Skip to main content

tv   US House of Representatives Special Orders  CSPAN  July 12, 2016 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT

7:00 pm
mr. gosar: well, while the bill does include nearly $ 2.9 billion for wild fire activity, which i'm thankful for, most of the dollars are focused on suppression activities. as i stated previously, the 015 fire season set a new record, burning 10 million acres throughout the country. it's easy to make that statement when it's not your home durning. clerly we must focus on proactive solutions for the nation's forests and the best way is to provide the fire service hazardous fuel account with appropriate funding to prevent fires. my amendment accomplishes that tax while taking resources from the e.p.a.'s bureaucracy. this bill currently funds the e.p.a. at over $7.98 billion this marginal loss to a rogue administration that continues to circumvent congress in order to implement lawless regulations is better pent through my amendment and will dramatically increase the forest service's ability to prevent dangerous wild fires. again, i urge support of my amendment and with that i yield
7:01 pm
back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. . ms. pingree: this bill has cut the account by $92 million. amendments have cut another $29 million. the protection they do is critical. this fund promotes programs that are critical. no one agrees that it is understand the challenges. but this amendment is irresponsible and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. the chair: the gentlelady from maine yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment s agreed to.
7:02 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. westerman: i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. westerman of arkansas. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: i would like to thank the gentleman from california, chairman calvert, for allowing me to offer this important amendment. i rise in support of my amendment. and my amendment is simple. it removes $12 million from the e.p.a.'s environmental programs and management account and places $10 million into u.s. forest services and forest services range plan account
7:03 pm
which supports scientific research through the analysis program and the forest products laboratory. this will free up money from the federal bureaucracy for use and on the ground scientific research in the wood products and biomass and threatened species. to make sound on decisions, it is imperative to quantify the amount of standing timber and how much is lost to insect and disease infestation, how many trees are lost to wildfire and how much net growth occurs in our forest. the forest inventory analysis program does just that. the data is used to assess the quantity and quality of our lands both public and private. it lets us know if we are imagining and we have a net loss or net gain. this is critical to calculate how much carbon we have in our
7:04 pm
forest and without this data we cannot understand the carbon balance. the forest service finds itself on extended sampling periods, sometimes as many as six or seven years. this increases the matching chiropractics in order to have sound, timely scientific data. it takes positive steps in the area of better forest management. it leads to practices and reduces the threat for wildfires. additional funding will give wood products and timber industries certainty in making business decisions. forestry employs 2.8 million people nationwide and this is larger than the auto industry. the account also funds the forest products laboratory. it conducts significant
7:05 pm
scientific research into biomass and the use of wood in tall buildings. this amendment is a win-win for a healthy environment and scientific research. madam speaker, i thank the gentleman from california, chairman calvert, for the opportunity to offer this amendment and i reserve. i yield to the chairman. mr. calvert: i appreciate the gentleman's interest for anging the way we budget for catastrophic wildland fires and research capability will address our forest issues. i support the amendment and i thank you for yielding time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from maine would like to be recognized. ms. pingree: i claim time in opposition. i must oppose this amendment because it continues to take more money from the already starved e.p.a. e.p.a. main operating account
7:06 pm
was cut by $92 million. we have cut another $99 million tonight from the e.p.a. account. we are not arguing that funding for forest and rangeland research is a poor purpose, but it was fully funded in the budget and starting to feel like we are seeing amendment after amendment that is a way to starve the e.p.a. the e.p.a. is a critical agency. the very air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the policy decisions that are being made in this bill. the consequences will be felt negatively across the country. i cannot support taking money om an underfunded agency and putting it into a program that is already funded in this bill. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. westerman: this is better
7:07 pm
wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities. this amendment will promote healthy forests and i urge a yes vote and i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: we support healthy forests. i represent the state of maine where we have a tremendous amount of forests. we respect the value of this research but it was fully funded in the budget and this is just another cut to the e.p.a. and will take away from the work they are able to do to protect our clean air and water. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in house report 114-683.
7:08 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: companies are closing coal-fired power plants s we move towards cleaner. a material known as coal ash is a by-product of this industry. coal ash contains arsenic, lead and mercury. the e.p.a. is now regulating coal ash with its final rule on the disposal of coal combustion
7:09 pm
residuals from electric utilities. many of the neighborhoods already exposed to dangerous levels of coal ash are low-income and minority communities. the problem being disproportionately exposed to chemicals, hazardous waste and toxic materials is neither new nor confined to one area of the country. more than 134 million americans, their homes, schools, businesses, parks and places of worship are in harm's way from dangerous exposure to coal ash. a 2014 study found that residents in vulnerable zones are disproportionately african-american or latino, have higher rates of poverty than the u.s. as a whole and have lower housing values, incomes and education levels. the poverty rate in these zones is 50% higher than the national
7:10 pm
average. the percentage of blacks is 70% greater than for the u.s. as a whole while the percentage of latinos is 60% greater. more than half of the people likely to suffer from exposure are black or latino. make no mistake, coal ash poisoning is not racially discriminatory. rural communities throughout georgia, north carolina, tennessee and oklahoma are suffering from coal ash dumping and leaking coal ash ponds and coal ash dust from coal ash transport. we can't people to fall between the regulatory cracks because they live in a certain neighborhood or have certain income levels. this amendment requires implementation of the e.p.a.'s coal ash rule to be consistent
7:11 pm
with executive order number 12898. that executive order's purpose was to focus federal attention on the environmental and public health effects that federal regulations have on minority and low-income communities. more coal ash is expected to be dumped in the state of georgia. in georgia, a landfill has agreed to september 10,000 tons of coal ash per day. duke energy is moving their coal ash from north carolina to a landfill in banks county, georgia. elsewhere in georgia, communities have been exposed to contaminated drinking water by existing coal ash facilities. found inh, arsenic was the groundwater of various coal ash sites in the state. as we saw in flint, we need to
7:12 pm
act at the federal level before our failure results in irreversible damage to the health and the communities we represent. american families regardless of income levels should not be unfairly exposed to toxic chemicals. i ask tore support of my amendment. i reserve. the chair: would the gentleman yield to the gentleman from california? mr. calvert: because the gentleman restates current law and i'm more than willing to accept the amendment. mr. johnson: i thank the gentleman and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. it is now in order to consider
7:13 pm
amendment number 19 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. esty: i have an an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by misesty of connecticut. the chair: the the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. esty and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. esty: my amendment would increase funding by $10 million to match the president's budget request to clean up and revitalize brownfield. too many cities and towns are now struggling with vacant brownfield properties. as our country transitioned away from manufacturing, plants and
7:14 pm
mills closed to deal with industrial sites. these former industrial sites have come to be known as brownfield, land where the presence or potential presence of contamination prevents expansion, redevelopment or re-use of the land. brownfield sites aren't limited to abandoned factories or buildings. they can be tormer dry cleaning establishments or gas stations no longer in use. every single congressional district in our nation has at least one brownfield site and some, in fact, have hundreds. in april, i was in a former mill town in my district where like many communities in the river valley, there are brownfield properties scattered throughout the cities. i learned about plans to clean up and repurpose two industrial sites which would create jobs and revitalize the downtown
7:15 pm
area. he plan to revitalize downtown torrington. however, to implement the transformational plan, we need additional funding in the brownfield's program. and i think it's important to note that addressing brownfield is not just an issue for our cities. expanding funding helps not only our cities but also our suburbs and agricultural communities, cleaning up and putting brownfields back into economic use in our cities helps preserve open space by taking pressure off of demand for undeveloped land. taxpayer dollars go a long way for every dollar expended by the e.p.a.'s brownfield program, it leverages $18 in additional public and private investment
7:16 pm
and in many cases property values have more than doubled when up communities were given the resources necessary to repurpose brownfield sites. according to a 2007 study, approximately 10 jobs are created for every acre of brownfield's redevelopment. and with over 400,000 brownfield sites across the country, the work needed to clean up these sites is far from complete. let's do our jobs by empowering our constituents with additional funding to clean up contaminated properties, attracting businesses, creating jobs, safeguard public health and revitalize our downtowns. i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut reserves. . mr. calvert: i understand the program.
