hasn't been funded since FY 2010.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, Federal support is critical to ensure 
volunteer fire departments are able to safely and effectively respond 
to wildland fires.
  The bipartisan amendment I offer today with my colleagues, 
Representatives Ruiz of California and Peter King of New York, would 
help ensure that we have stronger support for our volunteer fire 
departments across our country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that has been 
supported by the Congressional Fire Service Institute, the 
International Association of Fire Chiefs, and National Volunteer Fire 
Council.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                flame wildfire suppression reserve fund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for large fire suppression 
     operations of the Department of Agriculture and as a reserve 
     fund for suppression and Federal emergency response 
     activities, $315,000,000, 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).

               administrative provisions, forest service

                     (including transfers of funds)

[[Page 10798]]

       Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal 
     year shall be available for: (1) purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles; acquisition of passenger motor vehicles from excess 
     sources, and hire of such vehicles; purchase, lease, 
     operation, maintenance, and acquisition of aircraft to 
     maintain the operable fleet for use in Forest Service 
     wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs; 
     notwithstanding other provisions of law, existing aircraft 
     being replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in 
     value used to offset the purchase price for the replacement 
     aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to 
     exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) 
     purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other 
     public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land, 
     waters, and interests therein pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5) 
     for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National 
     Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6) 
     the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and 
     (7) for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31 
     U.S.C. 3718(c).
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management 
     appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters 
     under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe 
     burning conditions upon the Secretary's notification of the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that all fire 
     suppression funds appropriated under the headings ``Wildland 
     Fire Management'' and ``FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve 
     Fund'' will be obligated within 30 days: Provided, That all 
     funds used pursuant to this paragraph must be replenished by 
     a supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for assistance to or through the Agency for International 
     Development in connection with forest and rangeland research, 
     technical information, and assistance in foreign countries, 
     and shall be available to support forestry and related 
     natural resource activities outside the United States and its 
     territories and possessions, including technical assistance, 
     education and training, and cooperation with U.S., private, 
     and international organizations. The Forest Service, acting 
     for the International Program, may sign direct funding 
     agreements with foreign governments and institutions as well 
     as other domestic agencies (including the U.S. Agency for 
     International Development, the Department of State, and the 
     Millennium Challenge Corporation), U.S. private sector firms, 
     institutions and organizations to provide technical 
     assistance and training programs overseas on forestry and 
     rangeland management.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for expenditure or transfer to the Department of the 
     Interior, Bureau of Land Management, for removal, 
     preparation, and adoption of excess wild horses and burros 
     from National Forest System lands, and for the performance of 
     cadastral surveys to designate the boundaries of such lands.
       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service in 
     this Act or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year 
     shall be subject to transfer under the provisions of section 
     702(b) of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 2257), section 442 of Public Law 106-224 (7 U.S.C. 
     7772), or section 10417(b) of Public Law 107-107 (7 U.S.C. 
     8316(b)).
       None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying 
     this Act.
       Not more than $82,000,000 of funds available to the Forest 
     Service shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund of 
     the Department of Agriculture and not more than $14,500,000 
     of funds available to the Forest Service shall be transferred 
     to the Department of Agriculture for Department Reimbursable 
     Programs, commonly referred to as Greenbook charges. Nothing 
     in this paragraph shall prohibit or limit the use of 
     reimbursable agreements requested by the Forest Service in 
     order to obtain services from the Department of Agriculture's 
     National Information Technology Center and the Department of 
     Agriculture's International Technology Service.
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to 
     $5,000,000 shall be available for priority projects within 
     the scope of the approved budget, which shall be carried out 
     by the Youth Conservation Corps and shall be carried out 
     under the authority of the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993, 
     Public Law 103-82, as amended by Public Lands Corps Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act of 2005, Public Law 109-154.
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $4,000 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to 
     $3,000,000 may be advanced in a lump sum to the National 
     Forest Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in 
     support of the Forest Service mission, without regard to when 
     the Foundation incurs expenses, for projects on or 
     benefitting National Forest System lands or related to Forest 
     Service programs: Provided, That of the Federal funds made 
     available to the Foundation, no more than $300,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses: Provided further, That 
     the Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of 
     Federal financial assistance, private contributions to match 
     on at least one-for-one basis funds made available by the 
     Forest Service: Provided further, That the Foundation may 
     transfer Federal funds to a Federal or a non-Federal 
     recipient for a project at the same rate that the recipient 
     has obtained the non-Federal matching funds.
       Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, up to 
     $3,000,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service may 
     be advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in a 
     lump sum to aid cost-share conservation projects, without 
     regard to when expenses are incurred, on or benefitting 
     National Forest System lands or related to Forest Service 
     programs: Provided, That such funds shall be matched on at 
     least a one-for-one basis by the Foundation or its sub-
     recipients: Provided further, That the Foundation may 
     transfer Federal funds to a Federal or non-Federal recipient 
     for a project at the same rate that the recipient has 
     obtained the non-Federal matching funds.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for interactions with and providing technical assistance to 
     rural communities and natural resource-based businesses for 
     sustainable rural development purposes.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge 
     National Scenic Area, pursuant to section 14(c)(1) and (2), 
     and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
       Any funds appropriated to the Forest Service may be used to 
     meet the non-Federal share requirement in section 502(c) of 
     the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)).
       Funds available to the Forest Service, not to exceed 
     $55,000,000, shall be assessed for the purpose of performing 
     fire, administrative and other facilities maintenance and 
     decommissioning. Such assessments shall occur using a square 
     foot rate charged on the same basis the agency uses to assess 
     programs for payment of rent, utilities, and other support 
     services.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not 
     to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Office of the 
     General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agriculture, for travel 
     and related expenses incurred as a result of OGC assistance 
     or participation requested by the Forest Service at meetings, 
     training sessions, management reviews, land purchase 
     negotiations and similar nonlitigation-related matters. 
     Future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and 
     the Department of Agriculture should clearly display the sums 
     previously transferred and the requested funding transfers.
       An eligible individual who is employed in any project 
     funded under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) and administered by the Forest Service 
     shall be considered to be a Federal employee for purposes of 
     chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service

                         indian health services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act, the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act 
     with respect to the Indian Health Service, $4,321,539,000, 
     together with payments received during the fiscal year 
     pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) and 238b, for services furnished 
     by the Indian Health Service: Provided, That funds made 
     available to tribes and tribal organizations through 
     contracts, grant agreements, or any other agreements or 
     compacts authorized by the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), shall be 
     deemed to be obligated at the time of the grant or contract 
     award and thereafter shall remain available to the tribe or 
     tribal organization without fiscal year limitation: Provided 
     further, That, $935,726,000 for Purchased/Referred Care, 
     including $51,500,000 for the Indian Catastrophic Health 
     Emergency Fund, shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That, of the funds provided, up to 
     $36,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     implementation of the loan repayment program under section 
     108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act: Provided 
     further, That the amounts collected by the Federal Government 
     as authorized by sections 104 and 108 of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613a and 1616a) during the 
     preceding fiscal year for breach of contracts shall be 
     deposited to the Fund authorized by section 108A of the Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 1616a-1) and shall remain available until expended 
     and, notwithstanding section 108A(c) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 
     1616a-1(c)), funds shall be available to make new awards 
     under the loan repayment and scholarship programs under 
     sections 104 and 108 of the Act (25

[[Page 10799]]

     U.S.C. 1613a and 1616a): Provided further, That funds 
     provided in this Act may be used for annual contracts and 
     grants that fall within 2 fiscal years, provided the total 
     obligation is recorded in the year the funds are 
     appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts collected by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the 
     authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act shall remain available until expended for the purpose of 
     achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and 
     requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act, except for those related to the planning, design, or 
     construction of new facilities: Provided further, That 
     funding contained herein for scholarship programs under the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     amounts received by tribes and tribal organizations under 
     title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be 
     reported and accounted for and available to the receiving 
     tribes and tribal organizations until expended: Provided 
     further, That the Bureau of Indian Affairs may collect from 
     the Indian Health Service, tribes and tribal organizations 
     operating health facilities pursuant to Public Law 93-638, 
     such individually identifiable health information relating to 
     disabled children as may be necessary for the purpose of 
     carrying out its functions under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.): 
     Provided further, That the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Fund may be used, as needed, to carry out activities 
     typically funded under the Indian Health Facilities account: 
     Provided further, That $717,970,000 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 Indian 
     Health Service 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.

                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and 
     titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to environmental health and facilities support 
     activities of the Indian Health Service, $466,329,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for the planning, design, construction, 
     renovation or expansion of health facilities for the benefit 
     of an Indian tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land on 
     which such facilities will be located: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $500,000 may be used by the Indian Health 
     Service to purchase TRANSAM equipment from the Department of 
     Defense for distribution to the Indian Health Service and 
     tribal facilities: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the Indian Health Service may be used for 
     sanitation facilities construction for new homes funded with 
     grants by the housing programs of the United States 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $2,700,000 from this account and 
     the ``Indian Health Services'' account may be used by the 
     Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for the Indian 
     Health Service and tribal facilities in conjunction with an 
     existing interagency agreement between the Indian Health 
     Service and the General Services Administration: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $500,000 may be placed in a 
     Demolition Fund, to remain available until expended, and be 
     used by the Indian Health Service for the demolition of 
     Federal buildings.

            administrative provisions--indian health service

       Appropriations provided in this Act to the Indian Health 
     Service shall be available for services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109 at rates not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior-level 
     positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and aircraft; purchase of medical equipment; 
     purchase of reprints; purchase, renovation and erection of 
     modular buildings and renovation of existing facilities; 
     payments for telephone service in private residences in the 
     field, when authorized under regulations approved by the 
     Secretary; uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; and for expenses of attendance at meetings 
     that relate to the functions or activities of the Indian 
     Health Service: Provided, That in accordance with the 
     provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-
     Indian patients may be extended health care at all tribally 
     administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to 
     charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under 
     the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) 
     shall be credited to the account of the facility providing 
     the service and shall be available without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be administered under Public Law 86-121, the Indian 
     Sanitation Facilities Act and Public Law 93-638: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service 
     in this Act, except those used for administrative and program 
     direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations 
     directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available to 
     the Indian Health Service in this Act shall be used for any 
     assessments or charges by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services unless identified in the budget justification and 
     provided in this Act, or approved by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations through the reprogramming 
     process: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds previously or herein made available 
     to a tribe or tribal organization through a contract, grant, 
     or agreement authorized by title I or title V of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 
     U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
     determination contract under title I, or a self-governance 
     agreement under title V of such Act and thereafter shall 
     remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without 
     fiscal year limitation: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available to the Indian Health Service in this Act 
     shall be used to implement the final rule published in the 
     Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, relating to the eligibility for 
     the health care services of the Indian Health Service until 
     the Indian Health Service has submitted a budget request 
     reflecting the increased costs associated with the proposed 
     final rule, and such request has been included in an 
     appropriations Act and enacted into law: Provided further, 
     That with respect to functions transferred by the Indian 
     Health Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian 
     Health Service is authorized to provide goods and services to 
     those entities on a reimbursable basis, including payments in 
     advance with subsequent adjustment, and the reimbursements 
     received therefrom, along with the funds received from those 
     entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may 
     be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account 
     from which the funds were originally derived, with such 
     amounts to remain available until expended: Provided further, 
     That reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or 
     services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain 
     total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead 
     associated with the provision of goods, services, or 
     technical assistance: Provided further, That the 
     appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service may not 
     be altered without advance notification to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That 
     the Indian Health Service shall develop a strategic plan for 
     the Urban Indian Health program in consultation with urban 
     Indians and the National Academy of Public Administration, 
     and shall publish such plan not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

                     National Institutes of Health

          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For necessary expenses for the National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set 
     forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9660(a)) and section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986, $77,349,000.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

            toxic substances and environmental public health

       For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances 
     and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set 
     forth in sections 104(i) and 111(c)(4) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA) and section 3019 of the Solid Waste Disposal 
     Act, $74,691,000, of which up to $1,000 per eligible employee 
     of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry shall 
     remain available until expended for Individual Learning 
     Accounts: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, in lieu of performing a health assessment under 
     section 104(i)(6) of CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may 
     conduct other appropriate health studies, evaluations, or 
     activities, including, without limitation, biomedical 
     testing, clinical evaluations, medical monitoring, and 
     referral to accredited healthcare providers: Provided 
     further, That in performing any such health assessment or 
     health study, evaluation, or activity, the Administrator of 
     ATSDR shall not be bound by the deadlines in section 
     104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     ATSDR to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles

[[Page 10800]]

     pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 2016, 
     and existing profiles may be updated as necessary.

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

                   Executive Office of the President

  council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, and not to 
     exceed $750 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, $3,000,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 
     202 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the 
     Council shall consist of one member, appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
     serving as chairman and exercising all powers, functions, and 
     duties of the Council.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant 
     to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, including hire of 
     passenger vehicles, uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, and for services authorized 
     by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     the per diem equivalent to the maximum rate payable for 
     senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376, $11,000,000: 
     Provided, That the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 
     Board (Board) shall have not more than three career Senior 
     Executive Service positions: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the individual 
     appointed to the position of Inspector General of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall, by virtue of 
     such appointment, also hold the position of Inspector General 
     of the Board: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Inspector General of the Board 
     shall utilize personnel of the Office of Inspector General of 
     EPA in performing the duties of the Inspector General of the 
     Board, and shall not appoint any individuals to positions 
     within the Board.

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $7,341,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act 
     are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups 
     including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands 
     residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and 
     all others certified as eligible and not included in the 
     preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any 
     single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, 
     was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10: Provided 
     further, That $200,000 shall be transferred to the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Department of the Interior, to 
     remain available until expended, for audits and 
     investigations of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian 
     Relocation, consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.).

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 
                              Development

                        payment to the institute

       For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska 
     Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title 
     XV of Public Law 99-498 (20 U.S.C. 56 part A), $9,469,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2017.

                        Smithsonian Institution

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease 
     agreements of no more than 30 years, and protection of 
     buildings, facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 
     for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and purchase, 
     rental, repair, and cleaning of uniforms for employees, 
     $680,422,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017, 
     except as otherwise provided herein; of which not to exceed 
     $47,522,000 for the instrumentation program, collections 
     acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum 
     of African American History and Culture, and the repatriation 
     of skeletal remains program shall remain available until 
     expended; and including such funds as may be necessary to 
     support American overseas research centers: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments 
     to independent contractors performing research services or 
     participating in official Smithsonian presentations.

                           facilities capital

       For necessary expenses of repair, revitalization, and 
     alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the Smithsonian 
     Institution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by 
     section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), and 
     for construction, including necessary personnel, 
     $139,119,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $10,000 shall be for services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109.

                        National Gallery of Art

                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and 
     repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms 
     and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $119,500,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2017, of which not to 
     exceed $3,578,000 for the special exhibition program shall 
     remain available until expended.

            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, for operating lease agreements of no more than 10 
     years, with no extensions or renewals beyond the 10 years, 
     that address space needs created by the ongoing renovations 
     in the Master Facilities Plan, as authorized, $19,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That contracts 
     awarded for environmental systems, protection systems, and 
     exterior repair or renovation of buildings of the National 
     Gallery of Art may be negotiated with selected contractors 
     and awarded on the basis of contractor qualifications as well 
     as price.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $21,660,000.

                     capital repair and restoration

       For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration 
     of the existing features of the building and site of the John 
     F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $11,140,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) 
     including hire of passenger vehicles and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $10,420,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2017.

           National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts

                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, $146,021,000 
     shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for 
     the support of projects and productions in the arts, 
     including arts education and public outreach activities, 
     through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant 
     to section 5 of the Act, for program support, and for 
     administering the functions of the Act, to remain available 
     until expended.

                 National Endowment for the Humanities

                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, $146,021,000 to 
     remain available until expended, of which $135,121,000 shall 
     be available for support of activities in the humanities, 
     pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act and for administering the

[[Page 10801]]

     functions of the Act; and $10,900,000 shall be available to 
     carry out the matching grants program pursuant to section 
     10(a)(2) of the Act, including $8,500,000 for the purposes of 
     section 7(h): Provided, That appropriations for carrying out 
     section 10(a)(2) shall be available for obligation only in 
     such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts, 
     bequests, devises of money, and other property accepted by 
     the chairman or by grantees of the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities under the provisions of sections 11(a)(2)(B) and 
     11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding fiscal years for 
     which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated.

                       Administrative Provisions

       None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any 
     grant or contract documents which do not include the text of 
     18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may 
     be used for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may 
     be used as necessary for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That the 
     Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts may 
     approve grants of up to $10,000, if in the aggregate the 
     amount of such grants does not exceed 5 percent of the sums 
     appropriated for grantmaking purposes per year: Provided 
     further, That such small grant actions are taken pursuant to 
     the terms of an expressed and direct delegation of authority 
     from the National Council on the Arts to the Chairperson.

                        Commission of Fine Arts

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses of the Commission of Fine Arts under Chapter 
     91 of title 40, United States Code, $2,524,000: Provided, 
     That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to cover the 
     full costs of its publications, and such fees shall be 
     credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to 
     remain available until expended without further 
     appropriation: Provided further, That the Commission is 
     authorized to accept gifts, including objects, papers, 
     artwork, drawings and artifacts, that pertain to the history 
     and design of the Nation's Capital or the history and 
     activities of the Commission of Fine Arts, for the purpose of 
     artistic display, study or education.

               national capital arts and cultural affairs

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190 
     (20 U.S.C. 956a), $2,000,000.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665), $6,080,000.

                  National Capital Planning Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Capital Planning 
     Commission under chapter 87 of title 40, United States Code, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $7,948,000: Provided, That one-quarter of 1 percent of the 
     funds provided under this heading may be used for official 
     reception and representational expenses associated with 
     hosting international visitors engaged in the planning and 
     physical development of world capitals.

                United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

                       holocaust memorial museum

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310), 
     $52,385,000, of which $865,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2018, for the Museum's equipment replacement 
     program; and of which $2,200,000 for the Museum's repair and 
     rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the Museum's 
     outreach initiatives program shall remain available until 
     expended.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     (including transfers of funds)

                      restriction on use of funds

       Sec. 401.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which Congressional action is not complete other than to 
     communicate to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 
     1913.

                      obligation of appropriations

       Sec. 402.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.

                 disclosure of administrative expenses

       Sec. 403.  The amount and basis of estimated overhead 
     charges, deductions, reserves or holdbacks, including working 
     capital fund and cost pool charges, from programs, projects, 
     activities and subactivities to support government-wide, 
     departmental, agency, or bureau administrative functions or 
     headquarters, regional, or central operations shall be 
     presented in annual budget justifications and subject to 
     approval by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate. Changes to such estimates 
     shall be presented to the Committees on Appropriations for 
     approval.

