[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10829-10872]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rouzer). 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 gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1910


                     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 Mr. Emmer of Minnesota 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 6, printed in the 
Congressional Record, offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn), had been postponed, and the bill had been read through page 
132, line 24.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

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

       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 to issue a grazing permit or lease in contravention 
     of section 4110.1 or 4130.1-1(b) of title 43, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will 
reaffirm Congress' support for the enforcement of grazing fees on 
public lands.
  Grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right, and it is 
critical that individual ranchers who use these lands abide by the law 
and pay their fair share.
  My commonsense amendment simply confirms that grazing permits or 
leases should not be issued to anyone who does not comply with BLM 
regulations. My amendment does not penalize people for forgetting to 
repair a fence or for forgetting to make a payment once or twice.

[[Page 10830]]

  Rather, this amendment ensures that egregious violations of grazing 
regulations are not going to be allowed to happen under the taxpayers' 
watch, as there are American taxpayers who work every day to ensure 
that all of their regulations are met.
  Mr. Chairman, revenues from grazing fees go toward the management, 
maintenance, and improvement of public rangeland. The vast majority of 
ranchers understands how important these efforts are and pay their fees 
on time, but some ranchers are outright refusing to pay their grazing 
fees.
  One particular rancher, who is well known to the media, has been more 
than $1 million in arrears since 1993. He has ignored the executive and 
judicial branches of our government, expanding his herds further onto 
our lands without permission.
  Unauthorized grazing, such as in this case, has the potential to 
destroy habitat for protected species and to damage public property. In 
addition, he has instigated volatile situations that has put the lives 
of local and Federal Government officials at risk.
  Unbelievably, some in this body have actually applauded these 
dangerous actions. That is simply irresponsible. Mr. Chairman, I 
strongly suspect that, if anyone in my congressional district in 
Phoenix forcibly resisted paying the Federal Government more than $1 
million, he or she would be in handcuffs instead of on television or 
meeting with potential Presidential candidates.

                              {time}  1915

  Ultimately, however, this amendment is about more than one man. It is 
about upholding the basic principles that our laws should be applied 
fairly to everyone who lives in this country and uses its public lands.
  Mr. Chairman, we must ensure that egregious violations of grazing 
regulations are not financed by the American taxpayer. To that end, I 
hope all Members will support this critical amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pearce

  Mr. PEARCE. 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 to increase the rate of any royalty required to be 
     paid to the United States for oil and gas produced on Federal 
     land, or to prepare or publish a proposed rule relating to 
     such an increase.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from New Mexico and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, Washington recently issued the advanced notice 
of rulemaking in which they declared they were going to consider 
raising the royalty rates on oil and gas production on Federal land. 
Now, there is several reasons that we would want to consider that 
before we implemented it, and so our amendment simply says let's stop 
the process.
  First of all, what it does is it is going to drive the royalty rates 
up on Federal lands. It will be one more impediment to producing the 
oil and gas that fuels this Nation's economy.
  Secondly, small businesses, small independent producers are already 
under pressure to try to just stay in business, and it would increase 
their operating costs. For a small State like ours, rural States, the 
small businesses, these local producers are sources of prosperity that 
are desperately missing from the rural parts of the country.
  If we are going to have an economy that is healthy, if we are going 
to have an economy that provides jobs for the future, then we need 
energy that is both affordable and a predictable supply. Nothing is 
better than producing our own. When we have to import oil from other 
nations, some of those nations are unstable politically. Some just 
don't like us as a country; and so why not produce our own energy, 
providing our own jobs and providing revenues to the Federal 
Government?
  Anytime you increase taxes on a given item, then you are going to see 
less of that item, and oil and gas is no exception. Let's let the 
department think about this just a bit more before we rush into a 
royalty rate which will decrease America's energy supply and make us 
more dependent on foreign oil.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, the amendment would prohibit the Bureau of 
Land Management from using its legal authorities to modernize its 
royalty rate structure, which would result in less revenue to the 
Treasury.
  The Department of the Interior's oil and gas royalties have been the 
subject of repeated study by the Government Accountability Office and 
other entities for many years. In 2008, the GAO said the United States 
could be forgoing billions of dollars in revenue from the production of 
Federal oil and gas resources due to the lack of price flexibility in 
royalty rates and the inability to change the fiscal terms on existing 
leases. In 2013, the GAO issued another report that noted concern that 
the Department of the Interior had not taken the steps to change the 
onshore royalty rate regulations.
  Modernizing the Bureau of Land Management's rate structures can 
provide critical flexibility, especially given the dramatic growth of 
oil development on public and tribal lands, where production has 
increased in each of the past 6 years and combined production was up 81 
percent in 2004 versus 2008.
  It seems to me that it is critical that the Department of the 
Interior is ensuring that the public is receiving a fair return from 
the production of oil and gas from Federal leases. This amendment would 
guarantee a sweetheart deal for Big Oil companies at the expense of the 
American taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my cosponsors on this 
amendment: Mr. Tipton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Zinke. I 
appreciate their presence here.
  The gentlewoman raises a significant question whether or not revenues 
would increase or decrease. We have got a couple of charts here showing 
exactly what is happening.
  First of all, the average number of leases that the BLM issued during 
each administration, we can see back in the Reagan administration the 
highest level. It decreases down to--you can see the relative position 
of the Obama administration. If the administration were really 
interested in revenues, it seems like they would be producing the 
permits at a little faster rate.
  Then this chart shows the oil production; the increase in oil 
production in blue is shown here on private lands while the decrease in 
oil production on the public lands is being shown in the red.
  Again, if the administration were very interested, it seems like they 
would modernize not the royalty rate, but the way in which they approve 
these wells. Sometimes, wells go for 6 months or a year without being 
permitted, where States can offer 30-day processing of the permits.
  The same is happening with natural gas. Again, we just see the blue 
on private lands where natural gas production is increasing, dramatic 
decreases in production of natural gas on Federal lands. Again, it 
looks like, if the agency were worried about the revenues, they would 
seek to modernize and update their procedures first.
  I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for this amendment. I think it is a 
good amendment. I certainly understand his concern.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.

[[Page 10831]]


  Mr. PEARCE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The 
Bureau of Land Management has only just begun the process of examining 
whether royalty rates and rentals for oil and gas leases on public 
lands should be increased. That process should be allowed to continue.
  GAO recently found that, based upon the results of a number of 
studies, the U.S. Government receives one of the lowest government 
takes, commonly understood to be the total revenue, as a percentage of 
the value of oil and natural gas produced in the entire world.
  For example, royalty rates on public land are at 12.5 percent, 
considerably less than the royalty rates even on State lands, which 
range from a low of 16.67 percent to 25 percent-plus. These low royalty 
rates cheat the American taxpayers and keep them from receiving a fair 
return for the extraction of their oil and gas resources.
  However, rental rates are even worse. To secure very valuable mineral 
rights, sometimes worth hundreds of millions of dollars, companies only 
have to bid a minimum, and I repeat, a minimum of $2 an acre upfront to 
win the lease and then $1.50 per acre each year to keep the lease. That 
is right, a rental of $1.50 per acre per year. This low price was last 
set by Congress in the 1980s and has not been adjusted since.
  This can and should change. Oil companies, some of which generate 
billions of dollars per quarter in profits, should pay their fair share 
to the American people for the development of the Nation's public 
resources. Imagine if your rent had not increased since Ronald Reagan 
was President or if the local grocery store had not raised their prices 
since 1987.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. This scenario may sound too good to be true, but in 
fact, that is exactly the sweetheart deal that we are currently giving 
oil and gas industries, a sweetheart deal that should end. All 
Americans must deal with the unavoidable reality of inflation; so why 
shouldn't oil and gas companies?
  It is long past time for the BLM to assess better ways for the public 
to receive their fair share. Blocking the BLM from doing that is 
fiscally irresponsible, a giveaway to the oil and gas companies.
  Ms. PINGREE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico has 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Maine has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, the assumption that the royalty rates are 
abnormally low in the United States simply ignores the fact that we 
have lease sales on top of the royalties. Many countries fail to have 
those.
  The United States has the most extreme environmental regulations, so 
the regulatory burden gladly borne by the oil companies is an 
additional cost that many nations do not have. In addition, we have got 
income taxes paid by the companies, and many countries don't charge 
that on top of the royalty.
  What we are hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle 
about the sweetheart deals, I think, take a look and see actually how 
much the oil and gas companies are paying. In our State, they have 
contributed to two of the largest permanent funds in the world held by 
our State. I think oil and gas companies are paying their fair share by 
a lot.
  What other industry is paying truck drivers $100,000 a year to drive 
a truck for a contractor? I think that those sorts of computations are 
simply ignored by the GAO.
  Again, I would urge Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, in spite of the arguments that my colleague 
from New Mexico has made, I still say this amendment, in my opinion, 
doesn't pass the straight face test.
  I can't imagine my constituents thinking that we should make things 
any easier for the oil and gas companies or that we should be giving 
away the opportunity to earn taxpayer revenue on our Federal lands.
  The Federal onshore royalty rate has not been increased since 1920. 
That is 95 years. The offshore royalty rate is 18.75 percent; yet the 
onshore rates have been stuck at 12.5 percent for 95 years. Where is 
the equity in that?
  As far as I am concerned, I think it is time for the American 
taxpayers to get a fair return on the use of public resources, 
especially from some of the most profitable companies in the world. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Huffman

  Mr. HUFFMAN. 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 to implement National Park Service Director's Order 
     61 as it pertains to allowing a grave in any Federal cemetery 
     to be decorated with a Confederate flag.

  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.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate very much the bipartisan support and passage of my 
earlier amendment, which would end the practice of concessionaires in 
our national parks selling Confederate flags and memorabilia of the 
Confederacy.
  We now, with this Interior Appropriations bill, have a second 
opportunity to speak on this very important national debate that we are 
having regarding symbols of the Confederacy. This additional amendment 
will end the practice of allowing groups to display Confederate flags 
on federally managed cemeteries.
  The American Civil War was fought, in Abraham Lincoln's words, to 
``save the last best hope of Earth.'' We can honor that history without 
celebrating the Confederate flag and all of the dreadful things that it 
symbolizes.
  I request an ``aye'' of my colleagues, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Walberg

  Mr. WALBERG. 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:


                          limitation on funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to lobby in 
     contravention of section 1913 of title 18, United States 
     Code, on behalf of the proposed rule entitled ``Definition of 
     `Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act'' (79 
     Fed. Reg. 22188; April 21, 2014).

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

[[Page 10832]]


  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, my amendment tells the Environmental 
Protection Agency to follow the law and clearly establishes the view of 
Congress that the EPA cannot lobby on behalf of the waters of the U.S. 
rule, in violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act.
  Over the past few years, the EPA has been pushing the limits of its 
statutory authority to the issue of the waters of the U.S. rule. Now, 
we have learned that, as part of their efforts to regulate every pond, 
stream, and ditch in America, the EPA may have violated the Anti-
Lobbying Act to garner public comments in support of the proposed rule, 
even though the Department of Justice has consistently stated that the 
act prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in substantial grassroots 
lobbying.
  In fact, The New York Times recently reported:

       In a campaign that tests the limits of Federal lobbying 
     law, the Agency orchestrated a drive to counter political 
     opposition from Republicans and enlist public support in 
     concert with liberal environmental groups and a grassroots 
     organization aligned with President Obama.

  The New York Times went on to say as well:

       The most contentious part of the EPA's campaign was 
     deploying Thunderclap, a social media tool that spread the 
     Agency's message to hundreds of thousands of people, a 
     ``virtual flash mob,'' in the words of Travis Loop, the head 
     of communications for EPA's water division.

  Mr. Chairman, this is unseemly. The EPA Administrator later used the 
skewed results as evidence of public support before Congress.
  For this reason, my amendment is needed to make clear that the EPA 
shall not violate the Anti-Lobbying Act while pursuing the completion 
of the waters of the U.S.
  I respectfully urge all my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I agree with the gentleman and with The New York Times that this is 
why the underlying bill reduces funding for certain offices within EPA 
that were responsible for these questionable actions.
  Therefore, this language is complementary to the approach the 
committee has already taken in the bill, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on 
the amendment.
  Mr. WALBERG. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. The gentleman's amendment would prohibit funds in the 
act from being used to lobby on the waters of the U.S. There is an 
existing prohibition on lobbying that applies to all Federal employees 
that has been in place since 1919, so this is an unnecessary and 
redundant amendment.
  I would remind my colleagues that Federal employees are not 
prohibited from providing information to Congress on legislation, 
policies, or programs. There must be an open dialogue between the 
legislative and executive branches to ensure that laws are being 
implemented appropriately and programs achieve their intended goals.
  We should not and cannot operate in an information vacuum. We don't 
need to add extraneous, redundant provisions to a bill that is already 
overburdened with harmful legislative riders.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  It is the law, and that is all I am trying to substantiate, but I 
have read to you not from an organ of the conservative Republican Party 
side, but from The New York Times.
  They also went on to say:

       The architect of the EPA's new public outreach strategy is 
     Thomas Reynolds, a former Obama campaign aid who was 
     appointed in 2013 as an associate administrator.

  He said this in relationship to flash mob tactics and the lobbying 
efforts:

       We are just borrowing new methods that have proven 
     themselves as being effective.

  Mr. Chairman, it may be effective, but it is unseemly that EPA, an 
agency of the Federal Government, would violate the law in lobbying and 
trying then to show Congress through trumped up evidence that they have 
produced through lobbying the private sector that they have support for 
the waters of the U.S. rule.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I think we need to establish it here very 
clearly in this appropriations bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I urge support, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Peters

  Mr. PETERS. 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

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 435 of this Act.

  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. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would not allow any funds to 
enforce section 435 of this bill, which is another harmful policy rider 
that limits the ability of our environmental agencies to take action to 
improve public health and fight the root causes of climate change.
  This section blocks the EPA's ongoing efforts to regulate 
hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which is the wrong approach. HFCs are 
factory-made gases used in air conditioning and refrigeration and are 
up to 10,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. This potency has 
led to HFCs being referred to as a superpollutant. Unless we act now, 
United States emissions are expected to double by 2020 and triple by 
2030.
  While not as abundant as carbon dioxide, superpollutants, also known 
as short-lived climate pollutants--including HFCs, methane, and black 
carbon--have contributed up to 40 percent of observed global warming.
  By limiting the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act to propose, 
finalize, or enforce any regulation or guidance regarding HFCs, we 
undercut their ability to protect public health and demonstrate 
American leadership in emission reductions.
  The EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, or SNAP, 
requires us to evaluate substitutes for superpollutants like HFCs that 
are harming public health and our environment. Through SNAP, we can 
ensure a more smooth transition to safer alternatives for our country's 
industrial sector.
  Within the last week, EPA finalized a new rule on HFCs that the 
Environmental Investigation Agency estimates will avoid superpollutant 
emissions equal to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of more than 21 
million cars by 2030. It will allow heavy users of HFCs, including 
supermarkets, which are the largest source of HFC emissions, to 
continue developing cleaner alternatives.
  As we continue international negotiations to phase down HFCs, the 
United States should be a leader in reducing the use of HFCs and other 
superpollutants. The standard set by EPA will drive U.S. and 
international innovation and market development of low-emission and 
energy-efficient refrigeration, air conditioning, foam-blowing agents, 
and aerosol technologies.
  These innovations will actually get at one of the root causes of 
climate change before we are forced to react to increasingly extreme 
weather and sea level rise.
  American industry has already begun creating alternatives that both 
have a

[[Page 10833]]

lower emissions profile and are more energy efficient than current 
HFCs, and last September, we saw major companies--including Coca-Cola, 
Carrier, DuPont, Honeywell, PepsiCo, and other industry leaders--commit 
to voluntarily reducing harmful HFC emissions.
  My amendment simply bars funding to enforce section 435 of this bill 
so we can instead continue with existing rules and move our country's 
global leadership in finding innovative solutions to reducing emissions 
forward. We should not be handcuffing the important work being done at 
EPA to reduce superpollutants.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and 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. The committee still has concerns about the costs, 
technology requirements, and compliance periods in the final rule. It 
is not clear why EPA divided some categories into subcategories and 
provided different deadlines for similar products.
  The EPA clearly chose winners and losers. For the losers, the 
timetables remain unworkable. Manufacturers need time to implement 
engineering and technology changes and address new risk and safety 
challenges. Historic experience with the Montreal Protocol indicates 
that manufacturers need approximately 6-plus years to successfully 
transition between new materials.
  This new rule will particularly be hard on small businesses. The 
large businesses that the gentleman mentioned have the resources and 
the technologies available to them to comply quicker. These smaller 
businesses will find it very difficult to comply with DOE's energy 
conservation standards.
  EPA's proposal is not being driven by a statutory mandate, so the 
committee believes additional time is warranted. The EPA left critical 
decisions regarding energy, efficiency, and system performance up to 
the manufacturers; and they need time to get this right.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the constructive 
comments by my colleague, the gentleman from California. I would just 
suggest this is not the way to deal with these issues, but rather to 
address them via policy approach.
  Section 435 of this bill will just take out the legs from all work we 
would do on HFCs and superpollutants, and it is just too broad a brush 
to paint with.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. I urge opposition to 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 California (Mr. Peters).
  The amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1945


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Walden

  Mr. WALDEN. 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 new section:


                       resource management plans

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to complete or implement the revision of the resource 
     management plans for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, 
     or Salem Districts of the Bureau of Land Management or the 
     Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District of the 
     Bureau of Land Management proposed in the Bureau of Land 
     Management Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource 
     Management Plan Revisions and Draft Environmental Impact 
     Statement for Western Oregon published in the Federal 
     Register on April 24, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 23046).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, the past several decades have been really 
hard on Oregon's forested communities as timber harvest from Federal 
lands dropped more than 90 percent because of, in part, litigation, 
lack of management, government regulation.
  Across the State, we have lost more than 300 forest product mills. 
They have closed. We have lost more than 30,000 forest-related jobs. 
This has left our communities in really bad shape, nearing bankruptcy 
in some cases in our counties, high poverty rates in our communities. 
Unemployment rates are high in these forested areas and, of course, we 
face, without active management, these enormous forest fires that 
contribute massively to the carbon buildup.
  Recently, the BLM released a proposed update to their two-decade, 20-
year-old management plan in western Oregon. The vast majority of the 
forests covered by these plans are what are called O&C lands, which are 
managed by a very unique Federal statute called the O&C Act. That law 
calls for sustainable timber production and revenue to local counties. 
It is different than the other forest laws.
  Now, despite that clear mandate in Federal law, the BLM's proposal 
would allow for harvesting on about 22 percent is all, 22 percent of 
the land base. It would lock up the remainder in various reserves.
  Oregon's forested counties, some of which have more than 70 percent 
of their land controlled by the Federal Government, rely on receipts 
from Federal timber projects to fund basic needs like law enforcement, 
schools, and other essential services. Unfortunately, under BLM's 
proposal, these counties would receive an estimated 27 percent is all 
of their historical average receipt--27 percent.
  Now, while the BLM's proposed plans fall far short of meeting these 
communities' needs, it seems the agency is determined to push forward 
anyway with these plans.
  In a bipartisan effort, the entire Oregon Congressional Delegation 
requested a 120-day extension of the comment period so that the 
counties and other interested parties have time to thoroughly review 
the more than 1,500 pages of analysis and provide some useful input and 
comment.
  Apparently, the BLM isn't interested in that input, since I 
understand they will be rejecting our request and moving forward with 
their plan under their current timeline. That is really disappointing. 
You see, these local communities are most affected by the management 
changes on the Federal land that surrounds them, and the BLM, I wish, 
would care more about their input than a self-imposed deadline likely 
out of some office back here.
  This amendment would simply delay the BLM's implementation of these 
proposed plans. That would give more time for our counties and 
interested parties to thoroughly review the more than 1,500 pages of 
analysis. It would also give the agency time to consider additional 
alternatives that better incorporate the clear mandates of the O&C Act.
  I want to quote, Mr. Chairman, from the Portland Oregonian. This is 
the statewide newspaper that probably leans a little more to the left. 
They said: ``Minimally, BLM needs to extend its comment period and 
develop more alternatives to be considered. But it is unlikely to 
develop any alternative that would be acceptable to the industry, 
counties and environmental advocates. Congress, not a government 
agency, needs to step up and help solve this long-festering problem.''
  Mr. Chairman, with Oregon's wildfire season well off to a terrible 
start, we need time to review these plans, get active management on 
these forestlands, and by passing this amendment, we will give the 
taxpayers, the people who live there, a better opportunity to weigh in. 
So I urge support.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering the 
amendment and yielding me time.
  I appreciate the concerns that he brings to us today. It is troubling 
that

[[Page 10834]]

the Bureau of Land Management has proposed land use plans that appear 
to contradict its multiple-use mandate. So with that, I would happily 
accept his amendment.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maine for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concerns raised by the 
gentleman from Oregon, but this amendment would prohibit the Bureau of 
Land Management from completing or implementing updates to certain 
resource management plans in western Oregon.
  These updated plans cover 2.5 million acres of land that play an 
important role in the social, economic, and ecological well-being of 
western Oregon, as well as to the American public generally. The plans 
determine how BLM-administered lands will be managed to further the 
recovery of threatened and endangered species, provide for clean water, 
restore fire-adapted ecosystems, produce a sustained yield of timber 
products, and coordinate land management of surrounding tribal land.
  The amendment would suspend the BLM's authority to implement a new 
resource management plan in western Oregon. As a result, the BLM would 
be forced to rely on a 20-year-old outdated plan that doesn't 
incorporate significant new information. For example, the old plan does 
not include important conservation activities, such as the northern 
spotted owl recovery plan. The amendment would block one of the most 
comprehensive and detailed landscape plans that the BLM has ever 
developed and would ignore significant public input. The public has a 
right to engage in the management decisions of their Federal lands.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the spotted owl is 
covered by their planning process today in some measure because it 
certainly contributed to the downfall of our communities, absent this 
plan.
  Look, all we are asking for is time for people to have a better 
chance to review what this Federal agency, after 20 years, has finally 
come up with--1,500 pages. I think they should have a chance, as do my 
colleagues, including Mr. Schrader, a member of your party, supporting 
this amendment. So it is a bipartisan Oregon approach that I would hope 
my colleague from Maine would share that we need to do better managing 
America's Federal forests.
  Turn on the TV. They are going up in flames right now. I don't like 
that for the habitat. I don't like that for the communities. I don't 
like that for what the firefighters have to face.
  I think we can do better. Most observers in the State think we can do 
better, and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to say I appreciate the 
concerns that the gentleman from Oregon has raised, and other Members 
from Oregon who share those concerns. I thought it was important to 
address some of the considerations and concerns that we have with 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 Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to require 
companies to follow the law if they want to export crude oil from the 
United States.
  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 issue any new federal oil and gas leases 
                          and drilling permits

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to issue any new Federal oil and gas lease or 
     drilling permit to any person that does not commit to 
     following Department of Commerce regulations regarding the 
     requirement of obtaining a license for exporting crude oil.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from California and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, I offer this amendment 
to require companies to follow the law if they want to export crude oil 
from the United States.
  I want to make it clear. This amendment is not about whether we 
should lift the crude oil export ban altogether. That is a debate for a 
different time and a different bill. This is about those narrow cases 
where companies are currently able to export crude oil in limited 
quantities but are also choosing not to follow the rules.
  Last summer, the Commerce Department ruled that two companies could 
export very light crude oil, called condensate, after it had been 
lightly processed. That decision meant that those companies would not 
need to obtain a license to export crude oil even though licenses are 
required for all other crude oil exports.
  Because of that ruling, which I believe was inappropriate, another 
company decided that they, too, would begin exporting their own light 
crude oil without even asking the Commerce Department for a decision 
first, let alone try to get a license.
  Since then, exports have skyrocketed. From January 2010 until June 
2014, when the Commerce Department made that ruling, we exported about 
97,000 barrels of crude oil a day, mostly to Canada. Since that day in 
June of 2014, our oil exports have quadrupled to an average of over 
400,000 barrels a day, hitting all-time record levels, with more and 
more of that crude oil going to Europe and to Asia.
  I don't think we should be exporting so much of our domestic oil when 
we are still importing roughly 7 million barrels every day. We may be 
the world's number one oil producer, but we are still the world's 
number one oil importer.
  If we want to change that, we shouldn't be letting oil companies 
simply ship American crude oil anywhere in the world that they want to. 
We should certainly also not let them ignore existing laws and 
regulations in order to do so. First and foremost, oil produced in 
America, particularly oil from America's public lands that belong to 
the American people, should remain in this country for the benefit of 
the American people.
  If we are going to allow these companies to export oil, they must 
follow the law. They simply can't take matters into their own hands and 
decide whether they need or do not need a license before shipping this 
oil all over the world.
  My amendment is a simple, commonsense solution to this problem. It 
simply states, if you are going to drill on public land, you must 
follow the legal process for getting an export license if you want to 
ship that oil elsewhere.
  This is not an onerous restriction. It only applies to public land, 
only requires companies to commit to following the existing process for 
getting a license with the Department of Commerce. That way, the 
Commerce Department can evaluate these options on a case-by-case basis 
to determine if they are in the national interest.
  The concept of exporting American crude oil is too important to let 
the companies make that call on their own.
  Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

[[Page 10835]]



                              {time}  2000


   Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho

  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a 
recorded vote on my amendment be withdrawn to the end that the 
amendment stand disposed of by the voice vote thereon.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the request for a recorded vote 
is withdrawn. Accordingly, the noes have it, and the amendment is not 
adopted.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Hardy