7:17 pm
it's highly leveraged and it promotes economic development in communities by cleaning up lightly contaminated properties, returning them to beneficial use. these are good things. no doubt about it. that's why the f.y. 2017 interior bill continues to provide the brown fields program -- brownfields program with $ 0 million, that's equal to thenacted level. with limited resources, we need to be strategic about where we provide increases in f.y. 2017 bill increases fundsing to clean up most telecommunicationic contaminated sites across the nations. we will debate some democratic amendments that seek to increase the superfund account beyond what we've done in the bill, in order to match the president's request. certainly no one wants to live next to a superfund site. we have more than 1,300 sites on the superfund list. these sites contain lead, arsenic, p.c.b.'s and other highly toxic chemicals. we need to make progress on
7:18 pm
these 1,300 sites. i must oppose the proposed cut to the superfund and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. esty: thank you, madam chair. again, with all due respect, i hink as my colleague has noted , these dollars make an enormous impact and i would respectfully request and urge my colleagues to support the esty amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i urge opposition to the amendment and 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 gentlewoman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in house report 114-683.
7:19 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. palmer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. palmer of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. palmer: thank you, madam chairman. i commend the gentleman from california for his and his colleagues' work on this bill. mr. chairman, my -- madam chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for the diesel emissions reduction act grant program, saving taxpayers $100 million. funds from this program have gone to a number of questionable items, including $750,000 for cherry pickers in utah, $1 million for electrified parking spaces a -- spaces at a truck stop in delaware, and $1.2 million for new engine and generators for a 1950's locomotive in pennsylvania.
7:20 pm
this program was intended to be a short-term effort to assist states and local governments in meeting diesel emission standards, it's joined a long list of temporary government programs for which there is no end in sight. as ronald reagan famously said, the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program. one of the things i've learned as a freshman member of congress is that we have an office tasked withholding federal agencies accountable and reporting on their programs. that office is the government accountability office. one of the things that has surprised me is how rarely we act on their recommendations. i hope that won't be the case for this program. the g.a.o. has noted that funding to reduce diesel emissions is fragmented across 14 programs at the department of energy, the department of transportation, and the environmental protection agency. surely we can make do with one less. the $100 million provided in this bill represents an
7:21 pm
increase of 100% compared to last year's bill, and an increase of 100% compared to the omnibus bill passed in december. with a national debt exceeding $19 trillion and growing every day, we cannot afford to double the budget of a program that clearly duplicates, at least in part, 13 other programs and has a marginal impact at best. the program was originally authorized in the energy policy act of 2005, and was re-authorized for five years in 2010. this authorization expired in fiscal year 2016, making any appropriation an unauthorized one. congress should not provide $100 million for a wasteful and unauthorized program and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from labama reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rye -- i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognizeded. mr. calvert: ronald reagan was
7:22 pm
mention -- -- mentioned recently in the gentleman's amendment. ronald reagan signed into law cal-e.p.a. in the state of california. he also signed into law the first air quality district to regulate air in the united states. the south coast air quality district, in the state of california. which was authored by a former colleague of ours named jerry lewis. clean air is not a political or a partisan issue. certainly in my area, which has some of the dirtiest air in the united states, we have done a lot to clean up air in our area in california. we've included a great number of policy provisions to address e.p.a.'s regulatory overreach, which i agree in this bill. we've cut the e.p.a.'s budget dramatically. which i'm in favor of doing. there's a specific amendment that targets a program that's yielding great benefits. when you have a program that's actually working, we ought to keep it. many counties across the nation
7:23 pm
are currently nonattainment. with e.p.a.'s existing standard for particulate matter and ozone. in many instances, these counties have been in noncontainment for years. and those communities need help to improve their air quality. the diesel emission reduction program or dera is a proven, cost effective program that provides grants to states to retrofit old diesel engines. so it's a program that supports manufacturing jobs, while also reducing pollution significantly. another benefit is these grants are highly leveraged, producing $13 of economic benefit for every federal dollar that's invested in this program. today newer engines produce 90%, 90% less toxic emissions than the older diesel engines. only 30% of trucks and heavy duty vehicles that transition to these cleaner technologies. we need to follow the science, accelerate the replacement of old engines with newer, cleaner
7:24 pm
engines. from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal funding , dera grant has retooled almost 59,000 engines and vehicles, trucks, trains and other equipment. again, d, ra is an effective, -- dera is an effective, proven program that's delivering results. i strongly urge members to vote no on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. palmer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's concerns. but over the last 30 years or so, the air quality in the united states has improved dramatically. despite the fact that we've seen huge increases in vehicle miles traveled. a 30-% increase in our g.d.p., a 30% something increase in population and yet we've seen dramatic improvement in air quality. i appreciate the fact that government programs have had a part to play in that. in regard to the savings, the
7:25 pm
e.p.a.'s said that for every dollar we spend we'll get $14 in benefits. i'd also like to point out that they also say that the clean power plan will help the economy and the e.p.a. regulationses haven't lost jobs -- regulations haven't lost jobs. i think the e.p.a. estimates on savings are a little suspect. the program was funded at $30 million in f.y. 2015. $50 million in twick. now we're considering -- 2016. now we're considering a bill to increase it in 2017? we simply the company afford to continue spending without -- cannot to afford -- we simply cannot afford to continue spending without consequences. there are 14 programs, surely we can consolidate these into one effective program. i also think it's important to note that this was supposed to expire after the first authorization. it was re-authorized for four more years, and that expires this year, making any appropriation for f.y. 2017 another wasteful, unauthorized program. the republican study committee
7:26 pm
budget recommended elimination and noted that the grants have gone to a number of wasteful programs. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i want to point out that dera is not a regulatory program. the rule that was mentioned earlier is a regulatory program. what dera does is replace old technology with a new technology that's up to 90% cleaner than the old trucks, old diesel engines that we're presently using. this is working. i'm not in favor of programs and continuous studies and other oppressive methods by e.p.a. that doesn't produce clean air. this does. it was mentioned that our air is getting cleaner. it is getting cleaner because of programs like dera that actually work. it's measurable in the south coast air quality area, and other areas throughout the united states. they've been able to take these dirty, old trucks off the road. you've all seen them.
7:27 pm
you've been on the freeway and you'll see an old driesell -- diesel truck that's putting out more emissions than virtually everything else around them. you take that truck off the road, it has immediate results. so let's not get rid of something that works. let's work on -- against these regulatory programs that oppress the economy, and don't have any results. i might point out too, the administration's been opposed to dera. and most of the clean air -- most of the environmental folks have been opposed because they don't want any carbon in the economy. no carbon-based -- so they don't want us to clean up diesel because they want to have electric vehicles or zero emission vehicles. which do not have the horse power or the ability to deliver the goods that we need to have in this nation. so i would urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. palmer: may i inquire as to how much time i have remaining.