                          mining applications

       Sec. 404. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to accept or process 
     applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim 
     located under the general mining laws.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the 
     Secretary of the Interior determines that, for the claim 
     concerned (1) a patent application was filed with the 
     Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all 
     requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode 
     claims, sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and 
     section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill 
     site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by 
     the applicant by that date.
       (c) Report.--On September 30, 2017, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
     the Senate a report on actions taken by the Department under 
     the plan submitted pursuant to section 314(c) of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
       (d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent 
     applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the 
     request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party 
     contractor to be selected by the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management to conduct a mineral examination of the 
     mining claims or mill sites contained in a patent application 
     as set forth in subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management 
     shall have the sole responsibility to choose and pay the 
     third-party contractor in accordance with the standard 
     procedures employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the 
     retention of third-party contractors.

             contract support costs, prior year limitation

       Sec. 405.  Sections 405 and 406 of division F of the 
     Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 
     (Public Law 113-235) shall continue in effect in fiscal year 
     2016.

          contract support costs, fiscal year 2016 limitation

       Sec. 406.  Amounts provided by this Act for fiscal year 
     2016 under the headings ``Department of Health and Human 
     Services, Indian Health Service, Indian Health Services'' and 
     ``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
     Bureau of Indian Education, Operation of Indian Programs'' 
     are the only amounts available for contract support costs 
     arising out of self-determination or self-governance 
     contracts, grants, compacts, or annual funding agreements for 
     fiscal year 2016 with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the 
     Indian Health Service: Provided, That such amounts provided 
     by this Act are not available for payment of claims for 
     contract support costs for prior years, or for repayments of 
     payments for settlements or judgments awarding contract 
     support costs for prior years.

                        forest management plans

       Sec. 407.  The Secretary of Agriculture shall not be 
     considered to be in violation of subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of 
     the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 
     1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)) solely because more than 15 
     years have passed without revision of the plan for a unit of 
     the National Forest System. Nothing in this section exempts 
     the Secretary from any other requirement of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et 
     seq.) or any other law: Provided, That if the Secretary is 
     not acting expeditiously and in good faith, within the 
     funding available, to revise a plan for a unit of the 
     National Forest System, this section shall be void with 
     respect to such plan and a court of proper jurisdiction may 
     order completion of the plan on an accelerated basis.

                 prohibition within national monuments

       Sec. 408.  No funds provided in this Act may be expended to 
     conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under 
     either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) 
     within the boundaries of a National Monument established 
     pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) 
     as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where 
     such activities are allowed under the Presidential 
     proclamation establishing such monument.

                         limitation on takings

       Sec. 409.  Unless otherwise provided herein, no funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the acquisition of lands or 
     interests in lands may be expended for the filing of 
     declarations of taking or complaints in condemnation without 
     the approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided, That this provision shall not apply 
     to funds

[[Page 10802]]

     appropriated to implement the Everglades National Park 
     Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, or to funds 
     appropriated for Federal assistance to the State of Florida 
     to acquire lands for Everglades restoration purposes.

                        timber sale requirements

       Sec. 410.  No timber sale in Alaska's Region 10 shall be 
     advertised if the indicated rate is deficit (defined as the 
     value of the timber is not sufficient to cover all logging 
     and stumpage costs and provide a normal profit and risk 
     allowance under the Forest Service's appraisal process) when 
     appraised using a residual value appraisal. The western red 
     cedar timber from those sales which is surplus to the needs 
     of the domestic processors in Alaska, shall be made available 
     to domestic processors in the contiguous 48 United States at 
     prevailing domestic prices. All additional western red cedar 
     volume not sold to Alaska or contiguous 48 United States 
     domestic processors may be exported to foreign markets at the 
     election of the timber sale holder. All Alaska yellow cedar 
     may be sold at prevailing export prices at the election of 
     the timber sale holder.

                    prohibition on no-bid contracts

       Sec. 411.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act to executive branch agencies may be 
     used to enter into any Federal contract unless such contract 
     is entered into in accordance with the requirements of 
     chapter 33 of title 41, United States Code, or chapter 137 of 
     title 10, United States Code, and the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation, unless--
       (1) Federal law specifically authorizes a contract to be 
     entered into without regard for these requirements, including 
     formula grants for States, or federally recognized Indian 
     tribes; or
       (2) such contract is authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-
     638, 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or by any other Federal laws that 
     specifically authorize a contract within an Indian tribe as 
     defined in section 4(e) of that Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)); or
       (3) such contract was awarded prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

                           posting of reports

       Sec. 412. (a) Any agency receiving funds made available in 
     this Act, shall, subject to subsections (b) and (c), post on 
     the public website of that agency any report required to be 
     submitted by the Congress in this or any other Act, upon the 
     determination by the head of the agency that it shall serve 
     the national interest.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
       (1) the public posting of the report compromises national 
     security; or
       (2) the report contains proprietary information.
       (c) The head of the agency posting such report shall do so 
     only after such report has been made available to the 
     requesting Committee or Committees of Congress for no less 
     than 45 days.

            national endowment for the arts grant guidelines

       Sec. 413.  Of the funds provided to the National Endowment 
     for the Arts--
       (1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an 
     individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a 
     literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or 
     American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
       (2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure 
     that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made 
     to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be 
     used to make a grant to any other organization or individual 
     to conduct activity independent of the direct grant 
     recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments 
     made in exchange for goods and services.
       (3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group, 
     unless the application is specific to the contents of the 
     season, including identified programs or projects.

           national endowment for the arts program priorities

       Sec. 414. (a) In providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
     Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this 
     Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or 
     awarding financial assistance for projects, productions, 
     workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population 
     of individuals, including urban minorities, who have 
     historically been outside the purview of arts and humanities 
     programs due to factors such as a high incidence of income 
     below the poverty line or to geographic isolation.
       (2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.
       (c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance 
     under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
     of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson 
     of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that 
     priority is given to providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs 
     that will encourage public knowledge, education, 
     understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
       (d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out 
     section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and 
     Humanities Act of 1965--
       (1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for 
     projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of 
     national impact or availability or are able to tour several 
     States;
       (2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15 
     percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State, 
     excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
       (3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually 
     and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each 
     grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
       (4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to 
     improve and support community-based music performance and 
     education.

                  status of balances of appropriations

       Sec. 415.  The Department of the Interior, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the 
     Indian Health Service shall provide the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate 
     quarterly reports on the status of balances of appropriations 
     including all uncommitted, committed, and unobligated funds 
     in each program and activity.

                 report on use of climate change funds

       Sec. 416.  Not later than 120 days after the date on which 
     the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request is submitted 
     to the Congress, the President shall submit a comprehensive 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate describing in detail all 
     Federal agency funding, domestic and international, for 
     climate change programs, projects, and activities in fiscal 
     years 2015 and 2016, including an accounting of funding by 
     agency with each agency identifying climate change programs, 
     projects, and activities and associated costs by line item as 
     presented in the President's Budget Appendix, and including 
     citations and linkages where practicable to each strategic 
     plan that is driving funding within each climate change 
     program, project, and activity listed in the report.

                              {time}  1500


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva

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

       Strike section 416.

  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. Madam Chair, the overwhelming scientific consensus is 
that climate change is real. Leaders of the communities of faith, such 
as His Holiness the Pope, are now urging us to take this issue very 
seriously.
  No matter how often the fossil fuel industry whispers that we have 
nothing to worry about, no matter how much manufactured science they 
gin up to create doubt, climate change is real.
  We should have begun assessing the costs of climate change decades 
ago, but we did not. The legislation before us today would require a 
report on climate change expenditures. But the purpose of this section 
is not to assess the impacts of climate change; the purpose is to root 
out climate funding in the budget, so that next year's Interior bill 
can prohibit that spending.
  Madam Chair, the report requirement as written is not only pointless, 
it is counterproductive. The Obama administration is open about 
responding to climate change. Most of their climate expenditures are 
clearly labeled and can be discovered by simply reading their budget 
request. For the remainder, I would be happy to write the President 
asking him to list these programs, and I suspect he would be pleased to 
answer.
  As written, this reporting requirement is a waste of time. We should 
be instead asking the administration to report back to us on the costs 
of climate change to our health, our environment, and our economy.
  Earlier this week, the White House issued a report showing that its 
efforts to reduce air pollution and climate change--efforts opposed by 
House Republicans, I might add--would provide billions of dollars in 
health benefits

[[Page 10803]]

and save hundreds of thousands of lives.
  A report also out this week from the National Park Service showed 
that $90 billion of National Park resources are at risk from sea level 
rise caused by global warming, and we all know about the historic 
drought in California and the lingering costs of recovery from 
Superstorm Sandy.
  A full assessment of all the costs of inaction would help inform the 
Congress and the American people about what steps we must take 
immediately to ensure that climate change does not bring our country to 
its knees. Unfortunately, this bill does not ask for that assessment.
  Instead, Madam Chair, the section my amendment would strike would 
undertake some kind of witch hunt to root out the meager funding we 
have in place to respond to this challenge. To support this section is 
to deny climate change.
  I would tell my colleagues, all the constituent services you provide, 
all the money you can raise, the votes you cast, and the laws you pass 
will amount to nothing if you are on the wrong side of history on 
climate change. Climate deniers will join a long list of political 
figures who failed to respond to the most serious challenge of their 
time and so are labeled as failures for all time.
  Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to strike the 
reporting language in the bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this provision shouldn't be controversial. 
The language has been included in our enacted bills on a bipartisan 
basis since 2010. The language simply requires that programs and 
activities dedicated to climate change are reported in a transparent 
way so the American people know what we are spending their tax dollars 
on.
  With so many climate change programs being initiated, it is important 
to know what is being done across the government to avoid redundancy, 
and there is certainly a significant amount of redundancy in some of 
these climate change studies. It is in the bill so the committee can 
have the information it needs to provide critical oversight.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      prohibition on use of funds

       Sec. 417.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act may 
     be used to promulgate or implement any regulation requiring 
     the issuance of permits under title V of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq.) for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, 
     water vapor, or methane emissions resulting from biological 
     processes associated with livestock production.

                 greenhouse gas reporting restrictions

       Sec. 418.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available in this or any other Act may be 
     used to implement any provision in a rule, if that provision 
     requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from 
     manure management systems.

                             recreation fee

       Sec. 419.  Section 810 of the Federal Lands Recreation 
     Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6809) is amended by striking ``10 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``on September 30, 2017''.

                      modification of authorities

       Sec. 420. (a) Section 8162(m)(3) of the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public 
     Law 106-79) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2015'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2016''.
       (b) For fiscal year 2016, the authority provided by the 
     provisos under the heading ``Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial 
     Commission--Capital Construction'' in division E of Public 
     Law 112-74 shall not be in effect.

                          funding prohibition

       Sec. 421.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to regulate the lead content of 
     ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle under 
     the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) or 
     any other law.

                      waters of the united states

       Sec. 422.  None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other Act for any fiscal year may be used to develop, 
     adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any change to the 
     regulations and guidance in effect on October 1, 2012, 
     pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, 
     et seq.), including the provisions of the rules dated 
     November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating to said 
     jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated January 15, 
     2003, and December 2, 2008, relating to said jurisdiction.


               Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence

  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam 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:

       Strike section 422.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would strike section 422 from the underlying bill. In doing so, this 
amendment would allow the EPA and the Army to implement the waters of 
the United States rule. This rule will ensure protection for the 
Nation's public health and aquatic resources and will clarify the scope 
of the waters of the United States protected under this law.
  Unfortunately, Republicans continue to undermine efforts to protect 
the Great Lakes as well as other critical water bodies around the 
Nation. We cannot afford to delay years of work by the EPA and the Army 
Corps of Engineers that would enhance the protection of our Nation's 
aquatic resources and public health.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, it comes as no surprise that I rise in 
opposition to this amendment.
  In 2006, the Supreme Court determined the EPA and the Corps of 
Engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters 
under the Clean Water Act.
  I am certain the EPA's final rule violates that. From day one, the 
EPA claimed that they were not expanding the waters under their 
jurisdiction, but we now know that those permits will be required and 
that the final rule is worse than proposed.
  Twenty-seven States have now filed lawsuits challenging the legality 
of EPA's rule, so the Agency again finds itself on shaky legal ground, 
both on process and substance.
  The language in the bill protects the authority of the States by 
preventing the EPA from implementing its regulation and expanding its 
jurisdiction. The language needs to stay in, so I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The language is in there for a very good reason. Everybody assumes 
that the waters are not covered under the Clean Water Act, that being 
the navigable waters. That is a definition they came up with somehow--I 
don't know--but that they are unregulated waters.
  They are not unregulated waters. They are regulated by the States. 
When the court said, ``Navigable waters is kind of an elusive term, so 
maybe you ought to redefine it,'' the EPA said, ``Okay, we will just 
regulate all the waters,'' and that is what they did with this. They 
have gone way beyond whatever the intent of the Clean Water Act was.
  I will tell you most resource groups, most agricultural groups, 
everybody

[[Page 10804]]

else disagrees with what the EPA has done on this new rule that they 
are writing. The fact that they have expanded their authority into 
areas far beyond what was intended in the Clean Water Act, I think, 
goes beyond the pale and goes beyond what Congress originally intended 
under the Clean Water Act.
  We are not talking about leaving waters unregulated; they are just 
being regulated by the States, and they need to start over in writing 
this rule.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, can you tell me how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), my colleague.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague.
  I rise to support the Lawrence amendment to strike the section 
prohibiting the new rule on the Federal jurisdiction of the waters of 
the United States.
  A few weeks ago, the Obama administration issued a final rule that 
clarifies the limits of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. It 
does this by reducing red tape and providing more certainty for the 
regulated community.
  Instead of confusion in case-by-case determinations about where 
waters are covered, the rule says physical, measurable boundaries for 
the first time about where clean water coverage begins and ends.
  The rule does not expand the waters covered. In fact, it will 
actually reduce the scope of waters protected by the Clean Water Act.
  Additionally, the rule does not create any new permitting 
requirements for agriculture. It maintains all previous exemptions and 
exclusions.
  The rule ensures that the waters protected under the Clean Water Act 
are more precisely defined and predictably measured, making permitting 
less costly, easier, and faster for business and industry.
  Prohibiting the EPA from implementing the rule will only perpetrate 
confusion in the jurisdiction of the water.
  This harmful rider should be struck; therefore, I urge my colleagues 
to support the Lawrence amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I strongly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment 
as it seeks to strip a commonsense provision included in the base bill 
that will protect the American people from the EPA's new waters of the 
U.S. regulation, commonly referred to as WOTUS.
  WOTUS is a terrible Agency proposal that will have disastrous effects 
and economic consequences for agriculture, small business, property 
owners, municipalities, and other water users throughout the country.
  This job-killing, overreaching water grab being imposed by Washington 
bureaucrats is a dream killer for future generations and local 
economies. The EPA claims this new regulation was shaped by public 
input; yet we recently learned that the EPA used taxpayer dollars to 
unleash a propaganda campaign in an attempt to rally comments and 
support for this WOTUS regulation, despite the Anti-Lobbying Act which 
bans such actions.
  Furthermore, States and local governments that have traditionally 
managed these waterways and activities were not included in drafting 
the WOTUS regulation. The Agency failed to comply with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act as required by Federal law and consider the new impact 
that the WOTUS regulations would have on small businesses.
  The EPA claims this rule is grounded in law; yet this overreaching 
regulation contradicts prior Supreme Court decisions by expanding 
Agency control over 60 percent of our country's streams and millions of 
acres of wetlands that were previously nonjurisdictional.
  Despite claiming the WOTUS rule reduces Agency jurisdiction, the 
final regulation imposes new regulations for navigable waters and their 
tributaries, potholes, ditches, bays, and even waters that are next to 
rivers and lakes.
  The new WOTUS regulation has been built on a foundation of 
pseudoscience, deception, and lawlessness. This overreach is so extreme 
that 24 Members of the President's own party joined Members in the 
House in passing legislation in May calling for the formal withdrawal 
of the new WOTUS regulation.
  For these reasons and more, I strongly oppose the gentlewoman's 
amendment and urge its defeat.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I would really urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  The rule does not create any new permitting requirements for the 
agriculture and maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions. The 
rule ensures that waters protected under the Clean Water Act are more 
precisely defined and particularly determine making permitting less 
costly, easier, and faster for business and industry.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I think the American public must be quite 
confused about what we are currently debating in this Chamber.
  The amendment I rise in strong support of strikes section 422 which 
prevents funds from being used to ``develop, adopt, implement, 
administer or enforce any change . . . pertaining to the definition of 
waters under the jurisdiction'' of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
  I would like to remind the other side that, thanks to the Clean Water 
Act, billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, 
and the number of waters that now meet clean water goals nationwide has 
actually doubled with direct benefits for drinking water, public 
health, recreation, and wildlife.
  This is especially true for my home State of Maryland that is within 
the six-State Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
  The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is fed by 110,000 miles of creeks, 
rivers, and streams; covers 64,000 square miles; includes over 11,500 
miles of shorelines; contains 150 major rivers and streams; and is home 
to over 17 million people.
  And this watershed's land-to-water ratio is 14-1, the largest of any 
coastal water body in the world.
  Several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, the Patuxent, 
Potomac, and Severn Rivers flow through the Fourth Congressional 
District. 70 percent of Marylanders get our drinking water from sources 
that rely on headwater or seasonal streams.
  Nationwide, 117 million people, or over a third of the total 
population, get our water from these waters.
  However, due to the two Supreme Court decisions, there is, in fact, 
widespread confusion as to what falls under the protection of the Clean 
Water Act.
  That is precisely why the Obama administration finalized their rule 
clarifying the limits of Federal jurisdiction under the Act on May 27, 
2015.
  The agencies finalized the clean water protection rule after over a 
year of public outreach on their then proposed rule at a scale 
unprecedented in the history of the Clean Water Act, as well as 
countless congressional hearings.
  Madam Chair, supporters of this provision have complained about the 
confusion in the litigation.
  That is precisely why we needed to get through the final rulemaking, 
which has been years in the making.
  That is what the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Government to 
do 14 years ago with the 2001 SWANCC decision and, subsequently, the 
2006 Rapanos case.
  Along with those Supreme Court decisions, the Bush administration 
followed the exact same process in issuing two guidance documents in 
2003 and 2008.
  Up until the final rule issued just over a month ago, they remained 
in force.
  It is, in fact, these two Bush-era guidance documents that have 
compounded the confusion, uncertainty, and increased compliance costs 
faced by our constituents--opponents and proponents alike--who all just 
say they want clarity.
  You don't actually have to take my word for it.
  In fact, let me quote from the comments made by the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, something I don't do all that often: ``With no clear 
regulatory definitions to guide their determinations, what has emerged 
is a hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent jurisdictional theories.''

