[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13495-13509]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1845
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Biggs

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tipton). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 29 printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 13496]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,234,000)''.
       Page 141, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,234,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year President Donald Trump submitted his 
budget request for fiscal year 2018 to Congress. The budget request 
included a 20 percent reduction in funding for the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to 
$419 million, $129 million below the fiscal year 2017 level.
  The underlying bill cuts roughly 15 percent of the EPA's enforcement 
budget, and my amendment would get us closer to meeting the President's 
request by cutting an additional $10,234,000 from the EPA's programs 
and management account enforcement line item.
  Reducing the EPA's enforcement budget will help rein in inappropriate 
bureaucratic actions. It is necessary to revive the American economy 
and restore regulatory sanity to environmental regulations.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, the American people cannot afford to 
continue to be burdened by an out-of-control EPA that overregulates and 
promulgates rules and then punishes the American by adjudicating 
unconstitutional penalties.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and 
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. Chair, I can't support an amendment taking money 
from an underfunded agency, reducing our bottom line, when it is 
already $824 million below the FY17 enacted level. Let me give you two 
examples of why I think the gentleman's amendment should not be 
supported.
  One is I have been talking to EPA officials because we have a 
surprise toxic dump site that is as close to a residential area as I am 
from the Chairman. Barrels. The owner just walked away. Too much for 
the city of St. Paul to handle. Too toxic. Too dangerous.
  The State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, had 
to call in the EPA for help. It is costing us as taxpayers millions of 
dollars to clean that up because the businessowner just walked away. 
Nothing that the EPA can do but clean it up, and clean it up they are, 
and the neighbors are ecstatic that the Federal Government is there to 
help them.
  The EPA, by taking more money away from it and putting it in the 
spending reduction account at a time when I know that the EPA regions 
all across this country are sending men and women down to help cities 
and counties and communities out with the disaster that Harvey has 
created, this is all money that is being spent right now in an agency 
that is $824 million below 2017.
  I think it is important that we protect the air that we breathe and 
the water that we drink, and the consequences of further cuts to the 
EPA, I believe, will be felt in communities like mine, like Houston, 
like maybe what we will be hearing in Florida--we haven't had the 
assessment yet in the Virgin Islands--all across this Nation. That, to 
me, is just irresponsible.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I won't take the 2 minutes. I just want to 
let the gentleman know I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I 
encourage adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The EPA has no statutory duty to pursue or enforce regulation. My 
home State of Arizona, along with the States west of the Mississippi, 
are those who are most affected by the heavy hand of the enforcement 
arm of the EPA.
  In my community, dust is the number one particulate. The EPA's 
response is to come to us in a desert and say: ``Water it down. Water 
it down.'' Then they come after us because of misuse of water.
  This is the inconsistency that we see in the EPA that is weighing 
down the economy of many of the areas within the West.
  The more I meet with local and national natural resource leaders, 
their number one concern mostly deals with the EPA's burdensome 
regulations and its enforcement proceedings. Further reducing the EPA's 
enforcement budget will limit its ability to stifle the economy and 
enforce unconstitutional rules.
  I also want to emphasize the need to restore fiscal sanity in our 
country. With the ever-growing national debt, my amendment will return 
$10 million back to the United States Treasury.
  I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) for partnering with 
me on this effort, and to all Members who support our effort to restore 
fiscal and regulatory sanity in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this account has already 
been cut by $240 million below the 2017 enacted level, another $108 
million tonight on the floor, but at least those dollars were going 
back into something, in my opinion, meaningful. This is just taking 
money away from the EPA, which is underfunded, which is undersourced, 
and being asked to do more for less at a time when, as I pointed out, 
we don't even know until there is an opportunity for the waters to 
subside what we are going to find at the Superfund sites from Harvey.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Katko

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. KATKO. 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 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $250,000,000)''.
       Page 67, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
       Page 67, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $250,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Katko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which 
restores critical water infrastructure funding to the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund.
  Across our country, communities are faced with aging water 
infrastructure, which poses a growing threat to existing levels of 
service, public health, and our environment.
  The State Revolving Funds are a proven critical tool for States and 
local communities to make high priority water infrastructure 
investments that otherwise may not be feasible.

[[Page 13497]]

  Earlier this year, Onondaga County in my district leveraged over $20 
million in funding through the State Revolving Funds to upgrade the 
Syracuse-Metro sewage treatment plant to continue to improve the water 
quality of Onondaga Lake, which has made a remarkable recovery.
  While I commend the Chairman for his work on this legislation, with 
the EPA estimating our national 20-year capital improvement need to be 
over $650 billion for drinking water and waste infrastructure combined, 
now is not the time to roll back this Federal funding.
  The $250 million cut to this fund included in the bill would prove 
harmful to communities in my district and throughout our entire Nation.
  I was heartened to see that the President's statement yesterday 
opposed this $250 million cut and reaffirmed the administration's 
support of pivotal water infrastructure funding.
  This is a bipartisan issue that impacts nearly every congressional 
district. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this amendment to ensure our communities can continue to invest in 
critical water infrastructure projects that support their economies and 
a safe and healthy environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The gentlewoman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, while there is nothing more I would like to 
do, I think any of us would all like to do, than to provide more 
resources for the clean water SRF, it can't be done by reducing the 
EPA's environmental programs in management.
  This administration has clearly shown that they do not regard the 
EPA's work as a priority, which means that they have a blatant 
disregard for public health and the health of our environment.
  The EPM account includes funding for programs like brownfields 
enforcement, environmental justice, geographic programs, and lot of 
other critical programs, some of which I gave examples of this evening, 
which would suffer with a $250 million reduction.
  This amendment illustrates, because I agree with the gentleman, I 
wish we had more money to put in that account, what happens when we 
don't have adequate 302(b) allocations. To overuse a common phrase, we 
are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it is not making us whole. So it is 
with great reluctance that I oppose this amendment, but oppose it I 
must because the cuts that have already been made this evening to the 
brownfields enforcement, the environmental justice programs, and a 
myriad of other programs which are critical to the health and well-
being of our communities, and they are out there working every day on 
it, is something I can just not support.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment because 
water infrastructure remains a top priority of this committee. I urge 
adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chair, in response to my colleagues from the 
Democratic side of the aisle, it is clear, as I stated previously, that 
the President has signaled not only that he supports the plus-ing up of 
the money as I propose in this amendment, that he supports plus-ing up 
a much larger amount the Clean Water State Revolving Funds as part of 
an overall infrastructure plan. To say otherwise is simply untrue. This 
President wants everyone in the United States to have clean drinking 
water. He supports this program, and for someone to say otherwise, it 
is just not true.
  She also stated that robbing Peter to pay Paul is something that may 
be going on here. We are talking about clean drinking water, $250 
million of clean drinking water, that would come out of the general 
fund. I would much rather see a little discomfort from bureaucrats in 
Washington, D.C., than to see people not have clean drinking water 
nationwide.
  I want to reiterate the importance of supporting the effective State 
Revolving Fund program. It has done a great job nationwide, and we need 
in these tough fiscal times to find ways to make these things work. 
This is a way to do it. Take away from the general fund, take away from 
instances in which bureaucrats may not be able to rent the car of their 
choice or have the pencils that they choose or an upgraded computer. I 
would much rather have that than to have dirty drinking water for our 
constituents nationwide.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the very employees that the gentleman was 
talking about that get in a car, they drive to check out the sewer 
waste plants to make sure that they are operating. They are making sure 
that the water is clean. They are doing their job.
  Tonight we have cut this account already by 16 percent. That means we 
are cutting programs. We have cut brownfields enforcement, 
environmental justice, geographic programs, programs that support the 
very account you and I would like to see more money go into. I just 
urge my colleagues not to support 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 York (Mr. Katko).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1900


      Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. 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 67, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000) (reduced by $6,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, a little more than 2 
years ago, an Environmental Protection Agency team was investigating a 
contamination at the Gold King Mine that caused a spill of 3 million 
gallons of wastewater, impacting New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, 
the Southern Ute Reservation, and the Navajo Nation.
  I was in Farmington, New Mexico, in the Four Corners area when the 
toxic plume turned the Animas River yellow. I met with the community 
and heard their concerns about the toll that the spill was taking on 
businesses, farmers, families, and individuals. I attended different 
community meetings, not only in southern Colorado, but in that 
northwestern part of New Mexico.
  Despite repeated promises by the EPA that it would fully address this 
environmental disaster, progress has too often been needlessly slow. 
For example, in January of this year, the EPA and the Department of 
Justice announced a deeply disappointing decision that the EPA was not 
liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages caused by the Gold 
King Mine spill.
  And while I appreciate Administrator Pruitt's recent announcement 
that the EPA was reconsidering this misguided position, I believe that 
the EPA and the Congress should act to ensure that every impacted 
individual and community--especially New Mexicans and the Navajo 
Nation--receive the compensation they deserve.
  The State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation should not have to sue 
the Federal Government to ensure that the government meets its moral 
obligation to the farmers, small business