7:28 pm
the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. palmer: thank you. in regard to the e.p.a., the gentleman from california cited an e.p.a. finding on the benefits, that's my response to, that and it is not a regulatory program, but that's beside the fact. what it is is a duplication of other programs, it's unauthorized and it's wasteful. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i might point out that the finish is not authorized at the present time either, we continue to fund it. i urge a no vote on this amendment and 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 alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. palmer: i request the yeas and nays, a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings
7:29 pm
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? mr. lujan: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 rinted in house report 114-683 offered by mr. lujan of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from new mexico and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: last august the environmental protection agency was responsible for the blowout of the gold king mine in colorado that spilled three million gallons of wastewater, impacting new mexico, colorado, utah, arizona and the navajo
7:30 pm
nation. i was in farmington, new mexico, when the toxic plume turned the river there yellow. i met with the community and heard their concerns about the toll that the spill was taking on businesses, farmers, families, individuals. madam chair, we are almost one year removed from the spill and in communities that have been impacted, there remains serious concerns about the long-term effects that the spill will have on the river and all that its water sustains from drinking water to farming and livestock. monitoring is essential to ensure that they have the data they need to protect the health on all those who rely on this water. unfortunately, the state of new mexico and the e.p.a. have been unable to agree on what the long-term monitoring should look like. as a result, the state has moved
7:31 pm
ahead with a lawsuit against the e.p.a.. madam chair, it's disappointing it has come to this point of legal action. my amendment seeks to address this issue by providing $6 million directly to the e.p.a. to work with affected state and indian tribes to monitor programs on the rivers in response to the gold spring mine spill. there is a robust monitoring plan and i believe can serve as a basis for a truly comprehensive effort. this is necessary to protect the health of all those who rely on this water and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition. it's important that e.p.a. right
7:32 pm
the wrong that caused the gold king mine spill and ensure that the affected states and tribes have the resources they need following this spill. e f.y. 2017 instructs e.p.a. to continue to operate a temporary water treatment plant until a more permanent water solution is developed. and the f.y. 2016 instructed the e.p.a. to work with the states and tribes on an independent water monitoring plan. at this time, i must respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment but i would ask the gentleman to work with me as the committee continues to monitor the implementation and what the e.p.a. is continuing to do. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. lujan: i appreciate the leadership of the chairman. he has been very combrasheous, he and his staff, with several
7:33 pm
amendments that are important to new mexico during this debate as well. mr. chairman, what's happened now is the temporary facility has been located in the state of colorado as well where this has taken place, where this blowout took place. but we are seeing heavy metals all the way down through that contamination plutonium. i'll read something that our attorney general from the state of new mexico said. the release of hazardous substances in our culture has had a devastating impact on our communities. it is inappropriate for the e.p.a. to impose weak testing standards in new mexico by demanding the highest testing standards that the e.p.a. would impose on any other state in the nation to protect the well-being of our citizens. remade yation dollars have been minimal to these cultural communities that depend on this
7:34 pm
water source. they must be compensated and there should be monitoring to prevent public health and safety. and so i would yield to mr. calvert, mr. calvert, i really want to be able to get a vote. i understand the opposition here but we want to force this point home to the e.p.a. and the administration that what has been put on the table which is $2 million is simply not enough to help us in new mexico and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i appreciate what the gentleman is up to. i wouldn't expect you not to not have a vote if you choose to have a vote. just know we are working on this and we'll continue to work on this and we'll continue to work with your office. but at this point, i have to reluctantly oppose the
7:35 pm
amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new mexico yields back. the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lujan: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico will ordertponed .it is now in to consider amendment number 22 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. dingell: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22 rinted in house report 114-683 offered by mrs. dingell of michigan. the chair: the gentlewoman from
7:36 pm
michigan, mrs. dingell and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. dingell: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. madam chair, my amendment strikes language in the bill that would exempt a number of potentially damaging activities in our national forests from full consideration under the national environmental policy act. simply put, this language has no place in the appropriations bill. our national forests sustains our environment and our economy. they provide clean air, clean water, precious wildlife habitat and they support approximately 450,000 jobs throughout the country. we should be coming together to ensure our forests are healthy and future generations will be able to enjoy them. yet, the language that my amendment proposes to strike
7:37 pm
could allow many types of damaging activities to occur in our national forests without a full review under the national environmental policy act or nepa, as we call it. nepa has a simple premise, you look before you leap. this landmark law gives the public an opportunity to review and comment on actions proposed by the government adding unique perspectives to the evaluation process that highly specialized mission-driven agencies might otherwise ignore. the underlying legislation proposes to make six different activities in our national forests eligible for a categorical exclusion under nepa, which means a full review would not be conducted and the public would not have the right to be heard. while some of these activities may be appropriate to consider for a categorical exclusion, they should be evaluated on a
7:38 pm
case by case basis and should ot be ought matically be excluded. stated, el has categorical exclusions are appropriate but should not be relied on if they swore the purpose of nepa compromise the quality and transparency of agency decision making or the opportunity for meaningful public participation. i couldn't agree with more. and that's exactly what this bill proposes to do. s an example sm, the under lying bill is reducing fuel loads. this makes little sense. if a hazardous fuel load is not done properly, it could destroy an entire forest. this is the sort of activity that should have a thorough and
7:39 pm
comprehensive nepa review. i hope my colleagues will stand up for the public participation in government decision making by supporting this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i oppose and i yield to the gentleman for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> as i rise in opposition, i serve on the natural resources committee with the the gentlewoman from michigan and we holdal common idea to be good stewards of our resources and have a difference of opinion on the best way to do it. i must rise in opposition to her amendment. mr. westerman: our nation's forest are in dire health and congress must provide the forest service to allow additional
7:40 pm
tools. this amendment would needlessly denny the forest service to address the forest system that is overgrown and prone to wildfires and disease and insect infestation. i sponsored an act which passed the house with a strong bipartisan majority. this bill included several provisions to engage in urgently needed restoration. these are forest stands that are already being destroyed by natural occurrences and in order to restore those forest habitats, we have to act in a timely manner. one specific provision would allow the forest service to eat up to 3,000 land under a exclusion. some of these circumstances include treating a forest.
7:41 pm
if a forest has been affected by a natural disaster such as a hurricane or tornado or to protect a water source, this provision was based on a provision in the 2014 farm bill that the forest service has used successfully to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. i'm pleased that the chairman included this in the 2017 interior appropriations bill. we have heard testimony from stakeholders about the dire need o better manage our forests. 60 million of land is in needed for the senate to act. we must continue to seek opportunities to reduce the threat of wildfires to communities across the country. this amendment would strip this important provision from the appropriations bill. we should be doing more to shorten the time frame to engage
7:42 pm
in restoration work. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields to the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mrs. dingell: we are good friends and we do need to work together to protect our great lands in this country and i would respectfully disagree and i have the utmost respect for my republican colleagues that i hate disagreeing with but we agree on the same goal but i respectfully disagree. some of these activities may be appropriate for a categorical exclusion but that should be decided by the agency but not dictated by congress which you tell us many times in an appropriations bill.
7:43 pm
mandating the use of categorical exclusions like this bill proposes is a ruse and the public process that is so important to it. we often hear that nepa is a scapegoat for projects being delayed. but g.a.o. and others have found that outside issues including the complexity of the project and local opposition and most importantly funding issues are almost always the cause of the delays. we shouldn't be limiting public comments and involvement in government zigs, but instead should be enhancing them. this bill does the opposite, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i want to make a point. at this time, there are 66 million dead and dying trees in my state. it estimated over the next few
7:44 pm
years we could lose up to 120 million trees, 20% of the entire state of california's total. droughts are dying from and insect and disease infestation. unfortunately, we have already seen the loss of life and property from fast-moving wildfires, just most recently in the majority leader's congressional district where people unfortunately lost their lives. i worked with the senior senator from california on this. we have used this to the benefit of our state and other states have used it to the benefit of theirs. is limited in nature and can only be used on small acreages, 3,000 acres or less. i oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has
7:45 pm
time remaining. the gentlelady has yielded. mr. calvert: i would urge opposition and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. the federal land management agencies are biting off more than they can chew. not only are these agencies tasked with managing 1/3 of the entire land mass in the united states of america, but they're also asked to provide law
7:46 pm
enforcement and police support to some 660 million acres of federal -- on the federal estate. lands management agencies should not be in the business of policing. currently the nation's largest land management agency, the bureau of land management, has just one officer, one person per one million acres of federal land. this is an inadequate system that does not serve the public, federal lands or local communities very well. local county sheriffs on the other hand and local law enforcement deputies are in a better position to police lands within their county. these individuals are known by members of their community, they're trusted, they're better equipped and there are more of them. enforcement law agencies contract with the federal government to carry out the very same law enforcement functions that federal agencies require. we need to expand this concept and take actions to limit the role of land management agency law enforcement officials. mr. chairman, i believe we must work to transfer authority and
7:47 pm
ultimately funding to those local jurisdictions and sheriffs. there will come a time when the appropriations committee will pay a -- play a key role in executing this strategy and i request that the chairman work with myself, chairman rob bishop of natural resources and other members to accomplish this important policy change. mr. calvert: i'm pleased the gentleman has raised this issue. it's important to work together to ensure law enforcement arrangements are best suited to the populations they serve. i appreciate the gentleman's dedication to this issue and i look forward to working together to assess the role of law enforcement. mr. chaffetz: thank you. mr. calvert: thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair understands that amendment number 23 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in ouse report 114-683.