  Mr. HARDY. 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 to make a Presidential declaration by public 
     proclamation of a national monument under chapter 3203 of 
     title 54, United States Code in the counties of Mohave and 
     Coconino in the State of Arizona, in the counties of Modoc 
     and Siskiyou in the State of California, in the counties of 
     Chaffee, Moffat, and Park in the State of Colorado, in the 
     counties of Lincoln, Clark, and Nye in the State of Nevada, 
     in the county of Otero in the State of New Mexico, in the 
     counties of Jackson, Josephine and, Malheur in the State of 
     Oregon, or in the counties of Wayne, Garfield, and Kane in 
     the State of Utah.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Nevada and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment with my 
good friends from Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, 
and Utah to prohibit public land management agencies in this bill from 
making declarations under the Antiquities Act in counties where there 
is significant local opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by stating my strong support for 
our Nation's public lands. As an active hunter and an outdoorsman, I 
marvel at the beauty of our landscapes, our unique flora, and the 
abundant animal species that roam our terrain.
  With that being said, I also come from Nevada, a State where roughly 
85 percent of the land is controlled by the Federal Government.
  Addressing this concentration of land use decisionmaking power in the 
hands of Washington bureaucrats has been one of the strong motivating 
factors during my time in this body, as I am sure that it has been for 
many of my colleagues in the Western States.
  While this concentration is certainly a topic that should be 
addressed by the authorizing committees, I believe that we can and 
should take an important step here today.
  A recent prominent example demonstrating the need for this amendment 
is the administration's draft proclamation to establish the Basin and 
Range National Monument on more than 700,000 acres of land in Lincoln 
and Nye Counties in my district.
  Not only is the sheer size of the proposed monument staggering, being 
nearly as large as many of the Eastern States, it also poses some 
significant risks, both local and national in scope.
  Nevada's economy was one of the hardest hit by the Great Recession, 
and far too many in our State are still struggling to get by. Nevada's 
rural county economies are particularly sensitive, and any decision 
that restricts ranching, recreation, and types of land use activities 
should have much of the local input as possible.
  Earlier this year I spoke on the floor of the House about the 
national security implications of designating the Basin and Range, 
given that most of the acreage in the proposed monument falls directly 
under the airspace of the Nevada Test and Training Range, one of the 
most heavily used military operating areas, or MOAs, in the United 
States. Establishing this monument could drastically impair vital 
ground-based training activities tied to the NTTR.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, in my home State of Arizona, a few special 
interest groups have been pushing the President to unilaterally 
designate a massive new 1.7-million-acre national monument in the Grand 
Canyon watershed.
  Twenty-six Members of Congress have joined me in opposing this 
misguided effort, and there is significant local opposition.
  Here is a sample of those resolutions, and I would like to share a 
few of their comments here:
  ``The creation of a national monument by Presidential declaration 
does not allow for input from local communities . . . and could result 
in negative impacts for . . . grazing, hunting, water development and 
forest restoration . . . which would result in negative economic and 
public health impacts to the City of Williams.
  ``The Arizona Game and Fish Commission is concerned that the 
potential monument . . . 'will impede proactive and effective 
management of wildlife populations and habitats . . . and may result in 
reduced hunter opportunities and loss of revenues that directly support 
conservation and local communities.'''
  I could provide several more examples but will stop there.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I now ask how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HARDY. I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this Antiquities Act was passed 
over a century ago in 1906, when four States weren't even in the Union 
at that time. They were still territories.
  There are absolutely no environmental laws that we had at that 
particular time protecting anything. Yet, this act was not used by 
every President. In fact, most Presidents never used it. Ronald Reagan 
never used it. Most Presidents only used it one time.
  It was changed, starting with the Jimmy Carter administration, so 
that no longer is this act that was supposed to protect antiquities--
thus, the name the Antiquities Act--used to protect antiquities. It was 
used as a political weapon and abused as a political weapon. The 
saddest part is there is absolutely no input that has to be guaranteed 
by this act.
  In fact, the vast majority of monuments that were created through 
this Antiquities Act, there was no public input whatsoever. Any public 
input that took place was purely by accident, purely by coincidence.
  The people in the counties that are designated in this amendment need 
to have the right to have some input in how land decisions are used 
that area. That is what this amendment does.
  Give them the chance to be heard because, under the present 
Antiquities Act, they are not heard.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would place uncalled-for 
restrictions and undercut any President from using their authority 
under the Antiquities Act to establish a national monument, an 
authority, I should add, that has been available to Presidents for 100 
years.
  The Antiquities Act is an important tool that enables the President 
to protect and strengthen America's heritage. Since Theodore Roosevelt 
first designated the national monument Devil's Tower in Wyoming, 16 
Presidents from both parties have used the Antiquities Act to protect 
more than 160 of America's best known and loved landscapes. Only three 
Presidents have not.
  National monuments tell the story of the American people. Out of 460 
national monuments and national parks, 113 reflect the diverse 
community that makes up our Nation. Nineteen recognize the achievements 
of the Latino community, twenty-six of the African

[[Page 10836]]

American community, and eight for women.
  It should be noted that an important factor in the designation 
process is the First Americans, the Native Americans, their legacy, 
their heritage, and their cultural and historic resources on the land.
  But with the Antiquities Act, the lack of diversity reflected in our 
public units, whether it is parks or national monuments, is changing.
  President Obama has been using the Antiquities Act to diversify the 
story of public lands with new designations such as the Cesar Chavez 
National Monument in Keene, California, which he recently designated.
  Since the beginning of his administration, the President used this 
authority to create national monuments that recognize the contributions 
of Africa Americans and other diverse voices in this country.
  The Center for American Progress published a report that found that 
33 percent of presidential designations are inclusive of the American 
people, compared to only 20 percent of the designations done by 
Congress.
  America's public places are becoming more inclusive, more 
representative of all Americans because of the Antiquities Act. This 
amendment would jeopardize that progress. I urge its defeat.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HARDY. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada has 30 seconds remaining. 
The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me point out some obvious points.
  This amendment, as I said earlier, would undermine conservation of 
public lands and stall efforts to ensure that our public places tell 
the very important diverse story of America and be representative of 
all Americans.
  Development and conservation--to say that this would deny jobs and 
opportunities to particular regions is not true.
  Over 9 million acres are available right now under energy leases from 
the Obama administration compared to--those were added to it--only 4.1 
million acres that are now land that is protected.
  Since its enactment in 1906, 16 Presidents have used it. 160 of 
America's best known landscapes have been preserved. National monuments 
designated under the Antiquities Act are comprised of existing Federal 
lands only. No new lands are added to the Federal estate by these 
designations.
  National monument designations have better reflected the complexity--
and Presidents have used that--of our Nation, ensuring that the voices 
of a changing and diverse community, which is this country, is told as 
we change and as we go forward.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote. Undercutting an authority that existed 
for 100 years that has brought benefit to the Nation, enhanced the 
cultural, historic, and conservation ethics of this Nation should be 
preserved.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote amendment. It is unneeded, 
restrictive, and goes against a tradition and an authority that has 
existed in this country for 100 years.
  I hope this effort is not about who is President at this time, but it 
is an authority that has been with us for 100 years.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to reiterate 
to my colleagues that voting for this amendment is a vote for 
empowering the communities and the local stakeholders most affected by 
the monument designations.
  Doing so will increase transparency, allow local input, and provide 
improved management of our public lands. It will fulfill the 
responsibility to ensure these communities have a legitimate voice in 
the process.
  I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Hardy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. 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 by the Department of the Interior, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, or any other Federal agency to lease or 
     purchase new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet, or 
     for an agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with 
     Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet Performance, dated May 
     24, 2011.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a 
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that required that all new 
light-duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternative fuel 
vehicles, such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel by December 
31, 2015.
  My amendment echoes the President's memorandum by prohibiting funds 
in this act from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty 
vehicles unless that purchase is made in accord with the President's 
memorandum.
  I have submitted identical amendments to 18 different appropriations 
bills over the past few years, and every time they have been accepted 
by both the majority and the minority. I hope my amendment will receive 
similar support today.
  Global oil prices are down. We no longer pay $147 per barrel. But 
despite increased production here in the United States, the global 
price of oil is still largely determined by OPEC.
  Spikes in oil prices have profound repercussions for our economy. The 
primary reason is that our cars and trucks run only on petroleum.

                              {time}  2015

  We can change that with alternative technologies that exist today. 
The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty 
vehicles in America, over 633,000 vehicles. Almost 35,000 of these 
vehicles are within the jurisdiction of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they 
diversified their fuel use. People there can drive to a gas station and 
choose whether to fill their vehicle with gasoline or with ethanol. 
They make their choice based on cost or whatever criteria they deem 
important.
  I want the same choice for American consumers. That is why I am also 
proposing a bill this Congress, a bipartisan bill, as I have done many 
times in the past, which will provide for cars built in America to be 
able to run on a fuel instead of or in addition to gasoline. It is 
virtually very inexpensive, under $100 per car; and if they do it in 
Brazil, we can do it here.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, expanding the role these alternative 
technologies play in our transportation economy will help break the 
leverage that foreign government controlled oil companies hold over 
Americans. It will increase our Nation's domestic security and protect 
consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support the Engel amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

  Mr. BYRNE. 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 propose or develop legislation to redirect funds 
     allocated

[[Page 10837]]

     under section 105(a)(2)(A) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my straightforward amendment would prohibit 
any effort to redirect funds allocated under the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act, also referred to as GOMESA.
  GOMESA was passed in 2006 and created a revenue sharing agreement for 
offshore oil revenue between the Federal Government and four States in 
the Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and my home State of 
Alabama.
  Under GOMESA, 37.5 percent of the revenues generated from selected 
oil and gas lease sales in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of 
Mexico is returned to these Gulf States. There is a reason the law was 
structured this way.
  These Gulf States not only provide the lion's share of the 
infrastructure and workforce for the industry in the Gulf of Mexico; we 
also have inherent environmental and economic risks. The BP oil spill 5 
years ago should tell us all what that means.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, in his budget proposal this year, 
President Obama has recommended that the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, under the Department of the Interior, redirect the 
distribution of expanded revenue payments expected to start in 2018 for 
the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas leases away from the Gulf Coast and 
instead be spent all around the country.
  Not only does this proposal directly contradict the current Federal 
statute, it vastly undermines the purpose of the law, to keep revenues 
from these lease sales in the States that supply the workforce and have 
the inherent risk of a potential environmental and economic disaster.
  My amendment today is simple, to protect the clearly defined statute 
and prevent the President from using these revenue sharing agreements 
as a slush fund for politically driven environmental projects across 
the country.
  Regardless of whether you are from a Gulf Coast State or not, I would 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important amendment to 
protect the rule of law to support our coastal communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
would urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to express a 
few concerns.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment is an overreaction to a 
policy proposal in the administration's--in the administration's--2016 
budget request.
  The President's budget requested to propose to direct funds currently 
allocated to payments to States and shift them more towards Federal 
programs that serve the Nation more broadly.
  Now, this is a proposal that the President suggested in his budget, 
and it wasn't included in this bill because the Appropriations 
Committee just flat out rejected it. This is an appropriations process. 
That is what it is. It is a process.
  The administration submitted a proposal. The committee evaluated it. 
It had the power to accept it or reject it. The proposal lay with the 
committee as to what to do. As I said, the committee rejected it.
  This amendment would unnecessarily stifle any proposals to amend 
current formula, which is unnecessary because Congress would need to 
enact legislation before any changes could be made to the formula.
  The Department of the Interior doesn't have the authority to change 
the formula through rulemaking or other administrative action. 
Basically, this amendment would prohibit the Department from even 
suggesting an idea for Congress to consider.
  I just wanted to claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chair, just to say 
I really think this amendment--although it appears that the majority is 
going to take it and I am not going to ask for a vote or anything on 
it--is just really, in my opinion, political overreach.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I wish that these sorts of amendments were 
unnecessary, but the way this administration plays fast and loose with 
its interpretation of the law, particularly through these 
administrative agencies, I am afraid it is necessary to protect a law 
passed by this Congress in 2006 in recognition of the inherent risk 
that these four Gulf States have produced so much energy for this 
country have, and without it, we will have an agency that will take the 
laws that exist--even this appropriations bill--and interpret it the 
way they want to, and this amendment makes it very clear they can't do 
that, that these four coastal States will retain control over these 
moneys as it was enacted by this Congress in 2006.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlewoman's point of view. I wish it 
were unnecessary, but given the behavior of this administration through 
these administrative agencies, I am afraid it is necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for the Members to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. 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 enter into a contract with any offeror or any of 
     its principals if the offeror certifies, pursuant to the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of 
     its principals--
       (1) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 
     (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation 
     of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the 
     submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, 
     forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, 
     making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal 
     criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
       (2) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1); or
       (3) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment is identical to other 
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every 
appropriations bill considered under an open rule during the 113th and 
114th Congresses.
  My amendment expands the list of parties with whom the Federal 
Government is prohibited from contracting due to serious misconduct on 
the part of the contractor.
  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. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Zinke

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


[[Page 10838]]

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

      limitation on use of funds with respect to valuation of coal

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce subparts F and J 
     of part 1206 of the proposed rule by the Department of the 
     Interior entitled ``Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and 
     Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform'' and dated January 6, 
     2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 608).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Montana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of economic 
opportunity for local communities across the Nation.
  In my home State of Montana, the Crow Nation suffers from 
unemployment rates as high as 50 percent, despite having over $1 
billion in coal reserves. Similar situations play out in communities 
across America. This administration has waged a war against coal. In 
the words of Crow Chairman Old Coyote: ``A war on coal is a war on the 
Crow people.''
  Republicans and Democrats agree; we all want clean air and water and 
affordable power. Thankfully, advances in technology have made it 
possible to have both, making it possible to use our vast resources of 
clean coal to power American homes and manufacturers and put Americans 
back to work. We can't power the American economy on pixie dust and 
hope; it takes innovation and investment in areas like clean coal.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this administration is fighting a more 
aggressive war against American coal than they are against ISIS. We all 
know of countless attempts to kill coal with regulations, cap-and-
trade, and carbon taxes.
  Now, the most recent attempt is by the Department of the Interior. 
The DOI is planning to change how coal on Federal lands and 
reservations is valued, creating an unpredictable and unstable market 
that threatens the livelihoods of our local communities and tribes.
  When oil, gas, and coal resources are sold, local communities receive 
tax revenues and royalties to help fund everything from education to 
infrastructure. However, this administration's one-size-fits-all plan 
puts funding in jeopardy; places heavier burdens on States and local 
governments; and also stifles innovation, investment, and job creation.
  The national labor participation is the lowest it has been in the 
past 30 years. Wages are stagnant; the cost of living is going up, and 
energy prices for home heating and manufacturing are skyrocketing. Our 
communities simply can't afford another Federal assault on our economy.
  These jobs are real, Mr. Chairman. I have been to the Rosebud Mine in 
Colstrip where union jobs earn their paychecks to provide for their 
families. This is not just a couple hundred jobs in Montana. There are 
thousands more like them in Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, and beyond.
  Whether the coal is mined in Montana or turned into electricity to 
build cars in Michigan, coal is a critical part of our American 
economy. Again, I am reminded of the words of Chairman Old Coyote: 
``For the Crow people, there are no jobs that compare to a coal job--
the wages and benefits exceed anything else that is available.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for 
American workers and American jobs by supporting my amendment to block 
funding for the Obama administration to continue their war on coal.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
urge the adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
  It is a good amendment.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment which would deny the American public, especially Native 
Americans, a fair return for the use of their coal resources.
  The current coal valuation regulations have been in effect since 
1989. A lot has happened in the intervening 26 years since these 
regulations were last updated. It has now been nearly 3 years since it 
was first reported that coal companies were skirting Federal royalty 
payments by selling coal to sister companies in order to value exported 
coal at low domestic prices rather than the much higher prices these 
sister companies were selling the exported coal for in overseas 
markets.
  Now, while there has been a boom for Western coal companies, it has 
meant the Federal Government and Western States--where we share 50-50 
of the royalties--have forgone hundreds of millions of dollars that are 
rightly due the American people.
  These coal royalty valuations especially hurt Native Americans who 
depend on these royalties for their income. The proposed regulations 
were a response to States such as Wyoming pleading with the Department 
of the Interior: Do not allow coal producers to create affiliates to 
reduce the royalties paid.
  This amendment offers Members a stark contrast. Do they want to side 
with the coal industry which has been gaming the existing royalty 
system? Or do they stand with the American public, especially Native 
Americans, in seeing that coal is fairly priced and that the royalties 
due Western States, tribes, and the Federal Government are paid?
  I, for one, will stand with the American people and especially my 
Native American brothers and sisters to make sure that they are treated 
fairly.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Montana for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, current Federal coal valuation rules have provided 
stable and significant royalty revenue to State, tribal, and Federal 
governments. Despite this tract record, the Department of the Interior 
has carelessly proposed to modify the valuation of Federal and Indian 
coal by granting the Office of Natural Resources Revenue new authority 
to deem sales, potentially disallow costs, and use the default rule to 
assert arbitrary values for royalty purposes.
  These broad new authorities come without clear or transparent 
guidelines for regulators and regulated parties alike, setting the 
stage for inconsistent valuation and protracted litigation. 
Furthermore, the arbitrary regulatory environment created by this rule 
could jeopardize affordable and reliable energy production, American 
jobs, and crucial revenue for State, Federal, and tribal governments.
  For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment and to stop funding for this new rule until the Department of 
the Interior can demonstrate the need, if there is any--and I am 
skeptical--to radically alter the way royalties are accessed on Federal 
coal.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, as the sole Representative of the great 
State of Montana, I do represent, and am proud to represent, the Crows, 
the Northern Cheyenne, the Assiniboine Sioux, and our American Indian 
tribes and great nations and understand the value of having a 
prosperous economy.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like the support of all Members.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat, it has now been nearly 
3 years since it was first reported. Coal companies were skirting 
Federal royalty payments by selling coal to sister

[[Page 10839]]

companies in order to value exported coal at low domestic prices rather 
than the much higher prices these sister companies were selling the 
exported coal for in overseas markets.
  It is our job--it is our job--to see that coal is fairly priced and 
that the royalties due to Western States, tribes, and the Federal 
Government are paid.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. 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 Montana will 
be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Norcross

  Mr. NORCROSS. 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:

                       revision of dollar amounts

       Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Department of the Interior--Office of the Secretary--
     Departmental Operations'' for payments in lieu of taxes under 
     chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code, and increasing 
     the aggregate amount made available for ``Environmental 
     Protection Agency--Hazardous Substance Superfund'', by 
     $22,884,840.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from New Jersey and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is a very simple amendment that would increase funding for the 
Superfund with the intention the money go specifically to the cleanup 
program account. Superfund cleanup is right for the environment and 
certainly right for the U.S. economy, which is right for the U.S.
  I come from New Jersey, the Garden State. We have great tomatoes, 
corn, and it is blueberry season. But what we also have, particularly 
in the southern half of the State, is a history of heavy industry.
  New Jersey found out the hard way that you just can't take those 
resources after they are finished and dump them into the backyard. We 
have more than 200 sites in New Jersey listed as being in serious 
violation of at least one of four Federal environmental laws. The 
company offenders, they are gone, and left the constituents, my 
constituents, holding the bags.
  My predecessor, Representative Jim Florio, back in the early 
eighties, was the author of the Superfund bill. He had the vision of 
what we have to do to protect our citizens.
  I just want to tell a quick story, two of them.
  The first one is one site, $1 billion, and it is about a quarter of a 
mile from where I live. It is the Welsbach & General Gas Mantle in 
Gloucester City, New Jersey. As part of that process of making gas 
mantles almost a half century ago, radium, the substance that was used 
to make it glow brighter, was dumped throughout the city. This material 
is now sitting there. Radium has a half-life of 1,600 years--1,600 
years. The process started in 1996, and it is about two-thirds 
finished. There is no company to go back to.
  The second story is Sherwin Williams in Gibbsboro, which was a 
gorgeous spot. But as we all know, years ago, that lead paint is now in 
the water system and impacting that area horribly. The site includes 
Kirkwood Lake. The soil under the lake is contaminated. They can't use 
the lake.
  These are two very simple stories. I have 15 Superfund sites in my 
district--15.
  It is our responsibility to protect our citizens. There are no 
companies to go back to. That is why I offer this simple amendment. The 
damage is already done, and we must continue to protect our citizens by 
funding this amendment correctly.
  I want to thank the chairman, with the understanding that this 
amendment will be ruled out of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment with 
the hope that we continue to work on this important issue in a very 
bipartisan way to protect our citizens.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Jolly

  Mr. JOLLY. 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 research, investigate, or study offshore drilling 
     in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area.

  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. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As a nation, we continually strive to achieve both energy 
independence, as well as protect the environment, our critical 
habitats, and the quality of life in communities like Pinellas County, 
Florida, that I have the opportunity to represent.
  One way we strike that balance is represented in how we currently 
manage the Gulf of Mexico when it comes to oil drilling. Under a 2006 
act, we allow for drilling exploration in the central and western Gulf 
off the coast of Texas and Louisiana and other States, but we have a 
ban that protects the State of Florida. That ban currently protects the 
State of Florida with a drilling ban of about 125 miles or, in some 
cases, 235 miles.
  This ban has been in place for 32 years through the operations of the 
Appropriations Committee. And while the current statute allows for the 
ban through 2022, year after year, those on the other side of this 
debate, very respectfully, attempt to erode that ban.
  The truth is we don't need any additional drilling in the eastern 
Gulf of Florida to achieve energy independence. There are nearly 1,000 
active leaseholds in the central and western Gulf. There are probably 
nearly 3,000 more available. And to change the ban is just something 
that we don't need.
  This amendment is very simple. It says none of the funds may be used 
to study, prepare for, research, investigate any increased offshore oil 
drilling in the eastern Gulf contemplating the expiration of a ban in 
2022.
  I am pleased to be joined in offering this amendment by my colleague 
from Bonita Springs, Mr. Clawson; my colleague from Tallahassee, Ms. 
Graham; and my colleague from Jupiter, Mr. Murphy.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as in the case of a number of offshore-
related amendments that we will deal with today, the Interior 
Appropriations bill is not the appropriate venue, though I do 
understand it has been used in the past.
  I understand this amendment dovetails with the current congressional 
moratorium, and the Department of the Interior has no intention of 
acting in a manner that is contrary to congressional intent. The 
Department is focused on the next 5-year oil and gas leasing plan, 
which is limited to 2017-2022, so many departmental activities in 
fiscal year 2016 are already limited

[[Page 10840]]

in scope through 2022. If my colleagues wish to see the moratorium 
extended beyond 2022, then they should work with the appropriate 
authorizing committees.
  With that, I would oppose the amendment, and urge a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's understanding of 
the interest of those in the State of Florida and the current debate 
currently from those on the other side that wish to actually lift the 
ban. It is important that, as a delegation, we have the opportunity to 
have this debate.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson), my 
colleague from Bonita Springs.
  Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I start by thanking 
Representative Jolly for his leadership and persistence on this issue--
it is so important to my district--and to the chairman for allowing 
disagreement. Disagreement allows learning, and we appreciate your 
leadership in this regard.
  I speak in full support of Representative Jolly's amendment. I base 
my support on the enormous all-time high, proven reserves elsewhere in 
our country and a conviction that we can focus in areas other than the 
Gulf.
  The private sector definitely needs cheap oil, and our businesses, 
our manufacturing companies, cannot be successful without low energy 
prices. I know it, because I lived it.
  But let's drill where drilling makes sense. And to us, it doesn't 
make sense to drill in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The recent BP 
settlement, the highest such settlement ever, is evidence that the 
economic and environmental risk of drilling in the Gulf greatly offset 
any potential returns.
  For those of us who live, work, or have business in the Gulf, we were 
told that an oil disaster could never happen, and then it happened. 
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
  I say it is not worth the risk. I say let's do everything we can to 
never have more drilling in the eastern Gulf.
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that, again, I am in 
reluctant opposition to this amendment. This should be dealt with in 
the authorizing committees.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I would close by offering my colleagues 
there is authorizing legislation that would extend the ban past the 
year 2022.
  This language simply says a ban is a ban is a ban. And while there is 
a ban on activities on drilling and the like, this simply says that no 
planning may occur for post-2022 drilling.
  With that, I would urge a ``yea'' vote, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in 
     contravention of Executive Order 13693.