[[Page 10805]]

  Those are the words of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
  We all agree that it is confusing.
  That is why it was so important that this administration finish what 
the Bush administration started and failed to do, and that is publish a 
final rule that gives stakeholders the clarity they have been seeking 
for 14 years.
  Madam Chair, despite nearly universal calls for increased clarity and 
certainty from certain stakeholders, my colleagues have made it a 
priority to prohibit the implementation of the final clean water 
rulemaking entirely.
  It is really clear that what they want to do is stop these agencies 
from doing their jobs at all--no new rules and no clean water, what a 
shame for our natural resources, our public health, and our 
environment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Quigley-Edwards amendment to 
strike this harmful and shameful provision.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                             stream buffer

       Sec. 423.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to develop, carry out, or implement (1) any guidance, 
     policy, or directive to reinterpret or change the historic 
     interpretation of 30 C.F.R. 816.57, which was promulgated on 
     June 30, 1983 by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement of the Department of the Interior (48 Fed. Reg. 
     30312); or (2) proposed regulations or supporting materials 
     described in the Federal Register notice published on June 
     18, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 34667) by the Office of Surface Mining 
     Reclamation and Enforcement of the Department of the 
     Interior.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Beginning at page 122, line 23, strike section 423.

  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. Madam Chair, my amendment would allow the Office of 
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to continue to develop 
regulations designed to protect communities and the environment from 
the devastating effects of mountaintop removal mining.
  If you have seen a picture of a mountaintop removal mining site, you 
get an idea of how destructive this process is. Companies literally 
blast the tops off of mountains, scoop out the coal, and dump what used 
to be the mountaintop into the valley below. The scars on the landscape 
are unmistakable, as are the piles of rock filling in what used to be 
mountain valleys and streams.
  What you don't see in the picture is the health impacts on the people 
living nearby, although those are just as real and just as terrible. 
People who live near mountaintop mining sites have higher rates of lung 
cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, birth defects, hypertension, and 
other health related problems.
  Despite some confusion in the Natural Resources Committee just last 
month, these results are statistically corrected for rates of smoking, 
obesity, and other factors.
  A paper in the journal Science a few years ago, one of the preeminent 
scientific journals in the world, pointed out that mountaintop removal 
mining with valley fills ``revealed serious environmental impacts that 
mitigation practices cannot successfully address,'' that ``water 
emerges from the base of valley fills containing a variety of solutes 
toxic and damaging to biota,'' and ``recovery of biodiversity in mining 
waste-impacted streams has not been documented.''
  Under our laws governing surface coal mining, streams are supposed to 
be protected; but the existing regulations, which are over 30 years 
old, have done a poor job of doing just that. Over 2,000 miles of 
streams have been buried by mountaintop removal mining, and countless 
more have been polluted by toxic mine runoff. Wildlife habitat is 
destroyed; fish are killed, and the people in the area suffer.
  That is why the administration has been working for years on a new 
rule that would do a better job of protecting streams. It has taken 
longer than I would like for them to propose this rule, and the process 
has certainly not gone as smoothly as it could have.
  The majority uses the snags in the process to argue that there 
shouldn't be a rule at all. Never mind that their own partisan 
investigation delayed this rule for years without uncovering any 
evidence of political misconduct.
  The majority also claims that this rule will cause huge job losses, 
but the draft rule hasn't even been published yet, so we can't possibly 
know the impacts, and the Director of the Office of Surface Mining says 
the job losses will be minor at best.
  Even if the majority does not believe him--and I suspect they might 
not--they should wait until the draft rule comes out and there can be 
independent analysis of the impacts, not just wild exaggerations that 
the mining industry will produce, but real, independent analysis.
  If they are still not happy with the rule at that point, we can hold 
hearings. We can try to pass constructive laws that protect the 
environment and human health and workers all at the same time.
  A partisan rider in this bill that completely stops the ability of 
the administration to work on this stream buffer rule to provide badly 
needed protections to Appalachian communities is the wrong way to go.
  It has nothing to do with managing spending. In fact, it would just 
result in the waste of all the money that was required to get to this 
very point.
  The rider is bad policy; it is bad for the environment, and it is bad 
for public health and the health of the people living near these mines.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment that would allow the 
stream protection rule to see the light of day.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, in 2008, the Office of Surface Mining 
finalized revisions to the stream zone buffer rule in an open and 
transparent manner. After taking office, the Obama administration put a 
hold on the rule and is currently writing a new rule.
  The administration's approach under the new rule has been anything 
but collaborative and inclusive, and many States feel they have been 
shut out of the process. When Chairman Rogers required advanced 
analysis on job impacts, his request was ignored.
  The American people expect more openness and transparency from their 
government, and that is why this funding prohibition must remain in the 
base bill.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and reject this 
amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

      hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on federal land

       Sec. 424. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds made available by this or any other Act for any fiscal 
     year may be used to prohibit the use of or access to Federal 
     land (as such term is defined in section 3 of the Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6502)) for 
     hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting if such use or 
     access--
       (1) was not prohibited on such Federal land as of January 
     1, 2013; and
       (2) was conducted in compliance with the resource 
     management plan (as defined in section 101 of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 6511)) applicable to such Federal land as of January 
     1, 2013.

[[Page 10806]]

       (b) Temporary Closures Allowed.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a), the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may temporarily close, for a period not to exceed 
     30 days, Federal land managed by the Secretary to hunting, 
     fishing, or recreational shooting if the Secretary determines 
     that the temporary closure is necessary to accommodate a 
     special event or for public safety reasons. The Secretary may 
     extend a temporary closure for one additional 90-day period 
     only if the Secretary determines the extension is necessary 
     because of extraordinary weather conditions or for public 
     safety reasons.
       (c) Authority of States.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or 
     responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or 
     regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or 
     regulations.

          limitation on use of funds for national ocean policy

       Sec. 425.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to further implementation of the coastal and marine 
     spatial planning and ecosystem-based management components of 
     the National Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order 
     13547.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Tsongas

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

       Beginning at page 124, line 17, strike section 425.

  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. Madam Chair, nearly 3 years ago, Superstorm Sandy caught 
millions of coastal residents by surprise and cost billions of dollars 
in economic damage. Unfortunately, the weather is not all that has 
become more extreme over the past several years.
  I am disappointed that this misguided and misinformed language to 
block implementation of the National Ocean Policy keeps coming back, 
just like the recurrent coastal flooding being caused by sea level 
rise, and my amendment would strike that language.

                              {time}  1530

  It shows a lack of respect for science and a lack of appreciation for 
the magnitude and complexity of the governance challenges we face.
  It seems some Members of Congress do not want to see government 
succeed even when government's failure to respond to a disaster, to 
predict a drought, or to properly manage a fishery can devastate the 
communities they represent.
  When you disavow words like ``precaution,'' ``preparedness,'' and 
``planning,'' you stop being conservative and start being reckless.
  Conservatives always say they want to run government like a business. 
Well, would you invest in a business with different departments that 
don't talk to each other? Would you invest in a business that is not 
responsive to its shareholders? Would you invest in a business with no 
business plan?
  That is essentially what the National Ocean Policy is, a business 
plan for the oceans that seeks to maximize the benefits for 
shareholders, all the American people.
  The policy is a win-win-win for economic growth, public safety, and 
environmental protection. I urge you to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to 
protect the National Ocean Policy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I have operated a business. Ever since this 
administration created the National Ocean Policy through executive 
order, the subcommittee has asked the CEQ, the DOI, and the EPA to 
provide an estimate of the impact of the Policy on their budgets, and 
we have yet to receive a substantial answer.
  The so-called report we were provided last year was fewer than three 
pages long. Clearly, this failed to outline expenditures supporting the 
administration's National Ocean Policy.
  Our job here is to pay the bills. When we ask how much does the 
National Ocean Policy cost, we expect to get an answer. We need an 
answer so that proper congressional oversight can be conducted.
  I want to point out that this language was included in the House 
fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. There are 
concerns about the costs and all of the unknowns related to this policy 
in multiple jurisdictions.
  The bottom line is, if this administration wants the funds to 
implement the National Ocean Policy, then tell us how much it is going 
to cost the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), my colleague.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Madam Chair, Congress has enacted numerous laws that manage the ocean 
and coastal issues across 11 of the 15 Cabinet-level departments and 
four independent agencies across the Federal Government. As my 
colleague from Massachusetts pointed out, why wouldn't we want these 
folks to be working together?
  Clearly, what the President is trying to do is to just have an action 
that lets the independent bipartisan commission move forward, including 
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which was appointed entirely by 
President George W. Bush.
  The National Ocean Policy is a means by which the Federal agencies 
can sort through all of the tangles of uncoordinated governance and can 
bring some common sense to the chaos. Wouldn't we want that?
  If my colleagues have a problem with what government can do on ocean 
management, then they have a problem with laws that are enacted by 
Congress, not with the National Ocean Policy or with the President's 
executive order, because what the President is doing through the 
National Ocean Policy is following a well-established Presidential 
tradition of using an executive order to supervise and guide agencies 
under the President's charge as they execute existing laws passed by 
Congress.
  Let us let this agency get to work. Let us find out how we could be 
more effective with our agencies working together.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  Mr. FLORES. I thank Chairman Calvert for his work on this bill.
  Madam Chair, I want to set the record straight. In the year 2000, 
Congress did pass a bill during the 106th Congress to create an ocean 
commission to review and to make recommendations.
  Yes, President Bush did appoint persons to that commission. They did 
make those recommendations, and those recommendations were submitted to 
Congress.
  Since then, those recommendations have been reviewed by the 108th, 
the 109th, the 110th, and the 111th Congresses, and each of those 
Congresses decided that no action should be taken.
  What happened here is the President decided to go into the Article I 
powers, which are reserved for Congress, and to do what Congress does 
not intend to have done, which is to have an ocean zoning commission 
built from dozens of agencies.
  They have never asked for an appropriations for this activity, and 
there is no lawful basis for the activity to exist. The President's 
executive order is basically violating the statutes that have been 
passed by Congress, and it is also violating the Constitution.
  The language that is in the appropriations bill should remain as it 
is. Congress has voted seven times on this language, and it has passed 
all seven times on a bipartisan basis. The other side is that of 
basically trying to undo what Congress has said it wants to do seven 
times on a bipartisan basis.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my colleague.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, which

[[Page 10807]]

would allow for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.
  Plain and simple, coordinated ocean planning makes common sense and 
is a good economic policy for our coastal communities. It allows for a 
comprehensive mapping of existing ocean uses that helps to identify and 
resolve conflicts between stakeholders before they play out in specific 
permitting processes.
  In Virginia, this process has been crucial to preserving public 
access to the ocean, to sustain economic growth, to address marine 
debris, to create migration corridors for marine mammals, and to 
support promising new ocean industries, such as wind power and marine 
aquaculture.
  In fact, I am proud to note that Virginia was recently selected by 
BOEM to be the first State in the Nation to receive a wind energy 
research lease in Federal waters. This rider would eliminate language 
that would undermine regional collaborative efforts to manage existing 
and future ocean policy challenges.
  Let's not roll back the valuable work and resources that many States, 
industries, and communities have already devoted to implementing this 
policy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  Mr. FLORES. I thank Chairman Calvert.
  Madam Chair, again, I want to set the record straight. We are not 
against ocean planning, as it makes perfect sense, but only insofar as 
Congress has explicitly authorized those activities.
  Congress has not allowed the President to do what he is trying to do 
by executive fiat. There are 67 groups, which include fishing, 
agricultural, farming, energy, and other industries, that are concerned 
about the impact of this Federal overreach. Again, it is an 
unconstitutional Federal overreach, and I would urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I do appreciate that my colleague across 
the aisle has said that it does make perfect sense to have an ocean 
policy. The ocean policy is a business plan for the oceans that seeks 
to maximize the benefits for all of its shareholders, the American 
people.
  I certainly know that we in Massachusetts have a great appreciation 
for the complex task it seeks to undertake in order to protect that 
which we value most, the ocean off our coast.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             lead test kit

       Sec. 426.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce regulations under subpart E 
     of part 745 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (commonly referred to as the ``Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 
     Painting Rule''), or any subsequent amendments to such 
     regulations, until the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency publicizes Environmental Protection Agency 
     recognition of a commercially available lead test kit that 
     meets both criteria under section 745.88(c) of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.

                          financial assurance

       Sec. 427.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to develop, propose, finalize, implement, enforce, or 
     administer any regulation that would establish new financial 
     responsibility requirements pursuant to section 108(b) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9608(b)).

                                ghg nsps

       Sec. 428.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to propose, finalize, implement, or enforce--
       (1) any standard of performance under section 111(b) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(b)) for any new fossil fuel-
     fired electricity utility generating unit if the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     determination that a technology is adequately demonstrated 
     includes consideration of one or more facilities for which 
     assistance is provided (including any tax credit) under 
     subtitle A of title IV of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
     U.S.C. 15961 et seq.) or section 48A of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986;
       (2) any regulation or guidance under section 111(b) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(b)) establishing any standard 
     of performance for emissions of any greenhouse gas from any 
     modified or reconstructed source that is a fossil fuel-fired 
     electric utility generating unit; or
       (3) any regulation or guidance under section 111(d) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(d)) that applies to the 
     emission of any greenhouse gas by an existing source that is 
     a fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating unit.

                      definition of fill material

       Sec. 429.  None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other Act may be used by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce 
     any change to the regulations in effect on October 1, 2012, 
     pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill material'' 
     or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer

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

       Strike section 429.

  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. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
  The amendment strikes a rider that would prevent the Environmental 
Protection Agency from updating regulations pertaining to the 
definitions of the terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill 
material'' for purposes of the Clean Water Act.
  Presently, the Army Corps of Engineers issues a section 404 permit if 
the fill material discharged into a water body raises the bottom 
elevation of that water body or converts the area to dry land.
  The current rule allows mining waste to be dumped into the rivers and 
streams without an appropriate environmental review process.
  Given repeated instances of mining activities resulting in lakes and 
streams devoid of fish or aquatic life, downstream water users are 
rightly concerned that the section 404 process fails to protect them 
from the discharge of hazardous substances.
  The Clean Water Act section 404 guidelines are not well suited for 
evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous waste, 
such as mining refuse and similar materials, into a water body or a 
wetland.
  The rider that this amendment strikes would block the EPA from making 
necessary modifications to these guidelines. This rider is a preemptive 
strike against protecting our drinking water, and it allows mining 
companies' interests to trump the protection of the health of our 
citizens.
  We should not short-circuit regular order through the appropriations 
process. We should not preclude the Corps or the EPA from considering 
any regulatory changes to the current definition and permit process. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike this language 
from the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this language simply maintains the status 
quo regarding the definition of ``fill material'' for the purposes of 
the Clean Water Act.
  The existing definition was put in place through a rule-making 
initiated by the Clinton administration and finalized by the Bush 
administration. That rule harmonized the definitions on the books of 
the Corps and the EPA so that both agencies were working with the same 
definition.
  Any attempts to redefine this important definition could 
significantly negatively impact the ability of all earth-

[[Page 10808]]

moving industries, road and highway construction, and private and 
commercial enterprises to obtain vital Clean Water Act section 404 
permits.
  Changing the definition of ``fill material'' could result in the loss 
of up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and jeopardize over 1 million 
jobs that are dependent upon the economic output generated by these 
operations.
  For these reasons, I support the underlying language and oppose this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I respect the chairman's objections to this, 
but I would like to point out that all that this amendment does in 
striking the section is allow the EPA to consider future changes to the 
``fill'' definitions.
  Clearly, the work begun in the Clinton administration and finalized 
in the George W. Bush administration were the best possible actions at 
the time.
  In the meantime, we have discovered that, unfortunately, much mining 
waste and refuse are ending up in mining streams and rivers, and it has 
severely affected the health of those people.
  We are not attempting to eliminate mining jobs or to even impact 
earth moving. It is only reasonable to make sure that our Environmental 
Protection Agency has the latitude and the freedom to evolve future 
definitions so as to best protect the health of our citizens.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. CALVERT. I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        contracting authorities

       Sec. 430.  Section 412 of division E of Public Law 112-74 
     is amended by striking ``fiscal year 2015,'' and inserting 
     ``fiscal year 2017,''.

                       chesapeake bay initiative

       Sec. 431.  Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative 
     Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-312; 16 U.S.C. 461 note) is 
     amended by striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2017''.

                      extension of grazing permits

       Sec. 432.  The terms and conditions of section 325 of 
     Public Law 108-108 (117 Stat. 1307), regarding grazing 
     permits issued by the Forest Service on any lands not subject 
     to administration under section 402 of the Federal Lands 
     Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1752), shall remain in 
     effect for fiscal year 2016.

               availability of vacant grazing allotments

       Sec. 433.  The Secretary of the Interior, with respect to 
     public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the 
     National Forest System lands, shall make vacant grazing 
     allotments available to a holder of a grazing permit or lease 
     issued by either Secretary if the lands covered by the permit 
     or lease or other grazing lands used by the holder of the 
     permit or lease are unusable because of drought or wildfire, 
     as determined by the Secretary concerned. The terms and 
     conditions contained in a permit or lease made available 
     pursuant to this section shall be the same as the terms and 
     conditions of the most recent permit or lease that was 
     applicable to the vacant grazing allotment made available. 
     Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4332) shall not apply with respect to any Federal 
     agency action under this section.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment to strike section 
433.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike section 433.