7:48 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: good evening, madam chair. i have an amendment at the desk and i ask that it be considered as read. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. cartwright: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cartwright: madam chair, this amendment is very simple.
7:49 pm
strikes section 425 of h.r. 5538, section 425 would prohibit the e.p.a. from updating the definition of the terms fill material or discharge fill material under the clean water act. these definitions underlie section 404 of the clean water act, which governs dredge and fill permitting, one of the act's most important components. put more simply, section 425 would continue giving legal cover to mountaintop mining companies to dump mining waste into valley streams. as such, section 425 is an attack on the clean water act. mountaintop mining for coal produces a lot of unusable exs material known as overburden -- excess material known as overburden. the cheapest and easiest way for an industry to dispose of
7:50 pm
overburden is to bulldoze it into valleys and waterways surrounding these decapitated mountains. this had . illegal because the clean water act -- had been illegal because the clean water act categorized overburden as waste which cannot be disposed in that manner. however, in a 2002 giveaway to the mountain top mining industry, the george w. bush administration reclassified overburden as fill. this cleared the path for it to e dumped in mountain valleys once teaming with life. if overburden was not enough, the definition of fill was expanded also to include materials such as wood chips, construction debris and plastics. as a result, every year 120 miles of head water streams are buried in mining debris.
7:51 pm
these so-called valley fills can be more than a mile long each and hundreds of feet deep. this overburden doesn't just take up space, it's also an environmental hazard. mining debris can contain chemicals and toxins that pose health risks to humans and ecosystems alike. for example, studies have found substantially higher levels of a material, a mineral that is tox to fish in high doses, in rivers near mountaintop mine sites. these hazard out -- hazardous substances also pose real dangers to the down stream users of the of the water. overburden dumping and the mining that causes it produce soil erosion and waterway siltation. a 2008 e.p.a. study found that 90% of streams down stream of surface mining had impaired aquatic life.
7:52 pm
the u.s. fish and wildlife service estimates that the loss of forests and aquatic habitat, the mountaintop mining, effects almost 250 species, including several listed species. this practice also destroys an arc typical american landscape, one which gave rise to a unique culture which has shaped generations of appalachian residents and which has left its imprint on the broader american culture. allowing mountaintop mining operations to continue dumping their waste into our nation's streams and rivers is both dangerous and irresponsible. i urge my colleagues to join me in putting an end to it. allow e.p.a. to do their work and protect the environment and the public's health. support this amendment. striking section 425. thank you, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
7:53 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek reck mission? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: the language in section 425 simply maintains the status quo regardsing the definition of fill material for purposes of the clean water act. the existing definition was put in place through a rulemaking initiated by the clinton administration and finalized by the bush administration. that rule harman itesed the definition on the books of the corps and e.p.a., so both agencies were working within the same definition. any attempts to redefine this important definition could significantly negatively impact the ability of all earth moving industries. road and highway construction and private and commercial terprise to obtain vital permits. changing the definition of fill material could result in the 375,000 p to high-paying mining jobs and
7:54 pm
jeopardize over one million jobs that are dependent upon the economic output generated by these operations. for these reasons, i support the underlying language and oppose the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: the gentleman's points are well taken. that the status quo is preserved. that's the problem. section 425 would prohibit any change of the status quo, would prohibit the e.p.a. from updating the definitions of the terms fill material or discharge of fill material under the clean water act. thereby hamstringing the e.p.a. from making any kind of sensible updating of those terms. any attempt at this point to ennumerate the number of jobs that could be lost in some as yet undefined change of those
7:55 pm
terms simply lacks credibility at this point. there's no point in hamstringing the e.p.a. in this fashion by refusing to allow any further clarification of those terms, fill material or discharge of fill material. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i am happy to yield the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. i do also rise in opposition to this amendment. as a member representing southern west virginia, i know firsthand the effect a rewrite of the fill material regulations would have on coal mining operations. what this amendment would do would freeze operations and lead to even further layoffs, on top of the more than 10,000
7:56 pm
jobs we have lost in just the last five years. as the chairman referenced, in last year's omnibus, congress included, congress included similar legislation preventing the e.p.a. and the corps of engineers from changing the definition of fill material. unfortunately redefining fill material would harm both existing and future operations in the coal mining business, resulting in thousands of loss of good jobs. congress should include this provision to prohibit the e.p.a. from changing the definition of fill material, and i urge opposition and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. mr. calvert: i oppose this 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 pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
7:57 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 printed in house report 114-6683. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. lawrence: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mrs. lawrence of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. lawrence, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. lawrence: mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment that would strike section 427 from the underlying bill. my amendment will preserve the army corps of engineers and the environmental protection agency's final rule that
7:58 pm
revises regulations and defining the scope -- defines the scope of waters protected under the clean water act. more than a million public comments were submitted during this process. a majority of which support the waters of the united states rule. in issuing the final rule, the agency's intention was to clarify questions of the clean waters act jurisdiction, inconsistent with the agency's scientific and technical expertise. one in three americans rely on public drinking water systems not previously protected by the clean water act. this rule changes that. the water crisis in flint, michigan, and the crumbling drinking water infrastructure in neighborhoods and communities across the country reinforces the need to protect our streams, ponleds and
7:59 pm
wetlands -- ponds and wetlands. these challenges impact millions of lives and disproportionately effect poor and minority communities. our country faces a very difficult choice. we can either overlook the challenges facing our existing water infrastructure and the millions of lives it affects and the billions of dollars that it costs us, or we can all work together to find solutions that ensure that all americans have access to safe, clean and affordable drinking water. the waters of the united states rule is a commonsense reform designed to secure our water sources while guaranteeing protections to millions of americans. this rule represents a commitment to protecting and restoring the national water resources that are viable for
8:00 pm
our health, environment and economy. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and i yield back the alance of my time. the chair: without objection, he amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, the lowey amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27, printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman
8:01 pm
from pennsylvania and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. cartwright: my amendment would strike section 429, which delays implementation of the e.p.a.'s lead renovation repair and painting rule, according to the centers for disease control at least four million households have children who are exposed to high levels of lead. this includes 535,000 children younger than the age of 5. the problem is particularly prevalent in low income communities. yet even as lead poisoning is a front page news story, the majority ignores another threat from lead in paint. there is no safe blood level of lead for children.