  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.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I think I will start this discussion 
with the words of a rather influential individual: Pope Francis. In his 
recent encyclical, he wrote: ``If present trends continue, this century 
may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented 
destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.'' 
That is Pope Francis.
  In this legislation, the appropriation bill, there are numerous 
efforts to deny the reality of climate change. And, specifically, what 
I want to deal with on this amendment is Executive Order No. 13693: 
Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.
  The intention of this amendment is to support the Federal 
Government's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent 
over the next decade relative to 2008.
  This bill will save taxpayers money--about $18 billion--in avoided 
energy costs, and it will increase the share of electricity the Federal 
Government consumes from renewable resources by up to 30 percent. 
Twenty-six million metric tons of greenhouse gases would be eliminated.
  So why in the face of all of the scientific evidence and why in the 
face of the reality that the climate is, indeed, changing, when we have 
throughout the State of California and around the Nation local 
governments planning for the eventually, not the reality, of higher sea 
levels, would we put forth a bill that would prohibit the Federal 
Government from planning for climate change?
  Let me just cite some of the ways in which the current legislation, 
this proposal, deals with it:
  It prohibits Federal funds for any rulemaking or guidance with regard 
to the social cost of climate change.
  It prohibits the EPA from limiting carbon pollution from new and 
renovated power plants, and there has been much discussion about that 
on the floor today.
  It prohibits the funding to update and revise the EPA's ozone 
standards.
  It prohibits the funding for any change to the status of HFCs. These 
are fluorocarbons.
  It also prohibits the reporting detailing the Federal funding for 
domestic and international climate change programs. This is denial, 
denial, denial about what is really happening.
  My amendment would simply say that there is no money to carry out 
these provisions in the current bill. It is really time for all of us 
here to recognize that there is a serious challenge, and it is one that 
Pope Francis points out so clearly.
  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, climate change is winning the amendment 
contest tonight. We have had a number of amendments on that subject.
  Earlier we debated whether or not to continue a bipartisan reporting 
requirement in the bill on climate change expenditures.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted to remove that 
requirement, which would have reduced transparency. Now my friend 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 
the funds are spent on these programs or not.
  Regardless, this amendment is certainly unnecessary. The President 
did not consult Congress on these executive orders. If anything, we 
should defund these 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.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the executive order by the President is 
very straightforward. It basically says that the Federal Government 
shall reduce greenhouse gases, and he is using his appropriate 
authority as the administrative agent of our government to find ways to 
do that.
  Certain goals are set in the executive order, for example, reducing 
greenhouse gases by 40 percent over the next decade. What could be 
wrong with that when you save $18 billion in the process and create 
more opportunities for renewable energy by up to 30 percent?
  Why would we pass a bill in this appropriation bill that would go in 
exactly the opposite direction, one that would actually create greater 
greenhouse gases and lead more directly and more imminently to the 
climate crisis?
  I fail to understand why we would want to take up a piece of 
legislation

[[Page 10841]]

that has so many provisions in it that deny the reality of climate 
change, that puts this government on the course to spend more money on 
programs that actually create a crisis that will be extraordinarily 
expensive.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, which would maintain the 
President's executive order and keep America on a path that all the 
world should carry out.
  Pay attention to what Pope Francis said: ``If present trends 
continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change 
and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious 
consequences for all of us.''
  This is not something we should deny. This is something we should, in 
fact, pay attention to, and we ought to be able to maintain the 
President's executive order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the President did make his unilateral 
determination in an executive order. We have an opportunity to vote 
``no'' on this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' 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. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Crawford

  Mr. CRAWFORD. 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 by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to enforce the requirements of part 112 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to any farm (as 
     that term is defined in section 112.2 of such title).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Arkansas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in defense of 
agricultural producers across our Nation who are facing the heavy hand 
of EPA regulations.
  The EPA's Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule for on-
farm fuel storage requires farmers and ranchers to make costly 
infrastructure improvements to their oil storage facilities to reduce 
the possibility of an oil spill.
  These regulations fail to take into account the relative risk of oil 
spills on farms, and they do not factor in the simple fact that family 
farmers are already careful stewards of our land and water. No one has 
more at stake in the health of their land than those who work on the 
ground from which they derive their livelihoods.
  The USDA itself discovered little evidence of oil spills on farms and 
determined in a recent study that more than 99 percent of farmers have 
never experienced a spill.
  To require that all of our producers make a significant investment to 
prevent such an unlikely event seems out of touch with reality and 
disregards the already overwhelming number of safeguards our farmers 
already employ.
  My amendment would restrict the EPA's ability to enforce SPCC 
regulations on farms so that farmers and ranchers can go about their 
business of producing food and fiber without having to worry about 
unnecessary compliance costs and red tape.
  On three separate occasions, the House unanimously passed my 
bipartisan legislation, the FUELS Act, which rolled back these same 
SPCC regulations on farms. I urge my colleagues to again support our 
farmers and ranchers by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the adoption of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 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 would stop the EPA from 
requiring farms to submit a plan on how they will prevent oil from 
entering navigable waters.
  I come from Minnesota; so, this seems like a pretty commonsense 
requirement to me. If a facility has large amounts of oil, it should 
tell the agency responsible for an inland oil spill cleanup how it will 
prevent an environmental disaster.
  Why shouldn't the holder of gallons of oil have a plan even if it is 
an agriculture business? It should have a plan. And there are criteria 
to make sure that a facility truly should be subject to the Spill 
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule.
  It has to meet three criteria. It must be nontransported. It must 
have an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 
gallons or a completely buried storage capacity greater than 42,000 
gallons. We are talking about a lot of oil.
  The third point is that there must be a reasonable expectation that, 
if something were to go wrong and if there were a discharge, it would 
go into navigable waters of the United States or of adjoining 
shorelines.
  In other words, if there is an accident and if there is water nearby, 
you would need to have a plan in place so that not only would oil not 
seep in and ruin your land, but that it would not flow into waters past 
the boundaries of your water and just keep polluting.
  The preparation of the SPCC plan is the responsibility of a facility 
owner or operator or it can be prepared by an engineer or a consultant, 
but it must be certified by a registered professional engineer.
  Let's just think about it. You have 42,000 gallons of oil stored 
underground, and you have 1,320 gallons of oil above. All this does is 
say you need to have an emergency plan if, when that accident would 
occur--and it can occur--there would be the possibility of having that 
oil go into navigable waters and spread onto other property owners' 
land or State land or Federal land.
  I think these sound like reasonable requirements. It is a small step 
to help work with the farmer to prevent an environmental disaster that 
would most likely end up being cleaned up with taxpayers' funds.
  I always think you should hope for the best, but you always need to 
have a plan just in case something goes wrong. This rule requirement 
makes sure that these facilities that meet these criteria have a plan 
in place.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Jeffries

  Mr. JEFFRIES. 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

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available to the National 
     Park Service by this Act may be used for the purchase or 
     display of a confederate flag with the exception of specific 
     circumstances where the flags provide historical context as 
     described in the National Park Service memorandum entitled 
     ``Immediate Action Required, No Reply Needed: Confederate 
     Flags'' and dated June 24, 2015.

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

[[Page 10842]]


  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the use of 
funds made available to the National Park Service by this Act for the 
purchase or display of a Confederate flag with the exception of 
specific circumstances when such flags provide historical context as 
set forth by the National Park Service in their memo to all park 
superintendents, dated June 24, 2015.

                              {time}  2100

  The National Park Service has jurisdiction over operation of the 
National Park System, associated sites such as national heritage areas, 
and various State grant accounts.
  In light of recent events, the display of the Confederate flag has 
been at the forefront of discussion throughout our Nation. This 
amendment is consistent with a bipartisan effort across the country to 
promote harmony and not division in this great Nation.
  On June 17, we were all shocked by the heinous massacre that took the 
lives of nine God-fearing African American churchgoers in Charleston, 
South Carolina. This act of domestic terror was carried out by an 
individual who idolized the Confederate flag and harbored racist 
beliefs, calling for a return to the human subjugation of others on the 
basis of race.
  Unfortunately, that same Confederate flag flew on the grounds of the 
State capitol amidst the funeral of a State senator and dedicated 
pastor who taught that we are all God's children at the historic 
Emanuel AME Church.
  We have come a long way in America, but we still have a long way to 
go in our march toward a more perfect Union. The cancer of racial 
hatred continues to adversely impact our society, and people of good 
will must unite to eradicate it. Limiting the use of Federal funds 
connected to the purchase or display of the Confederate flag is an 
important step in that direction.
  Earlier today, lawmakers in South Carolina from both sides of the 
aisle came together to support removing the Confederate battle flag 
from their State capitol grounds. This evening, the United States House 
of Representatives has the opportunity to further limit the public 
display of this divisive symbol that is so closely associated with 
defense of the institution of slavery.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their consideration. 
For the aforementioned reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy that this opportunity has 
been presented for us to have a discussion on the House floor and the 
National Park Service doing the right thing about the removal of this 
symbol of what has become racist hate speech.
  I thank the gentleman for bringing forward the amendment, and I rise 
in support of it.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                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:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to propose, 
     finalize, implement, or revise any regulation in which the 
     research data relied on to support such action is subject to 
     OMB Circular A-110 and is withheld in contravention of the 
     Freedom of Information Act as prescribed under OMB Circular 
     A-110 or if the Science Advisory Board of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency fails to provide scientific advice as may 
     be requested on such regulation to the Congress in 
     contravention of section 4365 of title 42, United States 
     Code.

  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, this amendment reflects the core 
principles of two bills passed by the House earlier this year with 
bipartisan support. They are H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board 
Reform Act, and H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act.
  I am pleased to be joined by the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology's former Subcommittee on Environment chairman, 
Representative David Schweikert, who sponsored the original version of 
the Secret Science bill in 2014.
  The amendment simply requires the Environmental Protection Agency to 
base its regulations on publicly available data that can be verified. 
Why would the administration want to hide this information from the 
American people? We must make sure that Federal regulations are based 
on science that is available for independent review.
  Many Americans are unaware that some of the EPA's most expensive and 
burdensome regulations, such as its proposed climate and ozone rules, 
are based on underlying data that not even the EPA has seen.
  This amendment ensures that the decisions that affect every American 
are based on independently verified, unbiased, scientific research 
instead of on secret data that is hidden from the American people. That 
is called the scientific method.
  This amendment also ensures that the EPA Science Advisory Board is 
able to provide meaningful, balanced, and independent assessments of 
the science behind the EPA regulations. The EPA frequently undermines 
the SAB's independence and prevents it from being able to provide 
advice to Congress. As a result, the valuable advice these experts can 
provide is often ignored or silenced.
  The public's right to know must be protected in a democracy. This 
amendment ensures that happens. The EPA has a responsibility to be open 
and transparent with the people it serves and whose money it uses.
  Anyone who supports government transparency and accountability should 
be able to support this amendment. It helps EPA and the Obama 
administration keep their promise to be open and honest with the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert), the Appropriations subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman. I certainly rise in 
support of this amendment. Having chaired that subcommittee for 6 years 
and knowing the good work of that subcommittee, I think the intent of 
the language aligns with the two authorizing bills passed by the House 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology earlier this year. I 
certainly voted for them both times.
  I think it is a good amendment, so I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his 
comments. I very much appreciate his support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to stop 
the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations through 
two different mechanisms.
  The first one would prevent the EPA from issuing regulations if 
supporting research data is withheld under the Freedom of Information 
Act.
  Second, it would withhold regulations if the Agency's Science 
Advisory Board does not provide the requested advice and information to 
Congress.
  I would just like to take a moment to address each one of these 
issues fully. Last year, for example, the EPA received 10,500 FOIA 
requests--Freedom of Information requests--or an average of 40 per 
workday.
  These requests required nearly $11 million--$11 million--in personnel 
costs to process; yet the EPA receives less than $1 million to collect 
fees for these requests. They get $11 million in personnel costs to 
process; yet they get

[[Page 10843]]

less than $1 million to collect the fees for these requests. You can 
simply do the math.
  There are only nine allowable exemptions under the law that would 
prevent the EPA from complying with FOIA requests in the first place. 
These exemptions range from classified national defense, foreign 
relations information, to confidential business information and matters 
of personal privacy, things which we discuss in this room all the time.
  The amendment is simply another attempt to stop the EPA from issuing 
regulations, many of which are required by law and are designed to 
improve human health and the environment.
  Now, that was in regards to the first point about EPA issuing 
regulations on the Freedom of Information Act, lack of funding 
available to do it, and then they are following the laws with the nine 
exemptions.
  Now, with regard to the Science Advisory Board, let me remind my 
colleagues that these boards are comprised of nearly four dozen experts 
from academia. For example, there are academics from the University of 
Texas Health Science Center in Houston, Texas; the Environmental 
Systems and Research Institute in Redlands, California; and from the 
University of Minnesota, my home State.
  Now, in my opinion, it is very disingenuous to suggest that this 
Advisory Board's subject matter of experts would withhold information 
to Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which 
simply puts two more roadblocks in the EPA regulations.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds simply to 
point out that this amendment does not prevent the EPA from issuing any 
regulations.
  In fact, it doesn't take a position on regulations. It simply says 
that the underlying data that the EPA is using to justify regulations 
needs to be made public. I don't know who could oppose transparency and 
honesty by this administration.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who as I mentioned a while 
ago is a former chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee 
on Science, Space, and Technology and is now a member of the Committee 
on Financial Services.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire into the remaining time 
on our side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, in this 45 seconds, I want to walk through 
a couple mechanical things really quickly. First off, this amendment is 
based on the OMB's circular that actually said this data is supposed to 
be public.
  Number two, the release of data, if you are making rules, does not 
pre-assume that the reg is too tough, too little, too soft. What it 
means is, if you are going to be doing public policy--public policy--
doesn't the public deserve access to public data because there is lots 
of smart people out there on the left and the right or just academia 
that should have this information, this raw data, to decide are we 
doing it the most rational, the most powerful way?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again reiterate 
there are only nine allowable exemptions under this law that would 
prevent the EPA from complying with FOIA requests.
  These exemptions range from classified national defense, foreign 
relations information, confidential business information, and matters 
of personal privacy.
  Once again, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
which simply works to put roadblocks in front of the EPA ever being 
able to issue a regulation.
  Mr. Chairman, 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.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier

  Ms. SPEIER. 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

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final rule 
     following the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 
     the Dog Management Plan (Plan/SEIS), Golden Gate National 
     Recreation Area (GGNRA), California (78 Fed. Reg. 55094; 
     September 9, 2013).

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman from California and 
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

                              {time}  2115

  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, ``Ruff.'' That is what my dog Buddy says 
when he wants to go out for a walk, and that is what dogs throughout 
the bay area have been accustomed to doing in the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area for decades.
  I, like them, believe that the GGNRA should be able to afford the 
opportunity for people to recreate, whether one wants to watch a bird, 
ride a horse, walk a path, or climb a hill. Some of these uses are 
incompatible, but that doesn't mean we should ban them. That means that 
we should create opportunity for all.
  In San Mateo County, in my district, the GGNRA is proposing zero off-
leash dog areas, closing down one site that has been in operation for 
over many decades.
  For 40 years, people and their dogs have been welcome at the beaches 
and trails of the GGNRA, which compromises 80,000 acres across San 
Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo Counties. This public land provides 
much-needed recreational space in the densely populated bay area.
  Today, that access is at risk. The National Park Service is trying to 
dramatically change how it manages recreational areas in the bay area 
by turning the majority of open space in the GGNRA into what are called 
controlled zones, where visitor access and activities could be highly 
restricted. Public use could be denied for longstanding activities in 
the GGNRA, like hiking, surfing, bike riding, horseback riding, and dog 
walking.
  The bay area is densely populated, and open space is precious. For 
many, the GGNRA is the only option for time outdoors.
  My amendment would slow the National Park Service's regulatory 
overreach and ensure that people in the bay area continue to have 
recreational access to these urban parks.
  People and nature aren't incompatible. We can be good stewards and 
also allow those in the GGNRA to have access to this very beautiful 
area.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair will rule.

[[Page 10844]]

  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination as to whether a rule ``follows'' a specified 
Environmental Impact Statement.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Rice of South Carolina

  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. 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 for offshore oil and gas leasing

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to issue any oil and gas lease under the 2017-2022 
     Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program unless 
     the Secretary of the Interior has entered into revenue 
     sharing agreement with each affected State.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from South Carolina 
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my amendment withholds 
funding for permitting of offshore oil exploration until the Secretary 
of the Interior reaches revenue-sharing agreements with coastal States.
  The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's 2017-2022 Outer Continental 
Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program opens the mid- and south Atlantic 
regions to oil and gas development after several decades of being off-
limits.
  While advanced drilling techniques and spill response have made 
environmentally safe access to oil and gas reserves in the Atlantic 
possible, coastal States should consider and prepare for impacts that 
offshore energy development present.
  Sharing of revenues with coastal States will help address the risk 
and responsibilities that States and coastal counties assume with 
offshore energy development. These revenues would help State 
governments expand coastal management and conservation, build necessary 
infrastructure, fund emergency preparation and response, and expand 
public service to support the influx of new industry and workforce.
  Involving the coastal infrastructure and management will add to the 
overall economic well-being of the coastal communities. Before our 
coastal States agree to share in the burden of offshore drilling, we 
ought to ensure that our coastal States are able to share in the 
economic blessings of such drilling.
  My amendment would prohibit funding for implementation of BOEM's plan 
until the Secretary of the Interior enters into a revenue sharing 
agreement with the States affected.
  While it may not be possible this evening to adopt my amendment for 
coastal States, as we move forward with energy exploration off our 
coastlines, please be mindful of revenue sharing.
  Because I understand my amendment is subject to a point of order, I 
plan to withdraw this amendment. But before I withdraw my amendment, I 
ask for the chairman's consideration to assist in development of 
revenue sharing agreements to compensate the coastal States and help 
them to mitigate risk.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. I would be happy to work with the gentleman in the 
future to see if there is a methodology where we can move your idea 
forward and see if we can't get the Federal Government and States to 
cooperate to their mutual, I think, benefit on this issue.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
chairman's consideration.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


               Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. 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 new section:


           prohibition on transfer of fire preparedness funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to transfer funds made available by this Act for fire 
     preparedness activities to the Wildland Fire Management 
     appropriation for fire suppression activities.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to figure out where to start 
with this, because we are making progress. I guess the purpose of this 
amendment is to give this whole process a swift kick so we can actually 
do something that is absolutely necessary.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee really has it 
correct. And I want to read the language of the appropriations bill, 
which I happen to agree with this evening, but not the result.

       In 7 of the last 10 years, the Forest Service and the 
     Department of the Interior have exceeded their wildland fire 
     suppression budgets despite being fully funded at the 10-year 
     suppression average for such costs.
       Fire seasons have grown longer and more destructive, 
     putting people, communities, and ecosystems at greater risk. 
     Fire borrowing has now become routine rather than 
     extraordinary. Borrowing from nonfire accounts to pay 
     suppression costs results in the Forest Service and 
     Department of the Interior having fewer resources for forest 
     management activities, including hazardous fuels management 
     and other proven efforts, to improve overall forest health 
     and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fires.

  Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee, you have it right. You and your 
committee staff have done the right analysis but haven't completed the 
follow-through to achieve that goal.
  I see our good friend from Idaho standing nearby, and he has a very, 
very fine bill to deal with this. It would basically create two 
separate accounts. Now, understanding the necessity of proper order and 
being out of order, which sometimes I am, I am not proposing that we 
adopt the good gentleman from Idaho's bill in this bill, but I have got 
a different idea. I am going to take this idea from my Republican 
colleagues who have created so many fiscal crises, otherwise known as 
cliffs, to create one.
  Basically, what I am doing here with this amendment is saying you 
can't borrow from other accounts, and when you run out of money, my 
goodness, we have a crisis. We will have to then adopt my good friend 
from Idaho's legislation and solve the problem once and for all.
  So that is what this amendment does. It says you can't borrow from 
other accounts to fight wildfires, which means that we are going to 
have to come to grips with the reality of our funding crisis--where we 
cannot get ahead of the wildland fires, where there is a necessity for 
us to spend money on protecting the forests and forest health, thinning 
and other kinds of things, firebreaks and the like, so we don't just 
burn down all the forests to get around with the proper management. 
This is what you call kicking the issue into gear.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and we 
are on the same page, actually, in ultimately what we want to 
accomplish with this.
  The fact is that we appropriate money--the Interior Subcommittee has 
done it for several years now, and Chairman Calvert has done it in this

[[Page 10845]]

bill--where, under the FLAME Act, we fund the 10-year average of what 
it costs to fight wildfires. Unfortunately, I think it is in 8 of the 
last 10 years we have exceeded that 10-year average. Consequently, when 
money runs out for fighting wildfires, what the Forest Service does is 
borrow that money from other accounts.
  We sometimes complain that the Forest Service doesn't go out and do 
the thinning that is necessary or do the restoration that is necessary 
or do the trail maintenance that is necessary. The reason they can't do 
it is because we have borrowed all the money to fight wildfires, and we 
are trying to prevent that wildfire borrowing.
  It is one thing to try to prevent it in a manner that will address 
the problem and another to just say you just can't borrow, because I 
would hate to be in the situation where we run up against a fire year 
where we are going to exceed the 10-year average, we run out of 
firefighting money, and there is no way to get the resources in order 
to fund the fires that are occurring in the latter part of the year. 
This would put pressure on for Congress to probably do something.
  As you know, there is a challenge with the Budget Committee that we 
have been working with in trying to address this issue.
  There is some language, as I understand it, in the Senate Interior 
bill dealing with the wildfire-fighting costs and how we handle that. 
There is some language in a bill that will be before us I think this 
week, the Healthy Forest bill out of the Resources Committee.
  I think more and more people are starting to realize that we have got 
to address this problem. There is absolutely no reason that wildfires 
should not be treated as other natural disasters are--hurricanes, 
tornadoes, earthquakes, and other things. But for some reason, we treat 
wildfires differently, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
  So we have had various proposals. I have talked with the 
administration, with the Department of the Interior, with the Forest 
Service, and with many other people, trying to come to a resolution on 
this, and there are many people on both the Republican and the 
Democratic side of the aisle that are trying to address this.
  I am hopeful that we are inching ever closer, because you know things 
don't move as quickly as we like oftentimes in Congress. We are moving, 
inching closer, I would hope, to finding the solution to this. There 
are different ideas out there about how to go about doing exactly what 
the gentleman from California, myself, and the chairman all want to do, 
and that is quit the fire borrowing so that the Forest Service can do 
the job that we appropriate the money for them to do.
  Given that this could create some real problems, I appreciate what 
the gentleman is trying to do, but I would have to oppose the 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members not to traffic the 
well.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. My good friend from Idaho has it right. His bill ought 
to become law. And you did find a way to fund it: the same way we fund 
hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and the like--out of FEMA.

                              {time}  2130

  Good bill--by the way, I am a coauthor of it. Thank you very much. 
Only you can prevent forest fires. How many times have we seen Smokey 
the Bear? Congress can help.
  I want to congratulate and I really want to thank my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle because you are in a position to lead on 
this. This amendment is in a position to cause action. That is all it 
is.
  Would we have a disaster? We are going to have a fire disaster; there 
is no doubt about it.
  Would we have a financing disaster? Probably, but we can solve it--we 
can solve it both with legislation, and then we can solve it with a 
piece of legislation moving through this House that would reach back to 
the FEMA money, where we always stack a huge stash of money for the 
eventuality of a disaster. We would reach back and say: Okay. That is 
how we are going to do it going forward.
  I think it is about time for me to yield. I probably don't have much 
more time, but I am kind of stirring the pot here. I am trying to kick 
this into gear, and I am delighted to work with the good language that 
the chairman of the committee has put into the bill.
  Had I the time, I would read, once again, your analysis of the 
problem and also your analysis of the solution. That is found in, this 
year, H.R. 167, a fine piece of legislation by an outstanding gentleman 
from Idaho.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his help on 
trying to get us to a resolution on this. I am sure, working together, 
we can solve this problem eventually.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The amendment was rejected.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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 gray wolves in washington, oregon, 
          and utah as endangered species or threatened species

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Interior or the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service to treat any gray wolf (Canis 
     lupus) in Washington, Oregon, or Utah 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 Washington and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would prohibit the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service from using funds to continue listing the gray wolf 
under the Endangered Species Act in the States of Washington, Oregon, 
and Utah.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious issue of extreme importance to 
my home State of Washington, where the gray wolf is listed in the 
western two-thirds of the State, but is delisted in the eastern third. 
This fragmented listing means that there are no geographic barriers to 
prevent the wolves from traveling between listed and delisted areas, 
posing a risk to people living, farming, and ranching in the region.
  Unfortunately, this issue should already have been settled. In June 
of 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule 
to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened 
wildlife under the Endangered Species Act.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service made this determination after 
evaluating this ``classification status of gray wolves currently listed 
in the contiguous United States'' and found the ``best available 
science and commercial information indicates that the currently listed 
entity is not a valid species under the Act.''
  On June 30 of this year, the Service released its response to a 
petition seeking to reclassify all gray wolves in the U.S. as a 
threatened species under ESA. In its response, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service states that it determined there was not substantial information 
to indicate that such a reclassification was warranted, and as a 
result, the Fish and Wildlife Service will take no further action on 
the petition.
  Furthermore, the statutory purpose of ESA is to recover a species to 
the point where it is no longer considered endangered or threatened. 
The gray wolf is currently found in nearly 50 countries around the 
world, and the wolf specialist group of the International Union for 
Conservation of Nature has placed the species in the category of 
``least concern globally'' for risk of extinction.
  Mr. Chairman, the proposed rule and other examples I have cited 
clearly

[[Page 10846]]

show that a full delisting of the gray wolf is long overdue. Since 
wolves were first placed under ESA, uncontrolled and unmanaged growth 
of gray wolf populations has resulted in devastating impacts on hunting 
and ranching, as well as tragic losses to historically strong and 
healthy livestock and wildlife populations.
  Mr. Chairman, the gray wolf population has grown substantially across 
its range and is now considered to be recovered; therefore, it does not 
merit protection under the Endangered Species Act.
  The Pacific Northwest States are fully qualified to responsibly 
manage their gray wolf populations and are better suited than the 
Federal Government to meet the needs of local communities, ranchers, 
livestock, and wildlife populations.
  My amendment today is simple. It would take steps that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service has already said are necessary and are supported by 
the best available scientific evidence and data. I urge my colleagues 
to support this commonsense amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from eastern 
Washington, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, 
Representative Newhouse, for yielding and for his leadership on this 
important issue.
  Four years ago, when the Federal Government delisted wolves in a 
portion of the Western United States, what was left behind was a 
growing wolf population and a confusing checkerboard of regulations.
  Wolves do not know regulatory boundaries. When a single forest is 
divided between two different management plans, local leaders', 
farmers', and other stakeholders' hands are tied when protecting 
themselves from a wolf threat and often face unnecessary repercussions.
  Washington State proposed a wolf conservation and management plan, 
but is unable to fully implement it with Federal protections lingering 
in the western two-thirds of the State.
  Our local leaders can manage the resources and wildlife in our State 
more effectively and efficiently than the Federal Government; but if we 
want to empower them to protect herds of livestock, people, and lands 
from other possible threats of wolves, we need a consistent framework 
for the entire State, not just sections.
  For this reason, I strongly support this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment is yet another attack on a vulnerable 
icon American species, the gray wolf. The gray wolf is a keystone 
species that plays a vital role in keeping our ecosystems healthy.
  It is also an animal that many Native American cultures feel a 
kinship bond with. I heard from many tribal leaders that the 
protections afforded under the Endangered Species Act for gray wolves 
are the only way that they have been able to keep wolf hunts out of 
their tribal reservation boundaries.
  Now, I understand many of my colleagues have very strong views about 
listings and delistings affecting their States, but the Endangered 
Species Act exists to offer necessary protections and ensure a species' 
survival, which the majority of our constituents strongly support. This 
is the same law that successfully restored another iconic American 
species, the bald eagle.
  This amendment restricts the Department of the Interior's ability to 
implement the Endangered Species Act. However, it does not alter the 
protections for the endangered wolves in these States.
  Regardless of one's position on species protection, the amendment is 
very problematic. The restrictions will ultimately hurt farmers, 
ranchers, landowners and businessowners.
  Here is why: under this amendment, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
would not be able to offer exemptions or permits for incidental 
killings of wolves to landowners, ranchers, and other parties who might 
be in need of them; however, the prohibition against accidental kills 
or takes would still remain and would still be legally enforceable.
  Thus, this constitutes that States would either have to stop any 
activity--any activity--that led to the taking of a wolf, or they would 
be vulnerable to a lawsuit or heavy penalties. Simply put, this 
amendment is bad for wolves; it is bad for our ecosystem; it is bad for 
business, and it is bad for our constituents.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I just wanted to explain the situation that we find 
ourselves in.
  I am sympathetic with what the gentleman is doing, and when we 
actually passed language 4 years ago on the wolves in Idaho and 
Montana, we thought about what happened to the wolves that go into 
Washington and Oregon and Nevada and Utah and so forth; and we thought 
about including those in the general delisting. Well, we didn't delist 
them; the Fish and Wildlife Service did.
  We found it created several problems. One, those States didn't have 
State management plans, which is the case today with most of them 
because we discussed this, or I discussed this issue earlier with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service.
  What their plan is and what they would like to do is, currently, they 
support the language that is in the bill that reinstates their 
delisting in Wyoming and the Great Lakes. Those States have State 
management plans that have been approved by Fish and Wildlife Service.
  If you include the other States that are included in this that don't 
have the State management plans, then Fish and Wildlife has to oppose 
what we are doing.
  I believe that what their goal is, is to get this language passed 
dealing with Wyoming, the Great Lakes, and then do a wider, rangewide 
delisting once those States have State management plans that have been 
adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and this amendment may 
undermine that.
  This is something that we need to discuss, I think. I am not opposing 
the gentleman's amendment, but it is something that I think we need to 
discuss between now and conference so that we get a plan and to make 
sure that we are not undermining what I think we all want, and that is 
the ultimate delisting of the gray wolves that have met the standard.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I 
understand that my colleagues have strong views about this, pro and 
con, about the listing and delisting; but this amendment is very, very 
problematic. For that reason, I can't support it.
  The gentleman from Idaho is correct. This has so many unintended 
consequences that I feel very strongly--very strongly--about not 
supporting this amendment for that reason.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, with the few seconds I have left, I would 
certainly thank the gentleman from Idaho, as well as the lady from 
Minnesota, for sharing their concerns.
  I certainly look forward to working with my colleagues. I would urge 
support and look forward to a continuing effort to move this to a 
conclusion that we can all accept.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page 10847]]

the gentleman from Washington will be postponed.