  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. Madam Chair, I offer my amendment to strike section 433 
regarding the availability of vacant grazing allotments and waiving one 
of our key environmental laws.
  While grazing on our public lands is an important part of our 
Nation's culture and economy, this section of the appropriations bill 
is redundant and unnecessary. The BLM and Forest Service already have 
the authority to transfer permits when grazing lands are deemed 
unusable.
  Furthermore, this section would have the effect of waiving section 
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. NEPA is one of 
our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, serving to establish policies 
to protect our air, water, and our natural resources. Section 102 of 
NEPA contains key provisions to make sure that Federal agencies act 
according to the spirit and letter of the law.
  By stating that section 102 shall not apply to agency actions, this 
bill is, in essence, waiving NEPA and putting our public lands at risk. 
Our Federal agencies did not ask for a NEPA waiver, and Congress should 
not be in the business of dictating to professional land managers when 
they should or should not have the flexibility to use NEPA in making 
land management decisions.
  Allowing section 433 to be included in the appropriations bill could 
have unintended consequences for our public lands and environment, 
particularly when conditions on the ground change. In this time of 
climate change, drought, and wildfire, it is vital that agencies have 
the tools and the flexibility to conduct adequate environmental 
reviews.
  In the face of these challenges, why should grazers get to jump to 
the front of the line for new land? What about land for species and 
recovery and habitat that are displaced by climate change or 
recreational demands and interests?
  Congress has tasked the BLM with managing our public lands for 
multiple uses. I welcome the belated recognition by my Republican 
colleagues that climate change is impacting these lands, but this 
provision would waive the balancing process found in NEPA and mandate 
that grazing gets to trump other uses when lands are destroyed by fire 
or drought.
  Section 433 benefits one special interest above all others, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting to strike this section from 
the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. The amendment would strike a commonsense provision--repeat, 
commonsense provision--in this bill that allows the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Forest Service to make available vacant grazing 
allotments when a rancher is forced off his or her existing allotment 
due to drought or wildfire.
  It is not that they jump to the front of the line and have special 
provisions because of this. The fact is, if you don't exclude the NEPA 
process, it can take 3 months, 6 months--guess what? Cows and sheep 
don't go on a diet for 3 months or 6 months. They actually need to put 
these cows and sheep somewhere, and vacant allotments is what they look 
for.
  The gentleman says that this is redundant, that they can already do 
that. Well, if they can already do it, then what the heck? Why is he 
opposed to this provision?
  Unfortunately, drought and catastrophic wildfires are all too common 
in the West. Ranchers shouldn't be further penalized when they lose 
their allotments due to natural disasters. The provision provides some 
flexibility to the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to help 
in these circumstances.
  It doesn't say, ``You will provide these vacant allotments.'' It 
says, ``You may.'' It is not a must. We are trying to give the Bureau 
of Land Management and the Forest Service the flexibility to use vacant 
allotments when circumstances are required.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Grijalva 
amendment. As has been pointed out, BLM already

[[Page 10809]]

has the authority to make vacant grazing allotments available for 
permittees on a discretionary basis where the permittee is adversely 
impacted by wildfire or drought, but unlike the discretionary basis on 
which the BLM currently makes these allotments, this rider would exempt 
the National Environmental Policy Act, a NEPA review.
  On page 127, line 25, it reads ``with respect to'' the National 
Forest System lands, ``shall''--not may--``shall make vacant,'' and so 
what the BLM currently can do is they can conduct a NEPA review in 
areas where they think they have concerns and they can ensure that the 
land, health standards, and resources are not going to be compromised 
because the BLM has a role to play in protecting these lands for 
grazing potential in the future so that they are not harmed or 
overgrazed.
  To me, it makes common sense that the rider should not exempt the BLM 
from a regulatory requirement to issue a decision and conduct an 
administrative review, which they currently can choose to do or choose 
not to do based on the information that they have. Any grazing that is 
mandated by this rider is likely also to find itself caught up by 
hearings and delays and appeals and judicial review.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike the 
unnecessary rider and to leave the discretion in place so it continues 
to be the National Forest System lands may be made vacant.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I would ask my colleagues just one thing. 
If you are a rancher and you have had one of these catastrophic 
wildfires come through--and they come through frequently, 
unfortunately--and they have wiped out your grazing allotment, what do 
you tell your cows? What do you tell your sheep? What do they eat for 
the next several months as you go through the NEPA process? This is 
giving some flexibility to the Forest Service and to the BLM.
  I know we can all say: Oh, gee, they can make arrangements and do it 
otherwise and so forth.
  This is just a commonsense provision, frankly, and we haven't had any 
problem with it with the time that it has been in existence. I think it 
should stay in existence, and that is why the chairman has included it 
in this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the redundancy comes from the fact that 
that flexibility has existed in BLM and Forest Service; it has existed 
for years. The situations of wildfires have occurred, and they have 
been handled.
  It is an unnecessary NEPA waiver. It is a redundant amendment, 
addition to it. The NEPA waiver in the writing says it is not optional. 
It says ``shall.''
  I urge Members to support my amendment striking section 433.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, this language has been in the bill since 
2003. It hasn't caused any problems. It has fed a lot of cows. I think 
it is a good provision in the bill, and we should defeat this 
amendment. It is a bad amendment. Vote against it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       protection of water rights

       Sec. 434.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to condition the issuance, renewal, 
     amendment, or extension of any permit, approval, license, 
     lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use 
     or occupancy agreement on the transfer of any water right, 
     including sole and joint ownership, directly to the United 
     States, or any impairment of title, in whole or in part, 
     granted or otherwise recognized under State law, by Federal 
     or State adjudication, decree, or other judgment, or pursuant 
     to any interstate water compact. Additionally, none of the 
     funds made available in this or any other Act may be used to 
     require any water user to apply for or acquire a water right 
     in the name of the United States under State law as a 
     condition of the issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension 
     of any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, 
     right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy agreement.

                      limitation on status changes

       Sec. 435.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to propose, finalize, implement, or enforce any 
     regulation or guidance under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7671k) that changes the status from acceptable to 
     unacceptable for purposes of the Significant New Alternatives 
     Policy (SNAP) program of any hydrofluorocarbon used as a 
     refrigerant or in foam blowing agents, applications or uses. 
     Nothing in this section shall prevent EPA from approving new 
     materials, applications or uses as acceptable under the SNAP 
     program.

                     use of american iron and steel

       Sec. 436. (a)(1) None of the funds made available by a 
     State water pollution control revolving fund as authorized by 
     section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-
     12) shall be used for a project for the construction, 
     alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public water system 
     or treatment works unless all of the iron and steel products 
     used in the project are produced in the United States.
       (2) In this section, the term ``iron and steel'' products 
     means the following products made primarily of iron or steel: 
     lined or unlined pipes and fittings, manhole covers and other 
     municipal castings, hydrants, tanks, flanges, pipe clamps and 
     restraints, valves, structural steel, reinforced precast 
     concrete, and construction materials.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or category 
     of cases in which the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Administrator'') finds that--
       (1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the 
     public interest;
       (2) iron and steel products are not produced in the United 
     States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and 
     of a satisfactory quality; or
       (3) inclusion of iron and steel products produced in the 
     United States will increase the cost of the overall project 
     by more than 25 percent.
       (c) If the Administrator receives a request for a waiver 
     under this section, the Administrator shall make available to 
     the public on an informal basis a copy of the request and 
     information available to the Administrator concerning the 
     request, and shall allow for informal public input on the 
     request for at least 15 days prior to making a finding based 
     on the request. The Administrator shall make the request and 
     accompanying information available by electronic means, 
     including on the official public Internet Web site of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
       (d) This section shall be applied in a manner consistent 
     with United States obligations under international 
     agreements.
       (e) The Administrator may retain up to 0.25 percent of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act for the Clean and Drinking 
     Water State Revolving Funds for carrying out the provisions 
     described in subsection (a)(1) for management and oversight 
     of the requirements of this section.

                         social cost of carbon

       Sec. 437.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act shall be used for the social cost of carbon (SCC) 
     to be incorporated into any rulemaking or guidance document 
     until a new Interagency Working Group (IWG) revises the 
     estimates using the discount rates and the domestic-only 
     limitation on benefits estimates in accordance with Executive 
     Order 12866 and OMB Circular A-4 as of January 1, 2015: 
     Provided, That such IWG shall provide to the public all 
     documents, models, and assumptions used in developing the SCC 
     and solicit public comment prior to finalizing any revised 
     estimates.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk to strike 
section 437.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike section 437.

  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. POLIS. Madam Speaker, my amendment, which I offer along with Mr. 
Lowenthal and Mr. Peters, would simply remove one of the so-called 
policy riders from this bill. It is a particularly dangerous policy 
rider.
  What my amendment would do is it would strip the bill of a harmful 
and unrelated restriction that actually would prohibit Federal agencies 
from assessing the social cost of carbon, meaning Federal agencies 
would not be able to look at the monetized impact, the actual costs of 
climate change.

[[Page 10810]]

  They would be forced to deliberately have a blindfold and not be 
allowed to consider climate change in their planning, just like 
American businesses do, like States do, like municipalities do, but the 
Federal Government would be prohibited from even looking at the costs 
of climate change.
  According to a recent poll undertaken by Stanford University, 81 
percent of American people have looked at the science and agree that 
climate change is at least in part caused by humans; 74 percent of 
Americans believe the Federal Government should be working hard to 
combat climate change, and 71 percent of the American people expect 
that they will be hurt personally or impacted by climate change.
  Madam Speaker, climate change is not some fallacy. It is not some 
evil plot by leftwing or rightwing extremists. It is simply science. 
Climate change is what major corporations like Coca-Cola and Nike have 
called an economically disruptive force that needs to be addressed.
  Acting on climate change is what the most high profile religious 
leader on the planet has called a moral imperative, an economic 
imperative, a moral imperative. It is what the Department of Defense 
has called an ``immediate risk to U.S. national security.''
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side to adopt this amendment 
so that we don't ignore the calls of business, Defense, religious 
leaders--among thousands of others--to ensure that the Federal 
Government operates with its eyes wide open and not with ideological 
blinders, simply because we don't want to see the truth of what is 
occurring with regard to climate change.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I have long been concerned with how EPA 
conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is 
something that the committee has discussed with EPA on a number of 
occasions, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA's approach to 
examining costs and their regulation was flawed.
  The administration's revised estimates for the social cost of carbon 
help justify on paper larger benefits from reducing carbon emissions in 
any proposed rule. If the administration can inflate the price tag so 
that the benefits always exceed the costs, the administration can 
goldplate requirement regulations from any department or any agency.
  Section 437 says that the administration should convene a working 
group to revise the estimates in a more transparent manner and to make 
that information available to the public.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment addresses is not simply 
the creation of some commission or a nuanced look into how cost-benefit 
analyses are done. It actually would ensure that the costs of climate 
change are able to be considered in decisionmaking.
  The answer to the concerns that my colleague raised from the other 
side would be a surgical approach, not to remove the authority to look 
at the cost of climate change, which is what this language does and 
what my amendment would fix.
  This rider is really about the deep ideologically driven agenda of 
climate deniers and is a terrible waste of both Federal and taxpayer 
money to allow its passage because it will lead to poor decisionmaking 
by the Federal Government.
  Companies are planning for climate change. Municipalities and States 
are planning for climate change. We need to look at the monetized costs 
with regard to climate change of new rules and regulations.
  Instead of spending our time here focusing on how to impact and 
better understand climate change, we have this opportunity to ensure 
that that is a factor in future decisionmaking, rather than prohibiting 
agencies from even considering it in the cost of climate change.
  Blocking proposals and silencing discussion isn't indicative of 
leadership, Mr. Chair. It is indicative of fear of the truth.
  I urge my colleagues to consider that and support my and my 
colleague's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I would rise in 
opposition to this amendment.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  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 gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       limitation on use of funds

       Sec. 438.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to propose, promulgate, implement, administer, or 
     enforce a national primary or secondary ambient air quality 
     standard for ozone that is lower than the standard 
     established under section 50.15 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (as in effect on July 2, 2014), until at least 85 
     percent of the counties that were nonattainment areas under 
     that standard as of July 2, 2014, achieve full compliance 
     with that standard.


                     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 132, beginning on line 9, strike ``, until at least 85 
     percent of the counties that were nonattainment areas under 
     that standard as of July 2, 2014, achieve full compliance 
     with that standard''.

  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 would like to thank Chairman Calvert, along 
with the ranking member, for the work he and the committee have done.
  My amendment prevents the EPA from using any funds in the bill to 
change ozone regulations, regardless of whether or not all counties 
meet the 2008 standards.
  As of 2012 and based on the 2008 ozone standards as designated by the 
EPA, 24 mainland States were in attainment, including my home State of 
Florida. An additional four States had either partial attainment or 
whole counties had marginal attainment.
  What I find most interesting is the areas of our Nation that have 
consistently been designated as nonattainment by the EPA. This includes 
most of California, parts of Texas, and the mid-Atlantic States. These 
counties have had nearly 20 years to change their policies and abide by 
the ozone standards.
  Under the newly proposed standards, a fair amount of the country 
would be designated as nonattainment areas. Why should the remainder of 
the country be subject to new standards when parts of the country have 
yet to meet the 2008 or even 2009 standards?
  Making this change will have serious economic implications on the 
States and counties that have already proactively worked to reduce 
their emissions, all at a time when the Nation is still recovering from 
one of the worst economic recessions of our lifetime.
  Furthermore, I would like to remind my colleagues of the recent 
Supreme Court decision, Michigan, et al., v. Environmental Protection 
Agency. At the heart of the case was whether or not the EPA took care 
to include the potential cost to power plants when proposing new 
regulations, and that estimated cost is $9.6 billion and a burden

[[Page 10811]]

on the American taxpayers. The Supreme Court held that the EPA 
interpreted U.S. Code 7412 ``unreasonably when it deemed cost 
irrelevant to the decision.''
  I would like to say that this is the exception and not the rule when 
it comes to the EPA, but that simply is not the truth. The EPA has made 
its de facto policy to implement unreasonable regulations with no 
regard to the larger impact it will have on the economy and taxpayers 
and the environment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment would reverse section 438 to block the 
EPA from making critical updates to its ozone standard. The amendment 
makes an already bad policy rider in this bill even worse.
  This amendment, however, would completely prohibit the EPA from 
updating the standard, short-circuiting both current law and the 
judicial process, while putting millions of Americans' health at risk.
  Ozone is the main component in smog, and it has been scientifically 
proven to aggravate lung disease, increase frequency and severity of 
asthma attacks, and reduce lung function.
  We hear about those opportunities all the time that we are given now 
when the ozone is too high in the air to stay inside. Young children 
shouldn't be out, and people with heart disease and lung disease should 
stay indoors.
  The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review its ozone standard every 
5 years to reflect the most up-to-date science on ozone and its impacts 
on public health.
  The EPA, in fact, is under a court order to issue its final rules by 
October of this year. The EPA's update to its ozone standard is based 
on strong scientific evidence, including over 1,000 scientific studies 
that show the harmful effect of ozone on human health and the need for 
higher standards.
  The EPA estimates the benefit of updated standards of 70 parts per 
billion will yield the health benefits of $13 billion each year.
  On its merits, this amendment is shortsighted and reactionary, and it 
is a backdoor amendment to completely gut the Clean Air Act.
  Prohibiting the EPA's ability to update ozone standards is reckless, 
and it is out of touch with what Americans want, and that is clear air. 
The EPA's update is firmly rooted in science and ensures health and 
protections for the American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, ozone comes from many different sources. Yes, 
it is true that it comes from hydrocarbons. When the UV light hits it, 
it does do that. It also comes from the oceans. It comes from the 
swamps. It comes from just nature itself.
  Ozone by itself is not always bad because it is used industrially. It 
disinfects laundry. It disinfects water in place of chlorine. It 
deodorizes the air. It kills bacteria on food and contact surfaces. It 
sanitizes swimming pools. The list goes on and on and on.
  Yes, there have been reports of it causing respiratory problems, but 
that is also associated with spores and molds and things like that.
  I think ozone, at this time--especially when you look at the rulings 
from 1997 and 2008, those standards--I don't think we should move 
forward at this time, with our Nation in the economic recovery, to put 
new standards on all of the Nation when yet a large portion of the 
Nation is still not under compliance.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I probably live in the most regulated air 
quality area in the United States, southern California.
  In southern California, our population continues to grow; yet we have 
been able to make significant air quality improvements within the South 
Coast Air Quality Management District.
  The committee set a level at 85 percent of the communities so that 
the marginal nonattainment communities could have the opportunity to 
achieve compliance with the 2008 standards before further updates are 
considered.
  This amendment would prevent EPA from lowering the ozone standard 
below the 2008 levels. This amendment would prevent further updates to 
the ozone standard for an indefinite and undetermined timeframe, and 
that is certainly not the committee's intent.
  We need to make progress in clean air in areas that folks want to see 
cleaner air, but at the same time making sure that technology is there 
in order to do that. This was, I think, compromise language that the 
underlying bill has that works to move us forward, but at the same time 
not stopping us from obtaining cleaner air in the future.
  I am in opposition to this amendment.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that ozone is 
incriminated a lot of times when I think we ought to look at 
particulate matter in dusty environments or in urban areas where 
airflow in apartment buildings may not be like it should be.
  Ozone is used as an alternative to chlorine for bleaching wood, paper 
products, and things like that. Many hospitals around the world use 
large ozone generators to decontaminate operating rooms between 
surgeries. It is used in industry all the time.
  I just ask people to support this amendment, so we don't have more 
overreaching regulations from the EPA.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the EPA's update is firmly rooted in 
science and ensures the health and protections for the American people. 
We have a responsibility to protect the millions of Americans affected 
by ozone pollution.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOHO. 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 Florida will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Edwards

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

         Strike section 438.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Maryland and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to strike 
section 438.
  Section 438 would prohibit any funds in this Act from being used to 
even propose a national ozone standard that is less than that currently 
in law until at least 85 percent of the counties across the country 
that do not currently meet that standard achieve full compliance.
  Now, the current ozone standard under title 40 is 75 parts per 
billion; but, Mr. Chair, we had a series of hearings in our House 
Science Committee earlier this year where we heard strong testimony 
from scientists at State pollution control agencies and physicians at 
hospitals all telling us that the current standard is not in line with 
the current science.
  The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee declared as far back as 
2008 that they believe that the current standard of 75 parts per 
billion is insufficient to protect public health. In fact,

[[Page 10812]]

right now, the ozone standard can mislead people to believe that the 
air, in fact, is safe to breathe when it is not.
  Studies conducted by the American Lung Association have shown more 
than 4 out of every 10 people in the United States live in places where 
ozone levels often make it dangerous to breathe.
  The current standard rates, what we now know to be very dangerous air 
quality, as code yellow or moderate. This can lead those who are 
particularly at risk of ozone-related illness, such as children and 
senior citizens, to unwittingly be exposed to harmful levels of ozone. 
This has the potential to impact millions of people in every State 
across the Nation.
  Just look at my own home State of Maryland. There are 145,000 
children with pediatric asthma. Over 430,000 adults have asthma. Mr. 
Chairman, 246,000 people in my State have chronic obstructive pulmonary 
disease or COPD, and 367,000 people in our State have cardiovascular 
disease that is related to ozone.
  The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommends that, in order 
to protect the public health, the EPA set the primary ozone standard 
between 60 and 70 parts per billion. In November of last year, the EPA 
did exactly what it is supposed to do.
  It looked at the strong scientific evidence showing the health risks 
of ozone, and it issued a proposed rule to lower the ozone standard 
from 75 parts per billion to a standard within the range of 65 to 70 
parts per billion.