8:02 pm
that is why it is so imperative we do everything we can to help families avoid lead poisoning. environmental protection agency has proposed reasonable requirements for workers to train and follow lead safe work practices, important to mention that the rule does not apply to do it yourselfers or those making improvements to newer homes. opponents argue when e.p.a. first proposed the rule back in 2008, the rule offered a training exemption for those contractors who used an e.p.a.-approved test kit that meets specific criteria. there are now three e.p.a. recognized test kits available on the market. in light of the tragedy in flint, michigan, it is
8:03 pm
unfathomable that this bill would strip one of e.p.a.'s tools for addressing lead paint in homes. if we do not remove this harmful rider, we are choosing to endanger the health of our children. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, the lowey amendment, and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: let me be clear, the language in the bill does not block e.p.a.'s implementation of the rule. e.p.a. has not jet approved a test kit that meets the false positive and false negative standards. it's yet another example of the e.p.a. finalizing a rule with unattainable standards. therefore f.y. 2017 bill prompts e.p.a. to finish what it started to do seven years ago, approve a
8:04 pm
lead test kit as an alternative to costly lab testing to prevent delays and reduce the cost of in-home renovations. otherwise, e.p.a. should solicit formal public content on alternatives. the language in the bill prevents e.p.a. from collecting fines for paperwork and recordkeeping violations until e.p.a. solicits public comments on alternatives. straightforward, commonsense language. as such, i urge a no vote on the amendment to strike. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: i ask the chair how much time i have remaining. the chair: three minutes. mr. cartwright: at this time it's hi pleasure to yield to the gentleman from new york, two minutes, mr. israel. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. israel: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the lowey amendment this amendment would strike a provision of the bill that waives part of the e.p.a.'s
8:05 pm
lead repair and painting rule. after flint, we've become more aware of the growing need to protect our communities from the deaf stating impacts of led exposure. according to the c.b.c. -- c.d.c., at least four million households have children exposed to lead, particularly many low income communities. the rule has been in effect since 2008. why, now, eight years later, is the majority trying to undermine those protections? why now? why after flint? mr. chairman, lead point is still present in millions of homes and now is not the time, it is absolutely the wrong time to give industry a pass at the expense of america's children. i urge adoption of the amendment to protect the health and well being of the american people and yield back. mr. cartwright: i thank my colleague from new york for those important wrds. either we protect our children
8:06 pm
from lead point or we don't. i don't think anyone here would want to live in a home or send their children to a school that as renovated by a company that did not have lead training. we owe it to our children and grandchildren to prevent lead exposure. vote for my amendment, vote for the lowey amendment to improve this bill and ensure that fewer children will suffer lead poisoning. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: again, we're talking about an agency that can't get a test right after seven years. until they do that, it's yet another example of e.p.a. finalizing a rule with unattainable standards. so with that, i oppose this amendment and urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
8:07 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cartwright: i ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk would designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. becerra of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from california, mr. becerra, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment strikes section 430 from the underlying bill. section 430 blocks efforts by
8:08 pm
the environmental protection agency to ensure that industries that handle hazardous substances set aside sufficient funds in the form of bonds or insurance to clean up toxic spills or releases atrabettable to their hazardous activity. under current law, the e.p.a. is required to set financial responsibility laws for industries at high risk of polluting the environment to the point of creating toxic superfund siteses. congress requires them to establish requirements to ensure that taxpayers don't have to pay for the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites. communities across america experience firsthand what it is like to live and breathe through the contamination of a serial polluter. right now, thousands of people in my hometown of los angeles are living through this very nightmare. after nearly 30 years offering a lead recycling battery plant, excite technologies in the los angeles area shut its operations
8:09 pm
down. after contaminating some 10,000 homes with lead. 10,000 homes, let me repeat that, with lead, in the los angeles area. it's been more than a year since they shut down this plant and we still don't know who will foot the bill for cleaning those nearly 10,000 homes. with each home carrying up to a $40,000 price tag to get cleaned up. $40,000 price tag, 10,000 homes, do the math. $400 million. that $400 million only deals with the cleanup. it doesn't deal with the health effects that those tens of -- that those 10,000 plus people will have to deal with for their children and for themselves, having suffered from the contamination of lead in and around their property. mr. chairman, section 430 lets polluters off the hook and leaves the american taxpayer on the hook for cleaning up their
8:10 pm
messes. i don't believe the american people intend for american taxpayers to have to take over and -- take on the cost of cleaning up someone else's pollution. that's why i have introduced this amendment to strike section 430 from this be-- from the bill so polluters, not american taxpayers, take responsibility for cleaning up their mess. i urge passage of my amendment to ensure that polluters, not taxpayers, clean up their pollution and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: unfortunately, e.p.a. is under court order to propose a rule by december, 2016, according to a suit brought by the environmentalists to compel e.p.a. to move forward with more regulation on a schedule they dictate. b.l.m., the forest service, and the states already impose financial assurance regulations,
8:11 pm
so for any e.p.a. regulations would probe duplicative. the western governors association, along with others, have indicated a willingness to work together to ensure there aren't gaps in the existing regulatory framework so such requirements prore-main protected. therefore, there very a process in place and language that has been included in the bill to alleviate the need for e.p.a. to expend taxpayer resources to develop yet another set of duplicative rules. i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. becerra: may i ask how much time is remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. becerra: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, section 430 in this bill provides a blanket -- thetion to the e.p.a. e.p.a. having the opportunity to make sure that financial
8:12 pm
responsibility requirements are imposed on polluters. there may be some provisions in this bill that try to deal with some of these aspects of pollution, but there is nothing that would require the polluter to show financial responsibility if we don't get rid of section 430. and therefore in this bill we would essentially be making lawful polluters polluting communities and not having to take responsibility for cleaning them up. i don't believe the american people and certainly not american taxpayers, are expecting congress to be passing bills that put the burden on taxpayers to clean up someone else's pollution. and beyond the cost of the pollution is the cost to our families. children who are infected by lead contamination could suffer permanent effects and i think that we want to make sure we're providing our children and our families with every bit of safety that expect, especially
8:13 pm
when they have no responsibility for the contamination, the pollution that exists in their neighborhoods. i urge my colleagues to consider this amendment which simply would strike this provision to e.p.a. can do the work that we expect it to do, and that is to preserve the safety and health of our communities by making sure, if you're going to have a business that pollute, you be responsible for cleaning it up. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i yield back the balance of my time and encourage opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields. 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 -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.
8:14 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. becerra: i'm speaking to amendment number 29 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 offered by mr. peters of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from california, mr. peters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. peters: thank you, mr. speaker. everyone who doesn't deny the science understands that climate change is real and dangerous. uncontrolled carbon pollution is going into the atmosphere, trap manager heat and warming the planet. americans are experiencing the results in every part of this country, from more devastating fires in the west including stage, flooding in west virginia, coastal erosion along the east coast. we're experiencing climate change today and it's getting
8:15 pm
worse. we have a choice. pretend it isn't happening and abandon future generations or start to clean up the carbon pollution driving climate change. as president obama recently said, climate change is no longer some far off problem. it's happening here, it's happening now. we can't wait for some future generation to take action. to that end, the e.p.a. finalized a workable plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants which are the largest uncontrolled source of greenhouse gases in the united states. the clean power plant gives the states tremendous flexibility to choose how to achieve those reductions. the goals are state-specific and cost effective. it's a moderate and reasonable approach that ensures flexibility, affordability, reliability, and investment in clean energy technologies. and polls show the public support the clean power plan by a large majority. it outlines a plan to cleaner air, better health, a safer climate and a stronger economy. we make these investments in cleaner energy, the united
8:16 pm
states can be the world leader in the industries of the future. but the majority wants to stop this. it wants to deny the science, pretend climate change isn't happening and let power plants keep spewing carbon pollution without control. they refuse to act to limit carbon pollution and now they're outraged that president obama keeping his word and using his authority to act because we in congress won't. so they included language in the underlying bill that aims to block implementation of the clean power plan and e.p.a.'s carbon pollution standards for new and modified power plant. this is a just say no ageneral chasm my amendment strikes the harmful rider from the bill. . these are defeatist arguments that aren't interested in developing a plan to help us reduce emissions, while maintaining a reasonable and reliably priced electricity system. we've already wasted enough time on legislation to just say no to climate action. now congress must move on. what we cannot do, as president
8:17 pm
obama said, is, quote, condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair. i strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment, the clean power plan is an important, long overdue and critical tool in our fight against global climate change. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: the supreme court has ruled on a number of occasions that e.p.a. does not have the authority to rewrite the clean air act as it's been attempting to do. in february, the supreme court issued a stay on e.p.a.'s green house gas rule. it's no surprise e.p.a. finds itself on shaky legal ground. as it attempts to rely on limited authorities to write a rule that would vastly expand its reach. this administration's policies, regulations and rhetoric are all aimed at making energy more expensive in america.
8:18 pm
the administration cannot be allowed to change the laws of the land administratively. which is why the language in this bill should remain in this bill. i urge a no vote on the amendment to strike and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. peters: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. peters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from, my -- the gentleman, my friend from new york, mr. israel. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. israel: i rise in support of this amendment. mr. chairman, the effects of climate change, they are real. they are being felt by americans every day. nasa says that climate change is causing drought and increased forest fire frequency in the west. flooding in the midwest. declining water supplies in the southeast. 97% of all climate experts agree that human activity, specifically the combustion of fossil fuels and the release of carbon into the atmosphere, is changing our climate.