                              {time}  2145


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. 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

       None of the funds made available by this Act for California 
     drought response or relief may be used by the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Secretary of 
     the Interior in contravention of implementation of Division 
     26.7 of the California Water Code (the Water Quality, Supply, 
     and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014), as approved by 
     the voters of California in California Proposition 1 (2014).

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from California and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, despite the potential for a point of 
order and the amendment being out of order, it really, really is a good 
policy. While it may not come to a vote on this House floor, it 
certainly ought to come to the attention of the appropriators and the 
administration that we have got a pretty serious drought in the West. 
It does affect California, Arizona, Oregon, probably parts of Idaho, 
and on into New Mexico.
  California voters last November passed a $7 billion water bond that 
deals with the long-term issues of the water supply in California and 
some of the immediate challenges that the California drought has 
brought to the 30-plus million citizens of the State.
  This amendment would direct the Department of the Interior, the EPA, 
the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense to focus 
the money that it would be spending in California under any 
circumstance, to focus that money on assisting, augmenting, advancing, 
and supplementing those programs that the State of California is 
undertaking to address the drought using the bond act money.
  That is a great idea, that instead of spending the money on things 
that are not immediately relevant, that are not immediately necessary 
and do not immediately help those citizens of California, those 
communities, those agencies in the State that are suffering from the 
drought, rather to spend the money on those programs. That is it.
  It doesn't call for any additional money. It doesn't really cause 
long-term problems to our appropriation processes, but, rather, it 
says, hey, we have got a problem. Let's focus on the problem, and let's 
coordinate with the State of California in solving the problem. That is 
it, pretty simple stuff.
  Unfortunately, I guess we may have a point of order, and this rather 
important concept won't be in the legislation.
  However, I do think that the administration is aware, and they are 
beginning to focus appropriately on the drought in California. And I 
would hope in other States, just as we are suggesting they do here, 
that they, the administration and the Federal Government, focus the 
money that it would otherwise be spending in the State of California 
and in these other States on projects that the local governments, the 
State governments in those States are undertaking to address the 
drought--pretty basic.
  So that I might challenge the point of order, I will reserve the 
balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order and make a 
point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change 
existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, 
therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination, and I ask for a ruling 
from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Idaho was so right 
and is now so wrong. But that is the way it is. When you have got the 
votes, you have got the votes.
  Nevertheless, this is really a very, very good program. I would 
encourage all of us--and particularly the administration--to follow 
along the policies here; and I would point out that they are.
  So I challenge the point of order and would ask for a ruling of the 
Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination of whether certain actions will contravene a specified 
State law.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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 by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to issue any regulation under the Solid Waste Disposal 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) that applies to an animal 
     feeding operation, including a concentrated animal feeding 
     operation and a large concentrated animal feeding operation, 
     as such terms are defined in section 122.23 of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Washington and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment on an 
issue that is critical to livestock producers not just in my State and 
in my district, but across the whole country.
  Last year, a group of folks in my area, environmental activists, sued 
several dairies in the Yakima Valley in Washington State, claiming that 
the dairies were responsible for ``open dumping'' under the Resources 
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976--or, as it is most commonly 
referred to, RCRA--because of manure storage and management issues on 
their farms.
  The big issue is what law the activists were suing the dairies under. 
There are many laws and regulations, both at the State and Federal 
level, which are appropriate mechanisms for protecting and ensuring our 
Nation's waters are kept clean, but the problem I see is that RCRA is 
not one of them.
  RCRA was a law designed to govern solid wastes and prevent open 
dumping. The major application of this law is regulating landfills. It 
was never intended to regulate animal waste. In fact, the EPA, in its 
initial 1979 regulations for RCRA, expressed that the law ``does not 
apply to agricultural waste, including manure and crop residue, 
returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners.''
  I don't know how much clearer we can get that manure storage and 
handling were not intended to be governed under this law. 
Unfortunately, though, a Federal judge in Spokane, Washington, agreed 
with the group and stretched the definition of ``solid waste'' to apply 
to manure nitrates, contrary to the law and Federal regulatory code, 
and held the dairies responsible for open dumping because of how they 
stored and handled animal waste.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment does nothing to prevent EPA from enforcing 
the current regulations under RCRA. It does nothing to change the Clean 
Water Act rulemakings, nor does it prevent EPA from issuing or 
enforcing Clean Water Act regulations. All my amendment does is prevent 
EPA from issuing and expanding new regulations under RCRA that would 
reflect the interpretation of this current law.

[[Page 10848]]

  Mr. Chair, no one is saying that livestock producers--like every 
American--don't share in the responsibility of good stewardship of our 
environment and our resources. They certainly do. But there are 
appropriate laws and regulations intended to govern this, and there are 
ones that are not appropriate for this purpose.
  Simply piling additional layers of regulation on producers and giving 
activists new litigation tools to target our Nation's farmers and 
ranchers is not what Congress had in mind when passing the Resources 
Conservation and Recovery Act. We, as Congress, have a responsibility 
to make that clarification, and that is what I am seeking to do with 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would be better able to comment on this 
amendment if the gentleman had shared a copy. In this day and age, I am 
glad we are allowed to bring an iPad on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Washington when he 
decided upon this amendment. Has it been in the last 20 minutes, or was 
it 2 hours ago?
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. It was, let's see, more like 6 hours ago that it was in 
the hopper.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman.
  The headlines are, groundbreaking rule in Washington State on this 
dairy case. And it is, ``Dairy Pollution Threatens Washington Valley's 
Water.'' This was a big enough story, in fact, that it was even 
reprinted by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It was the first time that 
the Federal Resources Conservation Recovery Act was used to consider 
ways in which land and water had to be protected.
  So, Mr. Chairman, just because I didn't have an opportunity to really 
delve into this and find out more about it--and what the amendment does 
is it just totally stops funds to be issued under this regulation to 
animal feeding operations--I am going to oppose it because it also 
includes large concentrated animal feeding operations. And I do come 
from a farming State, so I do know the difference between a small farm, 
a small hog farmer, and a lagoon, and large dairy farms and small dairy 
farms. So with that, I oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I am not questioning the good lady's 
credentials from the farming State of Minnesota. But certainly given 
time, as this process moves forward, she will become intimately 
familiar with this law as it is being interpreted. It is already 
happening in other parts of the country, and I would offer this 
amendment to help preclude the wrongful use of the law and ask my 
colleagues for strong consideration.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I will just read into the Record from 
January 15, 2015, Spokane, Washington:

       A Federal judge has ruled that a large industrial dairy in 
     eastern Washington has polluted drinking water through its 
     application, storage, and management of manure in a case that 
     could set precedents across the Nation.
       U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice of Spokane ruled 
     Wednesday that the pollution posed an ``imminent and 
     substantial endangerment'' to the environment and to people 
     who drink the water.
       Rice wrote that he ``could come to no other conclusion than 
     that the dairy's operations are contributing to the high 
     levels of nitrate that are currently contaminating--and will 
     continue to contaminate . . . the underlying groundwater.''
       ``Any attempt to diminish the dairy's contribution to the 
     nitrate contamination is disingenuous, at best,'' Rice wrote 
     in the 111-page opinion, in which he granted partial summary 
     judgment in favor of environmental groups that sued the 
     dairy.

  These environmental groups are people who are looking out for their 
drinking water. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2200


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

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


                       LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the committee, both the 
staff and the gentlewoman from Minnesota, the gentleman from 
California, and the gentleman from Idaho who are now managing this 
appropriations bill.
  I call this the good health appropriations for the quality of life of 
many Americans, both urban and rural. I ask my colleagues to consider 
my amendment, which deals with the urban reforestation program. I live 
close and personal to both urban areas and rural areas in my 
congressional district.
  Given close to 80 percent of the population of the conterminous 
United States lives in an urban area, the benefits provided by urban 
forests touch most U.S. citizens. My amendment specifically reinforces 
the importance of urban reforestation, as well as preserves our ability 
to return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our 
children.
  I offered these amendments in years past. I know it from a real-time 
experience. Over the last couple of years, when the drought hit Houston 
and many other areas in Texas, millions of trees were lost. Millions of 
trees were lost.
  Today, now, we face the large and very challenging effort of trying 
to reforest parks like Memorial Park, MacGregor Park, and many parks in 
the northeast part of my district. In the past 30 years alone, we have 
lost 30 percent of all of our urban trees, a loss of over 600 million 
trees.
  I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban 
reforestation. In fact, many Members will remember that throughout our 
careers, we have been involved in planting of trees. There are major 
efforts throughout our community.
  I want to cite, for example, those who have worked in Houston, Texas, 
doing the reforestation work: Houston Wilderness, Student Conservation 
Association, the Buffalo Bayou Partnership, the Greater East End 
Management District, Houston Parks and Recreation Department, and Texas 
Parks & Wildlife Department, along with many civic clubs of which I 
have had the privilege of working with.
  Several years ago, American Forests, a leading conservation group, 
estimated that the tree-covered loss in the greater Washington 
metropolitan area from 1973 to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 
million cubic feet of storm water runoff annually, which would have 
taken more than 1 billion in storm water control facilities to manage.
  We know that the green effect in the middle of the city can have a 
beneficial effect on a community's health, both physically and 
psychologically. A healthy 32-foot-tall ash tree can produce about 260 
pounds of oxygen annually.
  Trees help reduce pollution. Trees help combat the effects of 
greenhouse gases. Trees help cool down the overall city environment by 
shading asphalt, concrete, and metal surfaces. Buildings and paving in 
city centers create a heat island effect. A mature tree canopy reduces 
air temperatures by about 5 to 10 degrees.
  Let me give a personal story on the importance of reforestation. A 
few years ago, I helped create a memorial plaza for a Martin Luther 
King monument in MacGregor Park. There was a

[[Page 10849]]

tree of life that was presented to that park by Martin Luther King's 
father.
  In the course of urban development, that tree had to be moved. It 
caused an emotional uprising in our community. Ovide Duncantell tied 
himself to the tree.
  Ultimately, we resolved that the tree had to be moved, and that tree 
was potentially a tree that would die. With the right kind of nurturing 
and reforestation and treatment by the foresters who came, that tree is 
now a shining example of a unified community.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to ensure 
that our programs dealing with urban reforestation continue.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my 
amendment to H.R. 2822, the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act 
of 2016 and to commend Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for 
their leadership in shepherding this bill through the legislative 
process.
  Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service, 
the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution, which 
operates our national museums including the National Zoo.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important 
message from the Congress of the United States.
  The Jackson Lee amendment emphasizes the importance of urban forests, 
and preserves our ability to return urban areas to healthy and safe 
living environments for our children.
  Identical amendments were offered and accepted in the Interior and 
Environment Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 2643) and 
Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5386), and were adopted by voice vote.
  Mr. Chair, surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious 
danger.
  In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30% of all our urban trees--
a loss of over 600 million trees.
  Eighty percent (80%) of the American population lives in the dense 
quarters of a city.
  Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete area 
that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and 
agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars 
in storm water management costs.
  I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban 
reforestation.
  In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have 
beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and 
psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real 
estate.
  Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban 
sprawl and/or deterioration.
  Mr. Chair, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves 
both the protection of existing natural resources and active support 
for restoration and improvement projects.
  Several years ago, American Forests, a leading conservation group, 
estimated that the tree cover lost in the greater Washington 
metropolitan area from 1973 to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 
million cubic feet of storm water runoff annually, which would have 
taken more than $1 billion in storm water control facilities to manage.
  Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen.
  People breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
  A typical person consumes about 38 lb of oxygen per year.
  A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can produce about 260 lb 
of oxygen annually--two trees supply the oxygen needs of a person for a 
year.
  Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and 
pollen with their leaves.
  A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 lbs of the small particles and 
gases of air pollution.
  Trees help combat the effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased 
carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels that is causing our 
atmosphere to ``heat up.''
  Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt, 
concrete and metal surfaces.
  Buildings and paving in city centers create a heat-island effect.
  A mature tree canopy reduces air temperatures by about 5-10 degrees 
Fahrenheit.
  A 25 foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling costs of a typical 
residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average annual savings of 
$120 per American household.
  Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds, and 
reduce annual energy use for home heating by 4-22%.
  Mr. Chair, trees play a vital role in making our cities more 
sustainable and more livable.
  The Jackson Lee amendment simply provides for continued support to 
programs that reforest our urban areas.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee 
amendment and thank Chairman Calvert  and Ranking Member McCollum for 
their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), 
the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee 
amendment.
  It was very interesting to learn more about what your goals and 
objectives are, and I think it is very worthy of our consideration.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by simply saying what 
a great difference life will be in many urban areas with our commitment 
to reforestation of urban areas and creating more opportunities for 
trees to grow in those areas.
  I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoder

  Mr. YODER. 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 threatened species 
                 listing of the lesser prairie chicken

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act shall 
     be used to implement or enforce the threatened species 
     listing of the lesser prairie chicken 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 Kansas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. YODER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today would prohibit further 
waste of Federal funds from being used to enforce the unnecessary 
listing of the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Now, this listing has Americans crying foul in Kansas and all across 
the country over the burden it places on farmers, ranchers, and 
agriculture producers. This misguided listing comes at a time when the 
lesser prairie chicken is actually becoming the greater prairie 
chicken, in some respects, gaining in population significantly each of 
the last several years.
  Less than 1 week ago, a new population count for the lesser prairie 
chicken was released, and it shows a 25 percent increase in the species 
population over the last year. That follows a 20 percent increase from 
the year before.
  What is to account for all this? Is it the listing on the endangered 
species list? No--these population increases, according to experts, are 
attributed to improved habitat conditions, as a result of increased 
rainfall to an area that had previously been experiencing one of the 
worst droughts since the infamous Dust Bowl.
  Now, not a single drop of this rainfall can be attributed to the 
central planners in Washington, D.C., nor can this listing have any 
effect on making it rain in places like Kansas.
  We need to let State and local municipalities and States work 
together to create these conservation plans to help produce the 
populations we need for the lesser prairie chicken.
  In fact, five States with habitat areas--Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New 
Mexico, and Colorado--already have a locally driven, areawide plan in 
place known as the lesser prairie chicken rangewide conservation plan. 
It has broad stakeholder support to conserve and replenish the lesser 
prairie chicken population.

[[Page 10850]]

  Now, we have an opportunity today, as Democrats and Republicans, to 
flock together, to break out of our shells, to work with States and 
localities and delist the lesser prairie chicken.
  Keeping it in place makes it harder on hard-working farmers to grow 
crops and feed our Nation, and it makes it harder for energy producers 
to produce renewable or traditional energy.
  All of that increases the cost at the grocery store or at the pump 
for average everyday working Americans. This cost of the listing is 
having little to no impact; this is while the cost of this listing has 
little to no impact on the ever-growing population.
  That growth is coming from States and localities working hand in hand 
with farmers and producers; yet, as these ineffective Federal burdens 
go up, so does the cost of doing business in America. Now, that is 
truly something to crow about.
  Let's work together. Let's let States recoup and conserve and grow 
the lesser prairie chicken populations, and let's pass this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the Fish and 
Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing threatened species 
listing of the lesser prairie chicken under the Endangered Species Act 
and would restrict the Fish and Wildlife Service from offering any 
critical protections to preserve the species.
  This amendment is harmful and misguided and maybe a little scrambled, 
as in some eggs. Once the species is listed under the Endangered 
Species Act, the role of Fish and Wildlife is primarily permissive, 
helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities.
  Under this amendment, all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions 
would still apply. They would still apply, the Endangered Species Act 
prohibitions, but landowners would have no avenue to comply with them.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing 
permits or exemptions. This means landowners, industry, and other 
parties who might need to take the lesser prairie chicken incidentally 
to do their otherwise lawful activities, such as oil and gas 
development, would be vulnerable to a citizens lawsuit.
  Additionally, this amendment would halt an innovative plan to 
conserve the lesser prairie chicken. In 2014, Fish and Wildlife, in 
partnership with States and local stakeholders, began the 
implementation of a lesser prairie chicken rangewide conservation plan. 
That encouraged participants to gain in proactive and voluntary 
conservation activities, promoting lesser prairie chicken conservation.
  The plan describes a locally controlled and an innovative approach 
for maintaining the State's authority to conserve the species and 
allows for economic development to continue in a seamless manner. It 
sounds like a win-win to me, with Fish and Wildlife partnering with 
local partners and with the State.
  This plan prevents significant regulatory delays in obtaining taking 
permits, disruption to economic activities vital to the State and 
national interests, and little incentive for conservation habitat on 
prairie lands.
  Sadly, the gentleman's amendment would undermine this plan that local 
folks and the State came up with to be more collaborative in a 
conservation effort. This amendment would create uncertainty for 
landowners, making them vulnerable, as I said earlier, to lawsuits.
  We should be supporting the Fish and Wildlife Service in its efforts 
to work with local community leaders and to work with the States, not 
blocking the agency for doing their job.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YODER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from western Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor this 
commonsense amendment as we work to stop the Federal Government from 
enforcing the ill-advised listing of the lesser prairie chicken.
  As a fifth-generation farmer and possibly the only Member on the 
floor who has actually seen the real-life bird on a family farm that we 
are talking about, I am strongly opposed to this listing.
  As was mentioned, this listing occurred during a massive, historical 
multiyear drought in my home area in my region and State, which 
obviously limits habitat growth and reduces the numbers of prairie 
chickens.
  The best solution is for it to rain; and that, it has. Thank you, 
Lord, though I fully expect the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take 
credit for the resulting increase in the lesser prairie chicken 
population.
  For the last 4 years, I have heard from farmers, ranchers, 
homebuilders, energy producers, and other small businesses concerned 
about what this listing would do to our rural economy. Our farmers and 
ranchers are in a state of uncertainty as to whether certain farming 
and conservation practices, like we have in my own farm, will result in 
fines or perhaps even jail time. Many energy producers have stopped 
drilling new wells for fear of risking the consequences of the listing.
  Unless Congress does something and does it soon, this threat to our 
rural economy will probably continue forever. In 40 years of the 
Endangered Species Act, more than 1,350 species have been listed as 
endangered, but only 24 have been delisted, and that is just 1.7 
percent--not very successful, Mr. Chairman.
  I appreciate the opportunity to share these concerns with you, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, support our farmers 
and ranchers, and support common sense.
  Mr. YODER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. YODER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to the gentleman's 
concerns, particularly because my home State of California probably has 
more than its fair share of endangered species problem.
  The Endangered Species Act hinges upon the principle that, if a 
species is listed, that it will be recovered and management will return 
to the States. This push by the States is the reality we see playing 
out. Bats, wolves, greater sage-grouse, delta smelt, the list goes on 
and on and on.
  It should come as no surprise, then, to see the States pushing back 
through their elected Representatives in the legislative branch in an 
effort to bring the Endangered Species Act back into balance.
  I would support this amendment.
  Mr. YODER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I understand that there is a concern with 
the listings; and I hear that very loud and clear from my colleagues.
  The problem with the way that these amendments have been drafted, 
particularly in line with this amendment, again, all the Endangered 
Species Act prohibitions would still apply.
  Landowners would have no avenue to comply with because they wouldn't 
have a partner in the Fish and Wildlife because Fish and Wildlife would 
be barred from issuing any permits or any exemptions.
  Clearly, it means landowners, industries, and other parties who might 
need to take a lesser prairie chicken incidentally to their otherwise 
lawful activities will be vulnerable to a lawsuit. Additionally, this 
amendment will halt any innovation plan to conserve the lesser prairie 
chicken.
  The gentleman's amendment, by undermining collaborative efforts and, 
I believe, with an amendment that creates uncertainty for landowners 
making them vulnerable to lawsuits, should be an amendment that should 
be opposed.

[[Page 10851]]

  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  2215

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

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


                       limitation on use of funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to limit outreach programs administered by the 
     Smithsonian Institution.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, again, let me offer my appreciation to 
the gentlewoman from Minnesota, the gentleman from California, and 
their staff who have worked with us.
  Let me remind my colleagues that just a few days ago, I offered this 
amendment dealing with museums and dealing with my concern for the 
funding and the Smithsonian, to provide for the Nation's museum.
  Let me also say to my colleagues that I have offered this amendment 
in the past because I have a particular interest in the museums of 
America and their ability to do outreach. I imagine I am not alone 
standing here amongst appropriators to again say and call for the end 
of sequestration to be able to provide the appropriators and to provide 
the people of America the full funding to address these quality of life 
issues from the various lands and Federal parks and, as well, the 
historic trails, of which I will talk about, but museums, urban 
reforestation, all elements of the beauty of this Nation. And I frankly 
believe that museums, likewise, are that form of beauty.
  My amendment specifically says: ``None of the funds made available in 
this Act may be used to limit outreach programs administered by the 
Smithsonian Institution.''
  In order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, the increase and 
diffusion of knowledge, the Smithsonian seeks to serve an even greater 
audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities who 
otherwise would be deprived of the vast amounts of cultural history 
offered by the Smithsonian.
  Our museums of the Nation are in trouble. The Smithsonian has a 
beautiful array of museums that are here that millions of Americans 
have the opportunity to visit. But the outreach program serves millions 
of Americans, thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in 
all 50 States through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and 
sharing of educational resources via publications, lectures and 
presentations, training programs, and Web sites.
  Allow me to mention just a few in my own district:
  The Holocaust Museum, unique in its presentation of a horrible time 
in history, but it also serves as a very unifying entity in our 
community;
  The Children's Museum, as one of the original board members and 
founders, now the Children's Museum is one of the major children's 
museums in the Nation. But again, it needs the impact of the outreach 
of the Smithsonian;
  And then, of course, the Museum of African American Culture, headed 
by a dear friend, but also a champion of holding this museum together, 
and that is John Guess. He needs a fuller embrace by the Smithsonian, 
including its expertise, its experts, its Ph.D.s, traveling efforts, 
and again, its encouragement of corporate communities to recognize the 
value of participating in museums.
  The Smithsonian's outreach activities include the Smithsonian 
Institution traveling exhibition, the Smithsonian Center for Education 
and Museum Studies, National Science Resources Center, the Smithsonian 
Institution Press, the Office of Fellowships, and the Smithsonian 
Associates.
  Who are we if we do not value preserving those items that tell the 
varied and diverse history of America, the good history of America, the 
history that is unifying and purposeful in citing us as a country that 
recognizes our wonderful diversity?
  So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment that deals 
specifically with allowing the outreach to the kinds of museums that 
really need the help of the Smithsonian.
  The Smithsonian, in concluding, Mr. Chairman, is very important to 
urban areas and rural areas alike, and its ability or its affiliation 
is to build a strong national network of museums and educational 
organizations in order to establish active and engaging relationships 
with communities throughout the country.
  Again, allow me to salute, in particular, John Guess, with the Museum 
of African American Culture in Houston. He has literally put that 
museum together, along with his board members.
  The Smithsonian--I hope they are hearing me as I am talking on the 
floor of the House--we need your help in Houston, Texas. We probably 
need your help in Washington State, in California, Minnesota, New York, 
and beyond to preserve and help these small museums throughout the 
Nation.
  I ask my colleagues to support not only this amendment, but the 
museums of this Nation.
  And I say to Mr. Calvert, we had discussed this before. This 
amendment now is a placeholder, hopefully, for our discussion going 
forward dealing with the preservation of our museums.
  Let me thank Mr. Calvert, Mr. Simpson, and Ms. McCollum.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my 
amendment to H.R. 2822, the ``Interior and Environment Appropriations 
Act of 2016.''
  Let me also thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for 
their leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor.
  Among other agencies, this legislation funds the Smithsonian 
Institution, which operates our national museums, including the Air and 
Space Museum; the Museum of African Art; the Museum of the American 
Indian; and the National Portrait Gallery.
  The Smithsonian also operates another national treasure: the National 
Zoo.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important 
message from the Congress of the United States.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment simply provides that:
  ``Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used 
to limit outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian 
Institution.''
  This amendment is identical to an amendment I offered to the Interior 
and Environment Appropriations Act for FY2008 (H.R. 2643) that was 
approved by voice vote on June 26, 2007.
  Mr. Chair, the Smithsonian's outreach programs bring Smithsonian 
scholars in art, history and science out of ``the nation's attic'' and 
into their own backyard.
  Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian in Washington, 
D.C.
  But in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, ``the increase and 
diffusion of knowledge,'' the Smithsonian seeks to serve an even 
greater audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities 
who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history 
offered by the Smithsonian.
  The Smithsonian's outreach programs serve millions of Americans, 
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 
states, through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of 
educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, 
training programs, and websites.
  Smithsonian outreach programs work in close cooperation with 
Smithsonian museums and research centers, as well as with 144 affiliate 
institutions and others across the nation.
  The Smithsonian's outreach activities support community-based 
cultural and educational organizations around the country.
  They ensure a vital, recurring, and high-impact Smithsonian presence 
in all 50 states through the provision of traveling exhibitions and a 
network of affiliations.
  Smithsonian outreach programs increase connections between the 
Institution and targeted audiences (African American, Asian American, 
Latino, Native American, and new

[[Page 10852]]

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rothfus

  Mr. ROTHFUS. 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 by the Director of the National Park Service to 
     implement, administer, or enforce Policy Memorandum 11-03 or 
     to approve a request by a park superintendent to eliminate 
     the sale in National Parks of water in disposable plastic 
     bottles.