[[Page 13498]]

owners, and others injured by this spill.
  This amendment, however, is about the long-term impact the spill will 
have on the river and all that that it sustains, from drinking water to 
providing water for farming and livestock. Robust long-term water 
quality monitoring is essential to ensuring that communities along the 
Animas River have the data they need to protect the health of all of 
those who rely on this water, and the State of New Mexico has developed 
a robust and independent monitoring plan that deserves the EPA's 
support.
  That is why I am again offering an amendment to provide $6 million to 
direct the EPA to work with the affected States and Indian Tribes to 
support long-term monitoring programs for water quality on the Animas 
and San Juan Rivers in response to the Gold King Mine spill.
  The same amendment was accepted by the House last year on a 
bipartisan basis. I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for 
their work on this issue, and because monitoring now and well into the 
future is necessary to protect the health of all those who rely on this 
water, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
reluctant opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I think it is important that EPA right the 
wrong that was caused by the Gold King Mine spill and ensure that the 
affected States, and the Tribal areas, have the resources they need 
following the spill.
  The FY17 bill included $4 million to work with the States and Tribes 
on an independent water monitoring plan as authorized by the WIIN Act. 
Therefore, the proposed level in this amendment would exceed the 
authorized level. And for that reason, I must oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman very 
much for his comments and look forward to working with him on this 
issue.
  We arrived at $6 million for water monitoring after consulting with 
the State of New Mexico, and, in fact, it is my understanding that New 
Mexico has about $15 million in priority needs related to the Gold King 
Mine spill, including $6 million specifically for monitoring.
  And so we checked with the State before we came down this evening to 
debate this amendment, and what the State of New Mexico shared with me, 
they report that they have only received $577,193 in Federal funding to 
support monitoring, which is less than 10 percent of what my home State 
believes is needed.
  In addition, the Navajo Nation and other impacted communities still 
need support from the Federal Government to help recover from this 
disaster. So, again, I look forward to working with both the chairman 
and with the ranking member to ensure that all of the communities 
impacted by this spill are made whole, and that we provide appropriate 
support to vital water and monitoring efforts in New Mexico, Colorado, 
Arizona, Utah, the Southern Ute Tribe, and the Navajo Nation.
  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 Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. 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.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 printed in House 
Report 115-297.


                 Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Beyer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. BEYER. 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 134, strike lines 17 through 25.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to preserve our current 
Clean Water Act protections for our rivers, streams, and wetlands. Our 
Nation's river systems and wetlands provide values that no other 
ecosystem can. These include: natural water quality improvement, flood 
protection, shoreline erosion control, recreation, general aesthetic 
appreciation, and natural products for our use at no cost.
  Yet section 430 of this bill seeks to undermine the critical balance 
between protecting these waters and the day-to-day operations of our 
Nation's farmers, ranchers, and foresters. Under current law, farmers, 
ranchers, and foresters can carry out their normal operations in any 
waterbody without securing a Clean Water Act permit.
  So what this means is farmers can continue to plow their fields, 
including potential wet areas that have been farmed for decades, plant 
their seeds, harvest their crops, without ever having to obtain 
approval under the Clean Water Act.
  Any normal farming, ranching, and forestry exemption is going to 
include minor limitations. For example, a farmer cannot use the current 
exemption to convert his farmland to a residential development without 
obtaining a permit. And a rancher can't use the exemption to plow under 
a wetland to expand his reach of grazing lands. And forestry operations 
cannot use this exemption to change the course of a local stream to 
improve drainage on their growing lands.
  In short, the way the Clean Water Act currently operates is to allow 
normal ranching, farming, forestry operations to continue without a 
permit, unless the activities either change or convert the use of the 
waterbody to a new purpose, or impair the historic flow or reach of a 
stream or wetland.
  So if the planned activity triggers any of these limitations, the 
current law requires the activity to obtain a permit. That is perfectly 
reasonable. But section 430 of this bill would, in essence, provide an 
absolute clean water exemption for impacts to any streams or wetlands 
that happen to be on agriculture, ranching, or forestry lands, 
regardless if they have any relation to these activities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a fundamental change to the Clean Water Act, 
and one where the impacts have never been explored. When the EPA was 
asked what the impact of this amendment would be, here was their 
response:

       This amendment would be a significant departure from almost 
     40 years of implementation of the Clean Water Act by 
     eliminating the existing provision requiring that the 
     exemptions apply only to normal, as in established or 
     ongoing, farming practices.

  This change could result in the loss or impairment of thousands of 
acres of valuable wetlands and other waters where land is converted to 
agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not be using an appropriations bill to change 
Federal policy related to the protection of our Nation's rivers and 
streams. To the best of my knowledge, no hearings or investigations on 
the impacts of this provision have been held.
  If this Congress is interested in overturning almost 40 years of 
Clean Water Act precedent, regular order would require hearings before 
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which has 
sole jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act, and approval by that 
committee before consideration on the floor.
  This rider is bad policy for the protection of our environment, for 
the protection of human health, and bad policy for the protection of 
our public safety.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.

[[Page 13499]]


  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. In 1977, Congress made a deliberate policy choice to 
exempt ordinary farming, silviculture, ranching, mining, related 
activities, from the requirements to obtain Clean Water Act permits 
when undertaken as normal activities: prepare and maintain land, roads, 
ponds, and ditches.
  Unfortunately, we heard concern for several years that, under the 
Obama administration, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers changed 
implementation of these provisions to significantly reduce the 
application of the statutory exemptions.
  Section 430 of the bill makes clear that Congress has always intended 
that statutory exemptions are to have meaning, that the agencies cannot 
simply ignore the will of Congress as set out by law.
  For these reasons and a number of others, I oppose the amendment and 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the perspective of the chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on this. I think our clear 
understanding is that the exemptions, as currently written, allow for 
all normal farming, ranching, forestry activities, and that the permit 
would only be required when there is a substantial difference from the 
activity as it has gone on before, and that this is the way the law has 
been interpreted and enforced for the last 40 years.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge a strong ``no,'' and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Beyer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. BEYER. 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 135, strike lines 1 through 23.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 431.
  Section 431 does two things. First, it withdraws the Clean Water 
Rule. Second, and more importantly, it breaks procedure and creates a 
loophole so that the removal of the Clean Water Rule does not have to 
abide by the Administrative Procedure Act.
  In essence, we are creating a loophole to eliminate a rule, a rule 
requested by the Supreme Court and one that took several years to put 
together. This elimination without allowing tweaks, thoughtful removal, 
or comment is a radical and dangerous precedent.
  In fact, 80 Members of Congress and I actually asked for an extension 
of the 30-day comment period to eliminate the Clean Water Rule to allow 
the American people to have a say. The Trump administration agreed with 
us and extended the comment period an additional 30 days. I don't get 
to say that too often.
  So clearly, there is a desire for a comment period, as evidenced by 
our letter and the administration's decision to appropriately extend 
the comment period, but the language in this bill would eliminate that 
process completely.
  I include in the Record the request for extension.

                                    Congress of the United States,
                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 2017.
     Re Request for Extension of Comment Period on EPA and Corps 
         Proposed Rule Defining Waters of the United States under 
         the Clean Water Act.

     Administrator Scott Pruitt,
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
     Washington, DC.

     Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203
       Dear Administrator Pruitt: We request a minimum 90 day 
     extension to the proposed 30-day comment period to rescind 
     the 2015 Clean Water Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (Jun. 29, 
     2015).
       The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps 
     of Engineers (Corps) finalized the Clean Water Rule to 
     clarify the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water 
     Act. The EPA and the Corps solicited comments on the Rule for 
     over 200 days. In accordance with Administrative Procedure 
     Act, the agencies first established a public comment period 
     for 90 days and extended the comment period twice in response 
     to extension requests. The final rule reflected over 1 
     million public comments on the proposal, the substantial 
     majority of which supported the Clean Water Rule.
       The agencies also initiated an extensive public outreach 
     effort, including over 400 meetings across the nation with 
     various stakeholders, including but not limited to: states, 
     small businesses, farmers, academics, miners, energy 
     companies, counties, municipalities, environmental 
     organizations, and other federal agencies. The agencies 
     incorporated these comments into the final Clean Water Rule.
       President Trump's Executive Order 13778 directs EPA and the 
     Corps to evaluate whether to revise or rescind the Clean 
     Water Rule, ``as appropriate and consistent with law.'' We 
     ask that as you examine the Clean Water Rule, like the prior 
     administration, you engage in a thoughtful and comprehensive 
     process bound in scientific fact.
       Americans depend on clean water for their health and 
     livelihood. More than 117 million Americans rely upon 
     drinking water from public water systems that draw supply 
     from headwater, seasonal, or rain-dependent streams that were 
     vulnerable to pollution before the Clean Water Rule. As such, 
     the decision to roll back the Clean Water Rule cannot be made 
     in haste.
       We are concerned that the EPA has provided limited time and 
     opportunity for stakeholder involvement and official public 
     comment. Any proposed rulemaking must include sufficient time 
     and participation to gather input from concerned and affected 
     parties, including those whose legal rights and 
     responsibilities will be affected by this effort. For 
     example, the 2015 Clean Water Rule provided legal certainty 
     that regulatory-defined water features, such as stormwater 
     control features, wastewater recycling structures, and 
     puddles, are not covered by the Clean Water Act. However, 
     that certainty would be eliminated if the 2015 Clean Water 
     Rule were rescinded.
       Given the history of engagement on this issue and the fact 
     that parties may be subject to greater regulatory uncertainty 
     by this effort, a comment period of 30 days does not allow 
     for meaningful engagement from the public and stakeholders.
       The Clean Water Rule is robust and ensures that water 
     sources are protected by taking into account the connected 
     systems of water, from wetlands and seasonal bodies of water 
     to large rivers and lakes. The requirements of the Rule were 
     meticulously developed and addressed longstanding 
     uncertainty, improving our national commitment to protect not 
     only America's water, but the American people. If the Clean 
     Water Rule is revised or rescinded, the process must be 
     comprehensive and deliberative.
       We ask that you take into consideration the opinions of the 
     American public by extending the comment period, allowing for 
     respectful debate. We look forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
       Donald S. Beyer Jr., Brenda L. Lawrence, Gerald E. Connoll, 
     Grace F. Napolitano, Matthew A. Cartwright, Barbara Lee, 
     Keith Ellison, Jared Polis, Paul D. Tonko, Niki Tsongas, 
     Jackie Speier, Carol Shea-Porter, Debbie Dingell, Gwen Moore, 
     Katherine Clark, Mike Quigley, Raul M. Grijalva, Earl 
     Blumenauer, Zoe Lofgren, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Anthony G. 
     Brown, James P. McGovern, David E. Price, Alan Lowenthal, 
     Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Daniel W. Lipinski, Cedric L. 
     Richmond, Louise M. Slaughter, Colleen Hanabusa, Bonnie 
     Watson Coleman, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jared Huffman, Jerry 
     McNerney, Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Naette Diaz 
     Barragan, Bill Foster, Jamie Raskin, Betty McCollum, John 
     Sabanes.
       Jerrold Nalder, Suzanne Bonamici, Steve Cohen, Marcia L. 
     Fudge, Beto O'Rourke, Grace Meng, Mark Pocan, Anna G. Eshoo, 
     Ted W. Lieu, John Yarmuth, Alma Adams, Alcee L. Hastings, 
     Adam Smith, A. Donald McEachin, Tony Cardenas, Dwight Evans, 
     Brendan F. Boyle, James R. Langevin, Salud O. Carbajal, 
     Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Judy Chu, Eliot L. Engel, Jan 
     Schakowsky, Richard E. Neal, Pramila Jayapal, Lisa Blunt 
     Rochester, Yvette D. Clarke, Jose E. Serrano, Daniel T. 
     Kildee, Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, 
     William R. Keating, Stephen F. Lynch, Doris Matsui, Richard 
     M. Nolan, Elizabeth H. Esty, Pete Aguilar, Adam B. Schiff, 
     Marcy Kaptur, J. Luis Correa, Scott Peters.

  Mr. BEYER. So is this our new status quo, that once an industry 
decides it doesn't like how a regulation turns

[[Page 13500]]

out, we eliminate that regulation without comment or consideration for 
the various stakeholders or its value.
  We are eliminating the process here that we, Congress, put in place 
to ensure that those regulations were being considered, adjusted, or 
even removed, that they were done thoughtfully and while keeping 
stakeholders, like the American people, in mind.
  It could be any rule, but the rule at stake this time is the Clean 
Water Rule. Over 100 Members of Congress joined me to reinforce the 
value of the Clean Water Rule, because without it, the streams that 
help supply public drinking water serving one in three Americans will 
be at risk.
  Rolling back the Clean Water Rule cannot be made in haste and without 
stakeholder input. Clarity was needed in light of the Supreme Court 
rulings in 2001 and 2006 about uncertainty of the scope of the waters 
protected under the act.
  The EPA and the Corps held a lengthy and inclusive public rulemaking 
process, 200 days of public comment, 400 meetings across the Nation, 
and the rule reflected over 1 million public comments on the proposal, 
the substantial majority of which supported the Clean Water Rule.
  So we are overruling, essentially, 1 million comments and 400 
meetings to do this without the appropriate administrative process.
  So if it is withdrawn, I simply ask that the process be comprehensive 
and deliberative, and the bill does not allow for that.
  With this rule at stake, this time it is the Clean Water Rule, but it 
could be any rule going forward.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from Members of Congress 
to Administrator Scott Pruitt opposing the proposed rule to rescind the 
Clean Water Rule.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, August 18, 2017.
     Hon. Scott Pruitt,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator Pruitt: We write in opposition to the 
     proposed rule rescinding the Clean Water Rule (Docket No.EPA-
     HQ-OW-2017-0203), also called the Waters of the United States 
     (WOTUS) rule. Americans need an Environmental Protection 
     Agency that will use the best possible science to protect our 
     health and this nation's natural heritage. This rule to 
     rescind WOTUS and reports of plans to reduce protections 
     under the Clean Water Act are deeply concerning. Rather than 
     protecting Americans, these actions ignore science and 
     undermine our clean drinking water, our public health and our 
     outdoor recreation economy.
       The Clean Water Rule finalized by the Obama Administration 
     protects the drinking water of roughly one-third of 
     Americans. 117 million people rely on drinking water sources 
     fed by headwater, intermittent or ephemeral streams--
     waterways protected under the Clean Water Rule. Rescinding 
     this rule puts Americans' health at risk by endangering their 
     drinking water.
       Eliminating this rule also threatens our safe access to the 
     great outdoors and the outdoor recreation economy, which 
     generates $887 billion in consumer spending annually and 
     supports 7.6 million American jobs. Pollution in unprotected 
     streams and wetlands can threaten the health of the lakes and 
     rivers that our constituents use for swimming, boating and 
     other recreation. Wetlands protected under the Clean Water 
     Rule provide some of the country's best habitat for hunters 
     and anglers. As EPA Administrator, it is imperative to 
     protect the water bodies that our constituents use for 
     recreation, both to protect public health and the millions of 
     jobs these places have helped create.
       Rescinding this clean water safeguard ignores science. 
     Years of research and peer-reviewed science have told us that 
     intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands provide 
     critical services, from filtering our drinking water to 
     protecting communities from flood and drought. They also 
     connect directly to major waterways, which means they can 
     pose a danger to drinking water and recreation if polluted or 
     degraded. The science is clear--what we do to these water 
     bodies impacts large, continuous water sources.
       Americans agree that we should protect these waterways. The 
     previous Administration crafted the Clean Water Rule using 
     the comments of over one million Americans, the vast majority 
     of which were in support of the rule. Some opponents have 
     used scare tactics to confuse the public by stating that 
     there are new requirements for agriculture and that the rule 
     covers new types of waters. This is not the case. In reality, 
     the rule provides certainty over streams and wetlands that 
     have historically been covered by the Clean Water Act while 
     preserving agricultural and other common sense exemptions, 
     including for things like drainage ditches and stock watering 
     ponds on dry land.
       The Clean Water Rule is a science-based rule that keeps our 
     communities safe and our natural resources protected--exactly 
     what Congress intended the Clean Water Act to do. We would be 
     willing to work with an Administration that wants to develop 
     thoughtful changes that maintain protections for this life-
     sustaining resource, but this repeal is reckless. In 
     rescinding this rule, the Agency is risking the health and 
     safety of the American people and our natural resources. We 
     urge you to reconsider this rescission and instead focus on 
     fairly and fully enforcing the Clean Water Act.
           Sincerely,
         Donald S. Beyer, Jr.; Doris Matsui; Gerald E. Connolly; 
           Jared Polis; Marcy Kaptur; Paul Tonko; Alan Lowenthal; 
           Matt Cartwright; Mike Quigley; Grace F. Napolitano.
         Jared Huffman; Barbara Lee; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Andre 
           Carson; Jerrold Nadler; Dwight Evans; Donald M. Payne, 
           Jr.; Nike Tsongas; Peter A. DeFazio; Debbie Dingell; 
           Brenda L. Lawrence; Adam Smith; Gregorio Kilili Camacho 
           Sablan; Keith Ellison; Stephen F. Lynch; Sander M. 
           Levin.
         Seth Moulton; Nanette Diaz Barragan; Anthony Brown; A. 
           Donald McEachin; William R. Keating; Sheila Jackson 
           Lee; Elijah E. Cummings; Gwen Moore; Bill Foster; Jamie 
           Raskin; Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Earl Blumenauer; James 
           P. McGovern; Janice D. Schakowsky; John Conyers, Jr.; 
           Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
         Louise M. Slaughter; Raul M. Grijalva; Carol Shea-Porter; 
           David N. Cicilline; Mike Doyle; Bonnie Watson Coleman; 
           Nydia M. Velazquez; Mark DeSaulnier; Hakeem Jeffries; 
           Mark Pocan; Michael E. Capuano; John K. Delaney; 
           Katherine Clark; Joseph P. Kennedy, III; Anna G. Eshoo; 
           Frank Pallone, Jr.
         John Yarmuch; Donald Norcross; Betty McCollum; Chellie 
           Pingree; Ruben J. Kihuen; Grace Meng; Diana DeGette; 
           Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Alma S. Adams, Phd.; 
           Mike Thompson; Zoe Lofgren; Lucille Roybal-Allard; 
           Jackie Speier; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; Daniel T. 
           Kildee; Luis V. Gutierrez.
         Rick Nolan; John Sarbanes; Suzanne Bonamici; Daniel W. 
           Lipinski; Elizabeth H. Esty; Marcia L. Fudge; Albio 
           Sires; Jimmy Gomez; Steve Cohen; David E. Price; Judy 
           Chu; Jim Langevin; Linda Sanchez; Robert A. Brady; Jose 
           E. Serrano; Salud O. Carbajal.
         Brendan F. Boyle; Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Darren Soto; 
           Pramila Jayapal; Brad Sherman; Josh Gottheimer; Tony 
           Cardenas; Richard E. Neal; Jerry McNerney; Adam B. 
           Schiff; Stephanie Murphy; Ted W. Lieu.