8:19 pm
yet this congress continues to deny that there is a crisis. and they refuse to take the action necessary to protect the safety, the health and the well-being of our constituents. mr. chairman, the standards that the administration has proposed, it's just about protecting the health of our children and putting this nation on a path to a 30% reduction in carbon pollution from the power sector by 2030. we cannot continue to deny that there is something happening with our weather. we cannot continue to deny that there is something happening with our climate. nor can we continue to deny that if we do this right, we can create a new generation of jobs and careers on clean technologies. for those reasons i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my ime. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, we as a country
8:20 pm
should be pursuing a true all-of-the-above approach to energy, electricity generation. but unfortunately this administration's power plant rules would pick winners and losers. it would determine the market for coal, cost miners their jobs, raise energy prices for all americans. and the e.p.a. has exceeded, exceeded its legal authority by double regulating coal-fired power plants and forcing states to fundamentally shift their energy portfolio away from coal. it sets standards for new coal-fired power plants that are based on technologies which have not even been proven commercially available. while this administration is using every regulatory effort possible to put our hardworking coal miners in the unemployment line, we are pushing back here
8:21 pm
on the appropriations committee . we included this important provision in this bill, to protect miners, to protect families, and to protect businesses and our economy. the chairman is exactly right when he references the united states supreme court. the other side would simply take casually the fact that there is no legal authority for the administration to pursue the rules and regulations like in this particular case. it is critically important that we oppose this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. peters: thank you, mr. chairman. i understand the gentleman's concern about coal. without the implementation of the clean power act, coal's been affected by the market, not by the e.p.a. and the availability of natural gas has certainly i think hurt the coal industry. i understand that.
8:22 pm
but this is a sensible approach to dealing with air quality and climate change and urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i urge opposition to this amendment and 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 california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 30 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 30 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. peters of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman
8:23 pm
from california, mr. peters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. peters: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would strike section 434, a harmful policy rider that limits the ability of our environmental agencies to take action to improve public health and to fight the root causes of climate change. if we are to lower the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, we need federal action. the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the united states is from burning fossil fuels, which raises atmospheric levels of co-2. greenhouse gas emissions can effect coastal reasons, energy defense, food supplies, wildfire preparedness and our quality of life. but this rider blocks the environmental protection agency's ongoing efforts to reduce the damage that carbon do to our environment. they are factory-made gases used in air conditioning and rerefrigeration and are up to 10,000 times more potent pound for pound than carbon dioxide. while not as abundant as carbon dioxide, superpollutants have
8:24 pm
contributed to up to 40% of observed global warming. unless we act now, the united states's emissions are expected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030. by eliminating -- by limiting the e.p.a.'s authority to propose, finalize or enforce any regulation or guidance regardsing h.f.c.'s, this rider would undercut their ability to protect public health and demonstrate american leadership in emissions reduction. the e.p.a.'s significant new alternatives policy program or snap requires us to evaluate substitutes already being developed by industry for superpollutants. through snap we can ensure a more smooth transition to safer alternatives for our country's industrial sector. last year the snap finalized a new rule on h.f.c.'s that the environmental investigation agency estimates will reduce emissions by 2030, the equivalent of taking 21 million cars off the road. the standards set by e.p.a. will drive u.s. and
8:25 pm
international innovation and market development of low emission and energy efficient refrigerate -- rerefrigeration, air conditioning and -- refrigeration, air conditioning and tech nothing -- technologies. this will get at the root causes of climate change before we are forced to react to increasingly extreme weather and sea level rise. by embracing these forward thinking proposals, we can tacking the low hanging fruit -- tackle the low hanging fruit while adopting alternatives that are much more energy efficient than -- energy efficient than current h.f.c.'s. this is one example of how embracing the clean energy revolution doesn't just limit damage to our climate, but also increases america's competitiveness and increases economic opportunity. last year we saw major companies, including coke cola, carrier, dupont, honeywell, pepsi and other industry leaders commit to voluntarily reducing harmful h.f.c. emissions. i appreciate the concern of some in the industry about the pace at which they are required to transition to lower emission
8:26 pm
materials, but the answer to that is not to halt this process entirely. preventing the snap program from functioning when less harmful materials are being developed is not the right approach. my amendment strikes this short sighted ride sore that america can continue to be a leader in advancing innovative solutionses to reducing our -- solutions to reducing our emissions. we shouldn't be handcuffing the important torque would reduce perpollutants -- to -- important work to reduce superpollutants. mr. calvert: last year e.p.a. issued a final rule to disqualify many fridge ran thes and other chemicals. the rule contained aggressive deadlines for the phase jute of many chemicals. some of those deadlines applied within six months. six months. historical experience with the montreal protocol indicated that manufacturers need
8:27 pm
six-plus years to successfully transition between new materials. it's nice if the fortune 100 companies as the gentleman mentioned are able to quickly transfer their technologies, but a lot of main street people can't. they just simply go broke. e.p.a. clearly chose winners and losers and the losers, the timelines are absolutely unworkable. manufacturers need time to implement engineering and technology changes and address new risk and safety challenges. no sooner than e.p.a. finalized its regulation last year to disqualify certain products did the e.p.a. initiate version 2.0. that the rulemaking is now in the works. this is truly an out-of-control process driven by the white house agenda. with that, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. peters: thank you, mr. chairman.
8:28 pm
i take the gentleman's point. i would just say again that if there are concerns about the timeline, i'd be more than willing to work, i'm sure my colleagues would, on a better timeline, but stopping all activity is not the answer. that's why i think this is the appropriate response and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: oppose this 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 california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 31 printed in house report 114-6803. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. peters: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in house report 114-683
8:29 pm
offered by mr. peters of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from california, mr. peters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. peters: thank you, mr. chairman. the social or real cost of carbon is the monetary estimate of the damages caused by carbon dioxide emissions to the environment, health and economic growth. today's bill contains an unnecessary and harmful policy rider that would delay incorporating that cost in rulemaking or guidance documents indefinitely. my amendment would strike that bad rider and would instead put us on a path of responsible policymakering that reflects the realities of changing climates and increasingly extreme weather events. former new york city mayor's bipartisan risky business report notes that accounts for -- accounting for the real cost of carbon emissions and preparing for climate change is a smart business practice. if we continue on our current path, by 2050, between $66
8:30 pm
billion and $100 billion of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide. 80% of california's g.d.p. is derived from our coastal counties. greenhouse gas-driven changes in temperature by burning fossil fuels will necessitate construction of new power generation capacity that the report estimates will cost payers as much as $12 billion per year. that's $12 billion that could be spent by families to put their kids through school or to buy a home, to be spent by businesses to hire more employees, or give annual bonuses. accounting for the social cost of carbon now gives greater freedom in the future. i'm sure they'll suggest that the harmful riding delays using the cost can use the data but in practice this will send us become to the drawing board when the data we have now about how carbon emissions taj our economy
8:31 pm
is perfectly adequate and backed by peer-reviewed science this rider rejects the approach used by private sector in favor of the status quo , in favor of doing nothing. there's a real cost to our environment and our prosperity associated with delaying this rule. for too long we've heard that we have to choose between supporting prosperity and a clean environment. the implication is we can't have both. but that's a false choice we can't afford to make. we have to provide both economic opportunity and clean water and air for future generations. i want to take a cue from the private sector from businesses that already account for the cost of carbon and let's be sensible and strike this amendment. i want to thank my friends, congressman polis, lowenthal, esty, beyer and esty for backing this effort. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the swrelt from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.