  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. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This summer, thousands of Americans will load the kids into the car 
and set out on a trip to visit one of our country's historic national 
parks.
  Whether it is to see the stunning valleys of the Grand Canyon or the 
towering stone faces etched into Mt. Rushmore, tens of millions of 
families arrive at national park destinations each year.
  As some may know, the National Park Service has implemented a policy 
allowing parks to ban the sale of bottled water, and only bottled 
water, at park concessions. I understand that the Park Service is 
concerned about waste left behind by visitors. We all agree that 
protecting our national parks is a laudable goal. However, banning the 
sale of bottled water is not the best way to go about it.
  In blocking the sale of bottled water at our parks, we are depriving 
millions of Americans access to a healthy and necessary beverage that 
park visitors rely on. This is especially true in the hot summer 
months.
  Families who don't own expensive camping equipment and aren't 
experienced hikers and climbers will be surprised to find out that they 
can't buy their child a bottle of water at one of our national parks. 
Nineteen national parks have adopted or plan to adopt a bottled water 
ban. This includes the Grand Canyon National Park. Temperatures at the 
Grand Canyon just this week will top 100 degrees. Visitors

[[Page 10853]]

who may have forgotten or have run out of water could be put at risk of 
dehydration.
  Banning bottled water defies common sense. Even the Park Service 
admits that the ban ``could affect visitor safety'' and ``eliminates 
the healthiest choice for bottled drinks, leaving sugary drinks as a 
primary alternative.''
  The policy runs counter to the Park Service's own Healthy Parks 
Healthy People initiative, which urges visitors to make healthy food 
choices because, remember, bottled water, and only bottled water, is 
banned from being sold at concessions.
  Some argue that the ban is necessary to reduce waste. But the 
National Park Service has confirmed that participating parks haven't 
been able to determine if the policy works. To start, we know parks 
don't separately analyze recycled waste visitors leave behind. Parks 
simply can't say whether the ban has worked.
  It is also worth noting that studies conducted on similar water bans 
show that they aren't effective in reducing waste. A study in the 
American Journal of Public Health found the bottled water bans on 
college campuses had unintended consequences. Eliminating bottled water 
did not, in fact, reduce waste, but actually led to a spike in sales 
and increased shipments of packaged beverages.
  Mr. Chairman, we all support efforts to protect our parks. All we ask 
today is that the National Park Service carefully consider its 
policies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the gentleman 
on this issue because I think he raises some concerns which do need to 
be addressed.
  I would just kind of like to set the picture about what is currently 
going on right now. There are 407 units in the National Park system, 
and only 19 of them--19 of them--have elected to eliminate the sale of 
water in disposable plastic bottles.
  It is important to note that in the National Park system units, 
including these 19, visitors are still free to bring water in with them 
and use water in disposable plastic bottles. They are not banned from 
bringing in their own water.
  The use of these disposable water bottles has had a significant 
environmental impact on the National Park system units. That is why I 
would like to work with the gentleman and figure out what we need to do 
about waste reduction in our parks and if this was part of the Park's 
overall system on it, and the sugary drinks that the gentleman referred 
to, if those bottles are also a potential problem, or how do we educate 
and work with families and hikers and vacationers and visitors to our 
national parks about not leaving this waste out in the open.
  Another example, in Grand Canyon Park, disposable bottles compromise 
nearly 20 percent of the Grand Canyon's waste stream and 30 percent of 
the park's recyclables.
  So before eliminating bottle water sales, the National Park system 
units were required to undertake an extensive review process 
considering 14 different factors before seeking approval from the 
regional director. This extensive review process included rigorous 
impact analysis, including assessment of the effects on visitors' 
health and safety.
  Once approved, these park units are required to maintain an extensive 
public education program that provides readily available designed water 
bottle refilling stations. And in many places that I visited recently, 
I have seen both the ability to purchase as well as refill, at our 
national parks, water bottles.
  So as a leader in conservation, the National Park Service encourages 
recycling in the reduction of plastic disposable water bottles. My 
concern would be we wouldn't want your amendment--and I will speak for 
myself. I don't want to be part of undercutting any of those efforts to 
encourage recycling in the reduction of disposable water bottles.
  I would also be concerned that the park system eliminated water sales 
without having a viable alternative, as the gentleman pointed out, but 
that does not appear to be the case here. As I noted earlier, there is 
an extensive review process, and these park units are required to offer 
readily available free water refilling stations. Plus, people are still 
free to bring in water themselves.
  I would very much like to work with the gentleman and the chairman to 
see if there are any refinements or if there is anything that we need 
to know more about what the National Park system's policy on plastic 
water bottles is. But I do not support an outright prohibition on the 
National Park Service to be able to carry out a policy that encourages 
the reuse and the reduction of plastic water bottles in our parks and 
in our Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support 
of my colleague from Pennsylvania's amendment.
  As a nurse, I know the key component of staying healthy is being 
hydrated and drinking plenty of water. However, if you were to be in 
one of our Nation's parks, you might find this difficult.
  Why?
  Because the National Park Service allows individual parks to ban 
bottled water from their premises. Yet, in those same parks, someone 
can still purchase soda and other bottled beverages.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. Chairman, this ban is misguided. While it was created in an 
attempt to reduce litter in the parks, it has, instead, served as a 
primary example of intrusive government overreach--something this 
country certainly needs less of and something my constituents sent me 
here to Washington to prevent.
  According to the National Park's Sustainable Practices report, parks 
that have implemented this ban are not actually reporting any useful 
data on recycling by type. In other words, they don't know if this ban 
is effectively working or not. Preserving the beauty of our parks is a 
noble goal and is something we should all care about, but it should not 
come at the expense of consumer choice.
  Mr. Chairman, we should support freedom; we should support the beauty 
of our parks; and we should support good, healthy lifestyles for every 
American. However, the current ban in place does none of the above. I 
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure as it stops this 
ineffective ban.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to the speakers and to the chairman of 
the subcommittee, I hear the concerns. If there are concerns to be 
addressed, I want to be a partner in that, but I also don't want to be 
part in party of walking back--reducing waste in our streams and not in 
any way, shape or form, adding to the costs of Park Service rangers and 
volunteers in their having to go out and clean up plastic bottles, 
plastic water caps, and other such things.
  I am sincere in my efforts in saying I would like very much to work 
with my colleagues on this issue, but I did not hear anybody saying 
that they wanted to work back. So, at this point, I will oppose the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment for the convenience of consumers and also in light of the 
fact that studies show that it is not having an impact.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to work with my good 
friend from Minnesota as we move this process forward.

[[Page 10854]]

  As you know, we talked about this in the budget process with the 
National Park Service earlier in the year. We, obviously, don't want to 
discourage people from drinking water. We want them to stay hydrated. 
There are also people who work in the bottled water industry, and I 
think it is a noble industry. We want to encourage people to drink more 
water. It is not just about bottled water. It is about jobs and about 
the people who bottle that water.
  I will work together with the gentlewoman from Minnesota, and we will 
not deny people water in our national parks. I support this amendment.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

       At the end of bill, before the short title, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     the ``DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR--National Park Service--national 
     recreation and preservation'' may be used in contravention of 
     section 320101 of title 54, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise with my appreciation to the 
managers of this bill and their staffs; but I also want to thank them 
for the very civil discussion that occurred earlier by two of my 
colleagues who offered amendments regarding the exhibition of Civil War 
artifacts, or the rebel flag, and I thank them for their courtesy in 
those amendments of those individuals.
  I also make a statement on the floor that I look forward to the 
opportunity given to us by the leadership of this House to have a full 
discussion on various entities that did not unify but divide, and I 
think a civil debate on this is warranted in this House as we watched 
the very moving and very honest debate that took place in South 
Carolina.
  My amendment, however, is one that, I hope, is embracing and is a 
show of unity about what America stands for, and that is the National 
Heritage Area-Corridor designation. I just want to show this map, and I 
am certainly quite pleased that a number of these National Heritage 
Areas do exist. There are 49 of them--none in the State of Texas, none 
but possibly one in Minnesota, maybe one between Arizona and 
California, but very few in the West, including in the State of Idaho, 
and I can name a number of other States.
  My amendment is to highlight the value of these national trails. This 
is particularly important because this tells the story of America. 16 
U.S. Code 461 provides that: ``It is declared that it is a national 
policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and 
objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the 
people of the United States.'' Again, I want to emphasize that--the 
inspiration.
  Texas has, starting in Galveston, history referring to the 
Emancipation Proclamation. We commemorate something called Juneteenth, 
and out of Juneteenth was the time when Captain Granger came to the 
shores of Galveston, in Texas, and announced that the slaves had been 
freed. However, there are a number of other historic sites following 
the trail from Galveston through Houston to include Emancipation Park, 
MacGregor Park, and then sites going up through Austin.
  We really understand that this idea of historic trails can create an 
economic impact. For example, in 2012, a nationally respected 
consulting firm completed a comprehensive economic impact of six 
national historic sites in the northeast region that also included an 
extrapolation of the economic benefit of all 49 NHAs. It was $12.9 
billion.
  The study quantified the economic impact of the individual NHAs and 
based it upon a case study approach and found that the economic impact 
of three National Historic Areas in Arizona, Massachusetts, and 
Pennsylvania showed: in Massachusetts, $153.8 million in economic 
impact, 1,832 jobs, and generates $14.3 million in tax revenue; in 
Pennsylvania, $21.2 million in economic impact, 314 jobs, and generates 
$1.5 million in tax revenue; in the Yuma Crossing National Heritage 
Area in Arizona, $22.7 million in economic impact, supports 277 jobs, 
and generates $1.3 million in tax revenue.
  This is, Mr. Chairman, an important and very vital part of America's 
history, and as we approach the anniversary of this legislation that 
was created in 1966, I think it is important to reinforce the ability 
for these particular sites. We need to increase the ability for 
feasibility studies; we need the support of legislative action and 
designation; and we need to be able to introduce people to the 
importance of these sites.
  Let me make very quick mention of the emancipation part. In 1872, in 
Houston, four former slaves raised $800. That would be part of it, but 
I would just simply say that this is a very important part of America's 
history.
  I ask my colleagues to support the creation of a national heritage 
site across America by supporting the Jackson Lee amendment so that we 
can expand the 49 sites to other States that do not have one single 
site, and Texas is one of them.
  Mr. Chair, Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of the 
Jackson Lee amendment and to commend Chairman Calvert and Ranking 
Member McCollum for their leadership in shepherding this bill to floor.
  Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service, 
the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution.
  Most Americans do not know that this bill also funds a very special 
program, the National Recreation and Preservation.
  Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee Amendment is simple but it sends a very 
important message from the Congress of the United States.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment provides:
  Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for the 
``DEPARTMENT 0F THE INTERIOR--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--NATIONAL 
RECREATION AND PRESERVATION'' may be used in contravention of section 
461 of title 16, United States Code.
  And 16 U.S. Code 461 provides that:
  It is declared that it is a national policy to preserve for public 
use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for 
the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States.
  This is important, especially as it relates to National Heritage 
Areas (NHAs).
  NHAs both preserve our national heritage and provide economic 
benefits to communities and regions through their commitments to 
heritage conservation and economic development.
  Through public-private partnerships, NHA entities support historic 
preservation, natural resource conservation, recreation, heritage 
tourism, and educational projects.
  Leveraging funds and long-term support for projects, NHA partnerships 
generate increased economic impact for regions in which they are 
located.
  In 2012, a nationally respected consulting firm (Tripp Umbach) 
completed a comprehensive economic impact study of six NHA sites in the 
Northeast Region that also included an extrapolation of the economic 
benefit of all 49 NHA sites on the national economy.
  The annual economic impact was estimated to be 12.9 billion.
  The economic activity supports approximately 148,000 jobs and 
generates $1.2 billion annually in Federal revenues from sources such 
as employee compensation, proprietor income, indirect business tax, 
households, and corporation.
  The study quantified the economic impacts of individual NHAs based 
upon a case study approach and found that the economic impact of the 
three National Historic Areas in Arizona, Massachusetts, and 
Pennsylvania showed:
  1. Essex National Heritage Area (MA) generates $153.8 million in 
economic impact, supports 1,832 jobs, and generates $14.3 million in 
tax revenue.
  2. Oil Region National Heritage Area (PA) generates $21.2 million in 
economic impact, supports 314 jobs, and generates $1.5 million tax 
revenue; and
  3. Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area (AZ) $22.7 million in 
economic impact, supports 277 jobs, and generates $1.3 million in tax 
revenue.

[[Page 10855]]

  Mr. Chair, as I said there are 49 NHA across the nation but, 
surprisingly, none in my state of Texas.
  We hope to rectify this in the not too distant future.
  Texas is the largest and second most populous state in the nation and 
has a unique story in American history with its diverse geographic 
landscape, natural resources, and population.
  From Galveston's port, East Texas' farms and forestry, and the 
Buffalo Soldiers, Texas has a rich multi-cultured heritage and history.
  To honor Texas' heritage, I will be working with my colleagues to 
establish a National Heritage Area Corridor designation that stretches 
across historically significant and landmark sites from Galveston to 
Houston and East Texas into Central Texas.
  This cultural corridor would focus on historic, cultural and natural 
sites, as well as roadways, businesses, residential and farm districts 
that unite Texas' rich heritage from the first settlers to modern 
times.
  Mr. Chair, as we approach the anniversary of the passage of the 1966 
National Historic Preservation Act, we want to preserve and unite the 
legacy stories of some of our state's most revered sites.
  Currently underway in Houston is the revitalization of the historic 
Emancipation Park, a pivotal site in the state's social and cultural 
development and African American legacy.
  The future Emancipation Park, if brought to fruition and designated 
as a part of a National Heritage Corridor, represents a unique 
opportunity to tell a comprehensive story about the great State of 
Texas.
  To conclude, National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are both a good 
investment and national treasure providing economic benefits to 
communities and regions through their commitment to heritage 
conservation and economic development.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee 
Amendment.
  I thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their work 
in putting together this legislation.


The Creation of a National Heritage Corridor for Emancipation Park and 
                  Surrounding Historic Sites in Texas:

       I.) Why a National Heritage Corridor:
       1. Opportunity to share the unique story of Emancipation 
     Park
       In 1872, four former slaves raised $800.00 to purchase 10 
     acres of land as a gathering place to celebrate their new 
     found freedom. This land has played a prominent role in 
     America's rich cultural heritage, from slavery, to the false 
     hopes of Emancipation, a safe haven under Jim Crow, a site 
     for mobilization and activism during the Civil Rights 
     movement and will now serve as a local, national and 
     international destination for many years to come for all 
     people for the discussion of modern day race relations and 
     for the celebration and exploration of African American 
     history and culture.
       2. Link Related Historical Sites to create the Heritage 
     Corridor
       From the Slave Ships landing in Galveston, to slaves 
     traveling into Ft. Bend and Harris County, up the Brazos into 
     Washington County and from East Texas into Central Texas.
       3. Provides Opportunities for Access to Federal Funding for 
     the Region
       4. Serves as a Catalyst for Economic Development
       5. Encourages Tourism in the Region
       Emancipation Park can serve as the Welcoming Center and the 
     Conservancy can provide the oversight for the NHC
       6. Raises the Profile of the Project for the Capital 
     Campaign

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas

  Mr. WEBER of Texas. 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:


                       limitation on use of funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Section 321(a) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7621(a)).
  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. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a commonsense 
amendment to the Interior and EPA Appropriations bill which, I hope, 
all Members can and will support.
  First, I would like to commend Chairman Calvert for his work on this 
legislation and for including critical provisions to prevent the EPA 
from moving forward on crippling new regulations on our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, since 2009, our job creators have faced an onslaught of 
regulations from the EPA even as Congress has consistently reduced the 
Agency's budget year after year. The EPA has proposed a regulation to 
lower the national ozone standard, which is largely based on shaky 
scientific data and could cost our economy billions of dollars a year. 
The EPA has also proposed new regulations on new and existing power 
plants that could substantially increase energy prices for hard-working 
families and small businesses.
  The Agency has cited its authority to regulate under the Clean Air 
Act as the basis for many of these decisions. However, when it comes to 
evaluating how its regulations impact American jobs, the Agency has 
failed to follow the law. Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act clearly 
states: ``The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of 
potential loss or shifts of employment.''
  Last year, the EPA was sued because of its failure to comply with 
this provision. Additionally, we heard testimony last month before the 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee that further reinforced the 
EPA's failure to evaluate employment impacts as Congress has directed 
under section 321(a).
  It is unacceptable for the EPA Administrators to cherry-pick the law 
based on their own ideological agenda. That is why I have introduced 
this amendment, which would ensure that the EPA abides by the law and 
conducts ongoing evaluations of just how their actions impact jobs in 
America. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida

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

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


   limitation on use of funds to carry out seismic airgun testing or 
                      surveys off coast of florida

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out seismic airgun testing or seismic airgun 
     surveys in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 
     Planning Area, the Straits of Florida Outer Continental Shelf 
     Planning Area, or the South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf 
     Planning Area located within the exclusive economic zone (as 
     defined in section 107 of title 46, United States Code) 
     bordering the State of Florida.

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  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. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the Murphy, 
Castor, Jolly, Posey, Clawson, Graham, DeSantis, Ros-Lehtinen, Grayson, 
Buchanan, Hastings, Wilson amendment to block the use of seismic airgun 
testing off of Florida's coast.
  As you can see from the list of cosponsors, offshore drilling is not 
a partisan issue in our State but an economic issue. Florida is a 
unique place that depends on healthy beaches, clean waters, and a 
safeguarded environment. The seismic testing that the administration 
has proposed puts all of these things at risk.
  First, seismic airgun testing can be harmful to undersea mammals like 
endangered whale species and dolphins, disrupting their ability to 
communicate and navigate. It can also have negative effects on sea 
turtles, such as the loggerhead sea turtle, that have

[[Page 10856]]

key nesting grounds along the Treasure Coast and Palm Beaches in the 
district that I am so proud to represent. This testing practice can 
also disrupt fish migratory patterns that could have significant 
impacts on fishermen in Florida.

                              {time}  2245

  Second, seismic airgun testing is the first step in the wrong 
direction to opening our pristine shores to offshore drilling and to 
the threat of devastating oil spills. Florida has more coastline than 
any other continental State in the United States, and our economy 
depends on healthy beaches.
  I was proud when former Governor Jeb Bush and Florida's congressional 
delegation actually came together and fought to block drilling off 
Florida's coast, and now I am proud to join my many Florida colleagues 
to block this administration from putting special interests over the 
economic and environmental needs of our State.
  Whatever your party, Floridians protect their environmental treasures 
at all costs. As residents on the Gulf Coast are too well aware--and as 
I have seen firsthand myself--oil spills can devastate our environment 
and our economy up and down the coast. Twenty cities throughout Florida 
have passed resolutions proactively banning seismic testing because 
they know it is a rotten deal for our State.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  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. Chairman, this administration has already developed 
the most restrictive policies for the use of seismic airguns for 
offshore exploration to date. We do not need to place a moratorium on 
the use.
  Further, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area is more than 125 
miles off the Florida coast, and the South Atlantic Planning Area also 
affects Georgia and South Carolina. So the amendment affects many other 
States other than his own. Also, the Department of the Interior has 
already classified the Straits of Florida as a low resource potential 
or low support for potential new listing. As such, I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do appreciate the 
chairman's hard work on this bill, and many Members of Congress who are 
supporting this in a bipartisan manner. In Florida, it is pretty clear 
to see, based on the cosponsors of this bill, that this isn't a 
partisan issue.
  I would like to remind the chairman that regardless of how far 
offshore this is, what really matters is the infrastructure onshore. 
You could talk about these sites, it doesn't matter how far offshore. 
The fact is, you are going to have to have infrastructure there onshore 
that really starts to impede with our economy, whether that is the 
beaches, whether that is the tourism, whether that is the fishing 
industry. So there is a lot more to it. But I do respect the chairman's 
hard work on this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mrs. Noem

  Mrs. NOEM. 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 close or move fisheries archives

       Sec. 441.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to close or move the D.C. Booth Historic National 
     Fish Hatchery and Archives.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment to 
prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from closing fish hatcheries 
across the United States. I want to thank the chairman and his staff 
for all their dedication and for preventing the closure of these 
hatcheries in the underlying bill. My amendment only clarifies their 
language to ensure that it prevents closure of hatcheries and archives, 
which operate a little bit differently within the hatchery system.
  For example, the D.C. Booth Historic National Fish Hatchery and 
Archives has been a cornerstone of the community in Spearfish, South 
Dakota, with over 150,000 visitors annually. It was originally 
established in 1896 to introduce and maintain trout in the Black Hills 
of South Dakota, but it is much more than a fish hatchery. It is home 
to an 1800's era museum, a 1910 railroad car, priceless artifacts, and 
educational opportunities for children. Moving these items would cost 
taxpayers, which doesn't make any sense, given the tens of thousands of 
volunteer hours and private funds that are leveraged to run this 
hatchery.
  I want to thank the chairman for working with me to preserve these 
hatcheries and archives that are certainly of cultural significance. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment to prevent their closure.
  I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. This 
amendment is consistent with policy agreed to last year in the 
conference on a bipartisan basis. Fishing is a national pastime, to 
which the national fish hatchery plays an important role.
  Therefore, I support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I urge an 
``aye'' vote.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rouzer

  Mr. ROUZER. 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 implement, administer, or enforce the rule 
     entitled ``Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood 
     Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air 
     Furnaces'' published by the Environmental Protection Agency 
     in the Federal Register on March 16, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 13671 
     et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, in early March 2015, the Environmental 
Protection Agency published the final rule establishing excessive new 
standards for wood heaters. This onerous rule is a classic example of 
bureaucratic overreach that has become all too common at the EPA. 
Manufacturers in my district, as well as consumers, are very concerned 
about the negative impacts of these new standards.
  According to press reports, 10 percent of U.S. households still 
choose to burn wood to keep energy costs as low as possible. The number 
of households that rely on wood as their primary heating source rose by 
nearly one-third from the year 2005 to 2012.
  This new rule is of particular concern for rural residents all across 
this country. Because of this new rule, the cost of manufacturing wood 
heaters would increase substantially, making them unaffordable for 
many.
  It is no secret that costs from additional regulations are always 
passed down to the consumers. Several States, in fact, have expressed 
their concern on this matter. Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, Virginia, 
and my home State of North Carolina have all introduced or passed 
legislation that prohibits their respective environmental agencies from 
enforcing this burdensome, unnecessary regulation.

