Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  July 7, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT

9:00 pm
of the national park system associated sites such as national heritage areas and various state grant accounts. in light of recent events rgs the display of the confederate flag has been the discussion of discussion. this amendment is consistent with the bipartisan effort across the country to promote harmony and no division in this great nation. . we were all shocked by the heinous massacre that took the lives of nine god-faring, african-american church goers in south carolina. this act of domestic terror was carried out by an individual who idolized the confederate flag and harbored racist beliefs calling for the run of human
9:01 pm
subjugation of others on the basis of race. unfortunately, that same confederate flag flew on the grounds of the state capitol amidst the funeral of a state senator and dedicated pastor who taught that we are all god ose children as the historic emanuel a.m.e. church. we have come a long way in america but we still have a long way to go in our march toward a more perfect union. racial hatred continues to adversely impact our society and people of good will must unite to eradicate it. limiting the use of federal funds for purchase or display of the confederate flag is an important step in that direction. earlier today lawmakers in south carolina from both sides of the aisle came together to support removing the confederate battle flag from their state
9:02 pm
capitol grounds. this evening, the united states house of representatives has the opportunity to further limit the public display of this divisive symbol that is so closely associated with defense of the institution of slavery. i thank the chairman and ranking member for their consideration, for the aforementioned reasons, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member rise in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jeffries: i yield to the distinguished gentlelady from minnesota. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: i am very happy that this opportunity has been presented for us to have a discussion on the house floor, and the national park service doing the right thing about the removal of this symbol of what's
9:03 pm
become abrasive hate speech and i thank the gentleman for bringing forward the amendment and rise in support of it. mr. jeffries: i thank the gentlelady for her support and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment by mr. smith of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following. none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the environmental protection agency to impose, finalize, implement or revise any regulation in which the data relied on is subject to o.m.b. circular a-110
9:04 pm
and is withheld in contravention of the freedom of information act or if the science advisory board of the environmental protection agency fails to provide scientific advice as may be requested on such regulation to the congress in contravention of section 4365 of title 42, united states code. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: this amendment reflects the core principles of two bills passed by the house earlier this year with bipartisan support h.r. 1029, the e.p.a. science advisory board reform act, and h.r. 1030, the secret science reform act. i'm pleased to be joined by the science committee's former environment subcommittee chairman representative david schweikert who sponsored the
9:05 pm
original version of the secret science bill in 2014. the amendment requires the environmental protection agency to base its regulations on publicly available data that can be verified. why would the administration want to hide this information from the american people? we must make sure that federal regulations are based on science that is available for independent review. many americans are unaware that some of the e.p.a.'s most expensive and burdensome regulations such as its po posed climate and ozone rules are based on underlying data that not even the e.p.a. has seen. this amendment ensures that the decisions that affect every american are based on indently -- independently verified research instead of on secret data hidden from the american people. that's called a scientific method. this amendment also assures that the e.p.a. science advisory board is able to provide meaningful, balanced and independent assessments of the
9:06 pm
science behind the e.p.a. regulation. the e.p.a. frequently undermines the s.a.b.'s independence and prevents it from being able to provide advice to congress. as a result the value juble ad-- valuable advice these experts can provide is often ignore or silenced. the public's right to know must be protected in a democracy. this amendment ensures that happens. the e.p.a. has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it serves and whose money it uses. anyone who supports government transparency and accountability should be able to support this amendment. it helps e.p.a. and the obama administration keep their promise to be open and honest with the american people. mr. chairman i yield whatever time he may consume to the appropriations subcommittee chairman, ken cowart the gentleman from california. mr. cowart: i rise in support of this amendment having chaired that subcommittee for six years
9:07 pm
-- mr. calvert: i rise in support of this amendment, having chaired that subcommittee for six years i think the bills passed by the house science committee earlier this year, i voted for them both times. i think it's a good amendment. i aurge -- urge an aye vote. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i reserve. the chair: does the gentlelady rise in opposition in ms. mccollum: yes, mr. chairman i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: the gentleman's amendment seeks to stop the environmental protection agency from issuing regulations through two different measures. the first would prevent e.p.a. from issuing regulations if the data is withheld under the freedom of information act. second it would withhold regulations if the agency's science advisory board doesn't
9:08 pm
provide the requested advice and information to congress. i would like to take a moment to address each of these issues fully. last year, for example, the e.p.a. received 10,500 foia requests, freedom of information requests, for an average of -- or an average of 40 per work day. these requests require nearly $11 million in personnel costs to process. yet the e.p.a. receives less than $1 million to collect fees for these requests. so they get $11 million in personnel costs to process yet they get less than $1 million to collect the fees for these requests. so you can simply do the math, there's only nine allowable exemptions under the law that would prevent the e.p.a. from complying with foia requests in the first place and these exemptions range from classified national defense foreign
9:09 pm
relations information the confidential business information, and matters of personal privacy something we discuss in this room all the time. so the amendment is simply another attempt to stop the e.p.a. from issuing regulations. many which are required by law. and are designed to improve human health and the environment. now, that was in regard to the first point. about e.p.a. issuing regulations. the freedom of information act. lack of funding available to do it. and then they're following the laws with the nine exemptions. with regards to the science advisory boards, let me remind my colleagues that these boards are comprised of nearly four dozen experts from academia. there are academics from the university of texas, health science cent for the houston the environmental systems and
9:10 pm
research institute in redlands, california and from the university of minnesota, my home state. now, in my opinion it's very disengenerals you to suggest that this advisory board would withhold information to the congress. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which simply puts two more roadblocks in the e.p.a.'s regulations. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself 15 seconds simply to point out that this amendment does not prevent the e.p.a. from issuing any regulations. in fact it doesn't take a position on regulations. it simply says if the underlying data that the e.p.a. is using to justify regulations needs to be made public. i don't know who could oppose transparency and honesty by this administration. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota is
9:11 pm
recognized. ms. mccollum: reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: we have one remaining speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman wishes to recognize the gentleman from arizona. mr. smith sfok conclude the debate on the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota has the right to close. mr. smith: ok. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: i reserve me balance of my time, i have the right to close. mr. smith: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman, mr. schweikert a former chairman of the science committee, now a member of the financial services committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schweikert: can i inquire in the remaining time?
9:12 pm
the chair: 45 seconds. mr. schweikert: this amendment is based on the o.m.b. circular that said this data is supposed to be public. number two the release of data if you're making rules, does not preassume that the reg is too tough too little, too soft. what it means is if you're going to be doing public policy, public policy, doesn't the public deserve access to public data? because there's lots of smart people out there on the left and the right or just academia that should have this information this raw data, to decide, are we doing it the most rational, the most powerful way? with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to reiterate. there are only nine allowable exemptions under this law that would prevent the e.p.a. from complying with foia requests.