                              {time}  1615

  Setting that standard begins a 2-year process designed to identify 
areas with too much ozone. Once those areas are identified, State and 
local governments can craft plans tailored to their areas using cost-
effective approaches.
  This new standard, based on the most current science, will help to 
provide a framework for these plans, which, in turn, will help our 
States continue along the path to clean air. And yet, here we are, and 
this provision that I am providing to strike would stop the EPA from 
even proposing a standard of 70 parts per billion.
  This is the responsibility of the EPA. This new standard would 
protect Americans' health and our environment. In addition, an analysis 
conducted by the EPA shows that, though the annual cost of the proposed 
standard of 70 parts per billion might be around $3.9 billion, the 
health benefits are estimated to reach between $6.4 billion and $13 
billion annually.
  Mr. Chairman, ground level ozone is harmful to the public health. It 
contributes to asthma attacks, decreased lung function, respiratory 
infection, and even death. Breathing ozone is dangerous for everyone, 
but particularly for children, for the elderly and people of all ages 
who have lung diseases.
  We need to allow the EPA--in fact, empower the EPA--to follow the 
science and create minimum standards necessary to protect public 
health. I urge my colleagues to protect these vulnerable populations as 
well as clean air for every American, and vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in clear 
opposition to this amendment.
  The language that was adopted in the full committee was carefully 
crafted. It simply allows a majority of nonattainment counties to 
achieve attainment status before the EPA moves the goalposts.
  In nonattainment areas, the EPA's proposed ozone standards would 
stifle economic growth and cost jobs and revenue. Just last week, the 
Supreme Court admonished the EPA for ignoring the costs of its 
regulations. The costs involved would be devastating to our economy. 
Even the EPA admitted it would cost $15 billion a year. Other studies 
have estimated that costs could be as high as $140 billion a year.
  In West Virginia, in my State, it would mean $2 billion in compliance 
costs, 10,000 lost jobs, and more fees for residents even to operate 
their vehicles.
  It would have significant impacts on agriculture, manufacturing, and 
the energy industry. Federal highway funds could be frozen and permits 
for infrastructure could be held up.
  I am hopeful that some of our colleagues across the aisle will 
recognize the impact this will have on each of our districts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, here we have heard again the exaggerated 
claims about implementation, so let's get to the facts.
  The first fact, the scientists tell us that this is a standard that 
we need to protect the public health. The second fact, the EPA 
estimates that the cost might be around $3.9 billion.
  But let's look at the health benefits, because those are costing us 
currently.
  The health benefits are estimated to reach between $6.4 and $13 
billion, and that means that there is a ripple effect when we invest in 
making sure that we implement a standard that protects the public 
health, and it has a benefit on the public health.
  So, Mr. Chairman, there is an argument here for the EPA to simply do 
its job, the job that it was charged to do by taxpayers, and that is to 
protect the public health, to give us clean air, and to make sure that 
we have ozone standards that in fact meet our responsibility.
  The EPA is doing its job. Let's stop Congress from keeping the EPA 
from keeping our air clean.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Jenkins) for the time and for including commonsense language in 
the bill that is now being debated.
  In 2008, EPA set a strict ozone rule that was stuck in legal limbo 
for years. From big cities to small towns, over 200 counties are still 
in nonattainment.
  Yet, before we finish that job, EPA wants to move the goalposts. They 
have issued new ozone rules that are so strict they can't be achieved 
with our current technology. All of America will be hit hard with job 
losses.
  This bill simply includes a pause button on new EPA rules until we 
can finish the job and reach our current mandates.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Edwards amendment and strip this 
language from this bill.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As mentioned earlier, I live in one of the most, maybe the most, 
regulated air districts in the United States, and I am a strong 
advocate for clean air. My district has achieved some of the largest 
emission reductions in the country.
  However, EPA continues to dig the hole deeper as my district 
continues to try to work its way out of nonattainment. So EPA and the 
States need to use the resources we provided in the bill to play catch-
up on a statutory obligation to help communities implement the 2008 
standard.
  Remember, just last April, EPA finalized the rule for the 2008 
standards. When 85 percent of the communities can achieve the latest 
standards, then EPA should consider whether or not revisions are 
necessary.
  I will remind my colleagues that the Clean Air Act only directs EPA 
to review the standards every 5 years. It does not require that EPA 
revise the standard.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, once again, this is a 
sincere effort to try to set a benchmark and not have the EPA moving 
the goalposts that will have such economic devastation, billions of 
dollars in cost, and I encourage a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 10813]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. EDWARDS. 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 Maryland 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

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

       Page 132, line 5, strike ``primary or''.

  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. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, according to the American Lung 
Association's 2015 State of the Air Report, the Los Angeles 
metropolitan area, which includes both my district and also the 
Appropriations Subcommittee chair's district, that metropolitan area is 
the number one in the country for ozone pollution.
  But ozone pollution is not just a southern California problem. The 
report shows that more than 40 percent of the United States' population 
lives in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone. Large cities like 
Houston and less populated areas like northwest Ohio also make the 
list.
  Power plants, motor vehicles, and chemical solvents contribute to the 
majority of nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds, 
NOX and VOCs, which react with each other on hot, sunny days 
to produce ground level ozone.
  The American Lung Association has pointed out that because hot, sunny 
days produce the most ozone, climate change is increasing the number of 
unhealthy ozone level days. We are all familiar with those ``high ozone 
level'' warnings that happen on really hot, sunny days, and 
unfortunately, they are becoming more and more common due to global 
warming.
  Ground level ozone interacts with lung tissue, can cause major 
problems for children, the elderly, and anyone with lung disease. Ozone 
is known to aggravate health problems such as asthma, and it is also 
linked to low birth rates, cardiovascular problems, and premature 
death.
  Given the grave consequences and the widespread problem of ozone 
pollution, I am glad that EPA is moving forward with updates to its 
national standards for ozone pollution.
  Members of the medical and health communities have been calling for a 
long time for updates of this standard in order to protect the public 
health. The current standard of 75 parts per billion is outdated and 
does not adequately protect public health, which is what the EPA is 
required to do under the Clean Air Act. Thousands of hospital visits 
and premature deaths and up to a million missed schooldays can be 
prevented just by strengthening this standard.
  But instead of trusting health professionals, some in Congress have 
decided to protect the financial interests of the polluters. The 
reckless legislative rider in section 438 of this appropriations bill 
blocks the EPA from updating or even proposing scientifically-based 
standards for ozone to the detriment of the health of at least 40 
percent of the U.S. population.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to remove this polluter protecting 
section from the bill, to support the Edwards amendment, and allow the 
EPA to move forward with doing what they are required to do by law, and 
that is protect the public health.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jenkins included the language in the 
full committee bill that, I think, came to a reasonable compromise. As 
the gentleman is aware, many communities cannot reach the old standard, 
the 2008 standard, that is now the law, and so this just gives the 
communities throughout the country that cannot get to attainment 
additional time to develop the technologies before we go to a new 
standard.
  I would remind the gentleman that it was just last April that we came 
to a determination on the 2008 standard, and the administration already 
is talking about a new standard that most of the Nation cannot reach in 
the short term. So this gives a brief, little bit of time to allow 
these communities to improve their technologies and to be able to meet 
a new standard down the road.
  So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment and support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, let's just talk about why we need to 
change the standard.
  I understand and appreciate that reaching that standard is going to 
take some work, but remember, the air, by saying that we don't need to 
do this because the air is cleaner than it was 30 years ago, for 
example, does nothing to put current air quality in context. Just 
because the air is cleaner than it used to be doesn't mean that it is 
completely healthy.
  My district is a great example of this. L.A. County has reduced its 
ground ozone by 5 days since 2009, and I am proud of that, but it 
doesn't mean our air is healthy. We still experienced 217 days of 
unhealthy ozone level days last year.
  We need to take into account current pollution levels. We need to use 
the best science available to determine what standards are needed to 
get our ozone pollution below those unhealthy levels. That is why we 
are doing this, to get the ozone below unhealthy levels. That is what 
EPA is doing, and we shouldn't block their efforts because we think 
that the air is cleaner or it is difficult to reach.

                              {time}  1630

  The savings in public health will far outweigh the costs to polluting 
industries. If the EPA would implement a standard of just 70 parts per 
billion, the cost of implementation is estimated to be about $3.9 
billion, but the savings in public health costs are estimated to be 
anywhere from $6.4 to $13 billion. That is a net savings of $2.5 to $9 
billion. If you reduce the standard even lower, to 65 parts per 
billion, the savings are even greater, from $4 to $23 billion in public 
health costs.
  Ground ozone pollution costs billions of dollars in healthcare 
expenses around the country. We have a chance to save taxpayers a lot 
of money.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts on 
trying to clean the ozone out of the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District. We have to suffer the ozone that is being blown from L.A./
Long Beach over into the Inland Empire. Certainly the ports of L.A. and 
Long Beach, the trains emit a lot of ozone and a lot of pollutants that 
end up in the Inland Empire, so we want to clean that air up.
  As you know, we can't meet the 2008 standards at this time. We are 
doing everything we can to meet those standards, but until these 
communities can get the technology to meet the existing standard, we 
shouldn't impose a new standard that could cause grave economic harm to 
the communities.
  With that, I would say ``no'' to this amendment and move on.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          hydraulic fracturing

       Sec. 439.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce 
     the final

[[Page 10814]]

     rule entitled ``Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian 
     Lands'' as published in the Federal Register on March 26, 
     2015 and March 30, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 16127 and 16577, 
     respectively).


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of 
myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), which I do 
intend to withdraw.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 132, line 14, strike ``or any other''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, the Bureau of Land Management is currently 
working toward implementation of a rule that would modernize horribly 
outdated oil and gas regulations on Federal land. My amendment would 
strike a section of this bill that would halt this important work.
  What we have to do is to allow the BLM to proceed with them 
implementing this rule to provide a national baseline to protect our 
environment, our water, and our Federal lands from hazardous 
contamination.
  Since the 1980s, the scale and impacts associated with the oil and 
gas industry have grown dramatically, but BLM's fracking regulations 
have not kept pace. In March of 2015, the BLM finalized a modest, 
commonsense rule to update its 30-year-old fracking regulations.
  With these updates, the BLM is taking responsible steps to improve 
well integrity, reduce the impact of toxic wastewater, and increase 
transparency around chemicals used in the fracking process.
  Importantly, these new regulations will not impact States that 
already have robust fracking regulations and will simply offer a 
regulatory baseline for the States that do not have current fracking 
regulations.
  Notably, in 2013, there were still 19 States with operating fracking 
wells that had absolutely no hydraulic fracturing regulations in place.
  Right now over 90 percent of the more than 2,500 oil and gas wells 
drilled every year on federally managed lands use hydraulic fracturing.
  Just this month the EPA released a draft report that concludes that 
there are above- and below-ground mechanisms by which hazardous 
hydraulic fracturing chemicals have the potential to impact drinking 
water resources.
  Because of this, the Federal Government really has to take the 
necessary steps to ensure that toxic, cancer-causing fracking chemicals 
do not contaminate America's water supply, America's streams, America's 
rivers, and America's lakes.
  As many of you know, the fracking fluids injected into oil and gas 
wells contain thousands of chemicals, many of which can harm humans and 
the environment.
  In fact, the EPA identified over 1,000 different chemicals that have 
been used during the hydraulic fracturing process, with an estimated 
9,100 gallons of chemicals used for each well.
  Due in large part to fracking loopholes and outdated oil and gas 
regulations, fracking chemical spills and water contaminations have 
occurred.
  In my home State of Pennsylvania, for example, there were nearly 600 
documented cases of wastewater and chemical spills in 2013 alone.
  In fact, the EPA estimates that there are as many as 12 chemical 
spills for every 100 oil and gas wells in the State of Pennsylvania. 
And I need to remind the House that there are almost 8,000 active gas 
wells operating in Pennsylvania right now. So that is a lot of spills.
  Chemical and wastewater spills associated with fracking operations 
harm the environment, and it has been found to contaminate surface 
water. The EPA's draft study found that 8 percent of studied wastewater 
spills polluted surface or groundwater.
  Thankfully, the BLM's rule will help prevent fracking chemicals and 
wastewater from contaminating water bodies.
  It does so by validating the integrity of fracking wells and 
increasing the standards for storage and recovery of waste fluid. This 
rule will require companies publicly to disclose the chemicals being 
pumped into public lands.
  While I am concerned that the BLM fracking rule does not go far 
enough in some areas, simply stopping the rule in its tracks is just 
irresponsible.
  I am not opposed to fracking. I believe we have to utilize our 
natural resources, but we need to do so in a careful and responsible 
manner.
  There are bad actors in the oil and gas business just like there are 
some bad actors in every area, actors that cut corners and don't drill 
and frack properly and safely.
  The States, unfortunately, don't have all the expertise and resources 
to properly manage this exploding industry. The rule will set a 
relatively low bar but one that ensures a baseline across the country 
to protect our public lands.
  I urge you to support my amendment to allow the BLM to implement a 
rule that will prevent fracking chemical contamination and keep our 
Nation's water supply pristine and something Americans can be proud of.
  Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


               Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence

  Mrs. LAWRENCE. 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:

       Strike section 439.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would strike section 439 from the underlying bill. In doing so, this 
amendment would allow the Bureau of Land Management to implement 
standards to support safe and responsible fracking operations on public 
and Native American lands.
  More than 1.5 million public comments were submitted in a transparent 
process to regulate fracking on 750 million acres of public and Indian 
lands. More than 100,000 oil and gas wells are situated on these lands.
  This amendment will ensure that the BLM's rule is fully implemented 
so that fracking for oil and gas continues but with full regard to 
public health and the environment. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  And I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. I understand the BLM needed to update its regulation 
related to fracking on Federal and Indian lands. BLM regulations are 
25, 30 years old.
  However, the States have been doing the same thing over the last 
number of years. Unfortunately, BLM's rule is duplicative of existing 
State regulation.
  It forces companies to drill into a double compliance scheme. It also 
costs them more time, and it significantly lengthens the time in which 
it takes time to get to a permit.
  None of this is necessary, which is why we adopted this provision 
during the committee's markup of this bill.
  I certainly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Flores).
  Mr. FLORES. I thank Chairman Calvert for his hard work on this 
section of the appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. American 
consumers have benefited from low energy prices, thanks to the American 
energy revolution and technological advancements in hydraulic 
fracturing and horizontal drilling.

[[Page 10815]]

  For decades, hydraulic fracturing has been successfully regulated by 
the States. In 2013, the House passed on a bipartisan basis legislation 
which I coauthored with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) from the 
other side of the aisle, and that legislation would stop the BLM from 
pursuing duplicative and burdensome hydraulic fracturing regulations.
  Unfortunately, the BLM didn't listen to what Congress said, and it 
continued down a path to impose additional red tape on American energy 
development and to further drive down energy production on energy lands 
while State and private production continues to experience record 
growth in a safe and efficient manner.
  This has always been a solution in search of a problem, particularly 
when the EPA and the Department of Energy have each agreed that 
hydraulic fracturing is being conducted safely right now.
  Even the courts agree that there are problems with the BLM's rules, 
as evidenced by the recent stay granted by the U.S. District Court of 
Wyoming to stop the BLM from moving forward with their overreaching 
regulatory activity.
  This amendment is bad for jobs. It would increase energy costs and 
would limit economic opportunity for hard-working families, 
particularly those at the bottom end of the income tables. So it hurts 
those that are struggling to get by today with higher energy costs.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his work 
on including this provision during markup, as well as Chairman Calvert 
for his support on stopping this regulatory overreach.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment before us would strike the 
policy rider that prohibits the Bureau of Land Management from 
implementing a uniform national standard for hydraulic fracking on 
public lands, on Federal lands.
  Such standards are necessary to ensure the operations on public and 
tribal lands are safe and that they are conducted in an environmentally 
responsible way. This only affects Federal lands and tribal lands.
  Now, of the 32 States with the potential for oil and gas development 
on federally managed mineral resources, only slightly more than half of 
them have rules in place that even address hydraulic fracturing, and 
those that do have rules in place vary greatly in their requirements.
  As you can see, there is no consistency in the rules. There is no 
guarantee that there are good quality rules put in place. And we are 
talking about making sure that, on Federal leases, on Federal lands, 
that we have a national standard.
  The BLM continues to offer millions of public lands up for renewable 
energy production, and that is why it is absolutely critical that they 
have the confidence and the transparency and the safety and 
environmental protections that are put in place on these Federal lands.
  Prior to the issuance of a hydraulic fracturing rule, the BLM rules 
on oil and gas operation were updated over 30 years ago, 30 years ago. 
They had not kept pace with the significant technology advancements in 
hydraulic fracturing techniques and the tremendous increase of its use.
  As part of this implementation rule, the BLM office is in the process 
of meeting with their State counterparts--they are working with them--
undertaking a State-by-State comparison of regulatory requirements in 
order to identify opportunities for variances and to establish 
memorandums of understanding between the States that will realize 
efficiencies and allow for successful implementation of the rule. So we 
should be allowing BLM to coordinate with the States and ensure that 
hydraulic fracturing activities are being carried out safely and 
effectively when Federal leases are involved.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, my State of Wyoming is the largest onshore 
producer of oil and gas from Federal land. The reason our Wyoming court 
stayed the Federal BLM's rules is because Wyoming has been regulating 
fracking through its oil and gas commission from the beginning. There 
has never been one documented case of drinking water being 
contaminated. Furthermore, the way that BLM land lays with private land 
and State land is they are all interspersed; yet, underground, because 
of horizontal drilling, the drilling transcends from State land to 
private land to Federal land, and back and forth. Those wells are 
unitized so the production can be allocated among the various owners of 
private, State, and Federal land. You can't have two layers of surfaces 
State ownership regulation when the drilling is occurring going back 
and forth among State, private, and Federal lands.
  Wyoming has handled its fracking regulations responsibly. It was the 
first in the Nation to do so. I strongly urge you leave it in the hands 
of States who do it best.
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Flores).
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, in response to some of the comments that 
were never made, I would like to offer five points.
  Number one is BLM doesn't have the statutory authority to do the 
actions that they tried to. The Federal Court was right in granting an 
injunction. The EPA and the Department of Energy have both said that 
hydraulic fracturing is safe, and that is evidenced by the safe and 
efficient production of much more oil and gas on private and State 
lands while Federal production is going down.
  Again, this is a solution in search of a problem. So I would urge all 
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say congratulations to the 
State of Wyoming. That is exactly why we need this amendment. We want 
those same regulations on a national level. Mr. Chairman, 16 to 17 
States have no regulation. Wyoming has gotten it right.
  This amendment will ensure that the BLM rule is fully implemented so 
that fracking for oil and gas continues, but with full regard to the 
public health and the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. 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 Michigan 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 440.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

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

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


   limitation on use of funds to implement the revised comprehensive 
   conservation plan for the arctic national wildlife refuge, alaska

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement the Revised Comprehensive Conservation 
     Plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,

[[Page 10816]]

     Alaska published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2015 
     (80 Fed Reg. 4303).