[[Page 10857]]

  In defense of all the fine Americans who want to purchase wood 
heaters, my amendment to the Department of the Interior, Environment, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act prohibits any funds from being 
used to implement, administer, or enforce these new, unnecessary, and 
costly standards. Simply put, the Federal Government has no business 
telling private citizens how they should heat their homes or their 
businesses. After all, this is America. If an individual or family 
wants to heat their home or business using a wood stove or furnace, 
they should be able to do so without paying through the nose.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressmen Walter Jones, 
Markwayne Mullin, Rod Blum, Mark Meadows, Mike Bishop, Sean Duffy, and 
Thomas Massie for their support on this amendment.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), 
my colleague and friend.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
for his leadership on this issue and for yielding the time to me.
  First, the administration went after coal. Now it is coming after 
wood heat. In March, the EPA finalized a new rule to regulate the type 
of wood burning stoves and boilers that you can buy, forcing millions 
of middle class Americans to pay more to heat their homes.
  That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation, to stop the 
administration from enforcing new prohibitions on a renewable, 
abundant, and, dare I say, carbon-neutral method of heating our homes 
that has been with us for centuries. If it passes, our amendment to the 
EPA funding bill will prohibit the Federal Government from using 
taxpayer money to enforce crippling regulations on wood burning heating 
appliances.
  As the price of electricity skyrockets due to the President's promise 
to bankrupt the coal industry, wood heat is a viable alternative for 
millions of Americans. Unfortunately, it seems like this administration 
would rather see people turn to the government for public assistance 
with their heating bills than to allow them an affordable means of 
self-sufficiency.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a State issue. The Federal Government should 
not be regulating wood burning appliances. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I just rise in support of the amendment. I 
know the State of North Carolina opposed the rule and passed the 
legislation a few months ago to block these EPA regulations. I suspect 
it is not the only State that may have these concerns. Let's let the 
market drive manufacturers toward producing lower emission wood 
heaters.
  I support the gentleman's amendment and urge an ``aye'' vote. I hope 
that everybody who supports this amendment would also vote for the bill 
for final passage.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MASSIE. 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 North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hudson

  Mr. HUDSON. 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 remove oil and gas lease sale 260 from 
                            leasing program

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to remove oil and gas lease sale 260 from the Draft 
     Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing 
     Program for 2017-2022.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to offer an amendment that 
prohibits the administration from blocking the proposed Atlantic lease 
sale from the Department of the Interior's draft proposed plan for 
offshore oil and gas development.
  As cochairman of the Atlantic Offshore Energy Caucus, I have been 
fighting to advance an all-of-the-above energy strategy that gets North 
Carolina into the energy business.

                              {time}  2300

  I was pleased when the administration recently heeded calls from 
Members of Congress--as well as our fine Governor, Pat McCrory, and 
other State leaders--when they announced a proposal to open up the 
Atlantic to offshore natural gas and oil exploration.
  I welcome the proposal as one of the many steps that must be taken to 
unlock our natural resources, create jobs, and boost our economy.
  The problem is we now face bureaucratic hoops and an uphill 
rulemaking process that could take the Atlantic lease sale completely 
off the table. In fact, Secretary Sally Jewell testified recently that 
she could not guarantee the Atlantic lease would stay in the plan once 
it is finalized.
  For years, there has been bipartisan support for an offshore lease 
sale off the Atlantic Coast. One was even scheduled off the coast of 
Virginia, but later blocked by this administration.
  North Carolina has incredible potential for energy jobs, and I won't 
let this opportunity slip through our fingers.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is critical to provide certainty to North 
Carolina and unleash jobs and lower energy prices. Our economy is 
sputtering along, and too many folks back home are struggling to find 
jobs. Opening up the Atlantic to oil has the potential to support more 
than 55,000 jobs in our State and contribute nearly $3 billion in new 
revenue.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman.
  Mr. CALVERT. I am not going to oppose the amendment. I certainly 
appreciate what the gentleman is trying to accomplish and generally 
agree that this administration has placed way too many restrictions on 
drilling, both onshore and offshore.
  These restrictions have delayed the permitting process and slowed 
economic growth in your State and many other States around the Union. 
Various groups have used that to their advantage.
  I agree that more certainty is needed in the leasing and permitting 
process. What I am afraid of is this might lead to a precedent for 
preempting the Department of the Interior's decisionmaking under any 
President, and may lead to other amendments and kind of opening 
Pandora's box, and Members doing specific amendments that are off their 
particular States.
  Saying that, as we move this process forward, I am not going to 
oppose the amendment, but I just have some concerns we can talk about 
as we move this process along.
  We both want the same outcome. I just want to make sure that we make 
sure this works in an orderly fashion.
  Mr. HUDSON. I thank the chairman for his comments, and I appreciate 
his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. This amendment would mandate that the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management include the South and mid-Atlantic area of the Outer 
Continental Shelf, otherwise known as sale 260 in the 2017-2022 lease 
sale schedule.
  The amendment would undermine the Bureau's fundamental mission to

[[Page 10858]]

manage the development of offshore resources in an environmentally and 
economically responsible manner.
  The Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf is a frontier area, and the 
decision to include sale 260 in the 2017-2022 5-year leasing schedule 
should be informed by sound science, using the best available data.
  The Bureau is required by law to consider the environmental impacts 
of leasing decisions, and this includes a comprehensive programmatic 
environmental impact statement, which has not yet been completed for 
the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.
  In fact, the most current geological and geophysical data on the oil 
and gas resources in this area was collected in the 1970s and 1980s. 
That is really ancient by today's scientific standards.
  Without the collection and analysis of new information, input from 
State Governors and other Federal agencies, and consideration of 
critical economic analyses, the decision to include sale 260 in the 
2017-2022 program is premature and runs counter to the thoughtful and 
deliberative process established by Congress through the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act.
  This amendment would violate multiple environmental statutes, 
including NEPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered 
Species Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  The amendment undermines environmental protection required by law. 
Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's comments on the 
subject.
  The reason we need this step is to guarantee that the folks in North 
Carolina get a shot at these jobs. We are talking about 55,000 jobs and 
potentially as much as $3 billion in economic development in our State.
  Frankly, it has been frustrating how hard it has been to get this 
process moved forward. If you look at the proposed lease sale, the sale 
is allowed in the fourth year of the 5-year period. Only one sale is 
even allowed. An artificial buffer of 50 miles was inserted into the 
sale.
  We are getting one sale late in the 5-year period, with a 50-mile 
buffer, when the old seismic shows that most of that oil and gas is 
around 25 miles out.
  The ``yes'' that we got from the administration and the fact this 
process is even moving forward is good news for North Carolina and the 
other States on the Atlantic Coast; but it is certainly not, in my 
opinion, an appropriate response to the potential we have got there.
  I agree with the gentlewoman when she said the seismic is old; the 
seismic was done in the late seventies, but this administration has 
called for new seismic mapping. I am looking forward to that because, 
again, we want to use good science.
  We have given one opportunity pretty far out in the fourth year of a 
5-year period, and I am afraid we are going to lose that because, if 
you look at the history under this administration, there was a lease 
sale proposed in Virginia and that was taken away.
  I think, to guarantee that we get at least some shot at unlocking 
this potential off the coast of getting the American sources of energy 
into the pipeline, getting North Carolinians to work in these energy 
jobs, I think it is important we have this amendment. I would urge my 
colleagues to support this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from 
North Carolina and his concerns about jobs for his home State, but as a 
Member of Congress who also represents the coastal State of Maine, I 
know the deep concerns that people have about the potential dangers of 
offshore oil drilling and the possible dangers to the fisheries, marine 
mammals, and a whole variety of other things. The reason we have this 
process is it is critically important to our State.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Loudermilk). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. PINGREE. 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 North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hudson

  Mr. HUDSON. 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 by the Environmental Protection Agency to issue, 
     implement, administer, or enforce any regulation of 
     particulate matter emissions from residential barbecues.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to offer an amendment that 
would prohibit the EPA from regulating particulate matter emissions 
from residential barbecues.
  As you may recall, last August, the EPA issued a grant to ``perform 
research and develop preventative technology that will reduce fine 
particulate emissions from residential barbecues.''
  The EPA gets a lot of things wrong, especially with this preposterous 
study. For one thing, ``barbecue'' is a term us southerners use to talk 
about the best pork in North Carolina or a community pig picking.
  What they are proposing is reducing emissions from residential 
propane grills, which means they want to stop you and me from grilling 
outside on our own property. By the way, propane is one of the most 
clean and efficient sources of energy out there.
  Regulations that waste our time, money, and resources are bad as it 
is, but they are trying to go as far as restricting our personal 
freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, this grant was met with staunch opposition from 
conservatives and other outdoor enthusiasts like myself. If this isn't 
part of EPA's larger goal of regulating grill emissions, then it begs 
the question why they are wasting our hard-earned tax dollars on this 
mind-boggling study in the first place.
  We have seen overreaches by the EPA time and time again, from their 
flawed waters of the USA regulation to their disastrous clean power 
plan that is cap-and-trade by fiat to their new ground level ozone 
regulations that would have a catastrophic impact on manufacturing in 
this country; but now, they are studying limiting emissions from 
residential grills. Enough is enough.
  Mr. Chairman, it is summer, and it is grilling season. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of the Member 
from North Carolina, and I will give him credit. They have better 
barbecue than my home State. We have got you beat on lobsters, but that 
is how it goes.
  I want to say I think this argument is somewhat cynical and a little 
too suspicious of our government; perhaps Republicans have gotten too 
far down this road.
  My understanding is this summer, a conservative media outlet ran a 
sensationalized story about EPA's regulatory overreach. The story 
claimed that EPA has its eyes on pollution from backyard barbecues. The 
problem with the story and this amendment is that it is based on a 
false premise and a mischaracterization of important work.
  EPA operates a successful and innovative grant program that 
encourages

[[Page 10859]]

students around the Nation to design solutions for a sustainable 
future. It is called People, Prosperity, and the Planet Student Design 
Competition for Sustainability. Its purpose is to foster innovation, 
not to create regulations.
  The EPA awarded one of these design grants to a group of University 
of California students working to design a system to make barbecues 
burn cleaner and be better for the environment. The students received 
$15,000 from the EPA for the idea. In addition, the university has said 
the idea has potential for global application.
  Mr. Chair, in many developing nations, women hunch over traditional 
cook stoves for hours a day, breathing in toxic smoke. Exposure to this 
household air pollution is responsible for low birth weights, childhood 
pneumonia, and more than 4 million premature deaths each year.
  The availability of cleaner cooking technologies could literally be 
lifesaving for many of these women and children. Instead of attacking 
the EPA for these innovative grants, we should be applauding them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind 
comments about North Carolina barbecue. I do admit the lobster rolls in 
Maine are pretty good. Maybe we can work out some kind of exchange.
  The gentlewoman is right. I am guilty as charged. I am cynical and 
suspicious of the Federal Government, particularly the EPA, when you 
look at the some of the things they are spending our tax dollars on and 
some of the rules they are proposing.
  Let's get serious. We are talking about a $15 million grant to study 
the emissions of a propane grill in your backyard.
  Now, we all are concerned about toxic smoke in homes and living 
conditions of individuals--the example that was mentioned--but we are 
talking about a propane gas grill in your backyard. The EPA has no 
business regulating that. They have spent $15 million of our tax money 
to form a study, which is the first step in a rulemaking process.
  I think this Chamber needs to say loud and clear to the EPA: focus on 
the job that the gentlewoman described, focus on the real issues and 
the mission of the EPA, and keep your hands off our grills in our 
backyards.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am happy to have an exchange--North 
Carolina barbecue, Maine lobster. It is probably a pretty fair 
exchange.
  I just want to clarify. It is $15,000, not $15 million that the EPA 
spent working on this innovation.
  I understand your concerns, and I appreciate the points that you 
brought up.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick

  Mr. FITZPATRICK. 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:


                         forest legacy program

       Sec. __. For ``Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
     State and Private Forestry'' for the Forest Legacy program, 
     as authorized by section 1217 of Title XII of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 
     2103c), there is hereby appropriated, and the amount 
     otherwise provided for ``Department of the Interior--Bureau 
     of Land Management--Management of Lands and Resources'' is 
     reduced by, $5,985,000.

  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.

                              {time}  2315

  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer and then withdraw 
this amendment which will make it easier for land preservation efforts, 
including under the Federal Forest Legacy Program.
  During my time as a local official in Pennsylvania as a Bucks County 
commissioner, I was proud to lead local efforts to preserve the beauty 
of the countryside and the Bucks County landscape, while advancing 
smarter development initiatives to reclaim brownfields through 
commonsense conservation efforts.
  Along with a task force for that purpose, our community was able to 
expend approximately $100 million for the preservation of farmland, 
parkland, and critical natural areas, close to about 15,000 acres in 
our one county preserved.
  Now, as a strong advocate for land preservation in Congress, I 
continue to be a supporter of vital conservation programs, including 
the United States Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program.
  My amendment today would reallocate $5.9 million from the Bureau of 
Land Management, Management of Lands and Resources, to the Forest 
Legacy Program for the purpose of fully funding two additional 
preservation projects.
  The Forest Legacy Program is a Federal program that supports and 
encourages State and private efforts to protect environmentally 
sensitive forestlands. The program helps the States develop and carry 
out their forest conservation plans, while encouraging and supporting 
acquisition of conservation easements without removing the property 
from private ownership.
  Most conservation easements restrict development, require sustainable 
forestry practices, and protect other values.
  The additional funding my amendment provides will allow for the 
protection of 4,000 acres of Pennsylvania forests in the Northeast 
Connection.
  Mr. Chairman, the Northeast Connection is a collaboration between the 
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and three 
groups of over 150 families to conserve more than 4,000 contiguous 
forest acres which serve as a natural bridge between the 84,000-acre 
Delaware State Forest, which is managed by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, and the 77,000-acre Delaware Water Gap National 
Recreation Area, managed by the National Park Service.
  I believe this project is a crucial objective to preserving 
Pennsylvania's and our Nation's natural resources and beauty.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman for his hard work on the 
underlying bill. I look forward to working with the chairman on robust 
funding for this program.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. I certainly appreciate the gentleman yielding me time, 
and I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us.
  We support the Forest Legacy Program, and I pledge to you we will 
continue to work with you and other supporters of the program as we 
move this process along.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the chairman for his desire to provide 
additional resources, if possible, to the Forest Legacy Program. It is 
a great program for our Nation, well utilized by States and local 
communities and private landowners. I look forward to working with the 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 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 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. 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:

[[Page 10860]]




    limitation on use of funds to treat northern long-eared bat as 
                           endangered species

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or any 
     other agency of the Department of the Interior to treat the 
     northern long-eared bat as an endangered 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 Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service has released a final 4(d) rule listing the northern 
long-eared bat as ``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act.
  While certain colonies of the species of bat have seen dramatic 
population losses in recent years, Fish and Wildlife has repeatedly 
asserted that the underlying fundamental cause is a fungal disease 
known as the white-nose syndrome.
  White-nose syndrome does not directly kill or harm these bats. 
Rather, it wakes them out of hibernation, resulting in the bats burning 
through stored fat and leaving their hibernacula in search of food when 
none is often found or available.
  I am pleased that the underlying legislation contains funding for 
white-nose syndrome research. Bats play a critical role in the 
ecosystem, and more needs to be done in order to restore colonies 
devastated by white-nose.
  However, as we allow for necessary habitat conservation, we must also 
ensure that activities occurring in the bats' range are not 
unreasonably or unnecessarily impacted as a result of the Endangered 
Species Act listing.
  Specifically, such a listing could have great impacts on forest 
management, forest products, agriculture, energy production, mining, 
and commercial development. Because this species of bat is found in 38 
States and Washington, D.C., a listing under the Endangered Species Act 
would have significant impacts through this enormous geographical 
range.
  My amendment is simple. It merely prohibits the Department of the 
Interior, for a period of 1 year, from considering any new rules beyond 
the final 4(d) rule or any action to treat the northern long-eared bat 
as endangered, which is the most restrictive form of ESA listing.
  The intention is to ensure reasonable land use within the bats' range 
while Fish and Wildlife continues to research and work with the States 
on finding treatments for white-nose syndrome.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Fish 
and Wildlife Service from treating the northern long-eared bat as 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
  Fish and Wildlife Service listed the northern long-eared bat as 
threatened--threatened--with an interim rule in April of this year. 
Since the bat was listed as threatened and not endangered, this 
amendment would have no effect on the Service's implementation of the 
rule.
  Even though the amendment has no practical effect, I strongly oppose 
its intent, which runs counter to the fundamental principle that 
science should govern our determinations under our environmental laws.
  Bats are critically important to the ecosystem, and a study published 
in Science magazine found the value of pest control services provided 
by insect-eating bats in the United States ranges from the low of $3.7 
billion to the high of $53 billion a year.
  Additionally, researchers warn that notable economic losses to North 
American agriculture could occur in the next 4 to 5 years as a result 
of emerging threats to bat populations. Bats play an important role in 
our economy when it comes to eliminating pests.
  The primary factor threatening the northern long-eared bat is a 
functional disease called white-nose syndrome, as has been mentioned. 
However, because this disease has reduced populations of the bat, human 
activities that might not have been significant in the past are now 
having a greater effect.
  It is appropriate that Fish and Wildlife Service is taking steps to 
protect the species, but we should be supporting the Fish and Wildlife 
Service in its efforts. We should be supporting them, not blocking the 
agency from doing its job.
  So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for her perspectives. Certainly, a number of those points I agree 
with--the value of the bats--as chairman of the Conservation and 
Forestry Subcommittee. In agriculture, bats serve a very important 
purpose.
  I also agree with her premise, although I think her interpretation of 
what the science is is somewhat misguided. The science is extremely 
important, and the science has shown, in fact, the agency responsible 
for oversight on the Endangered Species Act has publicly acknowledged, 
that any job-crushing restrictions on industries related to habitat 
under an endangered listing with these bats will not help the northern 
long-eared bats. The threat really is going to an endangered listing 
which would do that.
  I would agree that the Fish and Wildlife Service needs resources and, 
quite frankly, they are getting those. Just last week they released $1 
million toward studying the white-nose syndrome. Within this underlying 
bill, I believe there is an amount of $10 million to study the white-
nose syndrome. It is a fungus. It is not habitat, and it is not the 
industries that work within those habitats.
  And so, quite frankly, we need to give the Fish and Wildlife Service 
what they need, and that is the support that they have already, that 
they released last week through many grants throughout many States, and 
the underlying $10 million in this underlying bill.
  I would just ask for support of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I read from the amendment:

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by 
     Fish and Wildlife or any other service or agency in the 
     Department of the Interior to treat the northern long-eared 
     bat as an endangered species.

  Well, first off, I reiterate again, it is listed as threatened, not 
as endangered. And this amendment doesn't even address the role the 
Forest Service would still have. So this is a poorly constructed 
amendment.
  We need to be very, very careful and very thoughtful when we write 
these amendments and make sure that we not only give Fish and Wildlife 
the tools that they need, that when something is threatened and not 
endangered, whether it is the Forest Service, Interior, or whether it 
is U.S. Fish and Wildlife, we need to let them do their job based on 
the science.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not support the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, this amendment is critically 
important. The designation of the Northern Long Eared Bat as threatened 
has had a significant impact on the Ninth District of Georgia, despite 
the fact that the only evidence it is there is a geo-tagged dot on a 
map.
  These bats are listed as threatened because White Nose Syndrome has 
led to a drastic decline in their population. Humans don't cause White 
Nose Syndrome but they are being penalized for it. There are some 
counties in my district where the bat has never been seen, but because 
they're in the bat's ``range'' they are subject to burdensome 
restrictions.
  A construction project for a new interchange in my home, Hall County, 
was delayed because of the need to survey for the bat.
  What's worse, even if no bats are found during the preconstruction 
bat survey, Fish and Wildlife Service requires a clearing restriction 
in construction contracts for prime-building

[[Page 10861]]

months if certain factors contributing to a quality bat habitat are 
present. These types of restrictions increase prices and create 
unnecessary and burdensome delays on important infrastructure projects. 
Similar restrictions can also negatively affect other sectors such as 
forestry, ranching, and utilities.
  The underlying bill takes important steps to address the problematic 
requirements associated with the bat's status as a threatened species. 
This amendment goes the extra step to prevent the current situation 
from getting even worse by prohibiting the use of funds to list the 
Northern Long Eared Bat as endangered.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  Mr. LAMBORN. 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 shall 
     be used to implement or enforce the threatened species 
     listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

  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. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  The Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with a body 
approximately 3 inches long, with a 4- to 6-inch tail and large hind 
feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives primarily 
in streamside ecosystems along the foothills of southeastern Wyoming 
south to Colorado Springs in my district, along the front range of 
Colorado. To evade predators, the mouse can jump like a miniature 
kangaroo, up to 18 inches high, using its 6-inch-long whiplike tail as 
a rudder to switch directions in midair.
  But the little acrobat's most famous feat was its leap onto the 
Endangered Species list in May 1998, a move that has hindered 
development in moist meadows and streamside areas from Colorado 
Springs, Colorado, to Laramie, Wyoming.
  Among many projects that have been affected: the Jeffco Parkway 
southeast of Rocky Flats, an expansion of Chatfield Reservoir, and 
housing developments in El Paso County along tributaries of Monument 
Creek. Builders, landowners, and local governments in affected areas 
have incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of 
the mouse. Protecting the mouse has even been placed ahead of 
protecting human life, and let me explain why that is the case.
  On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event which 
damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and 
public works projects. And while Colorado has come a long way in 
rebuilding, there remains a lot of work to be done.
  As a result of the Preble's mouse's listing as an endangered species, 
many restoration projects were delayed as Colorado sought a waiver. In 
fact, FEMA was so concerned that they sent out a notice that stated, 
``legally required review may cause some delay in projects undertaken 
in the Preble's mouse habitat.''

                              {time}  2330

  It goes on to warn that ``local officials who proceed with projects 
without adhering to environmental laws risk fines and could lose 
Federal funding for their projects.'' While a waiver was eventually 
granted, the fact remains that the scientific evidence does not justify 
these delays or the millions of taxpayer dollars that go toward 
protecting a rodent that is actually part of a larger group that roams 
throughout half of the North American continent.
  Several recent scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's 
mouse does not warrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all 
and is actually part of the Bear Lodge jumping mouse population. Even 
the scientist that originally classified this mouse as a subspecies has 
since recanted his work.
  Moreover, the Preble's mouse has a low conservation priority score, 
meaning the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on protection 
efforts could have been better spent on other, more fragile species or 
other uses to accomplish good.
  The threats that development and transportation allegedly pose to the 
mouse have been greatly overstated. Ample regulations already in place 
minimize the impact of development on this species.
  My amendment would correct the injustice that has been caused by an 
inaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and refocus the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that have been 
thoroughly scientifically vetted and that actually should come under 
the Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Fish and 
Wildlife Service from treating the Preble's meadow jumping mouse as 
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and would 
restrict, again, the Fish and Wildlife Service from offering any of the 
critical protections to preserve the species.
  This amendment is in addition to a growing list of anti-Endangered 
Species Act provisions, and it makes one wonder if--for the number of 
people here who are opposing the work that Fish and Wildlife is doing 
under the Endangered Species Act--if the intent isn't just to do away 
with the entire act.
  Last year, Fish and Wildlife reviewed two petitions to delist the 
Preble's meadow jumping mouse and determined that protections under the 
Endangered Species were still necessary.
  Voting for this amendment might undo a lot of work that was done that 
is well on its way to having this mouse removed from the endangered 
species list because this amendment ignores the determination and 
short-circuits the statutory process informed by science.
  I would certainly think that a rider on this bill is not the place to 
have a robust debate about how close we are maybe with Fish and 
Wildlife being able to delist this mouse and, by putting this language 
in the bill, that it undoes a lot of potentially good work.
  It throws out, with this amendment, the carefully science-based work, 
as I said, that the Fish and Wildlife Service has worked towards and 
chips away at the very foundation of the Endangered Species Act, which 
makes me wonder, as I said earlier, if the intent of many of the 
amendments being offered is not only to chip away but to do away with 
the Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, all I will say in response is that this is 
a subspecies--actually, it is not even a species or subspecies. It 
should have never been listed in the first place.
  The science shows that it is actually part of the Bear Lodge jumping 
mouse population. For that reason, it shouldn't even be on the list in 
the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman's remarks, this is not 
the place--as a rider on the environmental appropriations bill--to be 
having these thoughtful discussions. If that is what needs to take 
place, this is not the bill to be doing it on. I mean, we have an 
authorizing committee. They can hear things on it; and you can have a 
robust, full, transparent discussion and bring all the scientists in.
  Let me close with this: I would be really remiss if I did not remind 
my colleagues that the Endangered Species Act, in fact, did rescue the 
bald eagle.

[[Page 10862]]

The bald eagle's recovery is an American success story because we were 
united in the belief that this was the symbol of our Nation and was 
worth protecting for the continuing benefit of future generations.
  It feels like we have lost sight of being able to do that today, 
especially with the lack of transparency and full debate that takes 
place with all these riders being offered on an authorization bill.
  Congress needs to give serious consideration of what kind of 
conservation legacy we are leaving for our children, and our children 
will want us to do a better job than just to put riders onto an 
appropriations bill. 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 Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have one other 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 implement or enforce the threatened species or 
     endangered species listing of any plant or wildlife that has 
     not undergone a review as required by section 4(c)(2) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2) et 
     seq.).