8:32 pm
mr. calvert: i've long been concerned with how e.p.a. conducts its cost benefit analysis to justify its rule making. this is something the committee has discussed with e.p.a. on a number of occasions and the supreme court recently ruled that e.p.a.'s approach to examining costs and regulations was at the least flawed. the administration's revised estimates for the koschel sos of -- social cost of carbon help justify on paper larger benefits from reducing carbon emissions in any proposed rule. if the administration can inflate the price tag so that the benefits always exceed the cost, then the administration can gold plate required regulations from any department or any agency. section 436 says if the administration -- says that the administration should reconvene the working group to revise the estimates in a more transparent manner and make that information available to the public. i oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues
8:33 pm
to vote no and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. peters: may i ask how much time i have remaining? the chair: two and a half minutes. mr. peters: i would like to yield two minutes to the jet -- to the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lowenthal: the jerrett has repeatedly brought bills to this same house floor that adds requirements for federal agencies to use more cost benefitage cease. but now when we're dealing with chi mat change we're told we should remove requirements to honestly consider the cost of climate change. which way do you want it? is cost benefit analysis a good thing only when it suits the majority's purpose when it slows regulation and a bad thing when it may shed light on the cost of our carbon based actions? ignoring facts because we don't like them won't make them go
8:34 pm
away. greenhouse gases from human activities are causing climate change with profound monetary costs for health, infrastructure, food security and national security. let's bring more information and transparency into the federal rule making process by using the social cost of carbon to quantify those costs. that way we can understand the risks and make sound investments in our nation's future. yield back. mr. peters: i'd now like to yield 60 seconds to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: this is ironic. we hear from republicans all the time about the importance of cost benefitage cease before this regulation, before that regulation. well, of course, we acknowledge, i acknowledge, there's costs to regulation with regard to emissions. there's also benefits. i have a tourism dependent district. we have great ski areas.
8:35 pm
that's climate dependent. we have agriculture in my district. climate dependent. i would also acknowledge, of course, all the cost, all the benefits, those are estimates. and you know what? no model is perfect but i can guarantee you that the model is far superior than just throwing it out altogether and having no model. there are real costs to carbon emissions. it's completely appropriate to use the best science triven data to estimate those in any type of regulation. it's important to look at cost and benefits. i feel we're making the argument our republican friends usually make but here in this case they don't happen to like those particular costs. maybe they don't think they're real. maybe they don't believe in them. but we let science guide it. and the fact that i have a weather-dependent district and we have a weather an climate-dependent economy across the country is powerful testimony to including the social cost of carbon. i urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves.
8:36 pm
the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. here's what's going on. the e.p.a. and other federal agencies are increasingly using this thing called social cost of carbon in their environmental rule making. so what is social cost of carbon? it is an ambiguous and confusing matrix that has been used simply to justify the validity of many of the administration's clean air environmental regulations. that target the direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions from various sources. since its very first use, the administration has recalculated the models multiple times in order to inflate the supposed cost of small increases in co-2 in the atmosphere and thousands supposed benefits.
8:37 pm
what's most outrageous is that the administration, which the minority here says simply is trying to put in the economic factors, the administration is actually ignoring the office of management and budget, o.m.b.'s circular a-4 which explicitly states that, quote, a real discount rate of 7% should be used as a base case for regulatory analysis. but guess what? they reason the numbers. 7% doesn't get them what they need. from the social costs. so what they do is ignore o.m.b. and come up with their own factors. that's the deceptive nature of their supposedly cost factor. change the underlying assumptions. change the factors. get the results you want that justifies your findings. folks, that's not how we should
8:38 pm
be doing it. i strongly urge the opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: -- mr. peters: how much time, mr. chairman. the chair: 30 seconds. mr. peters: the gentleman makes a point as 7% as an aggressive rate, maybe we should talk about the methodology but we should not prevent the discussion in its entirety which is what this language does. i hope my colleagues will support our amendment, that we can get it right, agree on a methodology that fair hi represents this issue and i'd be happy to work with my colleagues but i hope they'll support my amendment so we can at least have this discussion. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: this is voodoo environmentalism. so i would absolutely like to have opposition to this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
8:39 pm
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. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the derek -- the chair: the cleric will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32, printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. grijalva. the chair: the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is
8:40 pm
recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you so much. i rise to speak on behalf of the amendment i have offered to protect farm workers throughout this nation. every day, farm workers work long hours under the scorching sun in one of the most dangerous industries in this country, and they suffer the highest rates of chemical injuries and skin disorders due to pesticide exposure. the u.s. environmental protection agency estimates that up to 3,000 farmworkers suffer acute pesticide poisoning every year through their work-related exposure. every year. an estimated 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to agricultural crops in the united states. according to the e.p.a., 10,000 to 20,000 farm workers suffer pesticide poisoning annually. exposure to pesticides increases the risk of chronic health problems among adult and child farmworkers, such as cancer, infertility, neurological disorders and respiratory conditions. there are approximately half a
8:41 pm
million child farmworkers in the united states and farmworker children face increase risk of cancer and birth defects. it should be noted that this workplace -- in the farms and working crops is the only area in this country where child labor laws do not apply. should we then increase the children's risk in exposure because they are not covered by a law that covers the rest of this country and the rest of the children in this country? research also shows that both farmworkers and their children may suffer decreased intellectual functioning from even low levels of exposure to insecticides which are widely used in agriculture. more than 20 years -- after more than 20 years the environmental protection agency finally made the long overdue updates to the worker protection standards for farm workers. the standards provide basic workplace protections to farm workers to reduce harmful exposures and result in fewer
8:42 pm
pesticide related injuries, illness, birth defects and deaths among farmworkers and their family members. farm workers play a critical role in our economy and ensuring that our constituents have utritious food on their table. 2017 department of interior environment and related agencies act contains a harmful provision, section 437, that will remove farmworkers' rights to a designated representative. a designated representative in this process is a critical part of improving access to pesticide information for workers in various situations. there are times when a worker may need the help of a spouse, family member, co-worker, to obtain information. for instance if a worker is injured or hurt and cannot be there in person, the information being requested by the medical personnel. this standard is in practice in other sectors for work -- where workers are exposed to toxic
8:43 pm
substances and is consistent with the sk as -- access to exposure records these workers now have. to protect the health of those who harvest food for our constituents and put it on their tables, it is critical to have a uniform federal standards that applies to all workers and that's the right to have a designated representative. the amendment i offered would simply strike section 437 in order to protect farmworkers' rights and also provide health protection. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike section 437. this amendment is important to the health and safety of farm workers and their families. we must ensure that farm workers can appropriately access information on pesticides to they can protect themselves and their families while doing their jobs that are so vital to our nation and to our economy. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek
8:44 pm
recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: prior to finalizing the worker protection rule, e.p.a. shared a draft with the house agriculture committee. the draft did not contain a section that authorized the use of designated representatives. it was later inserted by e.p.a. without congressional consultation. and e.p.a. failed to follow the law that requires consultation with the authorizers on these pesticide rules. however, the broader concern is the sub stabs of the rule. farmers are concerned they will have litter recourse but to turn over their documents to unauthorized individuals. section of the rule is ill advised and unintended consequences were clearly not considered. e.p.a. needs to re-engage with the authorizing committee and the agricultural community on this. in the meantime, i urge a no vote on the amendment and yield -- and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is
8:45 pm
recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. at the urging of many organizations, and at the urging of being consistent and uniform with the protections extended to workers that work with toxic substances throughout this country, which includes the provision that a representative may represent the interests, seek information, and provide transparency for that worker in order for them to pursue their health and their safety, i think this section, the work brother text section, we strike this section all we are doing is making the process uniform for every industry. to deny farmworkers and more particularly children, as i mentioned, that is the only workplace sector in which the child labor laws do not apply, to protect -- to provide them, their families, children, with the simple ability to be treated
8:46 pm
like every other worker in every other industry that deals with toxic substances i think is just merely playing a fair game, treating all workers equally and in this instance, this amendment would be consistent with what is going on in the rest of the nation and the protections extended to all workers. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i urge opposition to thement and yield ba. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grijalva: mr. chairman, on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in house report 114-683.