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Alaska and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment.
  I want to thank Mr. Calvert and his committee for the work they have 
done on this legislation, and I support the underlying bill. The 
administration has left no alternative to the people of Alaska and to 
those with an interest in our national energy policy.
  This spring, under this President, the Department of the Interior 
published the management plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
to recommend the entirety of the area be designated as wilderness. This 
would include the 1002 area that was set aside by Congress for 
potential development in the future, an area that holds 10 billion 
barrels of oil, at the minimum, and probably 37 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas.
  My amendment would ensure that no funding can be spent implementing 
this recommendation. The impact of this recommendation should not be 
overlooked, as the recommendation requires immediate management of the 
entire area as wilderness--unilaterally undermining the role of 
Congress through a de facto wilderness designation.
  This action violates the Statehood Compact, which was founded on 
ensuring the development of subsurface resources for the economic well-
being of this Nation. This action also violates the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act, which established more than 100 
million acres of conservation areas. And in recognition of the enormity 
of the acreage being locked up, the act drew a line guaranteeing that 
no more conservation areas can be created without an act of Congress--
our role.
  There is no need for additional wilderness areas in ANWR, given 92 
percent of the refuge is already closed to development.
  Mr. Chairman, Alaska holds 53 percent of Federal wilderness areas in 
the Nation, and that is not enough for this administration. You think 
about that a moment. The administration's plan immediately raises 
another administrative, bureaucratic wall to oil and gas development. 
This is a betrayal to the Alaskan people and, I believe, to this Nation 
and to this Congress. This plan by the administration handcuffs my 
State from providing for itself and pushes us to be more dependent on 
Federal funds.
  This is not just an assault on Alaska. This is another example of 
executive overreach by this administration undermining the role of 
Congress. This is our role, not this administration's. I don't care 
whose administration it is; when the President oversteps his bounds, we 
should take and accept our responsibility. And this is the law he 
cannot do, but he says ``I can do it.''
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, this was an example, I think, of this whole 
Department of the Interior. Between EPA and the Department of the 
Interior, they are trying to cripple this Nation, trying to cripple my 
State, against the law. This is very specific in ANILCA. If you don't 
believe me, go back and read it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by my friend from 
Alaska would prohibit any Federal funds from being used to implement 
the administration's revised comprehensive conservation plan to better 
sustain and manage the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. Chairman, attaching this rider to the Interior Appropriations 
bill would be a mistake. The coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is one 
of the few remaining places in our Nation that remains pristine and 
undisturbed. It provides critical protection for thousands of species--
caribou, polar bear, and gray wolves, just to name a few--and they 
desperately need this important habitat. Roughly 20 million acres 
managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are some of the best and last 
undisturbed natural areas in this Nation.
  I understand that the gentleman from Alaska feels strongly about this 
issue, and he has been a great advocate for his State for decades; but 
on this important issue, we deeply disagree.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Interior Department released an 
updated conservation plan to better manage the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, and the President took that opportunity to call on Congress to 
pass legislation designating the coastal plain as a wilderness, an even 
greater level of protection for this incredible area. The protected 
area encompasses a wide range of Arctic and subarctic ecosystems. There 
are unadulterated landforms, and there are native flora and fauna. The 
refuge has an incredible biological integrity, natural diversity, and 
environmental health.
  I understand that there are differences of opinion how to manage this 
land and that legislation designated in this area as wilderness may not 
get very far in this Congress. But I want to commend the President for 
his leadership on this issue, and I would hope that the legislative 
process could play out and that we not adopt this rider onto this bill 
because this issue is just far too important.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not point out one 
more obvious truth: the President will not sign a bill loaded up with 
antienvironmental riders just like this one. So we only make the path 
for the bill harder by including it.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing it, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I appreciate the comments from the gentlewoman.
  I would suggest, respectfully, we should follow the law. We have 
given up the responsibility in this Congress to the President--not just 
this President, other Presidents. It is clear in the law nothing more 
than 5,000 acres can be withdrawn and put in the wilderness, without 
the okay of the Congress, in Alaska. No more clause. It stands for no 
more.
  Now, we have a President that says ``up yours'' to the Congress. That 
is not the way to run this business. We have a responsibility as 
Congressmen to do our job. And when he goes against the law through 
executive order, that is against this Constitution of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly would urge the adoption of the gentleman's 
amendment, and I support his amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the 
     following new section:

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Executive Order 13007, entitled 
     ``Indian Sacred Sites''.

  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, my amendment would ensure that cultural 
and sacred sites of Indian and Alaska

[[Page 10817]]

Native tribes are protected by mandating that none of the funds in this 
bill can be used in contravention of Executive Order 13007.
  Executive Order 13007, issued by President Clinton in 1996, requires 
Federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian 
sacred sites and, more importantly, to avoid adversely affecting the 
physical integrity of such sacred sites.
  Far too often, Indian sacred sites are an afterthought during the 
Federal Government land management process. When negotiating land swaps 
and when constructing other management decisions, the voice of Indian 
Country with regard to sacred sites is ignored. But this is not just 
land to the Native people. These are cultural and spiritual areas that 
are part of the tribe's history and its living legacy. These are places 
where their ancestors lived, prayed, hunted, gathered, fought, and 
died. They are part and parcel of tribal identity, and it is our duty 
to ensure they are preserved and protected.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Department of the Interior tells me they are already in 
compliance with the executive order. There is no question that 
providing Indian tribes with access to their sacred sites is the right 
thing to do, so I would be more than happy to accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The 
gentleman's amendment will ensure that this important executive order 
is respected in such a way that it has my wholehearted support in 
protecting the liberty and religious rights of Native American Indians.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, 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. Grijalva).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Poliquin

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce section 63.7570(b)(2) of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Maine and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Chairman, Maine is home to the most skilled paper 
makers in the world. Our hardworking men and women manufacture paper 
products that we use every day. Our paper makers are also some of the 
best stewards of the environment. They know that we need healthy 
forests to make the high quality wood products sold around the globe.

                              {time}  1700

  When trees are harvested to make paper, the branches and the bark can 
be left behind to be decomposed; or they can be burned to generate 
energy to run the machinery to make paper.
  Either way, the carbon from this biomass is returned to the 
environment as part of the natural carbon cycle. What a great idea--
instead of ending up in a landfill, this green, renewable energy fuels 
our economy and creates jobs.
  Now, our Sappi paper mill in Skowhegan, Maine, burns biomass to make 
some of the finest quality paper in the world. In doing so, it directly 
employs 800 hard-working Mainers. In addition, loggers and truckers who 
produce and transport this biomass also earn paychecks for their 
families.
  Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency is attacking this 
renewable method to power our businesses and to create jobs. All of us 
who have sat around a campfire have seen that wet wood, branches, and 
grass emit a darker smoke. However, the same carbon is being recycled 
through the environment. It is just a slightly different color.
  The EPA wants to impose stricter emission standards on companies that 
burn wet wood, branches, and bark instead of dumping them into a 
landfill. That just doesn't make sense.
  Mr. Chairman, the EPA is trying to force our Skowhegan mill to spend 
millions of additional dollars on special smokestack equipment because 
wet biomass burns darker. The mill owners have worked diligently with 
the regional EPA office in Boston and the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection to put in place a commonsense emissions 
monitoring system that reflects the burning of biomass. Sadly, the EPA 
headquarters right here in Washington rejected their sensible solution.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not fair, and this is not right. Those 800 
hard-working paper makers at the Sappi mill deserve an EPA that works 
for them, not against them.
  Now, our paper mill in Maine could very well be a different mill in 
Michigan, Minnesota, or Georgia that also uses green American biomass 
energy.
  America should keep her energy dollars and jobs here at home and not 
ship them to the Middle East. Our businesses need that energy to keep 
our manufacturing jobs right here in America and not send them to 
China. This is a national security issue, as well as a jobs issue, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my House Republicans and Democrats today to 
support my simple, commonsense bill. Passing it will stop the EPA from 
unfairly penalizing employers who use green, renewable American biomass 
energy.
  My amendment prohibits the EPA from reaching beyond some of the 
biomass emission rules already being enforced by the regional EPA 
offices and the State environmental authorities.
  Let's show the American people today that Congress supports a 
domestic energy source that is good for the environment, creates jobs, 
and keeps us safer here at home
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIQUIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. I suspect this issue is not just limited to your State, 
and I hope this language will help bring EPA to the table so that 
everyone can find a path forward for this issue that is important for 
the country.
  Certainly, I have no objection to this amendment. In fact, I support 
it.
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, it is a blanket block to the EPA from 
fully implementing and enforcing air toxic standards for boilers and 
incinerators.
  Among other things, there are boilers that burn natural gas, coal, 
wood, oil, and other fuel to produce steam, and the steam does produce 
electricity or provide heat, and incinerators burn waste to dispose of 
it. These boilers and incinerators have the potential of releasing very 
toxic pollutants such as mercury, lead, dioxin, and other pollutants 
that are linked to health effects.
  In 2011, after a robust public process, including three public 
hearings and responding to thousands of public comments, the EPA 
finalized standards to reduce toxic emissions for existing new boilers 
and commercial industrial solid waste incinerators and sewage sludge 
incinerators.
  Now, among other things, the rule requires emissions to just meet 
certain standards. It is a measurement of air pollution based on the 
degree of which light is blocked by the pollutant from the smokestack.

[[Page 10818]]

  The rule also allows the EPA to approve alternative opacity limits 
under certain circumstances, so there is flexibility within the rule.
  Now, the local paper mills in the representative State are exceeding 
or they are expected to exceed the standard in the EPA's final rule, so 
to better fit their circumstances, they want an alternate opinion. That 
is the issue that the EPA is looking at right now. The EPA is looking 
at this right now. They heard the concerns; they are looking at it.
  Strangely, this amendment would not really address that issue. 
Instead, it would block the EPA from ever approving an alternative 
limit or implementing or enforcing an alternative limit that had 
already been improved.
  I rise because this amendment, unfortunately, just does not make any 
sense to me that we would not keep the dialogue moving forward. The EPA 
has the responsibility of making sure that standards of emissions with 
mercury and lead and other toxic pollutants are not dangerous to public 
health, especially to children. We know statistically now that up to 
8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks, and 52 asthma attacks are 
all worked into reducing the emissions, to lower those numbers.
  We need to stand with the EPA air toxic standards and allow them to 
achieve their intended benefits and to work with industry where it 
makes sense, and we can have industry move forward but still protect 
the public health, just not scrap the parts that industry dislikes.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it would keep 
the EPA from doing what it is doing right now, and that is to work with 
industry, oddly enough, to create a win-win for industry and a win-win 
for public health.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Chairman, I would strongly disagree with my 
colleague on the other side of the aisle.
  Those of us or those who have visited our great State know that we 
have a pristine natural environment. It is part of our brand, Mr. 
Chairman. It is something that we protect and will continue to protect 
at all costs.
  However, as a freshman legislator, I have been here for 6 months, and 
what I have learned in those 6 months is that we have almost a fourth 
branch of government, and that is these regulators that regulate every 
part of our life, whether we are trying to make paper or what have you 
and trying to provide work for our families.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 441.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 102(a)(1) of Public Law 
     94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(1)).

  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. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, with this amendment, this body has the 
opportunity to say loudly and clearly: Let's keep our public lands 
public.
  Public lands are a massive economic generator and are important to 
our health and welfare as Americans. They are beautiful, and they are 
healing. I recently got to hear from a veteran in Eagle County, and 
part of his recovery process is the time he spends outdoors on our 
public lands. They are also practical. They help ensure for water 
quality and maintain the critical aspects of rural life like farming, 
ranching, grazing, and logging.
  Public lands are where our hunters and fishermen go to enjoy the 
outdoors. They are where skiers, hikers, bikers, and motorists 
experience activities that are impossible in other places and are 
invaluable to their quality of life.
  Outdoor enthusiasts utilize those areas. It is a vast economic driver 
as well. In fact, over $646 billion is generated economically through 
our public lands, and visiting our public lands supports over 6 million 
jobs, including many in my district and many in our great State of 
Colorado.
  When recently polled across six western States, the American people 
said with 96 percent support--with unheard of levels of support--that 
protecting public lands for future generations is one of their top 
priorities and that, above and apart from any other, they see the 
maintenance for access of outdoor activities on our public lands as a 
critical focus of our Federal Government.
  States don't have the resources or expertise to suddenly take on the 
responsibilities for our Federal lands, nor do State governments even 
want that authority, Mr. Chairman.
  Selling these lands outright to private owners or purveyors would 
undoubtedly lead to loss of access to these majestic, treasured spaces 
and, at the same time, would destroy jobs across the West and other 
areas that are blessed to have public lands; yet there has been attempt 
after attempt to transfer our most precious public spaces to the States 
or to private ownership or to sell them at wholesale.
  Mr. Chairman, the sportsmen don't want this. The hikers, bikers, 
campers, skiers, and motorized activists that make up the areas 
surrounding those held by the Federal Government do not want their land 
taken away--our land taken away.
  Those concerned with environmental well-being, water quality, and 
public health that depends on the stewardship of our public lands do 
not want our public lands taken away.
  It is lost to me, Mr. Chairman--and perhaps my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle can speak to this--exactly who is impacted by 
and who does touch and enjoy and rely on our public lands and actually 
does want to see them taken away.
  I would pose this inquiry, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this would just make it difficult and 
impossible for Federal agencies to dispose or willingly or equitably 
exchange or convey lands to States, local governments, private 
landowners, and others.
  I just may point out the Federal Government currently can't manage 
its existing land, which is over 640 million acres or approximately 3 
out of every 10 acres in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, all my amendment does is ensure that none of 
the funds made available to this act can be used in contravention to 
the law of the land. My amendment wouldn't do anything to undermine 
current authority of congressionally and administratively driven land 
exchanges. In fact, I brought several before this body and have seen 
several signed into law.
  My district is 62 percent Federal land, and we always have various 
exchanges, purchases, and sales. Of course, those are consistent with 
the law, which allows the funds to be used under this bill.
  I am a strong believer in the ability of our Federal Government and 
Congress to make choices wisely in a thorough public and transparent 
process, which we do in this body.
  What my amendment would do instead is prohibit the use of funds in 
this bill to pursue any additional extra legal ways to turn our Federal 
land over to private owners. It would prohibit Federal dollars from 
being used to support, for instance, a commission around finding 
avenues to turn all Federal lands over to private ownership.
  These kinds of ventures are fiscally wasteful and counterproductive 
and wholly unwanted by the American people who rely and derive 
spiritual support, health, and jobs from our public lands.

[[Page 10819]]

  I urge my colleagues to reflect upon who exactly we are working for 
and what our goal is with regard to our public lands.
  I strongly support ensuring that all the provisions of this 
appropriations bill are limited to the full pursuit of section 
102(a)(1) of Public Law 94-579 with regard to our public lands and that 
none of this money, which is what this amendment will do, can be 
diverted to privatize our public lands.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment 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:

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


 limitation on use of funds to treat the sonoran desert tortoise as an 
                endangered species or threatened species

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to 
     treat the Sonoran desert tortoise as an endangered species or 
     threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

  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 to offer a commonsense amendment to 
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  My amendment will protect education, grazing, agriculture, energy, 
housing interests, as well as assist with preventing dangerous 
wildfires by blocking the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the 
Sonoran desert tortoise as an endangered or threatened species. A 
listing decision for the Sonoran desert tortoise is expected this 
fiscal year.
  Of the potential 26.8 million acres that will likely be designated 
for critical habitat due to such a listing, 15 million acres are 
located in the United States, and nearly 4.5 million acres are State 
trust land.
  State trust land revenues, which are currently enjoyed by 13 
beneficiaries, of which K-12 education is the largest proportional 
share of those moneys, will be severely impacted.
  If the Sonoran desert tortoise is listed, these acres of trust land 
will become less valuable for investment as they are burdened with a 
federal regulatory nexus. Without this amendment, schools that have 
already undergone significant budget cuts will see even less money 
flowing into their educational coffers.
  The Sonoran desert tortoise is also of substantial concern to many 
different types of industry, as its habitat falls within urban 
development corridors as well as on rural and agricultural landscapes.
  Listing the species as threatened or endangered will negatively 
impact commercial, housing and energy developers as well as the 
agriculture and grazing industries.
  Specifically, a listing would be detrimental for 273 different 
grazing allotments and would jeopardize nearly 6 million acres used for 
livestock grazing.
  Mining will also suffer, as the BLM listed 9,675 new mining claims 
from 1990 to 2002, 36 percent of which fall within the Sonoran desert 
tortoise's habitat.
  Any ground and vegetation-disturbing activities, including fire 
suppression activities and restorative treatments, would also be 
negatively impacted by a listing decision for the species.
  Solar energy would also likely be harmed, as large solar projects on 
desert floors are considered a potential threat to the Sonoran desert 
tortoise.
  My amendment will also encourage significant voluntary efforts and 
financial contributions for the Sonoran desert tortoise to continue, 
many of which are already underway at the local level.
  Important local conservation efforts began for the species in 2010, 
and a Candidate Conservation Agreement was recently signed by 15 
different agencies in February.
  Should the Sonoran desert tortoise become listed, these voluntary 
efforts and moneys will dissipate as local property owners, ranchers, 
and developers will no longer have any incentive to work with the 
Federal and State wildlife management agencies on conservation efforts 
for the species.
  My amendment is supported by the Public Lands Council, the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, Americans for Limited Government, the 
Arizona Cattlemen's Association, the Arizona Farm Bureau, the Arizona 
Mining Association, the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, 
and numerous other organizations that are strongly opposed to this 
listing.
  I thank the chair and the ranking member for their tireless efforts 
to produce this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would do two things. 
First, it would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from treating 
the Sonoran desert tortoise as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act. Secondly, it would restrict the Service from 
offering any of the critical protections to preserve the species.
  The Sonoran desert tortoise is an iconic species. It has been part of 
the Sonoran Desert ecosystem for over 150,000 years. In 2010, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service found that the listing for the Sonoran desert 
tortoise was warranted, but it was precluded because it needed to 
address other higher priorities.
  So last December the Service announced that it was working on a 
proposed listing determination that is expected to be published within 
the year.
  This amendment, if it were to pass, would stop the Fish and Wildlife 
Service's efforts and block the Service from meeting a court-ordered 
deadline to make this listing determination. In other words, they would 
put the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at odds with what the court has 
requested them to do. This amendment has no place in the appropriations 
process, nor does it have any place in this legislative process.
  Let's just think about the Endangered Species Act for a minute. It 
has been one of our most effective and important environmental laws, 
and it is supported by over 85 percent of Americans.
  There has been no law that has been more important in preventing the 
extinction of wildlife, but some Members of this body seem determined 
to undermine the law by placing harmful policy riders on this bill.
  From my count, as of right now, there are at least 10 species that 
are at risk of losing the Endangered Species Act protections in this 
bill.
  What type of conservation legacy are we leaving for future 
generations? That is why I oppose the amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the Sonoran desert tortoise is part of a 
growing problem involving large settlements with the environmental 
groups who sue the Fish and Wildlife Service's regulatory protections 
with regard to a large number of different wildlife and plant species.
  These multi-district litigation settlements, commonly known as ``sue 
and settle tactics,'' force the Fish and Wildlife Service to make 
listing decisions on several hundred species, often with little or no 
scientific data supporting these listings and without public input to 
this process.