  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. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has to follow section 4(c)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act by conducting a review of all threatened and 
endangered plants and wildlife at least once every 5 years. It 
prohibits any funds in the bill from being used to implement or enforce 
the listing of any plant or wildlife that has not undergone the review 
as required by law.
  Under the Endangered Species Act, the purpose of a 5-year review is 
to ensure that threatened and endangered species have the appropriate 
level of protection. The reviews assess each threatened and endangered 
species to determine whether its status has changed since the time of 
its listing or its last status review and whether it should be removed 
from the list, delisted; reclassified from endangered to threatened, 
downlisted; reclassified from threatened to endangered, uplisted; or 
maintain its current classification. You can find all this on the Web 
site of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Because the Endangered Species Act grants extensive protection to a 
species, including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, 
it makes sense to verify if a plant or animal should be on the list in 
the first place.
  Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service has acknowledged that it has neglected its responsibility to 
conduct the required reviews for hundreds of listed species.
  For example, in Florida alone, it was found that 77 species out of a 
total of 124 protected species in that State were overdue for a 5-year 
review. In other words, the government had not followed the law for a 
staggering 62 percent of species in that State.
  In California, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged that 
it had failed to follow the law for roughly two-thirds of the State's 
species listed under the Endangered Species Act and was forced by the 
courts to conduct the required reviews of 194 species.
  By enforcing the 5-year review, which is in current law, my amendment 
will ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best 
available scientific information in implementing its responsibilities 
under the Endangered Species Act, including incorporating new 
information through public comment and assessing ongoing conservation 
efforts. These are things we should all be in agreement with.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service follows the Endangered Species Act, that we do not 
provide money in this bill that would violate current law.
  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, again, would prohibit the 
Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the Endangered 
Species Act listing for any species that has not undergone a review. 
This amendment joins a growing list of anti-Endangered Species Act 
provisions.
  The amendment would block the listing of any species that does not 
receive status review by Fish and Wildlife Service every 5 years. Fish 
and Wildlife Service is required to do a 5-year review every 5 years 
after a species is listed. However, with over 1,500 domestic listed 
species, that would amount to over 300 status reviews every year.
  Why hasn't Fish and Wildlife done it? Well, it is because we--
Congress--do not provide Fish and Wildlife Service with enough 
resources to complete such a large task.
  Follow the law? They would love to. In fact, this bill that we are 
considering right now includes a 50 percent--a 50 percent--cut in the 
listing program. Now, how can they follow the law when Congress doesn't 
put any tools in the toolbox allowing them to do their job?
  I really have to wonder if this House is prepared to appropriate the 
millions of dollars that would be needed to meet the requirement of 
this amendment.
  Fish and Wildlife Service already follows a transparent, science-
based listing process. This amendment only seeks to undermine the 
Endangered Species Act because there is not enough money in here that 
Congress provides Fish and Wildlife to do the job in the fashion that 
Congress has asked it to do.
  In order to list a species under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service follows a strict legal process known as a 
rulemaking procedure. The first step in assessing the status of the 
species is the Fish and Wildlife Service publishes a notice of reviews 
that identify the species that is believed to meet the definition of 
threatened or endangered. The species are candidates.
  Now, these notices of review then, the Fish and Wildlife Service goes 
out and seeks biological information to complete the status of the 
reviews for the candidate species; then the Fish and Wildlife Service 
publishes those notices in the Federal Register so the process is 
transparent to the public.
  As you can see, the Fish and Wildlife Service follows an open, 
transparent policy that adequately reviews the species prior to 
listing. This amendment would exploit a 5-year review backlog that has 
been caused in part by this Congress' unwillingness to provide adequate 
funding in order to attack the endangered species list. Let's be 
transparent about that.
  The Endangered Species Act exists to offer necessary protections to 
ensure species survival. Quite frankly, the majority of our 
constituents support that. Let's make sure that science and species 
management practices continue to dictate species listings, not 
Congress; and let's figure out a way to come together, as the gentleman 
said, to give Fish and Wildlife the tools that they need in order that 
they can follow the laws that Congress has requested them to follow and 
not do a smoke and mirror show about how Fish and Wildlife is refusing 
to follow the law.
  They can only do what they are able to do with the dollars that 
Congress appropriates to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my colleague from Minnesota 
acknowledged that it is required under the law for Fish and Wildlife 
Service to do these 5-year reviews. I thank her for admitting that.

[[Page 10863]]

  Their budget is approximately $1.4 billion, and they are able to 
prioritize within that $1.4 billion where they spend their resources. 
It is not Congress' fault. They just haven't made it a priority. They 
should make it a priority to follow the law. They can do these few 
hundred reviews every year out of $1.4 billion, I am sure.
  I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's require 
this agency to follow the laws that are on the books.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to be really clear. This bill now 
includes a 50 percent cut to the listing program. The listing program 
is money that Congress puts in it to do the reviews. Congress cut it by 
50 percent.
  They can't just transfer money around. We have handcuffed and tied up 
the Fish and Wildlife Service by the amount of funding that Congress 
gives them to do their job.
  They don't wake up in the morning and say: We don't want to follow 
the law.
  They wake up in the morning, and they see how much Congress has 
appropriated them.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I just want to point out that what you are talking about 
would be in the future. I am talking about the current status of them 
not following the law by doing the reviews.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, they do not have the funding.

                              {time}  2345

  Congress has not given them the funding in the listing program to do 
their job. Congress needs to be held accountable for the 300 listings 
not being able to be done every year because Congress has failed to 
give them the money to do the laws that Congress passed.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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 by the Environmental Protection Agency to take any of 
     the actions described as a ``backstop'' in the December 29, 
     2009, letter from EPA's Regional Administrator to the States 
     in the Watershed and the District of Columbia in response to 
     the development or implementation of a State's watershed 
     implementation and referred to in enclosure B of such letter.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply prohibits the EPA from using the 
Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load and the Watershed 
Implementation Plans to take over States' water quality strategies, 
protecting the 10th Amendment rights of States across the Nation from 
the heavy hand of the EPA. This amendment makes it clear that Congress 
intended for the Clean Water Act to be State led, not subject to the 
whims of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  Over the last several years, the EPA has implemented a total maximum 
daily load plan for the Chesapeake Bay watershed which strictly limits 
the amount of nutrients that can enter the Chesapeake Bay. While a 
laudable goal and one I support in principle, through its 
implementation, the EPA has basically given every State in the 
watershed an ultimatum--either the State does exactly what the EPA 
says, or it faces the threat of an EPA takeover of their water quality 
programs. In some cases, the EPA will even rewrite the States' water 
quality plans if they disagree with the States' decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear that this amendment 
would not stop the EPA from working with the States to restore the 
Chesapeake Bay, nor would it in any way undermine the cleanup efforts 
already underway. I repeat, our amendment does not stop the TMDL or 
watershed implementation plans from moving forward, and it does not 
prevent the EPA from working cooperatively with the States to help 
restore the Chesapeake Bay.
  This amendment is very carefully crafted to address the 10th 
Amendment federalism issues that the EPA is encroaching upon and does 
not address the States' laudable goals of continuing to improve the 
health of the Chesapeake Bay.
  The States should be able to use any resources the EPA may have 
available to help develop and implement a strategy to restore the Bay. 
This amendment only stops the ability of the EPA to step in and take 
over a State's plan--again, ensuring states' rights remain intact and 
not usurped by the EPA.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bay is a national treasure, and I want to see it 
restored. But we know that in order to achieve this goal, the States 
and the EPA must work together. The EPA cannot be allowed to railroad 
the States and micromanage the process.
  With this amendment, we are simply telling the EPA to respect the 
important role States play in implementing the Clean Water Act and help 
prevent another Federal power grab by the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the amendment, and I urge 
adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, yet another fix in 
search of a problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Goodlatte's amendment. It 
would deliberately undermine the crucial work that is already being 
done to rehabilitate the Chesapeake Bay. It would also undermine the 
historic Federal-State partnership that has done so much already to 
improve the quality of the Bay and its surroundings.
  Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It is the 
Nation's largest estuary. It benefits all Americans, and especially 
those living in the six States that comprise the Bay watershed: 
Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, 
and the District of Columbia.
  The States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including the gentleman's 
own home State of Virginia, have been working together for over 40 
years to clean up the Bay. And guess what, Mr. Chairman? It is working.
  The Chesapeake Bay Program's most recent interim report shows that 
tremendous progress has been made. States are meeting the pollution 
reduction goals in their plans. In fact, some are exceeding them. 
Studies show that so-called ``dead zones'' are shrinking, and key 
populations such as oysters are starting to rebound.
  Under the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint, States develop and 
implement their own pollution reduction plans. The EPA set up an 
initial framework, but the details of how each State chooses to reach 
the targets, in fact, are State-driven and State-implemented. My own 
home State of Maryland has created a plan to reduce its nitrogen levels 
by 46 percent, phosphorus by 48 percent, and sediment by 28 percent 
below the benchmark 1985 levels.
  Of course, each of the Bay watershed States depends on the other 
States to implement these plans simultaneously and in good faith. After 
all, Mr. Chairman, watersheds don't stop at the State borders, and the 
kind of go-it-alone approach that seems to be advocated by the majority 
has never

[[Page 10864]]

worked for environmental issues, and it will not work to preserve and 
to save the Chesapeake Bay.
  Failure, for example, by one State to do its part threatens the work 
and hundreds of millions of dollars that all the other States have 
invested in their plans. I don't want to see Maryland's work 
jeopardized because another State in the watershed doesn't meet its 
responsibilities. And only the EPA can stand as the arbiter to make 
sure that that is true.
  So, Mr. Chairman, as a safety measure against that kind of bad faith 
by one of the partners, the EPA has backstop actions that it can take 
to ensure that the other States' investments are preserved. These 
backstop actions are not new authorities, but they are existing 
authorities that the EPA can use to make the needed pollution 
reductions. That has been part of the partnership for 40 years.
  In fact, just yesterday, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 
Philadelphia unanimously affirmed the EPA's authority to place 
restrictions on wastewater treatment and runoff by farms and 
construction. The EPA places limits on the amount of nitrogen, 
phosphorus, and sediment that are allowed in the watershed and, thus, 
into the Bay. This is known as the total maximum daily load, or TMDL, 
of chemical runoff that the Bay's watershed can handle while still 
meeting water quality standards.
  The court in its decision strongly affirmed that ``the States and EPA 
could, working together, best allocate the benefits and burdens of 
lowering pollution.'' It is, in fact, an acknowledgment that this is a 
partnership that requires the full participation of the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  Mr. Chairman, the goal of the partnership is not just an 
environmental one. According to a peer-reviewed report by the 
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the economic impact of full implementation 
of the Clean Water Blueprint is more than $22 billion annually. Yet 
this amendment by one of Virginia's own Members actually threatens that 
partnership by barring the EPA from using funds to take any backstop 
actions. It would allow one State to break its agreement and cease 
implementing the plan.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
each side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Maryland's time has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the 
pertinent subcommittee in the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. 
Goodlatte's amendment.
  Since 2009, I have been hearing directly from my constituents--many 
of who are small farmers--about the significant challenges and costs of 
the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load mandate. These significant 
concerns also extend to the State and local governments because of the 
billions of dollars in direct costs and new regulatory burdens that 
TMDL imposes. No doubt the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, but 
it is quickly becoming the national treasury with all these costs and 
taxes upon our States and local municipalities.
  The Agriculture Committee's Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee, 
which I have the honor of chairing, has also heard directly from the 
stakeholders over the past few Congresses.
  While each and every one of these witnesses wholeheartedly supports 
the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, there remains great concern over 
the lack of consistent models, the heavy-handed approach of TMDL, and 
the lack of needed flexibility while implementing the WIPs. This 
amendment is needed in order to allow for that flexibility at the State 
and local levels.
  Pennsylvania has been very innovative in our efforts to do our part 
with the Bay restoration, and that innovation will continue into the 
future.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
  However, rather than acting punitively, EPA must work collaboratively 
with the States.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He is 
quite right. This is very costly for the States. The State of Virginia 
has estimated a cost of over $16 billion to comply with the backstop 
requirements of the EPA. That is just one of the six States.
  Secondly, the EPA has been asked repeatedly, including in hearings 
conducted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania in his subcommittee and at 
my request and the request of others, to do a cost-benefit analysis to 
show us that the multi-tens of billions of dollars that these six 
States will collectively spend will be reflected in improvements to the 
quality of the Chesapeake Bay. They have never provided that cost-
benefit analysis.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from Maryland, 
she also is quite right that tremendous progress has been made in 
improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay, but almost all of it prior 
to the President taking his pen and signing the executive order that 
contains this backstop language that we need to stop and return the 
power to the State and local governments.
  Sedimentation, phosphorus, and nitrogen are all down more than 40 
percent--sedimentation more than 50 percent going into the Bay. The Bay 
is improving in its health because of the work done by the States. They 
should have the authority to do this without having the EPA hold a gun 
to their head.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why this amendment should be passed, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I thank Ms. McCollum for her work on this 
bill and to Bobby Scott and Don Beyer for joining me in this effort. I 
rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Just yesterday, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld EPA authority 
to set Chesapeake Bay pollution limits, which have led to the best 
cleanup progress in over 25 years. For the Bay, as with so many other 
waters across the country, the Clean Water Act backstop is critical to 
ensure that states are meeting their commitments.
  In Maryland, we have cities working to manage stormwater and farmers 
implementing best management practices to stop runoff. But for all our 
efforts, we will never have a clean and healthy Bay if pollution runs 
downstream from Pennsylvania, New York, or West Virginia.
  With our enormous watershed, encompassing 64,000 square miles, six 
States, and D.C., everyone must do their fair share. And to do that is 
through the Clean Water Act's Federal backstop. I strongly oppose this 
amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague that would, in essence, prohibit the 
EPA from spending any funds to ensure that states fulfill their 
obligations under the Clean Water Act to help clean up the Chesapeake 
Bay. If passed into law, this amendment would endanger the progress we 
have made in restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and would put in 
jeopardy not only the Chesapeake Bay itself, but also critical economic 
contributions that the Bay provides.
  When I was in the Virginia House of Delegates, I was part of a joint 
Virginia-Maryland legislative task force that first recommended the 
creation of a multi-state commission to address Bay issues. In our 
report filed in 1980, we recommended ``the need for improved 
coordination of Bay-wide management to meet the long-term needs of the 
people of both Maryland and Virginia'' and found that this was not an 
issue that Maryland and Virginia alone could solve.
  Cleaning up the Bay required the cooperation of all states in the 
watershed. In 1983, Chesapeake Bay Watershed states signed the first 
Chesapeake Bay agreement to coordinate

[[Page 10865]]

their efforts on this issue, and in 2010 the EPA set pollution limits 
to reduce pollution, nutrients, and sediment flowing into the Bay.
  As a result of these efforts, the quality of the Chesapeake Bay has 
been significantly improved and states continue to invest millions of 
dollars in their Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint Plans. Just 
yesterday, a unanimous decision was issued by the Third Circuit Court 
of Appeals affirming the authority of the EPA under the Clean Water Act 
to set limits on pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. In the 
decision, the Court wrote that cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay ``will 
require sacrifice . . . but that is a consequence of the tremendous 
effort it will take to restore health to the bay.''
  I agree with the Court's assessment: cleaning up the Bay will take 
tremendous efforts and coordination between all six states in the 
Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the District of Columbia, and 
participating states should have the certainty that other states can be 
trusted to fulfill their obligations to help clean up the Bay.
  I believe that instead of offering amendments to undermine these 
efforts, we should be investing even more resources to ensure that they 
are successful. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Goodlatte 
amendment. The Goodlatte amendment removes the federal backstops which 
ensure that states meet their responsibilities under the Clean Water 
Act to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
  The Chesapeake Bay is a critical part of Virginia and we are already 
starting to see the results of successful Bay cleanup efforts. Virginia 
oysters are booming--last year the harvest was up 25% and passed the 
500,000 bushel-mark. That is why Virginia is committed to working with 
EPA and other Bay states to clean up the Chesapeake. There have been 
hundreds of millions of dollars invested in this effort and federal 
backstops play an important role to ensure that all states do their 
share.
  But this amendment puts our investments and progress at serious risk. 
This amendment suggests that it would preserve the rights of the states 
to write their own water quality plans. But the Commonwealth of 
Virginia already wrote its own water quality plan and the Total Maximum 
Daily Load submission was accepted by EPA. So in Virginia, this is 
simply not a problem. So to me, this amendment looks like an answer in 
search of a problem. A problem we do not have in Virginia.
  But what this amendment does do is this. It creates a BIG problem for 
Virginia because it would allow upstream states off the hook. It would 
allow upstream states to stop their cleanup with no consequences. In 
Virginia, we would feel--and see--real consequences. We could see 
increases in dirty water flowing downstream, reversing all of our hard 
work.
  If upstream states stop their cleanups, Virginia would need to double 
the work and more--and we would still not have a clean Bay. The fact is 
that this amendment would absolutely undermine the cleanup efforts 
already underway. It puts at risk future environmental and economic 
benefits that Virginia would accrue with a cleaner, healthier bay such 
as more abundant seafood, tourism, recreation, and improved quality of 
life. As the state at the bottom of the bay watershed, Virginia's 
success in restoring our part of the Bay is dependent upon what the 
other states do, or don't do.
  This amendment would ensure that other states would write the future 
of Virginia's waters and the future of our Bay. That is why I am 
working with my colleagues Chris Van Hollen and Bobby Scott to raise 
awareness of the dangers of this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote NO. It takes away our clean water future 
and our clean water investments. This amendment is bad for Virginia and 
bad for the future health of the Chesapeake Bay.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  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 Mrs. Black

  Mrs. BLACK. 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 by the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize, 
     implement, administer, or enforce section 1037.601(a)(1) of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be 
     revised under the proposed rule entitled ``Greenhouse Gas 
     Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 
     Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2'' signed by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on June 
     19, 2015 (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827), or any rule of 
     the same substance, with respect to glider kits and glider 
     vehicles (as defined in section 1037.801 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as proposed to be revised under such 
     proposed rule).

  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.

                              {time}  0000

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
protect Tennessee workers and small manufacturing businesses from the 
EPA's latest overreach.
  Last month, the EPA released its Phase 2 fuel-efficiency and 
emissions standards for new medium-and heavy-duty trucks.
  While many in the trucking industry are not opposed to this rule as a 
whole, one section in the proposal wrongly applies these new standards 
to what is known as glider kits.
  I recently toured a business in my district that manufactures these 
kits. For those who don't know, a glider kit is a group of truck parts 
that can include a brand-new frame, cab, or axles, but does not include 
an engine or transmission.
  Since a glider kit is less expensive than buying a new truck and can 
extend the working life of a truck, businesses and drivers with damaged 
or older vehicles may choose to purchase one of these kits instead of 
buying a completely new vehicle.
  Unfortunately, the EPA is proposing to apply the new Phase 2 
standards to glider kits, even though the gliders are not really new 
vehicles.
  Mr. Chairman, this directly impacts my district where we have glider 
kits being manufactured and purchased by companies in places like 
Byrdstown, Sparta, and Jamestown, communities that are already 
struggling with an above average unemployment and would see job 
opportunities put further out of reach if this misguided rule goes into 
effect.
  It is also unclear whether the EPA even has the authority to regulate 
replacement parts like gliders in the first place.
  Once more, while the EPA's stated goal with Phase 2 is to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, the Agency has not studied the emissions 
impact of remanufactured engines and gliders compared to new vehicles.
  Mr. Chairman, if the EPA is going to promulgate rules that raise 
costs and hurt jobs in districts like mine, the least they could do is 
to have a few facts prepared to back them up.
  Under this ill-advised rule, businesses and drivers that wish to use 
glider kits would be effectively forced to buy a completely new vehicle 
instead. Reducing glider sales would also end up limiting consumer 
choice in the marketplace.
  That is why my amendment protects businesses, jobs, and consumers by 
prohibiting the EPA from moving forward with this Phase 2 standard on 
glider kits.
  To be clear, this amendment would not--would not--bar the EPA from 
implementing the whole Phase 2 rule for new medium- and heavy-duty 
trucks. It would simply clarify that glider kits and glider vehicles 
are not new trucks as the EPA wrongly claims.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to help 
support American manufacturing and stop the EPA from attempting to shut 
down the glider industry.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BLACK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  It is my understanding that the proposed rule is supported broadly by 
many in the trucking manufacturing industry, so for that reason, I 
support her amendment.

[[Page 10866]]

  However, as with any rule, there are some specifics that we need to 
iron out. I would like to work with my colleague and with EPA to see if 
we can't resolve those specifics between now and the final rule.
  In the meantime, I support including language in the Interior bill, 
and I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the discussion that the 
subcommittee chair and the author of the amendment might prove 
something better than what this amendment is currently in front of us, 
but what I have to work on is what is currently in front of me.
  Just over 2 weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
National Highway Safety Traffic Administration issued proposed fuel 
efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks required by the 
Energy Independence and Security Act.
  This amendment would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, 
and administering or enforcing this proposed rule or any future rules--
so this is where I am concerned about the way this amendment is moving 
forward--with respect to glider vehicles.
  These new standards were designed to improve fuel efficiency, cut 
carbon pollution, and reduce the impacts of climate change. To be 
specific, these standards are expected to lower CO2 
emissions by roughly 1 billion metric tons, cut fuel costs by $170 
million, and reduce oil consumption up to 1.8 billion barrels over the 
lifetime if a vehicle is sold under this program.
  Heavy trucks account for 5 percent of the vehicles on the road; yet 
they create 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions created by all 
transportation sectors.
  We know from my colleagues that this amendment does not actually 
suspend all aspects of the new rule. As it was pointed out, it simply 
carves out an exemption for one particular industry, an industry that 
produces what has been called, today, glider vehicles.
  As has been pointed out, glider vehicles are heavy-duty vehicles that 
replace older remanufactured engines on new truck chassis. These 
engines date back to 2001 or older, and they have emissions that are 20 
to 40 times higher than today's clean diesel engines.
  In essence, this amendment would allow an entire segment of the truck 
manufacturing industry to simply avoid compliance with the new criteria 
pollutant standards that are in the rule. These are engines that will 
continue to emit greenhouse gases, slow down our progress, and reduce 
the impacts of climate change.
  In short, this amendment creates a loophole that you could drive a 
truck through by allowing dirty engines to continue to pollute our 
environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I want to once again reiterate that this is 
a very narrow amendment. It does not apply to new trucks, as the EPA 
rule indicates.
  I also want to reiterate one more time that they have not studied the 
emissions impact of these remanufactured engines and the gliders 
compared to new vehicles, so we would like to have that information as 
well.
  I also want to add that the military also uses glider kits, and this 
rule would not apply to them. Once again, we are putting into place 
something where we say this is what the government can do, but this is 
what the private sector can do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica

  Mr. MICA. 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 to implement Alternative A, Alternative C, or 
     Alternative D, described in the Final General Management Plan 
     and Environmental Impact Statement for Castillo de San Marcos 
     National Monument in St. Augustine, Florida, for the 
     educational center authorized by Public Law 108-480 nor shall 
     funds be expended for a new General Management Plan other 
     than the General Management Plan approved by record of 
     decision published in the Federal Register September 10, 
     2007.

  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. MICA. Mr. Chairman, every year, nearly 1.5 million visitors come 
to the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments in 
America's oldest city, St. Augustine, Florida.
  Way back some 11 years ago, in December of 2004, I passed legislation 
authorizing a visitors center for Castillo de San Marcos, which was 
signed into law. The Castillo fortress is the largest intact Spanish 
fortress in the continental United States, with construction that was 
completed in 1695.
  After the authorization was signed into law, significant, thorough, 
costly, and time-consuming studies and reports were completed after 
many reviews, hearings, and public forums.
  Then in 2007, 3 years later, the National Park Service came up with a 
final general management plan. This plan developed four alternatives. 
One was to do nothing; that was A. Two others, C and D, were to 
possibly build on land that will no longer be available that was going 
to be made available by the State and the city. That leaves one 
alternative. Now, this is a very simple, clarifying amendment.
  Alternative B is the one that we would like funds spent on. Here, we 
are saying no funds shall be spent to do nothing; no funds will be 
spent or wasted to go towards a project that isn't going to happen.
  This is a simple, clarifying, limiting amendment. It would 
specifically limit funds from being expended on any alternative, except 
for B, which is in the plan, been in the plan. It doesn't say that we 
have to do another plan; why spend more taxpayer moneys to do another 
plan? That is all it says.
  It is a simple thing to get us moving to proceed with the final 
design without further cost and further delaying the process. A 
visitors center at Castillo is long overdue, and it is overdue on St. 
Augustine's 450th founding anniversary, so I urge its passage.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from 
Florida raising this issue. I always learn new facts when we have these 
debates. I didn't know that St. Augustine was the Nation's oldest city. 
I always thought it was Santa Fe, New Mexico.
  Mr. MICA. Some people are under the misconception of Williamsburg.
  Mr. CALVERT. I know; but I have learned something today.
  I certainly commend the gentleman's longstanding interest in this. I 
know you have been working on this for a number of years. The Castillo 
de San Marcos National Monument in St. Augustine needs a new visitors 
center.
  I certainly look forward to working with you as we move this issue 
forward, and we certainly have no objection to this amendment.
  Mr. MICA. 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. Mica).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

[[Page 10867]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to hire or pay the salary of any officer or employee 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency under subsection (f) 
     or (g) of section 207 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 209) who is not already receiving pay under either 
     such subsection on the date of enactment of this Act.

  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. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for his 
indulgence at this late hour.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has been under investigation by 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee for over the last 6 years.
  In 2006, without consultation from the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
there was included a provision in the annual Interior, EPA 
appropriations bill that allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to 
begin using a special pay program that was explicitly and exclusively 
authorized for use by the Public Health Service administration under 
the Department of Health and Human Services.
  This special pay mechanism allows a government employee to leave the 
normal GS pay scale and receive nearly uncapped compensation, upwards 
of $200,000 to $300,000 per year.
  This special provision was intended to be used only in unique 
circumstances where, perhaps, leaders of the healthcare industry would 
not be able to work for the Federal Government because of pay 
considerations if they did not have access to these higher salaries.
  This justification cannot be used for anyone at the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Indeed, some of the employees that the Environmental 
Protection Agency pays under title 42, the part of the U.S. Code that 
allows for this special pay, were previous government workers and were 
merely moved to this special pay scale because they wanted additional 
money.