9:13 pm
they range from classified national defense foreign relations information, confidential business information, and matters of personal privacy system of once again, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which simply works to put roadblocks in front of the e.p.a. ever being able to issue a regulation. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the cement -- the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. speer of california. at the end of the bill before the short spitele -- title insert the following limitation
9:14 pm
of use of funds, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer or enforce the rule following the environmental impact statement for the dog management plan plan s.e.i.s., golden gate national reck rational area, ggnra, california 78 fed reg 55094, september 9, 2013. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. calvert: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentlelady from new york and the gentleman from california is recognized for -- the gentleman from california is recognized -- the gentlelady -- the gentleman
9:15 pm
from california is recognized for five minutes -- the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. roof. that's what my dog, buddy, does when he wants to go out for a walk. and that's what dogs throughout the bay area have been accustomed to doing in the golden gate national recreation area for decades. ms. speier: i, like them, believe that the ggnra should be able to afford the opportunity for people to recreate, whether one wants to watch a bird, ride a horse walk a path, or climb a hill. some of these uses are incompatible but that doesn't mean we shouldn't -- we should ban them. that means that we should create opportunities for all. in my district, the ggnra has zero off-leash dog areas. closing down one site that has been in operation for over many
9:16 pm
decades. this public land provides much-needed recreational space in a densely populated bay area. today that access is at risk. the national park service is trying to dramatically change how it manages recreational areas in the bay area by turning a majority of open space in the ggnra into what are called controlled zones, where visitors access -- visitorsa access and activities could be -- visitors' access and activities could be highly restricted. hiking, surfing, bike riding horse back riding and dog walking. the bay area is densely populated and open space is precious. for many the ggnra is the only option for time outdoors. my amendment would slow the
9:17 pm
national park service's regulatory overreach and ensure that people in the bay area continue to have recreational access to these urban parks. people and nature aren't incompatible. we can be good stewards and also allow those in the ggnra to have access to this very, very beautiful area. i ask for an aye vote. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i first would like to say that i'm very sympathetic to -- i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. calvert: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute legislation in an appropriation bill, therefore it violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent
9:18 pm
part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order in changing existing law. the amendment requires a new determination. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: do other members wish to be heard? this includes language requires a new determination as to whether a rule follows a specified environmental impact statement. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk -- at the desk. the chair: the clerning will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rice from south carolina. insert the following,
9:19 pm
limitation on use of funds for offshore oil and gas leasing. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to issue any oil and gas lease under the 2017-2022 outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program unless the secretary of the interior has entered into revenue sharing agreement with each affected state. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from south carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from -- the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i must reserve a point of order. the chair: without objection reserved. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. rice: mr. speaker, my amendment withholds funding for permitting of offshore oil exploration until the secretary of interior reaches reserve knew sharing agreements with the coastal states. the bureau of ocean, -- ocean energy management's 2017-2022
9:20 pm
outer couldn't neble shelf oil and gas leasing program opens the regions to oil and gas development after several decades of being off limits. while advanced drilling techniques and spill response have made environmentally safe access to oil and gas reserves in the atlantic possible coastal states should consider and prepare for impacts that offshore energy development present. sharing of revenues with coastal states will help address the risk and responsibilities that states and coastal counties assume with offshore energy development. these revenues would help state governments expand coastal management and conservation, build necessary infrastructure, fund emergency preparation and response and expand public service to support the influx of new industry and work force. involving the coastal infrastructure and management will add to the overall economic well-being of the coastal communities.
9:21 pm
before our coastal states agree to share in the burden of offshore drilling, we ought to ensure that our coastal states are able to share in the economic blessings of such drilling. my amendment would prohibit funding or implementation of the plan until the secretary of interior enters into a revenue-sharing agreement with the states affected. while it may not be possible this evening to adopt my amendment for coastal states, as we move forward with energy exploration off our coast lines, please be mindful of revenue sharing. because i understand my amendment is set to a point of order, i plan to withdraw this amendment. but before i withdraw my amendment, i ask the chair -- for the chairman's consideration to assist in development of revenue sharing agreements, to compensate the coastal states and help them to mitigate risk. i yield. mr. calvert: i'd be happy to work with the gentleman in the future to see if there's an
9:22 pm
area where we can move your idea forward and see if we can't get the federal government and the states to cooperate to their mutual, i think, benefit. mr. rice: i appreciate the chairman's consideration. i withdraw my amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman withdraws and yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you mr. chairman.
9:23 pm
kind of trying to figure out where to start with this because we're making progress. i guess the purpose of this amendment is to give this whole process a swift kick so we can actually do something that's absolutely necessary. chairman of the appropriations subcommittee really has it correct. i want to read the language of the appropriation bill, with which i happen to agree this evening. but not the result. in seven of the last 10 years, the forest service and the department of interior have exceeded their wildlife -- the wildland fire suppression budgets, despite being fully funded at the 10-year suppression average for such costs. fire seasons have grown longer and more destructive, putting people communities and ecosystems at greater risk. fire borrowing has now become routine rather than extraordinary. borrowing from nonfire accounts to pay suppression costs results in the forest service
9:24 pm
and the department of interior having fewer resources available for forest management activities, including, as it is fuel management, and other proven efforts to improve overall forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fires. mr. chairman, of the subcommittee, you have it right. you and your committee staff have done the right analysis. but haven't completed the follow-through to achieve that goal. i see our good friend from idaho standing nearby. and he has a bill, a very, very fine bill, to deal with this. that would basically create two separate accounts. now understanding the necessity of proper order and being out of order which sometimes i am, i'm not proposing that we adopt the good the gentleman from idaho's bill in this bill. but i got a different idea.
9:25 pm
i'm going to take this idea from my republican colleagues who have created so many fiscal crises, otherwise known as cliffs, to create one. and basically what i'm doing here with this amendment is saying, you can't borrow from other accounts. and when you run out of money, my goodness, we have a crisis. and we'll have to then adopt my good friend from idaho's legislation and solve the problem once and for all. so that's what this amendment does. it says, you can't borrow from other accounts to fight wildfires, which means that we're going to have to come to grips with the reality of our funding crisis. where we cannot get ahead of the wildland fires. where there is a necessity for us to spend money on protecting the forest, on forest health. thinning, other kinds of things, fire breaks and the like. so that we just don't burn down all the forests.
9:26 pm
this is what you call kicking the issue into gear. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from idaho wish to rise in opposition? >> i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman. i understand what he's trying to do. and we're on the same page actually, and ultimately what we want to accomplish with this. mr. simpson: the fact is that we appropriate money and the interior subcommittee has done it for several years now and the chairman calvert has done it in this bill, where we fund, under the flame act, the 10-year average what have it costs to fight wildfire. unfortunately i think it's in eight of the last 10 years we've exceeded that 10-year average. consequently when money runs out for fighting wildfires, what we do, what the forest service does, is borrow that money from other accounts. and we sometimes complain that the forest service doesn't go out and do the thinning that's necessary or do the restoration
9:27 pm
that's necessary or do the trail maintenance that's necessary. the reason they don't -- they can't do it is because we've borrowed all the money to fight wildfires and we're trying to prevent that wildfire borrowing. it's one thing to try to prevent it in a manner that will address the problem and another to just say, you can't borrow. because i would hate to be in the situation where we run up against a fire year where we are going to exceed the 10-year average we run out of fire -- average, we run out of fire fighting money and there's no way to get the resources in order to fund the fires that are occurring in the last -- in the latter part of the year. this would put pressure on for congress to probably do something. as you know, there's a challenge with the budget committee that we've been working with, trying to address this issue. there is some language as i
9:28 pm
understand it, in the senate interior bill dealing with the wildfire fighting costs and how we handle that. there is some language in a bill that will be before us, i think, this week, healthy forest bill out of the resources committee. i think more and more people are starting to realize that we've got to address this problem. there is absolutely no reason that wildfires should not be treated as other natural disasters are. hurricanes tornadoes earthquakes, other things. for some reason we treat wildfires differently. and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. so, we've had various proposals, i've talked with the administration, with the department of interior, with forest service, with many other people, trying to come to a resolution on this. and there are many people on both the republican and the democratic side of the aisle that are trying to address this and i am hopeful that we are inching ever closer. because, you know, things don't move as quickly as we would like, oftentimes in congress. we are moving, inching closer, i would hope, to finding the
9:29 pm
solution to this. and there are different ideas out there about how to go about doing exactly what the gentleman from california and i and the chairman all want to do and that is quit the fire borrowing. so that the forest service can do the job that we appropriate the money for them to do. but given that this could create some real problems i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but i would have to oppose the amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair would like to remind members not to traffic the well. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: you weren't talking about me, were you? the chair: the gentleman is correct. mr. garamendi: my good friend from idaho has it right. his bill ought to become the law. and you did find a way to fund it. the same way we fund hurricanes
9:30 pm
, tornadoes, earthquakes and the like, out of fema. good bill. by the way, i'm the co-author of it, thank you very much. only you can prevent forest fires. how many times have we seen smoky the bear? but congress can help. i want to congratulate and i really want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because you're in a position to lead on this. this amendment's in a position to cause action. . that's all it is. will we have a fire disaster? we're going to have a fire disaster, no doubt about it. will we have a financing dast her probably. but we can solve it. we can solve it with legislation and with a piece of legislation moving through this house that would reach back to the fema money where we always stack a huge stash of money for the eventuality of a disaster, we reach back and say, ok that's
9:31 pm
how we're going to do it going forward. i think it's about time for me to yield, i probably don't have much more time. but i'm kind of stiring the pot here trying to kick this into gear and i'm delighted to work with the good language that the chairman chairman of the committee has put into the bill and had i the time i'd agree once again. your analysis of the problem and also your analysis of the solution. that's found in this year h.r. 167, a fine piece of legislation, by an outstanding gentleman from idaho. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back this egentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. sitchson: i thank the gentleman for his comments and his help on trying to get taos a resolution on this. i'm sure working together we can solve this eventually. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.