  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Since day one, everything about EPA's waters of the U.S. 
rule has been flawed. The Obama administration claimed that it was not 
expanding the waters under their jurisdiction, but we know that more 
permits will be required.

                              {time}  1915

  The Obama administration claimed that the rule was based on sound 
science but only released to science after publishing the rule. The 
previous administration changed the name to call this the clean water 
rule and took to social media to lobby the public, which led to 
questions about whether the EPA violated law, which the GAO later 
confirmed.
  It was clear the previous administration had an agenda to implement a 
rule, and they weren't going to be told otherwise. Thankfully, the 
Sixth Circuit Court put a stay on that rule.
  The language of the FY18 bill authorizes the withdrawal of the Waters 
of the U.S. rule and seeks to bring resolution to the issue. The 
language in this bill is consistent with the steps the new 
administration has already taken.
  For that and many other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. The 
rider that we are talking about here gives an unprecedented amount of 
power to the EPA. It puts the agency above the law, letting it get away 
with no public comment on its proposals, no

[[Page 13501]]

economic analysis on the cost and benefit of repeal, no justification 
for repeal, and not having to defend repeal against court challenges.
  As the Congressman pointed out, for some, this rider might serve a 
purpose this time. But what about in the future? What do we really want 
to say? That it is okay for the executive branch to circumvent laws we 
create and that there is no accountability in our courts?
  This rider removes the checks and balances that are essential to a 
functioning democracy, so I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. ELLISON. 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 136, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     137, line 7.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, all Americans deserve access to clean air. 
We have a great deal of progress that we have made in making the air 
cleaner and reducing pollution, but we should continue to learn from 
the most recent science to continue to improve air quality. Instead, 
this bill delays needed public health protections like the ozone 
standard.
  My amendment would strike language that delays the implementation of 
the new ozone standards until the year 2026. We don't have until 2026 
to protect our children's lungs. We don't have until that time to 
protect our seniors who are most subject and vulnerable to respiratory 
harm.
  The consequences of this pollution are real and significant, 
especially for ozone pollutants. Chronic exposure to ozone at the 
ground level is dangerous. It increases the risk of hospital 
admissions. In my district in Minnesota, we have a real epidemic of 
respiratory injuries known as asthma. North Minneapolis is mostly a 
low-income community of color and has the highest rates of poverty, 
unemployment, and asthma.
  Our children deserve better. Allowing the implementation of these 
ozone standards will protect them.
  I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, much is said on this House floor 
about job-killing regulations. As a person who believes in the right of 
a business to open up and make a profit, I also believe that business 
must absorb the cost that they impose on society as well.
  This rule says you can take all the money you can possibly make as 
you expand and increase ground level ozone, but you don't ever have to 
pay the costs of the externalities and the health costs you impose on 
everybody else.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, where I come from, Midland Empire, which 
is where I have lived my whole life, is part of the South Coast Air 
Quality Basin, which has been a nonattainment ozone area for about as 
long as the Federal standard for ozone has existed. But it is not for a 
lack of trying, as the south coast has a long history--actually the 
longest history--of implementing some of the most stringent Air 
Pollution Control measures in the entire United States.
  We have done about all we can to reduce emissions from stationary 
sources. Our issue is the amount of cars and trucks traveling through 
the region. So you will find no stronger advocate for clean air than 
myself, which is why this bill funds targeted Air Shed Grant Programs 
and DERA grants. States and communities need resources to help meet the 
overlapping 2008 and 2015 air quality standards.
  To be clear, the language in the bill does not change ozone 
standards. It gives communities some administrative relief to allocate 
more resources to meeting the 2015 standard of 70 parts per billion.
  Similar language, by the way, passed the House in July. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to strike, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, administrative relief sounds like a 
euphemism for ``you guys got to keep breathing this bad stuff.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I first thank the gentleman for yielding 
and for his amendment.
  We all know that ozone is a hazardous air pollutant that contributes 
to health problems such as asthma attacks, heart disease, and birth 
defects--problems being made worse by climate change.
  More than 40 percent of Americans, almost 130 million people, live in 
counties that receive an F grade for air quality from the American Lung 
Association. This includes my district that I represent in Illinois, as 
well as Washington, D.C.
  This amendment would remove a needless delay in the implementation of 
an ozone rule designed to protect public health. The rule in question 
involves a modest lowering of the ozone limit from 75 to 70 parts per 
billion, a small change that would yield large health benefits, 
including preventing 230,000 asthma attacks in children and 188,000 
missed school and workdays each year. This decision to lower the ozone 
limit was the result of a rigorous multiyear process carried out by 
expert scientists.
  So I want to urge my colleagues to stand up for the health of our 
constituents and support this amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to share with everybody 
that over the past several weeks, Americans have seen this body try to 
strip healthcare away from them. If there was a full repeal with no 
replace, 32 million people would have been without any healthcare that 
they had before, and many more would have been unprotected from 
preexisting conditions. That, fortunately, was held off. But now here 
we are again today with more attacks and assaults on people's health.
  When will the Congress take people's health seriously? When will we 
hold businesses accountable who emit toxins that cause the ozone layer 
at the ground to increase and cause respiratory illnesses?
  It is time for Congress to act responsibly in the public interest to 
make sure that the health of all Americans is protected. The people 
have the right to breathe. Let's go forward and eliminate and strip out 
this language that delays the implementation of the new zone standards 
until many years from now. Let's do it now.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate that California 
has done more to clean air than virtually any other State in the Union 
based upon its regulatory structure that we created and I continue to 
support.
  But technologies do not exist to meet standards that have been set 
out by the Obama administration. So this gives us time to do what we 
need to do, and that is to clean up ozone, and that is exactly what we 
are going to do. But this is not the amendment that is going to do 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose that amendment strongly and urge a ``no'' 
vote,

[[Page 13502]]

and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. 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 Minnesota 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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:

       In division A, strike section 435 (page 138, beginning on 
     line 3).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment preserves the National 
Ocean Policy.
  The National Ocean Policy is a commonsense way to facilitate 
multistakeholder collaboration on complex ocean issues, and it promotes 
economic opportunity, national security, and environmental protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a coastal district in southern California, 
and I know firsthand that we can have a thriving ocean economy and, at 
the same time, protect and conserve our precious ocean resources.
  Off the coast of my district, there are marine protected areas, State 
waters, Federal waters, and Department of Defense installations. We are 
a marine life hot spot--some of the best blue whale watching happens a 
few miles from our shore. We have a booming recreational fishing 
sector. We have a large shellfish aquaculture ranch that is now 
operating. We have beautiful beaches. We also have oil and gas activity 
with some rigs right near our shores. My district is also home to the 
Port of Long Beach, which is the second busiest port in the United 
States.
  With so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the 
Navy at the table when NOAA is working on siting for a new aquaculture 
installation. It makes sense to have the fishery management council 
weigh in when oil rigs are being decommissioned, and it is a no-brainer 
that NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the ports all work together to get 
those massive ships in and out of port safely.
  We want these collaborations to happen because we want to have a 
sustainable ocean economy, and by developing regional plans and having 
a framework for multistakeholder involvement, we can streamline this 
process and promote a robust ocean economy that also conserves our 
precious ocean resources.
  Mr. Chairman, as we look to the future, the need for an overarching 
policy only grows. Issues like sea level rise and ocean acidification 
are too big and too serious for any one community or agency to tackle 
alone. Increased aquaculture development and new technologies for 
clean, local energy are creating economic opportunities but must be 
thoughtfully implemented.
  Prohibiting the allocation of funds to this important program would 
stifle collaboration among all the stakeholders on these complex 
issues, as I pointed out before, relating to environmental protection, 
national security, economic opportunity, and ocean policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the importance of agencies 
working together to protect our coastal resources for future 
generations. We must also ensure that such coordination is done 
carefully with congressional input to ensure that it does not lead to 
Federal overreach.

                              {time}  1930

  When the previous administration created the National Ocean Policy 
through executive order, the impacts were so broad, so sweeping, that 
it would have allowed the Federal Government to evaluate everything 
from agricultural practices, mining, energy production, fishing, and 
anything else with activities impacting our oceans.
  This subcommittee asked the CEQ, DOI, and EPA on a number of 
occasions to provide estimates of the impact of the policy on their 
budgets, but the administration failed to work with Congress and 
provide such information.
  How can Congress adequately budget for something without knowing the 
expected expenditures and implication of the policy?
  The bottom line is, if the administration wants to fund the National 
Ocean Policy with such sweeping implications, it must work with 
Congress to provide relevant information and allow Congress to provide 
the necessary oversight to prevent that Federal overreach.
  I support the language of the underlying bill, and I encourage my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, we just heard a very interesting 
argument that said that we should not support or fund the National 
Ocean Policy because, instead of by executive action, it should have 
been done through congressional legislation.
  But I would remind everyone watching this that, prior to the 
beginning of the National Ocean Policy by the previous administration, 
over the 4 years before that, four bills were introduced. Each one--two 
by a Republican leader, two by Democratic leaders--did what was just 
asked of us: to introduce it by the Congress. It was never taken up by 
the Congress in the administration prior to President Obama.
  What was called the Oceans Conservation, Education, and National 
Strategy for the 21st Century Act was never heard. That is why it was 
done through executive action. That is why we need to continue this. 
Without having coordinated ocean policy, we will have tremendous 
problems as we move forward, as I pointed out, both in terms of 
economic opportunity, national security, and also environmental 
protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, just because legislation isn't passed in 
the House and the Senate and made into law doesn't mean that the 
President can then go out and create an executive order. We have a 
Constitution, and we have a process we must abide by. For that and 
other reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  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. Lowenthal).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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 No. 40 Offered by Mr. Long

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 40 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce 
     notification requirements respecting released substances 
     under subsections (a) through (d) of

[[Page 13503]]

     section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9603) or 
     subsections (a) through (c) of section 304 of the Emergency 
     Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 
     11004) with respect to releases of hazardous substances from 
     animal waste at farms.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Long) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It 
would make clear that two laws enacted several decades ago to manage 
the aftereffects of industrial toxic waste spills would not apply to 
everyday emissions that are simply a way of life on family farms.
  A court decision earlier this year overturned the EPA exemption for 
agriculture from reporting requirements under the Superfund and 
emergency planning and community right-to-know laws. This court 
decision means that over 100,000 farmers and ranchers will be forced to 
report odor emissions from livestock and poultry manure.
  If farmers and ranchers don't submit these reports, they face 
potential lawsuits from the government and any citizen who wishes to 
sue them, subjecting them to penalties as high as $53,907 per day for 
not filing paperwork. Farmers will lose time and money that would 
otherwise be spent growing our Nation's food supply.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that it is important that I note that the Obama 
administration as well as the Bush administration defended this 
exemption. This is not a partisan issue. This is simply a case of 
reaffirming congressional intent under the law, as the EPA already 
tried to do several years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote in favor of my amendment, 
and 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, this amendment would prohibit the EPA 
from requiring agricultural sources to report air emissions under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response Liability Act.
  The purpose of this amendment is to circumvent a 2017 court decision 
that invalidated an EPA rule which exempted agricultural sources from 
such reporting.
  Policy riders like this do not belong in the appropriations bills. 
The EPA should either accept the court's decision or they should appeal 
the decision. At a minimum, something that is this impactive with court 
policy does not belong as a rider on an appropriations bill. For that 
reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support this amendment.
  The recent court decision earlier this year overturned, really, a 
longstanding EPA exemption for reporting from farms. These family farms 
and ranchers across the Nation shouldn't be burdened with just more and 
more paperwork to do an activity they have been doing for many, many 
years in this country. It is not what Congress intended. Congress, last 
I looked, still makes the laws around here.
  I would support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I say this is a nonpartisan issue, and I 
would like to point out that the organization, National Association of 
SARA Title III Program Officials, back in 2012, in an earlier version 
of a similar amendment, had opposed this. Back on May 28 of this year, 
they announced that they are no longer in opposition. So I don't really 
think it is controversial at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that, as a State 
representative and, even now, as a Member of Congress, I will encounter 
people--and I was just at our State fair--over the years, people who 
have built homes in rural areas and are contributing to the schools and 
maybe have a soybean farm or a community that is built up over the 
years around farms. All of a sudden, a hog farm comes in and people are 
sick, they are unable to go to work, their children develop lung issues 
and all kinds of problems. They come to the State or they come to us as 
Members of Congress and say: What is going on here? The air is so 
polluted, it is making me and my family sick. I am losing my home. I am 
losing my investment.
  So I think that there is a role to have these discussions about what 
do we do, as a community, to make sure about people who live in some of 
these rural areas who all of a sudden find themselves, after decades of 
living in the same area, unable to open up their windows on a summer 
day.
  As I said, that is why I don't think this policy rider belongs in 
this bill. I think we need to have a thoughtful discussion on it and 
really hear out both sides on many of these agriculture issues, 
especially in rural communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Buck

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title) insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to enter into a cooperative agreement with or 
     make any grant or loan to an entity to establish in any of 
     Baca, Bent, Crowley, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, 
     Prowers, and Pueblo counties, Colorado, a national heritage 
     area, national heritage corridor, national heritage canal 
     way, national heritage tour route, national historic 
     district, cultural heritage corridor, or other heritage 
     partnership program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Buck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to protect 
private property rights in Colorado.
  This amendment would prevent the creation and expansion of a National 
Heritage Area in southeast Colorado. Heritage Areas open the door to 
new land use restrictions on privately held land that are strongly 
opposed in this part of my district.
  I recently held multiple townhalls in southeast Colorado to hear the 
unique concerns of these rural communities. At the top of their list 
was a need to cut burdensome government red tape that hurts their 
businesses and threatens their way of life.
  These small family farms and ranches should not be forced to follow 
new regulations that give control of their private lands to Washington, 
D.C. That is why this amendment is so important. It allows Coloradans 
to keep control of their land.
  My amendment would only affect nine counties in Colorado and protect 
them from new, unwanted land use restrictions. This amendment passed 
last year by voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to again support the 
private property rights of these farmers and ranchers.
  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, this amendment stops the Department of 
the Interior from entering into cooperative agreements and providing 
financial assistance for the purpose of protecting natural, cultural, 
and historic