[[Page 10820]]

  This possible listing is a result of a lawsuit filed by a few special 
interest groups aimed at stifling development and has nothing to do 
with the tortoise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment 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:

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


  limitation on use of funds to implement or enforce specific sections

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce section 117, 121, or 122 of 
     this Act.

  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. Chairman, my amendment, which I offer with Mr. Beyer 
of Virginia, would strike three policy riders related to the Endangered 
Species Act from the underlying bill, those concerning the greater 
sage-grouse, the northern long-eared bat, and the gray wolf. I want to 
focus my remarks on the greater sage-grouse.
  The language in this bill that seeks to block an Endangered Species 
Act listing of the bird is unnecessary and is completely inappropriate, 
putting both the species and the historic quintessentially American 
sagebrush steppe landscape at risk.
  In 1901, Mark Twain described the sagebrush steppe as a ``forest in 
exquisite miniature.'' At one point, as many as 16 million greater 
sage-grouse called the sagebrush sea home. Settlers traveling west said 
that flocks of sage-grouse ``blackened the sky.'' Today the population 
has been reduced to as few as 200,000 birds.
  Right now there are unprecedented and proactive partnerships 
throughout the West which are working to conserve sagebrush habitat, to 
encourage predictability for economic development, and to prevent the 
listing of the greater sage-grouse as endangered or threatened under 
the Endangered Species Act.
  Federal agencies, States, sportsmen, ranchers, farmers, and 
conservationists have all come together in this effort. In fact, the 10 
land management plans released by the Interior Department last month 
are based on plans developed by the States, not one size fits all, but 
individual plans to suit each State's individual needs. This is all the 
result of a concerted collaboration.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service and the States themselves agree that, 
as long as these partnerships continue, it is likely that the greater 
sage-grouse will not be listed as endangered or threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Rather than helping communities, the rider in this bill creates 
uncertainty and only undermines the immense coordinated progress 
already underway. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I will talk about the three different 
provisions to this amendment. Let me first talk about the sage-grouse.
  The sage-grouse provision in this bill is meant to give the Fish and 
Wildlife Service time to make a determination of whether there ought to 
be a listing or not. The court has ordered them to make a determination 
by, I think, September 30. We are trying to give them the time 
necessary.
  This is going to affect 11 Western States. It is not going to affect 
Massachusetts, by the way, but it is going to affect 11 Western States 
substantially.
  They have recently put out their resource management plans to the 
States. There is a period in which the States have a chance to interact 
with the Federal agency and raise their complaints and so forth about 
what the problems are with their resource management plans.
  We are trying to give the Fish and Wildlife Service and the States--
the 11 Western States, by the way, not Massachusetts--the time to come 
up with a plan so that we don't list this bird.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service and the States--everybody, 
essentially--agree we don't want sage-grouse listed. The States have 
made incredible progress and have made incredible sacrifices.
  The State of Wyoming has taken, I want to say, millions of acres 
which have potential resources off the table in order to protect the 
sage-grouse. So we have taken extraordinary efforts to make sure that 
we don't list this bird.
  As far as the wolves are concerned, the fact is that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service delisted the wolves. It was not us. We didn't want to 
go against science. We are not going against science. We aren't trying 
to make any species become extinct.
  It was the Fish and Wildlife Service in their use of science that 
delisted the wolves. But guess what. Some people weren't happy with 
that; so, they took them to court. And now we are in a court case. The 
same thing happened in Idaho and in Montana.
  This language doesn't take a species off the endangered species list. 
Some people think we are trying to delist species, and we are not. We 
are going back to the decision made by the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
delist the wolves in the Great Lakes and in the State of Wyoming.
  I think, if you want to talk about the cost and if you want to 
complain about what is going on here, you really ought to complain to 
the plaintiffs who are causing all of this hassle with wolves when the 
States have done exactly what they were supposed to do.
  The wolf populations in the Great Lakes particularly have exploded. 
In Idaho and Montana, they have exploded. In Wyoming, they have 
exploded. That is why the Fish and Wildlife Service delisted them.
  This amendment is contrary to every bit of science that there is that 
deals with endangered species. So I would urge my colleagues to reject 
this amendment even though it doesn't affect Massachusetts.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first comment that 
Massachusetts, at one time, was home to the Heath Hen, which is the 
greater sage-grouse's cousin.
  Because at that time we did not have an Endangered Species Act, that 
Heath Hen is now, unfortunately, extinct. So we have learned an 
important lesson about the great role the Endangered Species Act does 
play to protect some of our remarkable species.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my 
colleague.
  Mr. BEYER. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chairman, despite what you may hear from some Members of 
Congress, gray wolves have not recovered. In a test by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service to remove them from the Endangered Species Act, 
protections for wolves have failed time and again.
  Why? It is because scientific experts have shown and the courts have 
confirmed that the best available science does not justify the removal 
of all ESA protections for gray wolves at this time.
  In fact, the only instance in which wolves have been delisted has 
been through the unprecedented and unfortunate congressional action in 
2011 to remove protections from wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
  These wolves are now endlessly persecuted by hunters and ranchers 
despite the positive effects they have on the ecosystem and the minimal 
toll they take on livestock.

                              {time}  1730

  Wolf-related tourism around Yellowstone generates more than $35 
million annually for local economies, and recovery in the Pacific 
Northwest is only beginning.
  This amendment would prevent Congress from directing the Fish and 
Wildlife Service to reissue the delisting of wolves in the western 
Great Lakes and

[[Page 10821]]

Wyoming. Now is not the time for Congress to declare open season on one 
of America's most iconic wild animals. Science, not politics, should 
guide these delisting decisions.
  By the way, wolves are not in Massachusetts, they are not in 
Virginia, and they never will be as long as we do not continue our 
efforts to protect wolves and allow them to occupy the old territories 
they did a few hundred years ago.
  This amendment would also allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to move 
forward with steps to protect the northern long-eared bat. Over the 
past decade, populations of the bat have declined 98 percent, mostly 
because of the deadly effects of white-nose syndrome. As a result, Fish 
and Wildlife Service recently listed the bat as a threatened species. 
While scientists and wildlife managers work to fight the spread of 
white-nose syndrome, it is important to ensure that the remaining bat 
populations are safe from other threats.
  The interim rule currently in effect governing taking of the bat is 
incredibly flexible and was developed in close coordination with 
industry stakeholders, particularly the timber industry, to ensure that 
economic activity is not negatively impacted.
  The final rule is expected to be similarly flexible. The language in 
this bill will only serve as a delay tactic, causing additional 
uncertainty for businesses and property owners, and this amendment 
would effectively strike these unnecessary sections from the bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments. I do have some gray wolves in Idaho, Montana, 
Wyoming, and other places that we will be happy to ship to you if you 
like. In fact, we didn't have any in Idaho until Fish and Wildlife 
Service decided that they were going to reintroduce them in Idaho.
  When you say the minimal take that it has on cattle, wildlife, and 
other types of things, there were gray wolves in Idaho that one sheep 
rancher lost over 300 head of sheep in one night to some wolves. That 
ends his business, essentially. So it is not a minimal take. If you 
look at the calf-to-cow ratio of elk and deer in Idaho, the numbers 
have been down substantially, particularly with elk because, guess 
what, they like elk, even though we were told that they will go after 
deer and not elk. Wolves, I guess, like elk better than they do deer.
  The gentleman says we need to depend on science, not Congress. 
Congress never delisted a species. We didn't delist the gray wolves in 
Idaho and Montana. It was the Fish and Wildlife Service using science. 
When you say the gray wolves have not recovered, where is your science? 
Where do you get that? Where does that statement come from? Fish and 
Wildlife Service that has done the investigations said yes, they have. 
So do we just not trust them?
  It is you people proposing this amendment that are going against 
science. We are just trying to make sure that the science is protected, 
and politics doesn't enter. We appreciate the people of Virginia and 
the people of Massachusetts trying to make sure that the wolves are 
healthy in Idaho. I can guarantee you they are. They are not 
persecuted, as you said. Yes, they are hunted, but anybody who believed 
we were going to introduce wolves into Idaho or Montana where they 
hadn't been for a number of years and you weren't going to have to 
maintain population controls of them was living in a fantasyland.
  Yes, we do have hunting seasons for wolves, as we do almost all 
species, but we have to maintain a certain population, and if that 
population isn't maintained, guess what. Fish and Wildlife takes over, 
and they go back on the endangered list. So it is not Congress that is 
making these decisions. It is Fish and Wildlife Service.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that the riders 
in the underlying bill will do nothing to help our native species but, 
instead, only serve to cause uncertainty and delay, undermining all the 
concerted effort by many stakeholders, all seeking to avoid a listing, 
particularly with the sage-grouse.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the United Nations Environment Programme.

  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 to offer one final amendment to the 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act.
  The amendment is simple. It prohibits the EPA from providing funding 
to the United Nations Environment Programme. The United Nations 
Environment Programme, or UNEP--I would call it inept--has a history of 
taking unusual and extreme policy positions, including advocating for 
population control.
  The United Nations is typically funded in the State Department's 
budget under contributions to international organizations, or CIL. The 
funds appropriated by this act are meant to be used domestically, not 
as a slush fund to give to programs at the United Nations.
  I will quickly highlight some of the names of the UNEP initiatives 
that the EPA spent millions of dollars on. One is to promote 
environmental sound management worldwide. Another one is UNEP Regional 
Program, Climate Benefits, Asia Pacific. There is even one called 
Russian Federation Support to the National Program of Action for the 
Protection of the Arctic. This last one is money that goes specifically 
to the Russian cause.
  I will read from the EPA's own Web site the description of this 
program:

       This project centers on protection of the Arctic 
     environment in Russia.
       This work will cover three broad areas:
       Number one, implementation of Russia's national plan of 
     action for protection of the Arctic marine environment from 
     anthropogenic pollution;
       Number two, hazardous chemical management;
       And, three, climate change mitigation adaptation and 
     awareness.

  So let me get this straight. In addition to the billions we 
contribute to the United Nations through the CIO account, the EPA is 
funneling millions of tax dollars to this United Nations program, which 
then gives the money to Russia, who then uses it to implement a Russian 
national plan and for climate change mitigation, adaptation, and 
awareness.
  U.S. taxpayers, do I need to say anything further why we need to stop 
this? Let's keep the United States Environmental Protection Agency 
focused on issues within the United States. Our favorite out-of-control 
agency need not be concerned with the Asia-Pacific region or with 
Russia.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense amendment that is 
endorsed by the Americans for Limited Government, the Eagle Forum, the 
Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the Council for Citizens Against 
Government Waste, and the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors.

[[Page 10822]]

  I thank the chairman and ranking member for their tireless efforts in 
producing this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit any agency 
from using funds for the United Nations Environment Programme. Funds 
for the U.N. are primarily provided through the State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee. The EPA administers 
about $500,000 of international grants, not the millions or the 
billions that were referred to in this particular bill. So I strongly 
oppose the amendment.
  I understand, as I said earlier, there is a small amount of funding 
administered for the U.N. Environment Programme in this bill. The 
primary source of funding for the international programs, I want to 
stress again, is in the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
bill, not this bill.
  So this amendment seeks to solve a problem that really doesn't exist 
in this bill, but jurisdictional questions aside, we must be an 
international partner with respect to the environment. Engagement with 
the international community allows us to share and learn best practices 
on how to manage toxic substances; international engagement helps set 
international standards to help our products compete globally; and, 
more importantly, pollution knows no boundaries. It does not respect 
international borders.
  In the 1970s and 1980s, acid rain was a problem both in the United 
States and Canada, and through domestic legislation and international 
work with Canada, we have reduced the amount of acid rain that falls 
upon the United States and Canada. Now, right now in my home State of 
Minnesota, we are under a high pollution warning. The culprit is, 
sadly, a series of forest fires that are raging to the north border of 
us in Saskatchewan. Now, if we are going to be committed to clean air 
and clean water on the Canadian-U.S. border, we must be engaged both 
here at home and abroad.
  So as a proud Minnesotan and a proud Member of the United States 
Congress, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to work 
together in partnership.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Let's set the record straight. CRS, hardly a partisan 
effort, since 2003 reports they spent over $6 million in foreign 
agencies in this very fund. Imagine that. The facts are only convenient 
when they help us on our side.
  If we are going to have a discussion about this, let's put it in the 
State Department budget and let's talk about it, but let's not hide it 
in the EPA. Let's keep the EPA's budget and dealings right here in the 
United States where they belong. They hardly have a track record of 
success here in the States.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress again that, in 
this bill, there is $500,000. And I would also like to stress, when it 
comes to regulating waters in the Great Lakes, our tributary rivers and 
basins on the northern border--and I am sure the same thing, I can't 
speak with as much eloquence as to what is happening on our southern 
border--we need to have these international interlocutors. I would 
appreciate the opportunity for my State and for the Great Lakes States 
to be able to continue the strong partnership with our Canadian 
partners.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, with an over $18 trillion debt, when is enough 
enough? If we are going to talk about foreign expenditures of dollars, 
let's put it in the State Department budget and make sure we have an 
open and honest conversation, but it does not belong here. We have to 
start concentrating on what is important to the United States, not 
Russia. I guess that is Putin's kind of game is that we clean up his 
messes for him.
  I ask everybody to adopt this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva

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

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


            limitation on use of funds with respect to ivory

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce section 120 of this Act.

  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, at the inception of the debate and 
discussion regarding this appropriations bill, I indicated I would 
offer an amendment to prevent language in the bill from driving the 
extinction of the African elephants.
  I expect the administration to release its proposed ivory rule this 
month, and it deserves the support of every Member of this Chamber. 
This rider that is currently in the language of the bill is another 
unfounded attack on an endangered species that our Nation's top 
scientific experts have concluded will go extinct without the 
protection of the Endangered Species Act, under which this rule is 
being promulgated.
  I mentioned in my previous statement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service recently destroyed a one-ton stockpile of illegal elephant 
ivory, most of it seized in Philadelphia from an antique dealer named 
Victor Gordon.
  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 was stolen. The ivory was 
doctored so that it looked old enough to pass through a loophole in the 
law. All of this ivory is illegal. All of it is nearly impossible to 
distinguish from antique ivory, and anyone who bought it from Gordon 
and 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.
  The only way to keep U.S. citizens from being involved in this 
elephant poaching and trafficking crisis is to eliminate the commercial 
import, export, and trade of African elephant ivory in our country. 
Ending the commercial ivory trade will set an example for China and 
other countries to follow, but they will not act until we do.

                              {time}  1745

  Ending the trade will not take away personal possessions, nor will it 
bar the movement of musical instruments or museum pieces; but to save 
elephants, we have to eliminate the value of ivory.
  Sadly, this rider is just another example of House Republicans 
driving the extinction of wildlife one species at a time.
  Please join me in voting ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's thoughtful 
comments regarding crisis levels of poaching and wildlife trafficking 
and the need to do something about it. This is a deadly serious matter 
with national security implications. That is why this bill has 
increased funding by $15 million since fiscal year 2013 in order to 
fight wildlife poachers and traffickers.
  Without question, Republicans do not want to see elephants go 
extinct; but when the Fish and Wildlife Service made the unilateral 
determination to ban the trade and transport of products containing 
ivory that have been in the United States legally for years, we

[[Page 10823]]

heard from orchestra musicians, art museums, wildlife conservation 
organizations, collectors of fine antiques from chess pieces to pool 
cues to firearms, and nearly everyone in every organization in between.
  They are united in support for elephants, but they are also united in 
their opposition to new Federal restrictions on products that contain 
ivory legally obtained. The reality is family heirlooms and rare 
musical instruments didn't cause the problem, and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service should be acknowledging as much.
  This bill keeps the status quo, allowing for continued legal trade 
and transport so that collectors, musicians, and others can get on with 
their lives until the Fish and Wildlife Service writes a rule that 
reflects the legitimate concerns of law-abiding U.S. citizens.
  The administration is rumored to be just days away from publishing a 
revised rule to address most of these concerns. If that is the case and 
if the revised rule solves the problem, then there will be no need for 
this provision in the final conference report later in the year.
  In any case, I remain fully committed to working with my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to find a reasonable solution moving 
forward. In the meantime, I must oppose this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank the 
chairman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak in support of Mr. Grijalva's 
amendment. The U.S. is the world's second largest market for ivory. 
Only China has a greater demand.
  In February of last year, President Obama announced a ban on the 
commercial trade of elephant ivory. This ban is the best way to ensure 
that U.S. markets do not contribute to the further decline of African 
elephants in the wild.
  The African elephant population has declined by an estimated 50 
percent over the last 40 years, with approximately 35,000 elephants 
poached every year. That amounts to one elephant poached every 15 
minutes.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service has been undertaking a series of 
administrative actions, including a proposed rule in order to implement 
the ban. Section 120 would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from 
implementing this rule and other policies necessary to crack down on 
the domestic illegal ivory market.
  I cannot understand why we would not do everything possible to stop 
the illegal slaughter of African elephants.
  I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Grijalva's amendment, which would 
prevent section 120 from being enacted. We must allow the FWS to 
continue its efforts to prevent the extinction of the African elephant.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to stop the slaughter of 
African elephants, we need to stop the illegal trade in ivory.
  This rider has nothing to do with the unprecedented poaching crisis, 
and it ignores the impact of the illegal ivory trade within the United 
States and the way that it is impacting the African elephants' 
survival.
  The rider also undermines the United States' ability to push other 
countries with significant ivory markets--like China, Vietnam, and 
Thailand--to take stronger actions to restrict ivory trade.
  In fact, according to a recent Washington Post article, China has 
signaled that its actions to further restrict ivory trade were 
contingent on what the United States does to regulate our domestic 
trade.
  It is in the national interest of the United States to combat 
wildlife trafficking and to ensure that we don't contribute to the 
growing global demand for elephant ivory, which is also funding 
terrorism around the world.
  We need to come up with a responsible set of regulations that protect 
elephants, while making accommodations to allow certain activities to 
continue that do not pose a threat to elephants.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Grijalva amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

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

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


                 environmental programs and management

       Sec. __. Of the funds provided for ``Environmental 
     Protection Agency--Environmental Programs and Management'', 
     not more than $1,713,500 may be available for the Immediate 
     Office of the Administrator and not more than $3,581,500 may 
     be available for the Office of Congressional and 
     Intergovernmental Relations and the aggregate amount 
     otherwise provided under such heading is reduced by 
     $2,735,000.