9:32 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. newhouse of washington. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, limitation on use of funds to treat gray wolves in washington oregon, and utah, as endangered species or threatened species. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be qused by the department of the interior or the united states fish and wildlife service to treat any gray wolf canis lupus in washington, oregon, or utah, as an encaged species or threatened act under the endangered species act of 1973, 16 united states code 631 eth sec we tur. -- et sec we tur.
9:33 pm
-- sequitur. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: i rise today to present and amendment that would prevent the department of the interior from using funds to continue to list the gray wolf under the endangered species act. this is a very serious issue of extreme importance to my home state of washington, where the gray wolf is listed in the western 2/3 of the state but is delisted in the eastern third. this fragmented listing means that there are no geographic barriers to prevent the wolves from traveling between listed and delisted areas, posing a risk to people living, farming and ranching in the region. unfortunately, this issue should already have been settled. in june, 2013, the u.s. fish and wildlife service issued a proposed rule to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered
9:34 pm
wildlife under the endangered species act. they made the determination after investigating the classification status of gray wolves currently listed in the contiguous united states and found the best available science and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entity is not a valid species under the act. on june 30 of this year the service listed -- released its response to a petition seeking to reclassify all gray wolves in the u.s. as a threatened species under e.s.a. in its response the service stated it determined there was not substantial information to indicate that such a reclassification was warranted, and as a result, the service will take no further action on the petition. furthermore, the statutory purpose of e.s.a. is to recover species to the point where it is no longer considered endangered or threatened. the gray wolf is currently found
9:35 pm
in nearly 50 countries around the world and the wolf specialist group of the international union for conservation an nature has placed the species in the category of least concern globally for risk of extinction. mr. speaker, the proposed rule and other examples i've cited clearly show that a full delisting of the gray wolf is long overdue. since wolves were first placed under e.s.a. uncontrolled and unmanaged growth of gray wolf populations has resulted in devastating impacts on hunting and ranching as well as tragic losses to a historically strong and healthy livestock and wildlife populations. mr. speaker, the gray wolf population has grown substantially across its range and is now considered to be recovered. therefore, it does not merit protection under the endangered species act, but pacific northwest states are fully qualified to responsibly manage their gray wolf populations and
9:36 pm
are better suited than the federal government to meet the needs of local communities, ranchers livestock and wildlife populations. so my amendment today is simple. it would take steps that the fish and wildlife service has already said are necessary and are supported by the best available scientific evidence and data and i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and i urge its adoption. now i'd like, if i could, to yield two minutes to my colleague from eastern washington congresswoman cathy mcmorris rodgers. the chair: the gentleman only has a minute remaining, a minute and a half, so the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i want to thank my colleague for yielding and for his work on this issue. four years ago when the federal government delisted wol invest a portion of the -- portion of the western united states what was left behind was a growing wolf population and confusing checker board of regulations.
9:37 pm
wolves do not know regulatory boundaries. when a single forest is divided between two different management plans, local leaders, farmers and other stake holders' hands are tied when protecting themselves from a wolf threat. and often face unnecessary repercussions. washington state proposed a wolf conservation and management plan but is unable to fully implement it with federal protections lingering in the western 2/3 of the state. our local leaders can manage their resources and wildlife in our state more effectively and efficiently than the federal government. but if we want to empower them to protect herds of livestock, people and land from other possible threats of wolves, we need a consistent framework for the entire state, not just sections. for this reason, i strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: i reserve.
9:38 pm
the chair: does the gentlelady from minnesota wish to rise in opposition? ms. mccollum: yes, mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: this amendment is yet another attack on another vulnerable american icon, the gray wolf. the gray wol san francisco a keystone species, it plays a vital role in keeping our ecosystems healthy. it's also an animal that many native american cultures feel a kinship bond with. i heard from many twrible leaders that the protections afforded under the endangered species act is the only way they've been able to keep wolf hunts out of their tribal lands. i understand my colleagues have strong vuse about listing and delisting in their state but the endangered species act is to ensure species sur vial. s the same law that successfully restored another iconic american
9:39 pm
species. the bald eagle. but this amendment restricts the department of interior's ability to implement the endangered species act. however, it does not alter the protection for the endangered wolves in these states. so regardless of one's position on species protection, the amendment is very problematic. the restrictions will ultimately hurt farmers, ranchers and landowners and business owners and here's why. under this amendment, the fish and wildlife service would not be able to offer exemptions or permits for incidental killings of woltoves landowners, ranchers and other parties who very -- who might be in need of them. however, the prohibition against accidental kills or take would still remain and would still be legally enforceable. thus this means states would
9:40 pm
have to stop any activity, any activity that led to the taking of a wolf or they would be vulnerable to a lawsuit or heavy penalties. the -- simply put, this amendment is bad for wolves it's bad for our ecosystem it's bad for business and it's bad for our constituents. mr. chairman i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady -- >> does the gentlelady yield? ms. mccollum: may i inquire how much time i have left and how much time the other side has left. the chair: the gentlelady has 2 spsh -- has 2 3/4 minutes and the gentleman has 15 seconds. ms. mccollum: i yield to my colleague. mr. simpson: i'm sympathetic to what the gentleman is doing. when we passed the law four years ago, we thought about what happens to the wolves that go into washington and oregon and nevada and utah.
9:41 pm
we thought about including those in the general delisting. while we didn't delist them, the fish and wildlife service did. we found it created several problems, one, those states didn't have state management plans, which is the case today with most of them, because we discussed this -- i discussed this issue earlier with fish and wildlife service what their plan is and what they'd like to do is currently they support the language that's in the bill that reinstates their delisting in wyoming and the great lakes. those states have state management plans that have been approved by fish and wildlife service. if you include the other states that are included in this that don't have state management plans, then fish and wildlife has to oppose what we're doing. i believe that what they are -- their goal is is to get this language passed dealing with wyoming, the great lakes and
9:42 pm
then do a wider delisting once those -- range-wide delisting once the states have state management plans that have been adopted by the fish and wildlife service and this amendment may uns mine that. this is something that we need to discuss. i think, i'm not opposing the gentleman's amendment, but it's something that i think we need to discuss between now and conference so that we get a plan in to make sure we're not undermining what i think we all want, and that is the ultimate delisting of the gray wolves. ms. mccollum: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speaker. so as i said earlier i understand that my colleagues have strong views about this, pro and con about listing and delisting but this amendment is very very problematic and for that reason, i can't support it.