8:47 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: mr. chairman, i have an excellent amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'm proud to offer this amendment, along with my colleagues, ms. degette, mr. cartwright, mr. lowenthal, mr. sarbanes, mr. hoffman, and ms. lujan grisham. it's a very simple amendment. it just strikes a policy rider, section 439 of the bill. this section would block the e.p.a. from doing their job, it e.p.a.'s the commonsense standards for sources of emissions of methane in the oil and gas industry, an issue that is literally in our
8:48 pm
backyards in the state of colorado. it would even prevent the e.p.a. from doing research into existing drill sites for methane standard purposes. most astonishing, it would actually prevent the e.p.a. from clarifying the scope of emissions sources, which would continue to make sure that we know less and are less protected, rather than more protected. look, the president and the e.p.a. are taking action to protect our country, our planet from methane emissions. it's past time that we take bold action to combat climate change and reduce the impact of impending catastrophic changes to our climate, to our world, reducing national security, hurting our national economy and tourism and agriculture in dependent districts like mine. taking aggressive action now is quite simply a moral imperative. not only within the purview of the e.p.a., but the actual charge congress is given -- has given the environmental protection agency. sad reality is that right now the majority of our energy still comes from moss ilfuels. that's why -- fossil fuels. that's why when we need to invest in renewables, at the same time we can't wait to
8:49 pm
transition entirely to renewable energy before we address the extraction process that releases dangerous chemicals such as methane as a byproduct. pound for pound, methane pollution from oil and gas wells is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for one quarter of human-made climate change, according to scientists. the e.p.a. rules are long overdue standards for the oil and gas industry, which will reduce methane pollution and provide certainty for the industry. although i wish frankly these new rules went further, i wish that congress had taken bold action, these standards are a good start. and they're necessary. scientists recently published even more convincing data showing that the methane released during natural gas extraction is a deadly climate threat. new scientific mapping shows that 12.4 million people live within a half mile of the 1.2 million active oil and gas facilities in the united states. many in my home of colorado. this threat radius is a very conservative estimate of the distance from which toxic air
8:50 pm
emissions from oil and gas facilities have an adverse impact on public health. it's why in many areas of northern colorado and wyoming we have worse air quality than downtown los angeles. we must not prevent the e.p.a. from moving forward to protect our air, our water and our planet, which is what congress has charged them to do. it's time for us to allow them to do their science-based work, it's time to make the fossil fuel industry and fracking play by the same set of rules the rest of the country plays by. instead of letting them emit tons of chemicals, literally tons of chemicals, into our air, they put our health and the future of the planet in jeopardy. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: in may, the e.p.a. issued regulations for new and existing oil gas operations. these are the latest steps in the president's climate agenda. e.p.a. pulled the rug out from underneath these companies working in good faith to share information with the agency.
8:51 pm
the industry was making tremendous progress to reduce emissions through voluntary measures. by any measurable degree, they were making tremendous progress. this administration feels the need to overregulate the oil and gas industry at every single turn. to use their police powers to bring this industry to their knees. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: voluntary measures are just that. voluntary. while there might and perhaps there are a few good actors willing to abide by them in some states like my home state of colorado, implemented air standards, what we care about is the aggregate. we want to discourage a race to the bottom among producers. and have a national baseline for methane emissions. while, again, frankly, i think this rule should go a lot further, at least it provides that baseline, provides the industry certainty, and helps
8:52 pm
getting the process of us getting a handle on ensuring the air we breathe is clean and reducing climate change. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. here we go again. just two amendments ago we had something called the social cost of carbon. well, yes, the administration is now -- has now put out a new methane rule. guess what? social cost of methane is now being put forth as the economic justification for their rules. i pointed out just a moment ago that despite the o.m.b.'s circular recommending a certain discount rate, unfortunately when running the numbers, apparently the agency doesn't get the results they want, so what they do is change the underlying assumptions. i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment would remove a critical provision to protect
8:53 pm
against new, expansive methane regulations. that could harm the economy, would harm the economy, and strangle our domestic energy portfolio. these regulations are being developed using the same overly aggressive interpretation of the clean air act that was responsible for the costly, burdensome clean power plan. what's interesting on this one, however, is that even the e.p.a. found that the methane rule would provide only marginal benefits. regardless ahead of that finding. i urge the opposition to this amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: look, you can't just pretend that things don't have costs. of course carbon emissions have a cost. of course methane emissions have a cost. it doesn't mean that people are proposing we abolish carbon
8:54 pm
emissions from our economy. it means we want to look at in this case, methane emissions and -- in this case methane emissions and their costs. colorado has implemented similar rules already. the industry has adopted. there are actors in the industry who want this very certainty so they know what they need to do with regard to methane emissions. there are plenty of companies with new recapture technologies. all this does is begin to get a handle on it, again, in my opinion doesn't go far enough in my opinion it isn't the kind of action that i would hope a bold congress would take, but at the very least, let's have standards for methane emissions. let's look at -- let's prevent a ban on research into existing drill sites for methane standard purposes. not only if this section is left in tact, not only does it strike the emissions standards, it strikes and prevents the e.p.a. from doing research into what the standards should be or could be. so we're never going to reach quote-unquote the right answer. it should be beholden on those who believe that this is not the right answer to actually support the very kind of research for methane standard purposes that is blocked by this very section, which our
8:55 pm
amendment will remove from the bill. i ask for your support on this simple, commonsense amendment to remove this policy rider and help keep our air clean and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i oppose the amendment and 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 colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. polis: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 34 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lowenthal: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 34 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. lowenthal of
8:56 pm
california. the chair: pursuant to resolution 80, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: thank you and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, my amendment would strike a misguided policy rider that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars . d it maintains a sweetheart, below market deal for the fossil fuel industry. my amendment would strike section 440 of the underlying bill. a section that would prevent the interior department from updating royalty rates and valuation methodologies for coal, for oil and natural gas resources on public lands. now, i would think that saving the taxpayer money by charging
8:57 pm
a fair return for the development of our public resources is something that both sides of the aisle could agree upon. so maybe the sponsors behind this policy rider didn't know the true magnitude of the cost to taxpayers that their rider to this appropriations bill would impose upon americans. to make sure that we all understand, mr. chair, what we would be costing the taxpayer, if we were to vote to keep this harmful rider, mr. chair, i would like to share some eye-opening research on this matter. the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the c.b.o., just released in april a detailed study that reviewed possible changes to the oil and gas fiscal system. that report explicitly analyzed how much money the american taxpayers are losing from the
8:58 pm
current below market, onshore oil and gas royalty rates. c.b.o. concluded that the u.s. treasury would receive $200 million additional dollars and the western states another $200 million over 10 years if the interior department were simply -- to simply raise the onshore royalty rates to parity with the current offshore royalty rates. so, to be clear, keeping this misguided policy rider would prevent an additional $200 million from being sent to the western states and another $200 million to the federal taxpayer. mr. chairman, i have also heard arguments that claim raising onshore royalty rates will decrease production. but all oil and gas companies -- put all oil and gas companies out of business and reduce the return to the taxpayer.
8:59 pm
this is false and here is why. the c.b.o. analyzed these effects and found that this was not the case. the c.b.o. found that the effects on production would be negligentable and the increases in federal and state revenues are net increases that include the decreases in income from bonus bids and production changes. furthermore, production would not simply move to state or private lands to find lower royalty rates because you know why? that is because private mineral owners and western states like wyoming, new mexico, louisiana, north dakota, montana, even oklahoma and texas, all of them charge higher royalty rates. i hope these facts will disabuse those who used to believe in keeping onshore oil and gas royalty rates below market price.
9:00 pm
and now will instead support the lowenthal amendment, number 34, that will allow the interior department to provide the taxpayer and western states with hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue. and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to this amendment. we included a amendment prohibiting the department of interior from changing royalty rates for coal, oil, gas on federal land in order to stem the hemorrhaging of jobs we are seeing in coal country and throughout the united states. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from montana, mr. zinke. mr. zinke: i rise in opposition to the amendment

34 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on