                              {time}  0015

  The EPA claims that, because the Environmental Protection Agency is a 
health organization, it may use this statute to pay special hires, and 
this, in fact, has endured for several years. Originally, the 
Environmental Protection Agency was granted only a handful of slots to 
fill with title 42 hires. That number is now over 50. The cost to 
taxpayers for these 50 employees is in the tens of millions of dollars.
  This amendment would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from 
hiring any new employees under title 42 or from transferring current 
employees from the GS pay scale to title 42. It would not affect 
current employees being paid by this provision. It would give the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, the authorizing committee, the time it 
needs to address whether the Environmental Protection Agency truly 
deserves this special pay consideration. The General Accountability 
Office looked into the abuse of title 42 several years ago and found 
numerous problems with the implementation of the program. Why we would 
allow this problematic pay structure to be advanced by the EPA is, in 
fact, mysterious.
  In multiple hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, both 
Administrator Lisa Jackson and current Administrator Gina McCarthy 
refused to give specifics regarding this program. A Freedom of 
Information Act request sent to my office by the EPA union, the 
American Federation of Government Employees, showed that title 42 hires 
at the EPA are actually sowing the seeds of discontent amongst workers, 
with the union asking the Congress to stop this unfair hiring 
technique.
  Both former Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Barton and I have 
introduced legislation further clarifying that the Public Health 
Services Act, written for the Department of Health and Human Services, 
does not permit the Environmental Protection Agency to use its language 
to hire employees under a special pay structure. This amendment 
prevents further abuses of the program, and I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the EPA is one of several government 
agencies that uses a special authority to hire Federal employees with 
specific scientific research credentials. In fact, when the Republicans 
were the majority party in 2006, they started this program. The EPA 
didn't start this program on its own. Congress started it in 2006 under 
a Republican majority. The National Institutes of Health uses title 42 
money and authority to attract top-tier scientists in their fields to 
do important research.
  We have been listening to many hours this evening of many of my 
Republican colleagues criticizing the EPA's scientific conclusions. So 
now it amazes me that the gentleman wants to reduce the Agency's 
ability to hire the top scientists. Further, the National Academy of 
Sciences has favorably reported to the committee that the EPA is 
effectively utilizing its title 42 authority. If a scientist retires or 
moves on, the Agency would no longer be able to attract a suitable 
replacement if this amendment were to pass.
  For those who think the EPA doesn't have adequate scientific basis 
for its regulations, they should be with me, and they should clearly 
vote against this amendment. We should be doing more to ensure that our 
environmental policies are being set by the best and the brightest. 
This amendment would ensure that the EPA can't recruit new scientists 
using its limited title 42 authority, which was given to them, to the 
EPA, in 2006 by a Republican Congress.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment. It is 
clear that this program does need the scrutiny of the authorizing 
committee. We are prepared to do that if this amendment passes.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. 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 pay legal fees pursuant to a settlement in any 
     case, in which the Federal Government is a party, that arises 
     under--
       (1) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
       (2) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
     et seq.); or
       (3) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.).

  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. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, the United States is facing a crisis 
of executive overreach, and nowhere else is this more true than with 
the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's escalation of sue and 
settle cases to change the law through Federal court rulings threatens 
our economy and the ability to create jobs, not to mention bypassing 
the normal rulemaking process. By operating hand in hand with radical 
environmental groups that are willing participants in these types of 
actions, the EPA's use of sue and settle not only endangers the economy 
but also our constitutional separation of powers.
  Here is how it works:
  An organization sues the EPA or an agency such as the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife, demanding that the agency apply the law in a new, unintended, 
and expanded way that increases the agency's

[[Page 10868]]

jurisdiction. The agency, rather than defending the law, enters into a 
consent decree with the party who filed the original lawsuit. A judge 
then signs the consent decree without significant review since the two 
disputing parties are in agreement. Suddenly, the agency has new, 
expansive powers to wield against job creators in the form of a legally 
binding settlement that creates rules and priorities outside of the 
normal rulemaking process. Between 2009 and 2012, the EPA chose not to 
defend itself in over 60 of these lawsuits from special interest 
advocacy groups. Those 60 lawsuits resulted in settlement agreements 
and in the EPA's publishing more than 100 new regulations.
  Also included in these legally binding settlements are requirements 
that U.S. taxpayers must pay for the attorneys of the organization that 
initiated the action. According to a 2011 GAO report, between 1995 and 
2010, three large environmental activist groups, like the Sierra Club, 
received almost $6 million in attorneys' fees alone. An example of sue 
and settle occurred with a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction rule. 
This was in response to a sue and settle agreement the EPA made with 
the Sierra Club in 2011.
  As noted by Louisiana Senator David Vitter in a letter to EPA 
Administrator Gina McCarthy in 2013:

       Instead of defending the EPA's own regulations and the SSM 
     provisions in the EPA-approved air programs of 39 States, the 
     EPA simply agreed to include an obligation to respond to the 
     petition in the settlement of an entirely separate lawsuit.

  Sue and settle is made possible because, under the Clean Air Act, the 
Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, potential litigants 
are given broad standing to go to court because Congress has defined 
causes of action under these laws. Under my amendment, no funds can be 
used to pay legal fees under any settlement regarding any case arising 
under the three acts I mentioned--period, case closed, end of story. 
Litigants can still sue, but they will no longer be financially 
rewarded by the American taxpayer for their efforts.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
support this amendment to reduce the secretive transfer of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars to other organizations. By restricting Federal 
agencies from having the ability to pay attorneys' fees, we will not 
only reduce Federal spending but also reduce the incentive for these 
self-interest groups to continue suing the Federal Government and 
taking American taxpayer dollars that could be used to reduce our 
Federal deficit.
  It is inexcusable to require taxpayers to pay the legal bills of 
environmental groups to collude with the EPA in order to expand the 
Agency's abilities. This is one way Congress can fight the expansion of 
executive powers by this administration and its most out-of-control 
agency. With this amendment, Congress can ensure taxpayers are 
protected from funding the legal efforts of environmental advocacy 
organizations and from arming the EPA with draconian enforcement 
powers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the Equal Access to Justice Act is the 
law of the land. Within limits, it does allow for the Federal payment 
of legal fees to individuals and small businesses and nonprofits that 
are the prevailing parties in actions against Federal agencies unless 
the agency is able to show that the action was substantially justified 
or a special circumstance existed to make the award unjust. This law 
helps to deter government misconduct, and it encourages all parties, 
not just those with resources, to hire legal counsel to assert their 
rights.
  I know that my colleagues, including my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, will agree with me that the ability to challenge Federal 
actions is the most important tool for ensuring government 
accountability. The Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act, and the Endangered Species Act are also the law of the land, and 
these laws have contributed greatly to the protection and improvement 
of public health in this country. A study by a nonpartisan 
environmental law institute found that the Equal Access to Justice Act 
has been cost-effective and only applies to meritorious litigation, and 
existing legal safeguards and the independent discretion of Federal 
judges will continue to ensure its prudent application. There are 
safeguards in place so that this can't be misused.
  Moreover, the claim that large environmental groups are getting rich 
on attorneys' fees is not supported by available evidence. The 2011 GAO 
study, which was just referenced and was at the request of the House 
Republicans, brought cases against the EPA. They found that most of 
those suits were brought by trade associations and private companies 
and that attorneys' fees were only awarded about 8 percent of the time; 
and among the environmental plaintiffs, the majority of those cases 
were brought by local groups rather than by national groups.
  It is completely unfair to target these important environmental 
safeguards for removal from the protection of the Equal Access to 
Justice Act. More importantly, this amendment would have serious 
consequences for public health. In order for our Nation's environmental 
safeguards to work properly and ensure the protection of public health, 
citizens, including those with limited means, must have the ability to 
challenge Federal actions. This amendment is clearly designed to make 
it more difficult for regular citizens to ensure the accountability of 
the Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, this does not prevent anybody from 
suing. This stops the EPA from this sue and settle--what I would call 
``scam''--where it allows the groups or companies or whatever to come 
in and sue and allow them--I mentioned there were 60 different cases--
the ability to make 100 new rulings that did not go through the normal 
rulemaking procedure but were done by court rulings.
  I think it is appropriate that we not allow taxpayer dollars to be 
spent on these attorneys' fees that are being used to do this--to 
promote the Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than going through 
the regular rulemaking process, it is doing it by a court ruling.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the Equal Access to Justice Act is the 
law of the land. It allows for the Federal payment of legal fees, 
within limits, to individuals and small businesses and nonprofits which 
are the prevailing parties in actions against the Federal Government.
  Again, we should be mindful of the 2011 GAO study that said, in cases 
brought against the EPA, it found that most suits were brought by trade 
associations and private companies and that attorneys' fees were only 
awarded in about 8 percent of the cases.
  Citizens need to be able to hold their government accountable. They 
need to be able to petition their government, and that means a citizen 
with limited means. If that citizen wins and if the judge decides that 
it is just to award the costs, then that is the law of the land, which 
I support. Private citizens, regular citizens--citizens without means--
can ensure that there is full accountability of the Federal Government 
to them. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0030

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. As I would like to repeat, Mr. Chairman, this does 
not keep anybody from suing. The intent of this amendment is to keep 
the EPA from creating rules by judicial bodies rather than a normal 
rulemaking procedure.
  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. Westmoreland).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 10869]]


  Ms. McCOLLUM. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rokita

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

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


  enforcement of the endangered species act regarding certain mussels

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to 
     enforce the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) with respect to the Clubshell, Fanshell, Rabbitsfoot, 
     Rayed Bean, Sheepnose, or Snuffbox mussels.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from 
Indiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Calvert for 
managing the time tonight and for getting us to this point.
  By my calculation, it has been 5 years since we have been able to 
have these kind of debates on the floor of the House, and here we are, 
at 12:30 at night.
  Speaking for myself, I have listened to the entire debate here 
tonight on the floor, starting with votes after 6:30. Mr. Chairman, I 
was struck by the amount of amendments having to do with the Endangered 
Species Act, number one; and, number two, having to deal with the 
lists, whether threatened or endangered lists of Endangered Species 
Act.
  Clearly--and I would agree with the gentlewoman on the other side of 
the aisle on this--reform and major reform of the Endangered Species 
Act is needed. That will take some time. That discussion has been 
ongoing.
  It is nothing that hasn't already started in this Congress or in 
previous Congresses. I look forward to being a part of that solution in 
a very constructive way.
  What about the near term? We have people, human constituents who are 
really suffering; and that is what my amendment, Mr. Chairman, is about 
tonight. Summer is a big time for any industry that depends on tourism 
to survive. I offer this amendment out of concern for two lake 
communities in my district.
  Just last year, during the height of the summer's busy tourist 
season, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service required that the 
Northern Indiana Public Service Company, locally known as NIPSCO, 
release more water into the Tippecanoe River from Lake Freeman to 
protect a bed of endangered freshwater mussels that live further down 
the Tippecanoe River, all under the guise of the Endangered Species 
Act.
  As a result, in a matter of days, water levels on Lake Freeman 
dropped dramatically. I have visited with local residents near Lake 
Freeman multiple times and have seen the lake in person. Growing up 
during the summers, I spent my time on the sister lake, Lake Shafer.
  Many who live and work near the lake discovered, to their surprise, 
their boats were stuck, businesses were in jeopardy, and home values 
were going down; but more than that, stumps were rising out of the 
water, and personal health and safety were also in jeopardy as a 
result.
  Now, I immediately contacted Fish and Wildlife, and I want to applaud 
them for their responsiveness and NIPSCO for working together. We 
created a technical assistance letter, otherwise known as a TAL. It is 
my estimation that that is going to have some effect. Again, I 
appreciate the reasonableness of all involved.
  The current plan there is a temporary fix, and really, we ought to be 
able to do more. Now, currently, Fish and Wildlife receives funding to 
enforce the Endangered Species Act, which protects six species of 
mussels that live in the river, as the Clerk mentioned as he read the 
amendment.
  The Endangered Species Act gives the highest priority to protected 
and listed species, and there is little anyone can do in terms of 
exceptions or exemptions or even any kind of balancing test to make 
sure that there is not a solution that could be a win-win. It is a very 
draconian law--strict compliance, no balancing test, no room for 
discretion or creative solution. That is where this reform is needed.
  The statute, like I said, provides no balancing test for weighing the 
economic harms, and the Supreme Court of this land has refused to allow 
us or even lower courts to construct their own test, us as citizens. 
Compliance with this law, as currently written, requires diverting 
water from Lake Freeman to the Tippecanoe River to balance water 
levels, despite consideration of the economic impact and human safety.
  In essence, my amendment limits the funding mechanism Fish and 
Wildlife would be able to use to enforce the Endangered Species Act 
with respect to these six types of mussels and eliminates the financial 
repercussions for failing to enforce the law.
  Speaking firsthand with residents, lowering these water levels in 
Lake Freeman negatively affects the community and small businesses that 
rely on the tourists who enjoy the lake and the steady water level. 
Lower water levels also pose dangerous swimming conditions to both 
boaters and swimmers as formerly underwater tree stumps breach the 
water. This is unnecessary and a preventable hazard to those who use 
the lake and, again, in a win-win way.
  It is all because of this draconian law that, although well intended, 
is badly in need of reform so that its practical effect can be 
overhauled and any of its misguided applications halted.
  Hoosiers, like myself, are just as concerned for the environment as 
they are for their incomes and family recreation. It is not about 
antienvironmentalism, but they believe, like I said, there is a win-win 
solution here, if only the law would allow such a solution to exist. In 
the meantime, we ought to defund Fish and Wildlife's ability to enforce 
this law as it is written.
  While I value nature and seek to protect endangered animals, the 
reward of protecting the mussel does not outweigh the economic damage 
done to this community or the personal safety or health of my human 
constituents.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would, once again, prevent 
Fish and Wildlife Service from enforcing the Endangered Species Act 
with respect to six different species of mussel and would restrict the 
Fish and Wildlife Service from offering any of the critical protections 
to preserve these species.
  This amendment is harmful and, in my opinion, misguided. Once a 
species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, it is a role of 
Fish and Wildlife Service--is primarily permissive, helping parties 
comply with the act as they carry out their activities, the TAL that 
the gentleman referred to.
  Under this amendment, all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions 
would still apply, but developers and landowners would have no avenue 
to comply with them. There could be no TAL. The Fish and Wildlife 
Service would be barred from issuing permits or exemptions.
  This means landowners and industry and other parties who might need 
to take any of these six species of mussels would be vulnerable to a 
citizens suit. Additionally, this amendment would halt Fish and 
Wildlife Service enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, which has 
no effect on other Federal agencies that are funded outside of this 
bill.
  The Endangered Species Act mandates that all Federal departments and 
agencies conserve listed species and

[[Page 10870]]

use their authorities in furthering the purpose of this act.
  Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act stipulates that any Federal 
agency that carries out, permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise 
authorizes activities that may affect all listed species must consult 
with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that its actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species.
  This amendment would stop--stop--section 7 consultation requirements 
for Federal agencies; rather, it would prohibit Fish and Wildlife from 
completing these consultations. That means a bridge or a highway 
project permitted or funded through the Federal Highway Administration 
or power projects permitted by the Department of Energy would be 
vulnerable to delays and stoppages and other potential lawsuits.
  This amendment, in my opinion, is an all-out assault on the 
Endangered Species Act. In one fell swoop, it would block protections 
for six different species that are currently listed as threatened or 
endangered; but, regardless of one's position on the Endangered Species 
Act, it is just a bad amendment.
  The gentleman's amendment will create uncertainty for developers, 
landowners, leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits. I don't think that was 
the gentleman's original intention, but that is the effect it will have 
because it will block section 7 consultations, gumming up permitting 
processing across the Federal Government, delaying projects, and 
adversely impacting the economy.
  The amendment is bad for the environment. It is bad for the economy. 
It is bad for business. It is bad for the highways and energy projects. 
It is just bad for this bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Loudermilk). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

  Mr. LaMALFA. 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 for attorney fees

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay attorney fees in a civil suit under section 
     11(g) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1540(g)) pursuant to a court order that states such fees were 
     calculated at an hourly rate in excess of $125 per hour.

  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. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to express my support for the 
good work Chairman Calvert and the subcommittee have done on this bill.
  This amendment, which I offered with my colleagues Representatives 
Bill Huizenga and Bill Flores, aligns attorney fee award limits for 
Endangered Species Act lawsuits with award limits for other lawsuits 
against the Federal Government established by the Equal Access to 
Justice Act.
  The Equal Access to Justice Act generally limits the hourly rate for 
awards of fees to prevailing attorneys to a reasonable $125 per hour. 
However, no such fee cap exists under the Endangered Species Act. As a 
result, ESA litigants are being awarded sums, in many cases, in excess 
of $600 per hour.
  The Equal Access to Justice Act was not intended as an extraordinary 
access to taxpayer dollars for environmental attorneys. Indeed, we 
heard one of my colleagues a minute ago talk about sue and settle.
  According to the GAO, the Department of the Interior paid out over 
$27 million in attorney fees between 2001 and 2010; $21 million of 
those payments were for Endangered Species Act lawsuits. Many of them 
settled with no court order, finding the litigants to have prevailed on 
the merits of the case--no finding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we close this loophole that enables 
excessive payouts to groups that have made a business of suing the 
Federal Government. There is simply no reason that one sort of lawsuit, 
a type commonly undertaken by entities solely engaged in continuous 
litigation against the government, should be paid more than any other.
  Representative Huizenga sponsored a measure addressing this issue 
last session, which was passed by the Committee on Natural Resources. I 
urge your support, which would be very much appreciated, including by 
people like my daughter whose birthday it is tonight, so they would 
have a chance to be in business and not have these extraordinarily high 
fees.
  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, the gentleman's amendment would prohibit 
funds in the act from being used to pay attorney fees in excess of $125 
per hour for the Endangered Species Act civil suits.
  Now, perhaps the gentleman is not aware that the Equal Access to 
Justice Act caps attorney fees at $125 per hour unless the court--the 
court--determines that an increase in the cost of living or special 
factors, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for 
the proceedings involved, justifies the higher fee.

                              {time}  0045

  So it would be the court that would determine that. But the fee is 
capped at $125 an hour. This is unnecessary and it is a redundant 
amendment. Attorney fees for the Endangered Species Act cases, as I 
said, are already capped at $125 per hour, unless special criteria are 
stipulated by the Equal Access Justice Court.
  This amendment would effectively change that implementation of the 
Equal Access Justice Act for one specific policy area: the Endangered 
Species Act.
  Again, higher attorney fees are only permitted in cases where 
specific criteria under the Endangered Species Act are met. At best, 
this amendment is redundant; at worst, it is a backdoor attempt to 
undermine the Endangered Species Act protections and make access to 
justice a lot less equal.
  In closing, Mr. Chair, we don't need any extraneous, redundant 
provisions to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful 
legislative riders. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate the comments by my colleague from Minnesota 
here, but it has been very unequal already, with many, many cases being 
paid out at $600, $700 per hour. So this amendment seeks to actually 
put that cap on there. There will still be the ability for a court, in 
extraordinary circumstances, to make the decision of whether it should 
be higher.
  But I am glad I am not in the position, like my colleague from 
Minnesota, of defending $600 or $700 an hour for attorney fees for more 
frivolous environmental lawsuits that make it difficult to farm, ranch, 
mine, and do timber operations which are desperately needed, especially 
with the conditions we have in California, with our forests as well as 
the drought situation and trying to get work done to address that.
  So when the people watch what goes on here, they need to be cognizant 
that there are those in the government that would rather pay to $600 to 
$700 per hour for more frivolous environmental lawsuits while they 
suffer from drought or burning forests.
  With that, I think that this amendment is very much in order because 
we see that these limits aren't being followed at all under the $125 
limit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 10871]]


  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. 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, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title), the following:
       Sec.__. None of the funds provided in this Act may be used 
     in contravention of 33 U.S.C. 1319 with respect to a permit 
     issued or required to be issued to the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1344 for discharges of 
     dredged or fill material impacting wetlands.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman 
from Louisiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, Americans are tired of two 
standards: a standard whereby private citizens are treated one way and 
a standard whereby the Federal Government treats themselves in an 
entirely different way.
  Nothing is more apparent in this situation than where the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers grants themselves one way of complying with wetlands 
regulations, yet they impose an entirely different standard upon our 
private citizens.
  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA go out and purport to be 
defenders of wetlands; good stewards of our wetlands. Yet the greatest 
cause of wetlands loss in the United States is actually caused by 
historic current and future actions of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  In our home State of Louisiana, we have lost over 1,900 square miles 
of our coast, and the majority of that land loss has been caused by the 
management or the mismanagement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of 
our coastal resources and the river resources, particularly the 
Mississippi River.
  Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it simply requires that the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comply with the same standards as anything 
else. If there are permits required, they have to get them. If there 
are mitigation requirements, they have to get them. They can no longer 
mismanage our coastal resources.
  This isn't a parochial. This is an issue whereby the Nation truly 
benefits from this. This is the area where fishery production occurs, 
energy production occurs. We literally power this Nation's economy and 
we feed American families.
  So this wetlands loss that we are experiencing actually increases the 
vulnerability of our coastal communities in south Louisiana and 
increases the demands upon FEMA and other agencies in response to 
disasters.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry

  Mr. PERRY. 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 on an unmanned aircraft system or to operate any such 
     system owned by the Department of the Interior for the 
     performance of surveying, mapping, or collecting remote 
     sensing data.

  Mr. PERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  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. PERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing me to offer this 
amendment. It prevents the Department of the Interior from competing 
with our local job creators in the use of UAS--unmanned aerial 
systems--for land surveying, mapping, imaging, and remote sensing data 
activities.
  There is concern that agencies like the USGS and the Bureau of Land 
Management are acquiring the UAS and utilizing them on projects that 
can be accomplished by the private sector. We have no problem with them 
using them. We have no problem with them using them for forest fires 
and those types of things, for emergency situations, but where local 
businesses can do this work, we think that it is unfair for the 
government to take that work away.
  Having the Department compete with local employers results in a loss 
of business for private geospatial firms under contract to other 
Federal mapping agencies. The government is actually getting a leg up 
on the private market by obtaining Certificates of Authorization, or 
COAs, and performing services with UAS that are otherwise commercial in 
nature.
  Current law and regulation permits private citizens and firms to 
operate UAS for a hobby. However, there is no effective enforcement to 
prevent government abuse of such authority for commercial purposes.
  The fact that government agencies can operate a UAS while the private 
sector cannot as freely or timely gain airspace access has created and 
uneven playing field. Allowing the Department of the Interior to 
compete with the free market use of UAS is not only poor stewardship of 
taxpayer money and inefficient use of resources, but results in the 
government duplicating and directly competing with private enterprise.
  This is a $73 million marketplace, Mr. Chairman. It drives more than 
$1 trillion in economic activity. More than 500,000 American jobs are 
related to the collection, storage, and dissemination of imagery and 
geospatial data. Another 5.3 million citizens utilize such data. As 
much as 90 percent of the government information has a geospatial 
information component. Up to 80 percent of the information managed by 
business is connected to a specific location. The geospatial 
marketplace is identified by the Department of Labor as one of just 14 
high gross sectors in the United States workforce.
  With that, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Geological 
Survey have been using unmanned aircraft to complement conventional 
satellite-based remote sensing. Using remote sensing via unmanned 
aircraft did make sense. It allows for the rapid collection of data and 
allows for the Department to get a closer look at natural disasters as 
they develop.
  The Department and the USGS are using unmanned aircraft to monitor 
the spread of wildfires, monitor riverbank erosion, detect and locate 
coal steam fires, conduct waterfall surveys, and inspect abandoned 
mines.
  It is clearly evident to everyone that this technology offers a real 
public safety benefit. So it makes no sense to hamstring the Department 
when the technology can save lives and the survey can monitor dangerous 
natural events.
  Now, the way that the amendment is written--and I am all for the 
private sector being able to do things, and that

[[Page 10872]]

is in your new amendment, that the private sector is not affected by 
this amendment--if the private sector currently isn't operating in this 
space looking at abandoned mines or looking at wildfires and we need to 
do something right away, your amendment would prohibit the Federal 
Government from using equipment it would have and be able to launch up 
and look at something in real time.
  I don't think that was the total intention of your amendment. But 
because even though you worked in the redraft to make sure that you 
protected contractors--and I am glad you did that--I don't know where 
that leaves us in times of emergency when there isn't a contractor 
available, because you haven't allowed prohibition.
  For that reason, Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.
  First of all, I did state that fire observation would not be 
included. Indeed, it is not written in the amendment. It is very 
specific. So for emergency purposes, if need be, the Department of the 
Interior still can use, whether it uses its own or DHS' or one of the 
other myriad agencies that have the vehicles, it still has the ability 
to do that.
  But I would also remind the gentlewoman that there are plenty of 
ambulance services and other emergency services for contract hire out 
there in our communities that perform emergency services every hour of 
the day, every day of the year. That fact notwithstanding, the private 
industry does provide all the other things that the agency is currently 
embarking on on its own and leaving the private sector out.
  A friend just called me today and asked me, because I am a helicopter 
pilot in the Army, if we could put his air-conditioning unit on a roof. 
I said, ``Absolutely not.'' The Army doesn't do what the civilian world 
does for good reason. We want the civilians out there doing those 
things. We don't want to compete as the Federal Government.
  But in this case, the Department of the Interior is competing 
directly, and will continue to do if allowed to do so, unless 
prohibited. They can write contracts, and they can have somebody on 
call. If there is an emergency situation, they can have a contractor on 
call to do that, and they should.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman.
  I think that this is a great discussion we are having, but I don't 
think the discussion necessarily belongs on the appropriations bill. It 
belongs in the policy committee so that all the questions that I have 
and the concerns that you have can be addressed and thoughtfully 
written into a piece of legislation.
  There are just some places in rural parts of the United States--and I 
come from a State that is both urban, suburban, and very rural, up on 
the north shore--where private contractors just don't go or the ability 
of getting a hold of one isn't there, and sometimes you have to have 
some Federal redundancy in the system to get out there and do that.
  You also have used a couple of terms and descriptions that I don't 
have any statutory language in front of me. So where I think the 
gentleman might have a very good idea, bills that we are working on in 
the appropriations process, when we start getting into writing 
technical policy or trying to figure out the new wave of what new 
legislation should look like--and you have a great proponent; I hear 
him all the time in the Defense subcommittee--the chairman of the 
subcommittee says the Federal Government shouldn't be doing what the 
private sector can do. We should not be doing this legislation for the 
reasons I mentioned, that we just don't have all the facts in front of 
it, and it is not the role of the Interior Appropriations bill to do 
policy.
  So I am going to continue to object to the amendment at this time, 
but I look forward to, in a policy situation, working with the 
gentleman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Again, I appreciate the gentlewoman's reservations and 
opposition for the reasons so stated. I respect them, but I feel this 
is the correct place to limit in the appropriations, to make sure that 
the private sector can compete effectively and is allowed to do so and 
doesn't have to compete against the Federal Government with all the 
provisions it has at its hand to undermine their ability to be 
effective and competitive.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  0100

  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. 
Perry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Loudermilk, 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.

                          ____________________