[[Page 13504]]

resources in several counties in southeast Colorado.
  This amendment restricts the expansion of Natural Heritage Areas, 
Natural Heritage Corridors, Natural Heritage canalways, national 
heritage tour routes, and national historic districts and cultural 
heritage corridors.
  All of these preservation partnerships are important tools that 
enable the Federal Government to work with private partners to preserve 
and protect our Nation's shared heritage. Unfortunately, this amendment 
takes those options off the table for the people in southeastern 
Colorado.
  It is my understanding that the sponsor aims to preemptively prevent 
expansion of a Federal footprint in his district, but I would like, Mr. 
Chairman, to remind us that the sponsor of the Preserve America 
Executive Order was issued by President George W. Bush, a Republican, 
and it emphasizes public-private partnerships that limit, not expand, 
Federal ownership.
  I have worked on some of these corridors. We always make sure that it 
is a partnership and it is not the Federal Government coming in and 
taking over land. It is a partnership that the community comes to the 
Federal Government and asks for.
  So, if there are specific concerns that you have about the Federal 
management in this region, I believe the sponsor should work with the 
authorizing committee to make sure that they are addressed and not use 
the appropriations process to wall off a section of the country from 
partnering with the Federal Government to preserve its historical and 
cultural natural resources.
  These discussions that take place at a local level with sometimes the 
business community, sometimes it is schools, sometimes it is churches, 
that come together to talk about what can we do to preserve our 
cultural history or what can we do to preserve something is driven by 
local control.
  I have never attended a meeting, once, where it was driven by Federal 
control. The Federal Government has asked to come in to be a partner.
  I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the subcommittee chair.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I was happy to accept the amendment in the 
last year and will be happy to support it again this year.
  With that, I urge its passage.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I really think that we need 
to better utilize, in this Congress, in this institution, our policy 
committees. They should be the first call for help if there are 
questions, if there are concerns, if there are adjustments that need to 
be made, not the appropriations committee, where there has been no 
hearing on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will protect private property 
rights in southeast Colorado. These families have worked for 
generations to maintain their land. They should not lose their 
livelihoods because of land use restrictions from Washington, D.C.
  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. Buck).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42 
printed in House Report 115-297.

                              {time}  1945


            Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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


                       limitation on use of funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Interior to implement the final 
     rule entitled ``Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National 
     Preserves'' (80 Fed. Reg. 64325 (October 23, 2015)), or to 
     develop, issue, or implement any other rule of the same 
     substance.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that was 
successfully included in the House fiscal year 2017, which prohibits 
funds in this act being used to implement the Obama administration 
National Park Service rule that interferes with the State's wildlife 
management authority on national preserved lands of Alaska.
  Mr. Chairman, when we became a State, we were guaranteed to have 
management of all Federal lands and State lands on fish and wildlife 
management. Under the Obama administration, they tried to do 
differently on the wildlife lands, and now they are trying to do it on 
the BLM lands and the park preserves, not the parks themselves.
  I suggest, respectfully, if you want to follow the law, you adopt 
this amendment, as it should be, as is proposed, and we will be able to 
manage lands we were guaranteed by this Congress to the State of 
Alaska.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, which undercuts an important rule meant to protect our 
public lands and the species that inhabit them.
  The National Park Service has an important mission, which is ``to 
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects in the 
wildlife by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment 
of future generations.''
  As a result of this mission, the National Park Service has 
implemented an important rule that protects a variety of species 
critical to the ecosystem in our national preserves in Alaska.
  In 1994, Alaska did pass a law that undercut those efforts by 
allowing for extreme predator control, which led to fringe practices 
that could hardly be called traditional hunting.
  Now, the other side may argue that this amendment is a States' rights 
issue, but that simply isn't true. These are Federal lands and are, 
therefore, subject to Federal regulation.
  These national lands are intended to be enjoyed by all Americans, 
including those who visit and hope to have the rare opportunity to see 
bears and wolves in their natural habitat.
  Now, to be clear, Mr. Chairman, the rule that this amendment aims to 
reverse is not intended to ban hunting in its entirety. The rule simply 
regulates that there be no use of bait, which has been as extreme as 
grease-soaked doughnuts and bacon, allowing for point blank shots, no 
use of artificial light to spotlight black bear dens, no killing sows 
or bear cubs, no killing pups or wolves and coyotes during the denning 
season, no hunting of big game that is swimming, no use of dogs to hunt 
big game, and no predator control simply for the purpose of increasing 
stocks for human consumption.
  Now, these are reasonable regulations that prevent cruel hunting 
practices. Let us be very clear, Mr. Chairman, that reversing this rule 
would actually be thumbing our noses at the voices of tens of thousands 
of citizens who took part in a public comment period process that was 
extensive.
  Before the rule's adoption, the National Park Service held two 
separate comment periods which resulted in 26 public hearings, two 
teleconferences, and three tribal meetings. More than 70,000 public 
comments were received, and the majority of those supported the 
existing rule. Ignoring this process

[[Page 13505]]

and the thoughtful public input would be a major slight to the 
democratic process and to everyone who participated.
  These processes are in place to ensure that the voice of the people 
is heard, and circumventing this is unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), my good 
chairman from the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the specific rule is now 
being reconsidered by the Department of Interior, which is a good 
thing, and I encourage my colleagues to support the Young amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. You know, I rarely do this, but I'm deeply 
disappointed in my good lady from Washington. * * *
  This was a preserve, and we were guaranteed this in the Alaska 
National Lands Act. No more. No more. And the State, under the 
Constitution, has the right to manage fish and game.
  Now, I know your side doesn't believe in State's rights. You don't; I 
do. My job is to protect my State, not your State--my State.
  And what you said a while ago was really nonsense. It was written by 
an interest group, not yourself. Maybe your staff is affiliated with 
the Humane Society or some other group, and I'm disappointed.
  My Native people support this amendment. You talk about natives. 
Alaskans, our first Americans, support this amendment. And I really am 
disturbed. * * *
  I am still talking.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the gentleman's words taken 
down. The gentleman has already impugned my motives by saying that I 
don't know a damn thing about what I'm talking about.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I didn't say ``damn.'' You said it.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. He's now called me ``young lady,'' and Mr. Chairman, I 
demand that the words be taken down.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman will take 
his seat.
  The Clerk will report the words.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my offending words.
  And to the gentlewoman, I do apologize. I get very defensive about my 
State. We have gone through these battles for the last, actually, 45 
years, and we are a State. I have my people to represent, as you do 
yours. I do apologize for my statement. I recognize it was out of 
order, so I hope you accept my apology.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Alaska?
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman 
from Alaska. I do accept your apology. I thank you for it. We have, 
obviously, some work to get to know each other. But I can tell you that 
I care about my State, as deeply as you do, and I look forward to 
getting to know you.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. And I thank the gentlewoman.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the words are stricken from the 
Record.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, let me continue by saying that the reason 
I do feel strongly about this is I also believe that this amendment 
would be bad for the economy and for the people who depend on it.
  Every year, wildlife watchers contribute more than $2 billion toward 
the economy. According to the National Park Service, in 2016, 2.8 
million park visitors spent an estimated $2.8 billion in local gateway 
regions while visiting National Park Service lands in Alaska. These 
expenditures supported a total of 18,900 jobs, $644.7 million in labor 
income, $1.1 billion in value added, and $1.9 billion in economic 
output in the Alaska economy.
  I do believe--and the reason I am speaking up so strongly about this, 
we all have very strong perspectives on all sides. I do believe that we 
must do everything we can to preserve our natural lands and their 
inhabitants, particularly as climate change takes its toll all over the 
country and the world. In my home State of Washington, which I care 
deeply about, wildfires are destroying thousands of acres of land and 
threatening homes, while across the country residences of Houston are 
reeling from Hurricane Harvey and Floridians brace for Hurricane Irma.
  We need to invest in our public lands for all Americans so that 
generations in the future can continue to enjoy the beauty that our 
country has to offer.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. 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 Alaska will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  2000


            Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title) insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to require changes to an existing placer mining 
     plan of operations with regard to reclamation activities, 
     including revegetation, or to modify the bond requirements 
     for the mining operation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which was 
successfully included in the House fiscal year 2007 Interior 
appropriations bill, prohibits the funds to be used by the Bureau of 
Land Management to change their existing placer mining plans of 
operations with regard to environmental mitigation in Alaska.
  Alaska is one of the very few places left in the United States where 
placer mining is being still conducted. Unfortunately, unelected 
bureaucrats have targeted these small mom-and-pop, usually retired 
people, family miners from attaining unattainable regulations under the 
falsehood of protecting the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a sound piece of legislation that should be 
accepted by this committee and this body to make sure those people 
elected participate in mining on lands that are old. This is a mining 
area that has been mining for the last 100 years, yet the BLM has 
decided they are going to take these little miners and put them out of 
business.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment. It is very simple. It 
protects the smaller people of America. Let them do what they wish to 
do. Letting them have an activity after they retire I think is actually 
important. As I said before, it was adopted before.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to what the 
gentleman from Alaska had to say, and the bulk of my objection, Mr. 
Chairman, is that this is better addressed in