9:43 pm
if we can -- this should be the gentleman from idaho is correct, this has so many unintended consequences that i feel very strongly, very strongly about not supporting this amendment for that reason and with that, i reclaim the rest of my time and yield it back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: in the few seconds i have left, i would certainly thank the gentleman from idaho as well as the gentlelady from minnesota for sharing her concerns and i certainly look forward to working with my colleagues would urge support and look forward to continuing the effort to move this to a conclusion that we can all accept. thank you very much. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
9:44 pm
the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert thele to -- insert the following. limitation on use of funds. none of the funds made available by this act for california drought response or relief may be used by the administrator of the environmental protection agency or the secretary of the interior in contravention of implementation of division 26. of the california water code,
9:45 pm
the water quality supply and infrastructure improvement act of 2013 as approved by the voters of california and california proposition 1, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order on the amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. . mr. garamendi: well, mr. chairman despite the potential for a point of order and the amendment being out of order, it really, really is a good policy. and while it may not come to a vote on this house floor it certainly ought to come to the attention of the appropriators and the administration that we got a pretty serious drought in the west it. does affect california arizona
9:46 pm
-- west. it does affect california, arizona, oregon, probably parts of idaho. and on into new mexico. california voters last november passed a $7 billion water bond that deals with the long-term issues of water supply in california and some of the immediate challenges that the california drought has brought to the 30-plus million citizens of the state. this amendment would direct the department of interior, the e.p.a., the department of agriculture, and the department of defense to focus the money that it would be spending in california under any circumstance to focus that money on assisting augments, advancing -- augmenting, advancing and supplementing those programs that the state
9:47 pm
of california is undertaking to address the drought, using the bond act money. that's a great idea. instead of spending the money on things that are not immediately relevant, that are not immediately necessary, and do not immediately help those citizens of california, those communities, those agencies in the state that are suffering from the drought, but rather to spend the money on those programs. that's it. doesn't call for any additional money. doesn't really cause long-term problems to our appropriation processes, but rather says hey, we got a problem, let's focus on the problem and let's coordinate with the state of california. in solving the problem. that's it. pretty simple stuff. unfortunately, i guess we may have a point of order and this
9:48 pm
rather important concept won't be in the legislation. however, i do think that the administration's aware and they are beginning to focus appropriately. on the -- appropriately on the drought in california. and i would hope in other states just as we're suggesting they do here. that they, they, the administration and the federal government focus the money that it would otherwise be spending in these -- in the state of california and these other states on projects that the local governments, the state governments in those states are undertaking. to address the drought. pretty basic. but i'll reserve my time so that i might challenge the point of order. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i insist on my point of order mr. chairman.
9:49 pm
i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requires a new determination and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other diminish -- other member wish to have their voice heard? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: my good friend from idaho was so right and now so wrong. but that's the way it is when you got the votes -- way it is, when you got the votes, you got the votes. nevertheless this is a very, very good program. i would encourage all of us particularly the administration, to follow along the policies here. and i would point out that they are. so i challenge the point of order and would ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: the chair will rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination
9:50 pm
of whether certain actions will contravene a specified state law. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i have an amendment on the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. can the gentleman from washington specify the amendment? mr. newhouse: it's number 14 i believe. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. new house of washington. at the -- gnu house of washington -- newhouse of washington. none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue any regulation under the solid waste disposal act 42 united states code 6901 that applies to an animal
9:51 pm
feeding operation, including a concentrated animal feeding operation and a large concentrated animal feeding operation. as such terms are defined in section 122.23 of title 40, code of federal regulations. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentleman from washington and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer an amendment on an issue that's critical to livestock producers. not just in my state and my district but across the whole country. last year a group of folks in my area, environmental activists, sued several dairies in washington state, claiming that the dairies were responsible for open dumping under the resources conservation and recovery act of 1976, or as most commonly is referred to as rcra. because of manure storage and management issues on their
9:52 pm
farms. the big issue is what law the activists were suing the dairies under. there are many laws and regulations, both at the state and federal level which are appropriate mechanisms for protecting and ensuring our nation's waters are kept clean. but the problem i see is that rcra is not one of them. it was a law designed to govern solid wastes and prevent open dumping. the major application of this law is regulating landfills. it was never intended to regulate animal waste. in fact, the e.p.a. in its initial 1979 regulations for rcra expressed the law -- that the law quote, does not apply to agricultural waste. including manure and crop residue returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners. i don't know how much clearer we can get, that manure storage and handling were not intended to be governed under this law.
9:53 pm
unfortunately, though, a federal judge in spokane, washington, agreed with the group and stretched the definition of solid waste to apply to manure nitrates. contrary to the law and federal regulatory code, and held the dairies responsible for open dumping because of how they stored and handled animal waste. mr. speaker, my amendment does nothing to prevent e.p.a. from enforcing the current regulations under rcra. it does nothing to change the clean water act rule makings, nor does it prevent e.p.a. from issuing or enforcing clean water act regulations. all it does is prevent e.p.a. from issuing and expanding new regulations that would reflect the interpretation of this current law. mr. speaker, no one is saying that livestock producers like every american, don't share in the responsibility of good stewardship of our environment and our resources. they certainly do. but there are appropriate laws
9:54 pm
and regulations intended to govern this and there are ones that are not appropriate for this purpose. simply piling additional layers of regulation on producers and giving activists new litigation tools to target our nation's farmers and ranchers is not what congress had in mind when passing the resources conservation and recovery act. we as congress have a responsibility to make that clarification and that's what i'm seeking to do with this amendment. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member wish to rise in opposition to this amendment? the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, i would be in a better -- i would be better able to comment on this amendment if the gentleman had shared a copy. and so in this day and age, i am glad we're allowed to, you know bring an ipad on the
9:55 pm
floor. but mr. chairman, if the gentleman would yield, i would ask him a question. mr. chair, sir, -- the chair: does the gentleman yield? mr. newhouse: certainly. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: when did you decide on this amendment? has it been in the last 20 minutes or was it two hours ago? mr. newhouse: it was, let's see, more like six hours ago that it was in the hopper. ms. mccollum: thank you mr. chairman. reclaiming my time. the headlines are ground breaking rule on washington state on this dairy case. it's dairy pollution threatens washington valley water. this is a big enough story in fact that it was even covered by -- reprinted by the "minneapolis star tribune." it was the first time that the federal resources conservation and recovery act were
9:56 pm
considering ways in which land and water had to be protected. mr. chairman, just because i didn't have an opportunity to really delve into this and find out more about it and what the amendment does is it just totally stops funds to be issued under this regulation to animal feeding operations. i'm going to oppose it because it also includes large concentrated animal feeding operations and i do come from a farm state. so i do know the difference between a small farm a small hog farmer and a lagoon and large dairy farms and small dairy farms. so with that i oppose this amendment. the chair: does the gentlelady wish to reserve? ms. mccollum: i'll reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker.
9:57 pm
i would -- i'm not questioning the good lady's credentials from a farming state of minnesota. but certainly given time, as this process moves forward she will become intimately familiar with this law as it's being interpreted. it's already happening in other parts of the country and i would offer this amendment to help preclude the wrongful use of the law and ask my colleagues' strong consideration. with that i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman i would just read into the record from -- let's see january 15, 2015, spo can, washington. a federal -- spokane washington. a federal judge has ruled a large industrial dairy in eastern washington has polluted drinking water, drinking water, through its application, storage and management of manure in a state that could set a precedent across the
9:58 pm
country. u.s. district judge ruled wednesday that the pollution posed an intimate and substantial endangerment to the environment and to the people who drink water. the judge wrote that he could come to no other conclusion than the dairy's operations were contributing to high levels of nitrate that will continue to contaminate the underlying rainwater. any attempt to diminish the dairy's contamination is disingenuous at best, said the judge. he wrote a 111-page opinion in which he granted partial summary judgment in fair of -- in favor of environmental groups. these environmental groups are people who looking out for their drinking water. mr. chair, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
9:59 pm
the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the dets , 198 -- desk, 198-a. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. at the evident end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, limitation on use of funds, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to eliminate the wildlife urban partnership. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentlelady from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes -- the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairman and and the committee on both the staff and the gentlelady from minnesota the gentleman from california and the gentleman from idaho now managing this appropriations bill. i call in the good health
10:00 pm
appropriations for the quality of life of many americans, both urban and rural. and i ask my colleagues to consider my amendment which deals with the urban reforestation program. and i live close and personal to both urban areas and rural areas in my congressional district. but given close to 80% of the population of the united states lives in an urban area, the benefits provided by urban forests touch most of u.s. citizens. so my amendment specifically reinforces the importance of urban reforestation and as well to preserve our ability to return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children. . i offered these amendments in years past and i know it from a realtime experience, over the last couple of years when the drought hit houston and many other areas in texas, millions
10:01 pm
of trees were lost. millions of trees were lost. today now we face the large and very challenging effort of trying to reforest parks like memorial park and mcgregor park, many parks in the northeast part of my district. in the last 30 years alone, we lost over 30% of our trees. i have seen neighborhoods in houston benefit from reforestation. many members will remember that throughout our careers we have been involved in planting of trees. there are major efforts throughout our community. i want to cite for example, those who worked in houston texas, doing the reforestation work. houston wilderness, student conservation organization, eastern management district, houston parkting and recreation department and texas parks and wildlife department along with many civic clubs which i have had the privilege of working
10:02 pm
with. several years ago, american forests, a leading conservation group, estimated that the tree covered lots in the greater washington area from 1993 to 1997 resulted in an additional $500 million of stormwater runoff which would have taken more than $1 billion instormwater control facilities to manage. we know that the green effect in thed my of of -- middle of the city can have a beneficial effect on the community's health, physical as well as psychological. a healthy tree a 32-foot tall ash tree can produce about 260 pounds of oxygen annualry. trees help reduce pollution, they help combat the effect of greenhouse gas, they hope cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt concrete and metal surfaces. a mature tree canopy reduces air temperatures five to 10 degrees.