  The Acting 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. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment together 
with my colleagues and fellow committee chairmen, Mr. Conaway from 
Texas and Mr. Chaffetz from Utah.
  The amendment addresses the Environmental Protection Agency's 
continuing pattern of obstruction and delay in response to 
congressional oversight.
  Since January 2014, the EPA has proposed or finalized new, far-
reaching rules that impact almost every aspect of the American economy. 
These rules involve major expansions of Federal authority, massive 
costs to the economy, and are based on secret science that the EPA 
keeps hidden from external review or scrutiny.
  Congress has a constitutional responsibility to perform rigorous 
oversight of the executive branch. However, as chairman of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, nearly every request for 
information I make to EPA is greeted with repeated delays, partial 
responses, or outright refusals to cooperate.
  Earlier this year, the committee was forced to issue a subpoena to 
obtain information related to Administrator Gina McCarthy's deletion of 
almost 6,000 text messages sent and received on her official Agency 
mobile device. She claimed that all but one was personal.
  Most recently, the committee requested information and documents 
related to the EPA's development of the waters of the U.S. rule and the 
Agency's inappropriate lobbying of and collaboration with outside 
organizations to generate grassroots support.
  The EPA again failed to provide the requested documents. The 
committee was forced to notice its intention to issue a subpoena.
  However, producing documents in bits and pieces after months or years 
of delay are not the actions of an open and transparent administration. 
They are the actions of an Agency and administration that has something 
to hide.
  It is clear that the EPA does not see its job as facilitating 
transparency and oversight. It seems to believe its mission is to 
delay, obstruct, and otherwise attempt to stonewall any attempt by 
Congress to fulfill its constitutional oversight obligation on behalf 
of the American people.
  Congress should not support such an agency. We are taking further 
action

[[Page 10824]]

with this amendment to reduce funding for EPA's offices. The EPA must 
refocus its efforts on transparency and cooperation with Congress and 
the American people. At that point, we could consider restoring their 
funding.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment clearly is a Republican attempt to cut 
funding from the Environmental Protection Agency. As an agency that 
protects the air we all breathe, protects the water we drink, the fish 
we eat, it means that the EPA works every day to protect the health of 
every American.
  This amendment is clearly an attack against the administration for 
work that they have been doing to enforce those protections.
  It is entirely counterproductive to complain about a lack of timely 
response from the EPA and then turn around and slash the very funding 
that allows the EPA Administrator and Agency staff to respond to our 
concerns.
  Crippling cuts to the office of congressional relations will not only 
make it more difficult for Members of Congress to get our questions 
answered--and those of our constituents--by slashing the office of 
intergovernmental agency affairs, this amendment would make it harder 
for State and local officials to gather the information they need to 
protect their communities.
  I don't really believe we want to tell the EPA that they should cut 
back on meeting and getting recommendations from local government 
advisory committees or tell our elected officials at a State level that 
they are going to have even a harder time getting a hold of someone at 
the EPA to help them form agreements to address their priority needs.
  Our States have a responsibility with the EPA for protecting public 
health and the environment, and this amendment would undermine those 
partnerships. This amendment would make it more difficult for the 
people's representatives at the Federal, State, and local level to 
reach out and get support and answers from the EPA in order to protect 
the health of their constituents.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these cuts, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the chairman of the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Smith of Texas and Mr. 
Conaway of Texas for their good work on this.
  In the year 2015, five letters were sent to the EPA from the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding the waters of the 
United States rulemaking. All went unanswered until the Science 
Committee threatened to subpoena.
  Probably what is the most egregious and most offensive to us is even 
when we do bipartisan work--in a bipartisan letter, we asked the EPA to 
provide a response to a request concerning collections of use of fees 
and fines--and even when we do it in a bipartisan way, those go 
unresponded to. They failed to even provide a staff briefing on the 
collection and use of fines and penalties, despite repeated requests.
  We hear on the floor: Well, you can't take away their money, then 
they won't able to respond.
  With the money, they don't respond, so they obviously don't need the 
money if they are not going to respond--even when we do so in a very 
professional, bipartisan way, asking legitimate questions about the use 
of these funds and how this Agency works.
  In the year 2013, requests were filed for information regarding 
actions of a previous Administrator, among other document requests. 
Responses were inadequate, and a subpoena was filed.
  The EPA only began searching for the documents 6 months after a 
subpoena was issued, 6 months after this happened. This is just not 
tolerable. There needs to be consequences for this. They obviously 
don't need these funds if they are going to be so unresponsive even 
when we do so in a bipartisan way.
  I would urge the passage of the Smith amendment. I think it is a good 
amendment. It is a responsible way to move forward. I appreciate the 
good work the Appropriations Committee has done in their support and 
their work. I, again, thank Mr. Smith for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1800


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Huffman

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a new contract or agreement or to 
     administer a portion of an existing contract or agreement 
     with a concessioner, a cooperating association, or any other 
     entity that provides for the sale in any facility within a 
     unit of the National Park System of a non-educational item 
     that depicts a Confederate flag on it.

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, that is not the revised amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw this amendment?
  Mr. HUFFMAN. If it can be substituted with the proper amendment, yes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, you should have the proper amendment now.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Huffman

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a new contract or agreement or to 
     administer a portion of an existing contract or agreement 
     with a concessioner, a cooperating association, or any other 
     entity that provides for the sale in any facility within a 
     unit of the National Park System of an item with a 
     Confederate flag as a stand-alone feature.

  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. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the tragic shooting in Charleston, South 
Carolina, has forced a national conversation about symbols like the 
Confederate battle flag that represent racism, slavery, and division.
  Now, like you, I applaud leaders in South Carolina and other Southern 
States, both Democrat and Republican, who have called on their States 
to end the display of the Confederate flag on government property, 
including State houses and license plates. With the consideration of 
the Interior Appropriations bill, this House now has an opportunity to 
add its voice by ending the promotion of the cruel, racist legacy of 
the Confederacy.
  The National Park Service has asked its gift shops, bookstores, and 
other concessionaires to voluntarily end the sale of standalone items, 
such as flags, pins, and belt buckles that contain imagery of the 
Confederate flag. While many concessionaires have agreed to do this, I 
am dismayed by reports that some will continue to sell items with 
Confederate flag imagery. This amendment to the Interior Appropriations 
bill would end these sales. It would prevent the National Park Service 
from allowing the continued promotion of the Confederacy through these 
symbols.
  Major American retailers like Walmart, Amazon, and eBay are already 
taking their own steps to ban

[[Page 10825]]

sales of this type of merchandise, and we now have an obligation to 
ensure that the Federal agencies that we oversee act with the same 
moral clarity.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). Without objection, the 
gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. The language now in this amendment is consistent with 
the National Park Service policy, and I would support this language as 
you presently have it drafted. I would urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. 
McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  This amendment, as Chairman Calvert pointed out, is consistent with 
the recent National Park Service actions to further limit the display 
of the Confederate flag in units of the National Park system.
  Previous National Park Service policy had already provided that the 
Confederate flag would not be flown alone for many park flagpoles.
  On June 25, Park Director Jon Jarvis further requested that the 
Confederate flag sale items be removed from the National Park 
bookstores and gift shops. This also follows a decision by several 
large national retailers, including Walmart, Amazon, and Sears, to stop 
selling items with Confederate flags on them.
  I agree with these decisions and commend those involved for their 
prompt action.
  While in certain and very limited instances it may be appropriate in 
national parks to display an image of the Confederate flag in its 
historical context, a general display or sale of Confederate flags is 
inappropriate and divisive.
  I support limiting their use, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request an ``aye'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to reduce or terminate any of the propagation 
     programs listed in the March, 2013, National Fish Hatchery 
     System Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment that recognizes and supports the important role of fish 
hatcheries nationwide.
  Before I get to the amendment, I want to thank you, Mr. Calvert, for 
the hard work of the committee and your recognition of the importance 
of fish hatcheries already there. I also want to thank my friend from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for cosponsoring this amendment.
  My amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to reduce or 
terminate any of the existing propagation programs listed in the March 
2013 National Fish Hatchery System Strategic Hatchery and Workforce 
Planning Report.
  This report raised serious concerns that the Fish and Wildlife 
Service view hatcheries, and particularly mitigation hatcheries, as a 
low priority program. Personally, I believe that stocking the 
tailwaters, streams, lakes, and rivers of America should be a higher 
priority. Hatcheries provide an important service, including providing 
our Nation's anglers with the recreational enjoyment and opportunities 
to catch fish; and they can be particularly vital to economic growth in 
rural areas, including northeast Georgia.
  The importance of our Nation's hatcheries is obvious when you look at 
the Chattahoochee National Forest Fish Hatchery. This hatchery is 
located back home in Georgia's Ninth Congressional District. It stocks 
the tailwaters of multiple projects for the Army Corps of Engineers and 
the Tennessee Valley Authority with rainbow trout for the enjoyment of 
160,000 anglers per year. Without this facility, the tailwaters would 
be barren.
  The Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery is a critical economic 
driver in the quiet mountain town of Suches, Georgia, and the 
surrounding community. This rural town in Fannin County doesn't have 
any major stores or banks, but it does have the hatchery. The hatchery 
has generated over $30 million in total economic input on just $740,000 
in investment. It has a $40 return on investment for every dollar spent 
and provides enjoyment to many, many people.
  The Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery plays an integral role in 
the sustainability of businesses and communities in northeast Georgia. 
From providing environmental education and public outreach 
opportunities to visitors, school groups, and various other 
organizations to facilitating recreational opportunities, northeast 
Georgia would not be the same without this facility.
  The work at the hatchery in Suches is one example of the importance 
of propagation programs at national fish hatcheries nationwide. These 
hatcheries are job creators and economic growth engines. They provide 
critical services to rural America and play an important educational 
role. They support anglers with recreational services and responsibly 
stock the rivers to keep the habitats in order. Despite this, however, 
the Department of Fish and Wildlife places propagation programs, 
including those in the Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery, among the 
lowest of their funding priorities.
  My amendment simply ensures that funds to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service are consistent with the agency's mission and statutory 
responsibility.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I want the gentleman from Georgia to know 
that I support his amendment and would urge its adoption.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  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:

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


    limitation on use of funds in contravention of executive orders 
                        regarding climate change

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be expended in contravention of Executive Order 13514 of 
     October 5, 2009 or Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013.

  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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The sum of the harmful consequences of global climate change is the 
existential crisis of our generation and, perhaps, of our century.
  Global temperature changes are already causing prolonged droughts, 
extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. Tens of millions of 
people, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable among us, are at 
risk unless we

[[Page 10826]]

act to reverse the disastrous effects of climate change.
  Our best scientists and our Pope are warning us that unless carbon 
emissions are dramatically cut, we will see ever rising sea levels, 
ever more extreme weather, and ever worsening public health, poor air 
quality, the spread of tropical diseases, lung and heart and heat 
stress illnesses, and death.
  Several weeks ago, the EPA issued a comprehensive report quantifying 
the economic costs of a changing climate across 20 sectors of the 
American economy. Among the findings, the report found that, by 2100, 
mitigating greenhouse global gas emissions could avoid 12,000 deaths 
per year that are associated with extreme temperatures in just 49 U.S. 
cities compared to a future with no emission reductions.
  The estimated damages to coastal property from sea level rise and 
storm surge in the contiguous U.S. are $5 trillion through the year 
2100 in a future without carbon emissions.
  The Department of the Interior also recently released a report 
revealing that over $40 billion of National Park infrastructure and 
historic and cultural resources could be at risk due to sea level rise 
caused by climate change.
  Taking acts to address climate change is particularly crucial in 
urban districts that border waterways, like mine, where we are already 
seeing environmental effects. Now is the time when the U.S. should be 
deepening its commitment to reducing climate change pollution.
  Federal agency actions, including those of the agencies named in this 
bill, have major impacts on our contributions and reactions to global 
warning. It is imperative, then, that these agencies maintain 
mindfulness of those impacts and that they seek to avoid actions that 
add significant amounts of carbon pollution to the atmosphere or 
actions that put people and property in the vulnerable position with 
respect to climate change.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to ensure 
that no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with 
the President's 2009 executive order on greenhouse gas emissions and 
energy efficiency and the 2013 executive order on climate change 
adaptation.
  These orders require agencies to take global warming into account 
when making decisions and will save taxpayer dollars while making our 
communities safer and cleaner.
  Our agencies need to be climate smart, because making our Federal 
investments and actions climate smart reduces our fiscal exposure to 
the impacts of climate change.
  It is the right thing to do to run an efficient and effective 
government. It is the right thing to do to return the highest value to 
the American taxpayer.
  It is simple: smarter investments up front mean we can reduce future 
costs. Communities across the Nation are thinking this way. We need to 
ensure that the same is true for the Federal Government.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to ensure that Federal 
agencies are operating in the manner that accounts for climate change.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, 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, earlier, we debated whether or not to 
continue a bipartisan reporting requirement in the bill on climate 
change expenditures. My colleague on the other side of the aisle wanted 
to remove the requirements, which would have reduced transparency. Now 
he wants to ensure that funds are being expended on climate and 
efficiency executive orders issued by the President. So I am left to 
wonder whether my colleagues would prefer to know if funds are spent on 
these programs or not.
  Regardless, this amendment is simply unnecessary. The President did 
not consult Congress on these executive orders, so, if anything, we 
should defund the programs until Congress can have an appropriate 
policy debate.
  I see no reason to include this language, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
California (Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment which will ensure 
that no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with 
the President's executive order on greenhouse gas emissions and energy 
efficiency and the 2013 executive order on climate change adaptation.
  These orders require agencies to simply take global warming into 
account when making decisions. This will save taxpayers lots of money 
while making our communities safer and cleaner.
  Fighting climate change has to be regarded as the biggest imperative 
of our time.

                              {time}  1815

  My State of California has stepped up to this issue and taken 
important bold steps to confront it, including passing Assembly Bill 
32, the world's most aggressive greenhouse gas reduction policy. At the 
Federal level, President Obama's efforts, through these orders, are 
critical steps toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing 
climate change.
  Ensuring compliance with these measures is the least we can do on 
this critical issue; and, frankly, we should be doing much more. So I 
urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Beyer) 
amendment and continue this effort to combat climate change.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

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

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


                       across-the-board reduction

       Sec. __. Each amount made available by this Act is hereby 
     reduced by 1 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the 
committee for the excellent job that they have done under Chairman 
Calvert's leadership with bringing this appropriations bill in under 
budget. It is $3 billion below the President's request. There is still 
$30.17 billion in proposed funding in this bill.
  I come before you today to offer an amendment that I regularly offer 
to these appropriations bills, which is a 1 percent across-the-board 
spending cut. Let's go in and let's take one more penny out of every 
dollar and use that to bolster the good work that our committee has 
done.
  You know, one of the things that I like about this bill is there is a 
9 percent reduction in the EPA budget compared to last year. We all 
know we need to rein in the EPA. We are all for clean air, clean water, 
clean environment.

[[Page 10827]]

We have different ways of getting there.
  The burdensome regulations that are out there negatively impact--they 
negatively impact our communities. But we know there is more work that 
we have to do on this $30 billion budget.
  My amendment would reduce the discretionary budget authority by $292 
million and would reduce outlays by $193 million.
  Now, I know that this is not a popular amendment with a lot of those 
who feel like we have cut, cut, cut and we can't cut any more.
  I disagree with that. I think that you can look at the GAO reports 
and the inspector general reports and see there is plenty of room to 
cut. We just recently went into the last 4 years of inspector general 
reports. Guess what. We found $165 million of identified waste in the 
Department of the Interior.
  It is time to engage our rank-and-file employees in our Federal 
Government, to make them a team and a partner with us as we work on 
this issue of getting our budget right-sized.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to 
protect taxpayer dollars, this is not an approach I can support.
  While the President may have proposed a budget that exceeds this 
bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that 
would never be enacted. This bill makes tough choices within an 
allocation that adheres to current law.
  While difficult trade-offs had to be made, the bill in its current 
form balances our needs. These trade-offs were carefully weighed for 
their respective impacts and are responsible.
  We prioritize funding for fire suppression, PILT, and meeting our 
moral obligations in Indian Country, yet the gentlewoman's amendment 
proposes an across-the-board cut on every one of those programs.
  This amendment makes no distinction between where we need to be 
spending to invest in energy independence and where we need to limit 
spending to meet our deficit reduction goals.
  And, I may point out, the spending problem is not within these 
discretionary appropriation bills, which we are debating at the present 
time. It exists primarily in entitlement spending.
  So I hope we can spend as much energy on the entitlement side of the 
budget as we are on the discretionary side of the budget. If so, we 
would fix our budget problems.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment I strongly oppose. It institutes a 1 
percent across-the-board cut.
  A few interesting things about the Interior bill. This bill before us 
today is $2 billion, $2 billion below 2010-enacted levels. And when you 
adjust this bill for inflation, it is at 2005 levels.
  This amendment indiscriminately cuts programs without any thought to 
the merit of the program that is contained in this bill.
  For instance, this would result in fewer patients being able to be 
seen at the Indian Health Service; fewer safety inspectors ensuring 
accidents do not occur; deferred maintenance on our Nation's drinking 
water and sanitation infrastructure, which is already underfunded in 
this bill.
  More generally, investments in our environmental infrastructure and 
public lands will just be halted, and associated jobs would be lost 
with it.
  As I said earlier, this bill is already underfunded, underfunded. 
When adjusted for inflation, it is at 2005 levels. This amendment would 
not encourage agencies to do more with less. It would simply force 
agencies and our constituents to do less with less.
  So I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments.
  Underfunded? No. We are overspent in this town. We have $18 trillion 
worth of debt, and it is time to get a handle on that.
  Moral obligations? How about the moral obligation to our children and 
grandchildren?
  Admiral Mullen has said the greatest threat to our Nation's security 
is our Nation's debt.
  Let's put the focus on our priorities: keeping our sovereignty and 
keeping our Nation safe and secure.
  This is something we do for our children. It is something we can do 
for our national security. A penny on a dollar to get this spending 
under control.
  Our approach? Guess what. State and local government use this all the 
time. They can't go print money and run up debt.
  When I was in the State Senate in Tennessee, what did we do? We 
didn't go home until we balanced the budget because we had an 
obligation to get it done right the first time, before we walked out 
the door.
  And I do hope that we will put attention on our entitlements. But 
that is no excuse for not addressing what is in front of us today. To 
not address what is in front of us today is to kick the can down the 
road.
  I have a lot of constituents who aren't making and taking home as 
much as they were in 2005. They think we should reduce Federal spending 
even more, reduce the Federal workforce even more, because government 
is getting too expensive to afford.
  Let's engage Federal employees in this process. It has worked for the 
States. It will work for the Federal Government. Let's get our fiscal 
house in order. A good place to start is right here with this amendment 
that would save another $193 million in outlays and $292 million in 
discretionary budget authority.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the last point. I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's concern about the deficit that we have.
  When I came here 24 years ago, 40 percent of our expenditures were on 
the entitlement side of the budget. Today it is over 60 percent, over 
60 percent. So we need to attack that side of the budget line.
  If we placed as much energy on entitlement spending as we have on 
discretionary, not only would the budget be balanced, but we would be 
moving toward paying off our national debt.
  With that, I reluctantly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 Tennessee 
will be postponed.
  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. 
Heck of Nevada) having assumed the chair, Mr. Carter of Georgia, 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.

                          ____________________