[[Page 13506]]

the Policy Committee than on the Appropriations Committee as a rider.
  BLM does many outreach activities, including public meetings and 
interactions with individual miners, and is working with industry to 
incorporate best management practices in new science-based reclamation 
techniques.
  In the course of the reclamation activities, it has been necessary to 
increase the annual cost to miners to recover these streams and restore 
ecostream function.
  This amendment would prohibit the cost of reclaiming these areas to 
placer miners who are profiting from mineral extractions on BLM managed 
land.
  I do hear the gentleman talking about not all business is the same 
shape or size, so I really think that we should work through the Policy 
Committee. For that reason, I object to this amendment, and I would 
encourage the gentleman from Alaska to work through the Policy 
Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and his dedication to the 
sound management of natural resources on behalf of the constituents in 
his State.
  Placer mining is unique to Alaska and has a unique history in place 
in Alaska's economy. As such, the BLM proposal for unique reclamation 
and bonding requirements need to receive additional review.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I, again, urge passage of the 
amendment, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
work.
  This is a mom-and-pop operation. If I thought it was going to do 
anything wrong--it has been mined for 100 years. They came in, they had 
a guy in a wheelchair, and they made him walk to his mine because you 
couldn't use a mechanized vehicle. Now, that is not good personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Westerman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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


                       limitation on use of funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the final rule entitled ``Onshore Oil and 
     Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; 
     Measurement of Oil'' and published by the Bureau of Land 
     Management on November 17, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 81462).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Calvert and Chairman 
Frelinghuysen for their hard work on this bill.
  On November 17, 2016, the Bureau of Land Management released a final 
rule titled: ``Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil 
and Gas Leases; Measurement of Oil.''
  Though the BLM claims that this rule would incorporate proven 
industry standards developed by oil measurement experts from industry 
and the BLM, it seems like the BLM ignored industry expert standards 
and set their standards, regardless of industry input.
  In comments filed on December 14, 2015, the Independent Petroleum 
Association of America, the American Petroleum Institution, the Western 
Energy Alliance, and many citizens involved in oil production detailed 
serious concerns. Many of the comments centered on BLM's reluctance to 
recognize its obligation to adopt properly established industry 
standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is vital that agencies such as the 
BLM listen to and take into account industry concerns and input when 
promulgating these new rules.
  My amendment would restrict funding for this rule in its current 
form, and I ask my colleagues to support 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. Chairman, this new rule updates outdated 
regulations and establishes minimum standards for the measurement of 
oil production from Federal and Indian leases to ensure that 
productivity is accurately measured and properly accounted for.
  The administration has aggressively sought to abolish rules that were 
developed over many years, and adhere to the process outlined in the 
Administrative Procedure Act, which includes consideration of Tribal 
and public comments.
  Updating this regulation avoids regulatory uncertainty and reflects 
the considerable changes in technology and industry practices that have 
occurred over 25 years since the previous oil and gas order No. 4--25 
years since the previous onshore oil and gas order No. 1. Changes in 
technology. We should be embracing changes in technology and industry 
practices. We should not be using technology and practices formed 25 
years ago.
  The new rule also responds to comments made by the GAO, the 
Department of Interior's IG, and the Royal Policy Committee regarding 
BLM's production and verification efforts.
  The objective of this rule is to ensure that the oil volume reported 
by the industry is sufficiently accurate to ensure that the royalties 
due are paid correctly, the royalties due to the U.S. taxpayer. The 
rulemaking process has been comprehensive and it has been transparent. 
If there are to be changes to those rules, those changes need to be 
done in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Administrative 
Procedure Act. There is a way to do that. So, once again, there would 
be an opportunity for Tribal and public comment.
  This amendment does not provide for an open and transparent process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to 
protect the American taxpayer to make sure that the royalties are 
accurately recorded.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
won't take nearly 1\1/2\ minutes. I just want to support the amendment.
  I understand there are portions of the order that are widely accepted 
and some parts that need to be reworked. I hope the Bureau gets the 
message and works with all of the interested parties to improve onshore 
order No. 3.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, another way the BLM has ignored their 
obligations under the rulemaking process is by discounting the 
practical difficulties for both industry and the agency associated 
compliance.
  Mr. Chairman, the BLM ignored their rulemaking responsibilities by 
both disregarding industry input and snubbing practical timelines for 
compliance.
  I believe the BLM should go back, reexamine this rule, and this time 
listen and get it right.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask support for my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition for two reasons.
  One, this, once again, is a substantial piece of policy work being 
done on an

[[Page 13507]]

appropriations bills on the floor of the House. We have committees 
which can take things up, government oversight, and we have the Natural 
Resources Committee. There are many venues in which the gentleman could 
ask for a hearing and bring people to testify, if there are things that 
need to be done. Or just work through the Administrative Procedure Act, 
which has opportunities before it, if people feel that they are not 
being treated justly.
  But the other reason why I rise against this is, 25 years since the 
previous update has happened, technology has changed since then and 
industry practices have changed. Part of our responsibility--and I 
truly believe this in my heart--is to make sure that when we do leases, 
when we are to receive royalty payments, we need to be looking out for 
the U.S. taxpayer to make sure that they are fairly compensated for 
these leases.
  Mr. Chairman, I object to 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 Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 46 will 
not be offered.


               Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used 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 504, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge support for my 
amendment, which would reaffirm and preserve the rights of the States 
to write their own water quality plans.
  My amendment simply prohibits the EPA from using its Chesapeake Bay 
total maximum daily load and the so-called watershed implementation 
plans to hijack States water quality strategies.
  Over the last several years, the EPA has implemented a total maximum 
daily load blueprint for six States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 
which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter the 
Chesapeake Bay. 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 
its water quality programs.
  Congress intended that the implementation of the Clean Water Act be a 
collaborative approach through which the States and the Federal 
Government work together. This process was not meant to be subject to 
the whims of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Therefore, 
my amendment instructs the EPA to respect the important role States 
play in implementing the Clean Water Act.
  I want to make it perfectly clear that my amendment would not stop 
the EPA from working with the States to restore the Chesapeake Bay, nor 
would it undermine the cleanup efforts already underway. My language 
only removes the ability of the EPA to take over a State's plan, or to 
take retaliatory actions against a State if it does not meet the EPA 
mandated goals. Again, it ensures states' rights remain intact and not 
usurped by the EPA.
  It is important to point out that the correlation between the EPA's 
outrageous Waters of the United States rule and the bay TMDL. At the 
heart of both issues is the EPA's desire to control conservation and 
water quality improvement efforts throughout the country, and to punish 
all of those who dare to oppose them.
  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 
preventing another Federal power grab.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this amendment would 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.
  Since the Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed in 1983, the most 
recent agreement signed in 2014, bay States and the Federal Government 
have invested significant resources in cleanup and restoration efforts. 
Cooperation is critical in these efforts, and only under the 
cooperative agreement agreed upon in the Chesapeake Clean Water 
Blueprint are we seeing a lot of progress being made. But the 
Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts are part of backstops that make sure 
that each State does what it has actually promised to do. With these 
safeguards in place, States have to certify that their investments are 
not made in vain and that other States will also make good on their 
investments.
  This amendment would undermine this historic collaboration, endanger 
historic progress we have made, and give States a loophole to avoid 
meeting their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.
  I believe that, instead of offering amendments that undermine 
Chesapeake Bay restorations, we should be investing even more resources 
to ensure that they are successful.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I won't take 1 minute. I just want to support 
the gentleman's amendment.
  It is my hope that the gentlemen from Virginia and Pennsylvania may 
be able to work with the new administration, find common ground on 
approaches that will improve water quality in a flexible manner which 
works for everybody.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has 2 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I understand that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has the right to close.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Chairman

[[Page 13508]]

Shuster along with Mr. Thompson, for being cosponsors of this 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  It is simply not true that this amendment would interfere with the 
cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, and I am going to repeat what I said 
earlier. My amendment does not remove the TMDL or the watershed 
implementation plans. It only removes the retaliatory actions 
threatened by the EPA.
  The current plans and processes the States are using to clean up the 
bay are working. That is absolutely right. They are working, and they 
started long before this imposition by the EPA that occurred at the 
beginning of the Obama administration.
  States have made great strides in cleaning up the bay, so why 
continue to threaten them with an EPA takeover of their water quality 
plans.
  The other argument that is made is the Federal Government needs to be 
involved in this cleanup process. Well, I believe the Federal 
Government should be a partner in this effort. As the chairman has 
noted, they can play an important function. However, the current 
process has the EPA dictating to States, local communities, and 
businesses instead of a cooperative approach. That is not playing a 
part; that is controlling the process.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this important 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 Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Sanford