10:03 pm
let me give a personal story on the importance of reforestation. a few years ago i helped create a memorial plasta for a martin luther king jr. in memorial park. there was a tree of life presented by his father. the tree had to be moved because of emotional upheaval. we resolved that the tree had to be moved and that tree was potentially a tree that would die. with the right kind of nurturing and reforestation and treatment foresters who came that tree is now a shining example of a unified community. so i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment to ensure that our program dealing with urban reforestation continues. with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. does any member wish to rise in
10:04 pm
opposition to the amendment? seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: it would be my privilege to yield to the gentlelady from minnesota, the ranking member of this appropriations subcommittee on the interior. ms. mccollum. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the jackson lee amendment. it was very interesting to learn more about what your goals and objectives are and i think it is very worthy of our conversation. with that, i yield back. thank you. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady very much. again, let me conclude by yielding become my time and simply saying what a great difference life will be in many urban areas with a commitment to reforestation of urban areas and creating more opportunities for trees to grow in those areas. i yield back and ask for support of the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back.
10:05 pm
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. yoder of kansas. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. limitation on funds to enforce listing of prairie chicken. none of the funds shall be used to threaten the endangered -- shall be used to enforce the threatened species listing of the prairie chicken. the chair: her puent to house resolution 333, the gentleman from kansas and a member opposed
10:06 pm
each will control five minutes. the gentleman from kansas is recognized. mr. yoder: thank you mr. chairman. my amendment would prohibit further waste of federal funds from being used to enforce the unnecessary listing of the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species under the endangered species act this listing has americans crying foul in kansas and across the country on the burden it places on farmers ranchers and agriculture producers this misguided listing comes at a time when the lesser prairie chicken is becoming the greater prairie chicken gaining in population significantly each of the last several years. the latest population count was released, it shows a 25% increase in the species' population over the last year. that falls -- physical lows a 20% increase e-- from the year before. what accounts for all this? the listing on the endangered pee cease act? -- list? no these increases are due to improved habitat conditions as a
10:07 pm
result of increased rainfall to an area that had been experiencing the worst drought since the infamous dust bowl. this cannot be attributed to people in washington, d.c. we need to let state and local municipalities and states work together to produce conservation plans. five states, kansas, new mexico, new mexico texas and colorado have a plan for the prairie chicken. it has broad support to repremb the lesser prairie chicken. we have an opportunity today as democrats and republicans to flock together, to break out our shells, to delist the prairie chicken. keeping it in place makes it hardser on hardworking farmers to free throw groh crops and feed our nation and makes it
10:08 pm
harder to produce renewable or traditional energy. and it makes harder at the grocery store and the pump for average americans. this is why the listings have -- this while the listing has little to do with the growth of the population. as these ineffective federal burdens go up so does the cost of doing business in america. that's truly something to crow about. let's let states recoupe and regrow the pop lair -- population of lesser prairie chickens. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does anyone rise in opposition? ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: this amendment would prohibit the fish and wildlife service from implementing or enforcing threatened species listing of the lesser prairie chicken under the endangered species act and would restrict the service from
10:09 pm
offering any critical protections to preserve the species. this amendment is harmful and misguided and maybe a little scrambled, as in some eggs. once the species is listed under the endangered species act the role of fish and wildlife is primarily permissive helping parties comply with the act as they carry out activities. under this amendment, all the endangered species act prohibitions would still apply still apply the endangered species act prohibitions, but land owners would have no avenues to comply with them. u.s. fish and wildlife would be barred from issuing permits or exemptions meaning land orners and others who might need to take the lesser prairie chicken incidentally to do their otherwise lawful activities would be vulnerable to a citizen's lawsuit. additionally this amendment would halt an innovative plan to conserve the lesser prairie chicken. in 2014, fish and wildlife in
10:10 pm
partnership with states and local stake holders began implementation of a lesser prairie chicken range wide conservation plan. that encouraged participants to gain proactive and voluntary conservation activities promoting lesser prayer rechicken conservation. the plan describes a locally controlled and innovative approach for main tag -- maintaining the state's authority to conserve the spee's and -- species and allows the conservation to continue. sounds like a win-win to me with fish and wildlife partnering with local partners and the state. this plan prevents significant regulatory delays and obtaining permits, disruption to economic activities vital to state and national interests, and little incentive to conservation habitat on prairie lands. so sadly the gentleman's amendment would undermine this plan that local folks and the
10:11 pm
state came up with to be more collaborative in a conservation effort this amendment would create uncertainty for land owners making they will vulnerable to lawsuits. we should be supporting the fish and wildlife service in its efforts to work with local community leaders and to work with the states. not blocking the agency for doing their job. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. chip the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kansas is recognized. mr. yoder: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from western kansas, mr. huelskamp. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. huelskamp: i'm pleased to co-sponsor this commonsense amendment as we work to stop the ill--- ill-advised list og of this elesser prairie chicken. as a fifth generation farmer and
10:12 pm
possibly the only one in congress who has seen a real life bird on a family farm i am opposed to this listing. this list og curred in a massive, historical, multiyear crouth that limits habitat growth and reduces the numbers of player rechickens. the best solution is for it to rain, and that it has, thank you lord and though i fully expect the fish and wildlife service to take credit for the increase in the lesser prairie chicken population, but for the last four years i have heard from farmers, ranchers, and others concerned about what this listing would do to our rural economy. our farmers and ranchers are in a state of uncertainty if certain practices like we have at my own farm will result in fines or jail time. energy producers have stopped drilling new wells for fear of risking the consequences of the listing. unless congress does something and does it soon this threat to
10:13 pm
a rural economy will probably continue forever. in 40 years of the endangered species act more than 1,350 species have been listed as endangered but only 24 have been delisted. that's just 1.7%. not very successful, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to share these concerns with you and i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. support our farmers and ranchers and support common sense. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kansas is recognized. mr. yoder: mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. yoder: i would like to yield one minute to the chairman of the committee, my colleague from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i'm simp at the exto the gentleman's concerns, particularly because my home state of california has more than its fair share of endangered species problems. the endangered species act
10:14 pm
hinges on the principle that if a species is listed it will be recovered and management will return to the states this push by the states is the reality we see playing out. bats wolves, greater sage grouse, delta smelt, the list goes on and on and on. it should come as no surprise to see the states pushing back through their elected representatives in the legislative branch in an effort to bring the e.s.a. back into tpwhrans. soiled support this amendment -- into balance. so i would support this amendment and i wreeled back. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i understand that there's a concern with the listings and i hear that very loud and clear from my colleagues, the problem with the way that these amendments have been drafted is, particularly this amendment, again, all the endangered species act prohibitions would still apply. land owners would have no avenue to comply with because they
10:15 pm
wovepbt have a partner in the fish and wildlife because fish and wildlife would be barred from issuing any permits or any exemptions. so you know, clearly it means landowners and industries and other parties who might need to take, might need to take a lesser prairie chicken incidental to their otherwise lawful activities, will be vulnerable to a lawsuit. additionally it will halt any innovative plan to conserve the lesser prairie chicken. so you know, the gentleman's amendment, by undermining collaborative efforts and i believe with a -- you know, an amendment that creates uncertainty for land owners making them vulnerable to lawsuits should be an amendment that should be opposed. mr. chairman, with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment
10:16 pm
offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 199. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. limitation on use of funds, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to limit outreach programs administered by the smithsonian institution. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentlelady from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, thank you. again, let me offer my appreciation to the gentlelady from minnesota, the gentleman from california and their staff who work with us. let me remind my colleagues
10:17 pm
that just a few days ago i offered this amendment dealing with museums and dealing with my concern for the funding in the smithsonian, to provide for the nation's museum. let me also say to my colleagues that i've offered this amendment in the past because i have a particular interest in the museums of america and their ability to do outreach. i imagine i am not alone, standing here amongst appropriators to again say and call for the end of sequestration, to be able to provide the appropriators and to provide the people of america the full funding to address these quality of life issues from the various lands and federal parks and land and as well as -- the historic trails museums, urban reforestation, all elements of the beauty of this nation.
10:18 pm
and i frankly believe that museums likewise are that form of beauty. my amendment specifically says none of the funds made available by this act may be used to -- available in this act may be used. in order to fulfill the smithsonian's mission, the smithsonian serves to -- seeks to serve a greater audience by bringing it to communities. our museums of the nation are in trouble. the smithsonian has a beautiful array of museums that are here that malmillions of americans have the opportunity to visit -- that millions of americans have the opportunity to visit. the outreach program serves thousands of communities and hundreds of institutions in all 50 states through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions and sharing of educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, training programs and websites. allow me to mention just a few, in my own district.
10:19 pm
the holocaust museum, unique in its presentation of a horrible time in history, but it also serves as a very unifying entity in our community. the children's museum, as one of the original board members and founders, now the children's museum, a museum that's one of the mainly children's museums in the nation. again, -- major children's museums in the nation. again, it needs the impact of the outreach of the smithsonian. and then of course the african-american museum. headed by a dear friend, but also a champion of holding this museum together and that is john guess. he need as fuller embrace by the smithsonian, including its expertise, its experts, its ph.d.'s, traveling efforts and its encouragement by corporate communities to know the importance of the outreach. travel exhibitions the smithsonian center for education and museum studies, national science resources the
10:20 pm
smithsonian institution press, the office of fellowships, the smithsonian associates. who are we if we do not value preserving those items that tell the varied and diverse history of america? the good history of america, the history that is unifying and purposeful in citing us as a country that recognizes our wonderful diversity. so i ask my colleagues to support this amendment that deals specifically with allowing the outreach to kinds of museums that really need the help of the smithsonian with that i reserve the balance of my time -- smithsonian. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. does any member wish to rise in opposition to this amendment? the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: the smithsonian, in concluding, mr. chairman, is very important to urban areas and rural areas alike. and its ability or its affiliation is to build a strong national network of
10:21 pm
museums and educational organizations in order to establish active and engaging relationships with communities throughout the country. again, allow me to absolute in particular john guess, the african-american -- salute in particular john guess, the african-american institute in houston. he's literally put that museum together along with his board members, the smithsonian i hope they're hearing me as i'm talking on the floor of the house. we need your help in houston, texas, we probably need your help in washington state and california minnesota new york and beyond to preserve and help these small museums throughout the nation. i ask my colleagues to support not only this amendment but the museums of this nation and i say to mr. calvert, we had discussed this before. this amendment now is a place holder hopefully for our discussion going forward dealing with the preservation of our museums. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: let me thank
10:22 pm
mr. calvert, simpson and mccollum. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rothfus of planned parenthood. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the director of the national park service to implement, administer or enforce policy memorandum 11-03, or to approve a request by a park superintendent to eliminate the sale and national parks of water and disposable plastic bottles. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr.
10:23 pm
chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. rothfus: this summer thousands of americans will load the kids into the car and set out on a trip to visit one of our country's historic national parks. whether it's to see the stunning vallies of the grand canyon or the to youering stone faces etched into mount rush more, tens of millions of families arrive at national park destinations each year. as some may know, the national park service has implemented a policy allowing parks to ban the sale of bottled water and only bottled water at park concessions. i understand that the park service is concerned about waste left behind by visitors. we all agree that protecting our national parks is a laudable goal. however, banning the sale of body bothled water is not the best way to go about it. in blocking the sale of bottled water at our parks, we're depriving millions of americans access to a healthy and necessary beverage that park visitors rely on. this is especially true in the hot summer months. families who don't own expensive camping equipment and aren't experienced hikers and
10:24 pm
climbers will be surprised to find out that they can't buy their child a bottle of water at one of our national parks. 19 national parks have adopted or plan to adopt a bottled water ban. this includes the grand canyon national park. temperatures of the grand canyon just this week will top 100 degrees. visitors who may have forgotten or who have run out of water would be put at risk of dehydration. banning bottled water defies commonsense. commonsense. even the park service -- admits it leaves sugary drinks as a primary alternative. the policy runs counter to the park service's own healthy parks and healthy people initiative. because remember, bottled water and only bottled water is banned from being sold at concessions. some argue that the ban is necessary to reduce waste. but the national park service has confirmed that participating parks haven't been able to determine if the policy works. to start we know parks don't
10:25 pm
separately analyze recycled waste visitors leave behind. parks simply can't say whether the ban has worked. it's also worth noting that studies conducted on similar bottomed water bans shows they aren't effective in reducing waste. a study found that bottle water bans on college campuses had unintended consequences. eliminating it did not in fact reduce waste. but actually led to a spike in sales and increased shipments of packaged beverages. we all support efforts to protect our parks. all we ask today is that the national park service carefully consider its policies. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member wish to rise in opposition? the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. i claim the time in opposition too this -- to this amendment. the chair: without objection. ms. mccollum: i would like to work with the gentleman on it. because i think he raises some concerns which do need to be addressed. but i would just kind of like to set the picture about what's
10:26 pm
currently going on right now. there's 407 units of the national park system and only 19 of them, 19 of them, have elected to eliminate the sale of water and disposable plastic bottles. it's important to note that in the national park system unit, including these 19 visitors are still free to bring water in with them and use water in disposable plastic bottles. they're not banned from bringing in their own water. the use of these disposable water bottles has had a significant environmental impact on the national park system units. so that's why i'd like to work with the gentleman and figure out what we need to do about waste reduction in our parks and if this was part of the park's overall system on it. and the sugary drinks that the gentleman referred to, if those bottles are also a potential problem. or how do we educate and work with families and hikers and vacationers and visitors to our
10:27 pm
national parks, and not leaving this waste out in the open. another example in grand canyon park, disposable bottles cro mice nearly 20% of the grand canyon -- compromise nearly 20% of the grand con on's waste stream -- canyon's waste stream. before eliminating bottled water steals, -- sales, they had an extensive review process, considering 14 different factors before seeking approval from the regional director. the extensive review process includes rigorous impactal anyway sis including assessment of the effects on visitors health and safety. once approved, these park you a auto nights -- units are required to maintain an extensive education program and have bottle refueling stations. i've seen both the ability to purchase as well as refill at our national parks, gotter bottles. so as a leader in -- water bottles. so as a leader in conservation,
10:28 pm
we encourage recycling. my concern would be, we wouldn't want your amendment, and i'll speak for myself, i don't want to be part of undercutting any of those efforts to encourage recycling in the reduction of disposable water bottles. i would also be concerned that the park system eliminate water steals without having a viable alternative -- sales without having a viable alternative, as the gentleman pointed out. that does not appear to be the case in here. as i noted earlier, there's an extensive review process in these parks, they're required to offer readily available free water refilling stations. plus people are still free to bring in water themselves. i would very much like to work with the gentleman and the chairman to see if there's any refinements or if there's anything that we need to know more about with the national park system's policy on plastic water bottles. but i do not support an outright prohibition on the national park service to be
10:29 pm
able to carry out a policy that encourages the reuse and receipt dux of plastic water bottles in our parks and in our nation with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. rothfus: may i inquire how much time is remaining. the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. rothfus: at this tide i'd like to yield two minutes to -- at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i rise today in support of my colleague from pennsylvania's amendment. as a nurse i know the key component to staying healthy is being hydrated and drinking plenty of water. however, if you were to be in one of our nation's parks, you might find this difficult. why? because the national park service allows individual parks to ban bottled water for their premises. mrs. ellmers: yet in those same parks, someone can still purchase soda and other bottle beverages. mr. chairman this ban is misguided. while it was created in an attempt to reduce litter in the parks, it is instead served as a primary example of intrusive
10:30 pm
government overreefment something this country certainly needs less of. and something my constituents sent me here to washington to prevent. according to the national park sustainable practice report parks that have implemented this ban are not actually reporting any useful data on recycling by type. in order, they don't know if this ban is effectively working or not. . preserving the beauty of our parks is a noble goal and something we should all care about but not something that should come at the expense of choice. we should support freedom, support our parks and support good, healthy lifestyles for every american. however the current ban in place does none of the above. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure as it stop this is ineffective ban. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. rothfus: i reserve.