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51 
printed in House Report 115-297.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to authorize, permit, or conduct geological or 
     geophysical activities (as those terms are used in the final 
     programmatic environmental impact statement of the Bureau of 
     Ocean Energy Management entitled ``Atlantic OCS Proposed 
     Geological and Geophysical Activities, Mid-Atlantic and South 
     Atlantic Planning Areas'' and completed February 2014) in 
     support of oil, gas, or methane hydrate exploration and 
     development in any area located in the North Atlantic, Mid-
     Atlantic, South Atlantic, or Straits of Florida Outer 
     Continental Shelf Planning Area.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I want to make clear I am offering this 
amendment on behalf of the gentleman from New Jersey, Frank LoBiondo, 
who I know has worked with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, 
Don Beyer, on this bipartisan measure. I think it is one that makes 
sense. It would, quite simply, restrict money with regard to seismic 
testing on the Atlantic waters and the waters of the Florida Straits.
  Now, why do I think that that is important? I think it is important 
because you don't build a foundation if you don't intend to build a 
house. And yet, fundamentally, what we are trying to do is move forward 
on something that I think begs this most Republican of questions, which 
is: Do we believe in home rule?
  At home, every municipality of every town and hamlet along the coast 
of South Carolina has come out unanimously against the idea of offshore 
drilling and seismic testing, not because they are against fossil fuel, 
but simply because they believe that they want to determine themselves 
how the coast of South Carolina develops. That is obviously the case 
with many colleagues from Florida, who have now headed home to deal 
with the hurricane, and a whole host of other places up and down the 
Atlantic and, again, the Straits of Florida.
  So I think that this amendment fundamentally is about this notion of, 
if you believe that the government that is most local governs best--not 
always, but generally--then might you not give this amendment a try, 
because fundamentally what it says is places like Port Fourchon are 
nice, but what the people of South Carolina have determined is that we 
don't want our coast to develop that way because of the amount of 
onshore that is necessary to support offshore operations.
  Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my colleague.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Sanford) for yielding time.
  Mr. Chair, moving forward with permits for seismic airgun surveys for 
subsidy oil and gas deposits puts our vibrant Atlantic coast at risk.
  I am a Virginia businessman, and I look at what seismic testing does. 
Congressman Rutherford and I led a bipartisan letter to the 
administration signed by over 100 of our colleagues expressing our 
concerns about seismic airgun blasting.
  Our coastal economy relies on healthy ocean ecosystems, which 
generate $95 billion in gross domestic product, support nearly 1.4 
million jobs each year. We have heard from countless businessowners, as 
Congressman Sanford has said, elected officials, residents all along 
our coasts who recognize and reject the risks.
  NASA, the Department of Defense, the Florida Defense Support Task 
Force have all expressed concern that offshore oil and gas development 
will threaten their ability to perform critical activities.
  The North, South, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, which are 
responsible for the management of fish stocks and habitats in Federal 
waters from Maine to Florida, also have significant concerns about the 
risks associated with offshore drilling and seismic airgun blasting.
  So you have numerous fishing and tourism interests, including all the 
local chambers of commerce, tourism, restaurant associations, an 
alliance representing over 41,000 businesses, and 500,000 fishing 
families from Florida to Maine oppose offshore oil drilling activities 
as well.
  Opening up the Atlantic to seismic testing and drilling jeopardizes 
our economy and these coastal economies in the most immediate terms.
  I strongly support the LoBiondo-Sanford amendment and urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this critical 
amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, this amendment sets a 
dangerous precedent not only for the energy future of the Atlantic and 
the Florida coasts, but for the Nation as a whole.
  Although this is framed as an Atlantic amendment, I would make clear 
that the residents from South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, and 
Georgia support offshore seismic survey activities pursuant to the all-
of-the-above energy approach that America needs.
  Seismic surveys are routinely conducted off American coasts and 
around the world for oil and gas. We have been conducting seismic 
surveys around the globe in the oceans of the world for 50 years with 
not a single verifiable instance of a marine mammal being harmed or 
killed. In fact, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has confirmed 
this. President Obama's own BOEM Director, Abigail Hopper, confirmed 
this to me in a public hearing when I asked her last Congress.
  Seismic surveys have not been conducted in the Atlantic region for 
over

[[Page 13509]]

30 years. Today's advancement in technologies allows for 3-D and 4-D 
seismic work to actually look into the Earth and see what may be there.
  I would argue that the folks who are against seismic work really 
aren't against seismic for the purpose of trying to save marine 
mammals; they just don't like fossil fuel development. But we need to 
see what is out there.
  If Members are genuinely concerned about Russia, then voting in favor 
of oil and gas exploration should be a no-brainer. Why would Members 
vote to cut off the most significant tool in America's arsenal, that 
is, our energy independence?
  For these reasons, it is critical that we continue to permit safe G&G 
geological studies in all areas off America's coasts, that includes the 
mid-Atlantic, the south Atlantic, and all Florida.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman from South Carolina yield?
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I just want to let the gentleman know that I 
oppose this amendment. I don't think we should stand in the way of 
exploration research that could inform potential future decisions, 
whether it is for or against drilling, but we need to know information 
so once we know the potential, we can allow the agencies to weigh those 
pros and cons.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, we do have hurricanes 
coming. The Gulf of Mexico has prepared for hurricanes and dealt with 
it in the oil and gas industry. That is not the issue.
  We are talking about seismic surveys so that we as American 
policymakers can see what may or may not be in the Earth for future 
development. I would be willing to bet that, if it was natural gas that 
was found off the coast of my home State of South Carolina, we would be 
having a completely different conversation than if oil was found.
  Let's at least have the guts to go out there and look and do G&G work 
off the coast of the mid-Atlantic, the south Atlantic, and Florida and 
find out what resources may or may not be there and whether they are 
even recoverable or not.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I very much respect the viewpoint of the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), and I want to be clear: I believe in 
fossil fuel.
  I think that the real conundrum in this debate is who is best able to 
determine whether or not areas off of where they happen to live should 
or shouldn't be developed: Should it be decided from Washington, D.C., 
or should it be decided by local folks?
  So I would frame this, fundamentally, as an issue of home rule, that 
all the points that you are making are very, very valid, but shouldn't 
that determination be made by folks that are most close and would be 
most affected by what might or might not happen in the offshore waters 
off of the coast of South Carolina or Florida or Georgia or elsewhere?
  So I just go back to, if we found the mother of all lodes, there has 
been testing out there, they say 132 days' worth of supply might be off 
the coast of South Carolina, and what people have said is we have a 
vibrant tourism industry on the coast of South Carolina and we don't 
think the risks are worth the rewards based on what might or might not 
be out there.
  So I very much respect the viewpoint of the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan), but again, what folks are telling me at home on 
the coast of South Carolina is, even if stuff is out there, we are 
concerned about the tourism risk and we are concerned about the 
infrastructure that would be required to support it.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the point of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford).
  We need to find out what is out there. G&G activity would allow us to 
determine whether there is oil or natural gas. If we find oil, I am 
willing to have a conversation with the folks in Charleston County, 
Horry County of South Carolina. If we find natural gas, I believe the 
conversation will be completely different.
  Mr. Chair, what we need to do is G&G work, which is safe to marine 
mammals, to find out what might be there and might be recoverable.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I will split my time, in the spirit of 
bipartisanship, with my colleague from Virginia, and I would simply say 
this: I want to go back to the most basic of all conservative themes, 
which is we believe that the individual is paramount in the way that 
decisions get made and that not all decisions should be made in 
Washington, D.C. And if folks have spoken out as clearly and as loudly 
as they have with regard to home rule on what should or shouldn't 
happen off their coast, that voice ought to be respected in Washington, 
D.C.
  Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, to respond to both my friends from South 
Carolina, one of the dilemmas with the additional exploration is that, 
by law, the data obtained from the seismic surveys are proprietary. 
They will belong to the many different companies that will be doing 
this, and they won't be available to the American public; they won't be 
available to local government officials; they won't even be available 
to Members of Congress.
  So this inability to access information will leave coastal 
communities without the opportunity to provide these substantive cost-
benefit analyses that Congressman Sanford referred to.
  Our constituents would take on significant risks without being 
involved in the future development decisions. So, for that reason, I 
encourage us to vote for the Sanford amendment.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The amendment was rejected.
  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. 
Walker) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3354) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________