10:31 pm
the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. speaker, to the speakers and the chairman of the subcommittee, i hear the concerns here and if there are concerns to be addressed i want to be a partner in that but i also don't want to be part and party of walking back, reducing waste in our stream and not in any way, shape, and forth adding to the cost of park service rangers and volunteers having to go out and clean up and, you know plastic bottles, plastic water caps and other such things. so i'm sincere in my efforts in sing that i would like very much to work with my colleagues on this issue but i did not hear anybody saying that they wanted to work back so at this point, i will oppose the amendment and i will yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania
10:32 pm
is recognized. mr. rothfus: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time to the chairman and also urge my colleagues to support this amendment for the convenience of consumers and also in light of the fact that studies show that it's not having an impact. i yield to the chairman. mr. calvert: i'm more than happy to work with my colleague from minnesota. we talked about this in the budget process with the national park service earlier in the year it's obviously something we don't want to discourage people from drinking water, we want them to stay hydrated. so -- and there's also people who work in the bottled water industry, i think it's a noble industry. we want to encourage people to drink more water. so it's not just about bottled water, it's about jobs and people who bottle that water. i'll work with the gentlelady from minnesota, we'll work together and we will not deny people water in our national parks. with that, i support this
10:33 pm
amendment. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk, number 206. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title add the following new section. section, none of the funds made available by this act for the department of interior national park service, narc recreation and preservation, may be used in contravention of section 320101 of title 54, united states code.
10:34 pm
the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentlelady from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair very much. i again rise with my appreciation to the managers of this bill and their staff. but i also want to thank them for the very civil discussion that occurred earlier, two of my colleagues, who offered amendments regarding the exhibition of civil war artifacts or the rebel flag and i thank them for their courtesy in those amendments of those individuals. i also make a statement on the floor that i look forward to the opportunity given to us by the leadership of this house to have a full discussion on various entities that d not unify but divide. i think a civil debate on this is warranted in this house as we
10:35 pm
watched the very moving and very honest debate that took place in south carolina. my amendment however is one that i hope is embracing and is a show of unity about what america stands for. and that is the national heritage area designation. i want to show this map and i'm certainly quite pleased that a number of these national heritage areas do exist. there are 49 of them. none in the state of texas. none, but possibly one in minnesota. maybe one between arizona and california but very few in the west including the state of idaho and i could name a number of other states system of my amendment is to highlight again the value of these national trails. this is particularly important
10:36 pm
because this tells the story of america. 16 u.s. code number 461 provides that it is declared that it is a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the united states. again, i want to emphasize that. the inspiration. texas has, starting in galveston, history referring to the emancipation proclamation. we commemorate something called juneteenth and out of juneteenth was the time when captain granger came to the shores of galveston in texas and announced that the slaves had been freed. however, there are a number of other historic sites following the trail from galveston, through houston and to include the emancipation park, mcgregor
10:37 pm
park and then sites up through austin. we really understand that this idea of historic trails can create an economic impact, for example in 2012 a nationally respected consulting firm completed a comprehensive economic impact of six national historic sites in the northeast region. that also included an extrapolation of the economic benefit of all 49 n.h.a.'s. it was $12.9 billion. the study quantified the economic impact of the individual n.h.a.'s and based it on a case study approach and found that the economic impact of three national historic areas in arizona massachusetts, and pennsylvania showed $158 million, 1,832 jobs and generated $3.4 million in tax revenue. in pennsylvania, $1.4 million in
10:38 pm
economic impact. in yuma, $1.3 million in taxation. this is, mr. chairman, an important and very vital part of america's history. as we approach the anniversary of this legislation that was created in 1966, i think it is important to reinforce the ability for these particular sites. we need to increase the ability for feasibility studies. we need the support of legislative action and designation and we need to be able to introduce people to the importance of these sites. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. does any member wish to rise in opposition to the amendment? the gentlelady from texas is recognized for her remain 15g
10:39 pm
seconds. ms. jackson lee: let me make very quick mention of the emansvation -- emancipation park in houston 1872, four former slaves raised $400, that will be part of it. but i would just simply say that this is a very important part of america's history. i ask my colleagues to support the creation of a national heritage site across america by supporting the jackson lee amendment that we can expand the 49 sites to other states that do not have one single site and texas is one of them. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.
10:40 pm
the chair: the clerk will -- >> amendment number 7. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. weber of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. weber: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer a commonsense amendment to the interior appropriations bill which i hope all members can and will support. first i'd like to commend chairman calvert for his work on this legislation and for including critical provisions to prevent the e.p.a. from moving forward on crippling new regulations on our economy. mr. chairman, since 2009 our job creators have faced an onslaught of regulations from the e.p.a. even as congress has consistently reduced the agency's budget budget year after year. the e.p.a. has proposed
10:41 pm
regulation to lower the national ozone standard which is largely based on shaky scientific data and could cost our economy billions of dollars a year. the e.p.a. has also proposed new regulations on new and existing power plants that could substantially increase energy prices for hardworking families and small businesses. the agency has cited its authority to regulation under the clean air act as the basis for many of these decisions. however, when it comes to evaluating how its regulations impact american job, the agency has failed to follow the law. section 321-a of the clean air act clearly states, quote, the administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shift of employment. end quote. last year the e.p.a. was sued because of its failure to comply with this provision. additionally, we heard testimony last month before the science,
10:42 pm
space, and technology committee that further reinforced the e.p.a.'s failure to evaluate employment impageants as congress has directed under section 321a. it is unacceptable for the e.p.a. administrators to cherry pick law based on their own ideological agenda. that's why i introduced this amendment which would ensure that e.p.a. abides by the law and conducts ongoing evaluations of just how their actions impact jobs in america. i urge adoption of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member wish to rise in opposition? seeing none, the gentleman from texas is recognized. does the gentleman wish to reserve? does the gentleman wish to yield
10:43 pm
back? mr. weber: i'm going to urge adoption of the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. murphy of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. limitation on use of funds to carry out seismic air gun testing. the chair: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer the
10:44 pm
murphy-castor-jolly-posey -clausen-graham-ros-lehtinen-buc hanan-hastings-wilson amendment to block the use of seismic air gun testing off of florida's coast. as you can see from the list of co-sponsors, offshore drilling is not a partisan issue in our state. but an economic issue. florida is a unique place that depends on healthy beaches, clean waters, and a safeguarded environment. the seismic testing the administration has proposed puts all of these things at risk. first, seismic air gun testing can be harm to feel undersea mammals like endangered whale species and dolphins, disrupting their ability to communicate and navigate and it can have negative effects on sea turtles such as the loringhead turt that will have key nesting grounds along the beaches i'm so proud
10:45 pm
to represent this testing practice can also disrupt fish' migratory patterns that can have significant impacts on fishermen in florida. second seismic air gun testing is the first step in the wrong direction to opening our pristine shores to offshore drilling and the threat of devastating oil spills. florida has more coastline than any other continental state in the united states and our economy depends on healthy beaches. i was proud when former governor jeb bush and florida's congressional delegation actually came together and fought to block drilling off florida's coast. and now, i'm proud to join my many florida colleagues to block this administration from putting special interests over the economic and environmental needs of our state. whatever your party floridians protect their environmental treasures at all costs. . as residents on the gulf coast are too well aware and as i've seen fisthand myself, oil
10:46 pm
spills can devastate our environment and our economy. up and down the coast. 20 cities throughout florida have passed resolutions proactively banning seismic testing because they know it's a rotten deal for our state. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member wish to rise in opposition? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: this administration has already developed the most restrictive positives for -- policies for the use of seismic air guns for offshore exploration to date. we do not need to place a moratorium on the use. first, -- further, the eastern gulf of mexico planning area is more than 125 miles off the florida coast. and the south atlantic planning area also affects georgia and south carolina. so the amendment affects many other states other than his own. also the department of interior has already classified the straits of florida as a low-resource potential or
10:47 pm
low-support for potential new listing. as such, i urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. murphy: i certainly do appreciate the chairman's hard work on this bill and many members of congress that are supporting this in a bipartisan manner. in florida, it's pretty clear to see based on the co-sponsors on this bill that this isn't a partisan issue. i would like to remind the chairman that regardless of how far offshore this is, what really matters is the infrastructure onshore. that you could talk about these, you know, sites offshore. it impedes with our economy, whether that's beaches, tourism or fishing industry. there's a lot more to it. i do respect the chairman's hard work on this bill. thank you and i do yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
10:48 pm
the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i would urge opposition of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from south dakota seek recognition? mrs. noem: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. noem of south dakota. insevert the following limitation on use of funds to close or move fisheries archives. section 441, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to close or move the d.c. booth historic national fish hatchery and archives. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333 the gentlelady from is south dakota and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from south dakota. mrs. noem: thank you, mr.
10:49 pm
chairman. today i rise to offer an amendment to prevent the fish and wildlife service from closing fish hatcheries across the united states. i want to thank the chairman and his staff for all of their dedication and for preventing the closure of these hatcheries and the under-- in the underlying bill. my amendment only clarifies their language. to ensure that it prevents closure of hatcheries and archives. which operate a little bit differently within the hatchery system. for example, the d.c. booth fish hatchery and archives has been a corner stone of the community in spear fish, south dakota. with over 150,000 visitors annually. it was originally established in 1896 to introduce and maintain trout in the black hills of south dakota. but it's much more than a fish hatchery. it's home to an 1,le00 -- 1800's era museum, a 1910 railroad car, priceless artifacts and educational opportunities for children. moving these items would cost taxpayers which doesn't give any sense give than tens of thousands of volunteer hours and private funds that are leveraged to run this hatchery.
10:50 pm
so i want to thank the chairman for working with me to preserve these hatcheries and arc kives that are certainly of -- archives that are certainly of cultural significance. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to prevent their closure and i'll reserve the balance of my time. i'll yield to the chairman. mr. calvert: thank you for yielding me time. i rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment. this amendment is consistent with policy agreed to last year in the conference on a bipartisan basis. fish something a national pastime. to which the national fish hatchery system place an important role. i support -- plays an important role. i support the gentlelady's amendment and i urge an aye vote. mrs. noem: thank you mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. does any member wish to rise in opposition to this amendment? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from south dakota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
10:51 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rouser of north carolina. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer or enforce the rule entitled standards of performance for new residential wood heaters new residential high dronic heaters and forced air furnaces published by the environmental protection agency and the federal register on march 16 2015. 80 fed regular 13671. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from north carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. rouse rouse thank you, mr.
10:52 pm
chairman. in -- mr. rouzer: thank you, mr. chairman. in early march, 2015, the environmental protection agency published a final rule establishing excessive new standards for wood heaters. this onerous rule is a classic example of bureaucratic overreach that has become all too common at the e.p.a. manufacturers in my district as well as consumers are very concerned about the negative impacts of these new standards. according to press reports, 10% of u.s. households still choose to burn wood to keep energy costs as low as possible. the number of households that rely on wood as their primary heating source rose by nearly 1/3 from the year 2005 to 2012. this new rule is of particular concern for rural residents all across this country. because of this new rule the cost of manufacturing wood heaters would increase substantially, making them unaffordable for many. now, it's no secret that costs
10:53 pm
from additional regulations are always passed down to the consumer. several states, in fact have expressed their concern on this matter. wisconsin, missouri, michigan, virginia and my home state of north carolina have all introduced or passed legislation that prohibits their respective environmental agencies from enforcing this burdensome unnecessary regulation. now, in defense of all the fine americans who want to purchase wood hooters, my amendment to the department of the sbeer -- heaters, my amendment prohibits any funds from being used to implement, administer or enforce these new unnecessary and costly standards. simply put, the federal government has no business telling private citizens how they should heat their homes. or their businesses. after all, this is america. if an individual or family wants to heat their home or business use -- using a wood stoveg or furnace, they should be able to do so without paying through the nose.
10:54 pm
i'd like to thank congressman jones, mullin, blum, meadows, bishop duffey and massie for their support on this amendment and i would also like to yield up to a minute and 15, 30 seconds or so to my colleague and friend from kentucky, thomas massie. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for a minute and 30 seconds. mr. massie: i thank the gentleman from north carolina for his leadership on this issue. and for yielding the time to me. first the administration went after coal. now it's coming after wood heat. in march the e.p.a. finalized a new rule to regulate the type of wood burning stoves and boilers that you can buy. forcing millions of middle class americans to pay more to heat their homes. that's why i'm co-sponsoring this legislation, to stop the administration from enforcing new prohibitions on a renewable, abundant and dare i say carbon-neutral method of
10:55 pm
heating our homes. that has been with us for centuries. if it passes, our amendment to the e.p.a. funding bill will prohibit the federal government from using taxpayer money to enforce crippling regulations on wood-burning heating appliances. as the price of electricity skyrockets, due to the president's promise to bankrupt the coal industry, wood heat is a viable alternative for millions of americans. unfortunately it seems like this administration would rather see people turn to the government for public assistance with their heating bills than to allow them to an affordable means of self-siff. -- self-sufficiency. mr. chairman, this is a state issue. the federal government should not be regulating wood-burning appliances and urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. rouzer: mr. chairman, i will yield up to one minute to
10:56 pm
the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: thank you. i just rise in support of the amendment. i know the state of north carolina is opposed to the rule and passed the legislation a few months ago to block these e.p.a. regulations. i suspect it's not the only state that may have these concerns. let's let the market drive manufacturers toward producing lower emission wood heaters. i support the gentleman's amendment. urge an aye vote and i would hope that everybody who supports this amendment would also vote for the bill for final passage. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. rouzer: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member wish to rise in opposition? seeing none, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. rouzer: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
10:57 pm
the ayes have it. mr. rouzer: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina, mr. hudson, seek recognition? mr. hudson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, hudson number 6. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- mr. hudson: mr. chairman, i'll also be offering hudson 2.
10:58 pm
the chair: is the gentleman offering amendment number 6 as printed in the record or number 6 as submitted to the desk? mr. hudson: mr. chairman, could you repeat that? the chair: is the gentleman offering amendment number 6 as reported in the record or amendment number 6 as submitted to the desk? mr. hudson: it's listed also alternativetively as h.r. 2822-006. mr. chairman it's the amendment submitted at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hudson of north carolina. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. limitation on use of funds to
10:59 pm
remove oil and gas lease sale 260 from leasing program. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to remove oil and gas lease sale 260 from the draft proposed outer continental shelf o.c.s. oil and gas leasing program for 2017 through 2022. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from north carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. hudson: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise tonight to offer an amendment that prohibits the administration from blocking the proposed atlantic lease sale from the department of interior's draft proposed plan for offshore oil and gas development. as co-chairman of the atlantic offshore energy caucus, i've been fighting to advance an all-of-the-above energy strategy that gets north carolina into the energy business. i was pleased when the administration recently heeded calls from members of congress as well as our fine governor and other state leaders when they announced a proposal to open up the atlantic to
11:00 pm
offshore natural gas and oil exploration. i welcomed the proposals as one of many steps that must be taken to unlock our natural resources, create jobs and boost our economy. the problem is we now face bureaucratic hoops and an uphill rule make prague sess that could take the atlantic lease sale off the table. in fact, the secretary testified recently that she could not geancht the atlantic lease would stay in the plan once it's finalized. . there was one scheduled off the coast of virginia but later blocked by this administration. north carolina has the potential for great energy jobs and i won't let this opportunity slip through our fingers. my amendment is critical to provide certainty for north carolina and unleash jobs and lower energy prices. our economy is spluttering along and too many folks back home are struggling to find

31 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on