tv Governor Mike Pence Campaigns with Donald Trump CSPAN July 13, 2016 12:51am-2:24am EDT
$1.65 per hour compared to lower wages of $9.75 an hour. on arch money was saved on verage by higher productivity. people better productive -- productivity, better wages. in wisconsin, a study of the state's prevailing wage law showed that potential save frgswabling cuts were never outweighed by the cost of income to communities. annual cost of repealing the law has estimated between $123 million in lost income and net tax re-knews to a loss of $6.8 million. in missouri a similar study showed a los loss -- a loss to the state of $380 million to $284 million. cost overruns are more likely without prevailing wages. as a member of the democratic farmer labor party, i urge my colleagues to oppose the king amendment and to pay people community prevailing wage under
davis-bacon. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. all time for debate having closed, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mccollum: it -- ms. request a roll call. -- ms. mccollum: i request a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further pr seedings will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 65 prinned in ouse report 114-683. it is now in order to consider amendment number 66. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 66 printed in house report 114-6le 3, offered by mr. lamb born of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman
from colorado, mr. lamb born and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. lamborn: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the process of hydraulic fracturing often used in combination with horizontal drilling has unlocked vast new american energy resources, making the united states the largest energy producer in the world. this creates tens of thousands of good paying jobs and lowers energy prices for consumers. despite this technological advancement, the obama administration, acting through the bureau of land management, has sought to regulate it out of existence by trying to institute new onerous regulations regarding well construction and water management for hydraulic fracturing operations that take place on federal and indian lands. thankfully the u.s. district court in wyoming recently struck b.l.m.'s . -- hydraulic fracturing rule finding that b.l.m. lacks authority from congress to regulate fracking and was acting
contrary to law. as expected, the obama administration has filed an appeal to the 10th circuit court. despite being illegal, these burdensome regulations do not recognize the extensive work done by states to regulate hydraulic fracturing within their boarders. the committee has heard from numerous witnesses from utah, wyoming, colorado and other states who have testified to the tireless process these states went through to draft and implement their regulations. regulations that are very successful. my home state of colorado has been safely using hydraulic fracturing for over 40 years and has the toughest hydraulic fracturing disclosure rule in the nation. even our democratic governor, drunkiggenlooper, who has hydraulic fracturing fluid to show it's safe, believes it's the state's responsibility to regulate the industry. and this amendment will do exactly that, by ensuring that states like colorado can
continue to safely regulate energy production based on local geology and conditions without unnecessary and unlawful interference from the federal government. one size does not fit all and the states frequently know better, ingalls know better, than the federal bureaucrats in washington do, what their geology is like, what their water is like, and so on. so i ask that you support my amendment and allow the current energy renaissance to continue ensuring a stable supply of affordable and reliable energy and this will help drive down prices for gasoline, electricity, and home heating. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. any member wish to claim time in opposition? ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. choi the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: this would prohibit the bue low of -- bureau of land management from
implementing a uniform on public land this would prohibit them from implementing a national standard for hydraulic fracking on public land. public land only. such a standard is necessary to ensure that operations on public and tribal lands are safe and environmentally responsible. of the 2 states with potential for oil and gas development on federally managed mineral resources, only slight he more than half have rules in place to address hydraulic fracturing. and those that do have rules vary greatly in their requirements. so, b.l.m. continues to offer millions of acres of public lands for conventional and renewable energy production. and it's critical that the public have confidence and transparency that effective state environmental protections are in place. so as i said before, there's 32 states and half of them don't even have anything in place that
b.l.m. could use. so b.l.m. is looking to have an implementation of a rule in state offices and they're in the process of meeting with their state counterparts, undertaking state-by-state comparisons and regulatory requirements, and i believe what the gentleman is telling me about in colorado, looks like that would be best practices and something b.l.m. would want to look at and maybe model under. so they're trying to establish memorandums of understanding. unfortunately, what your amendment does is stops that from going forward. and i think that, you know, for right now, b.l.m. needs to come up with a transparent standard so that when people are interacting with b.l.m., state by state, when the taxpayers are looking at what b.l.m. is doing, there's transparency, there's clarity, and there's uniformity. so unfortunately, i have to oppose the gentleman's
amendment. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: the gentlelady raised an interesting point. on the surface there's merit to what she says. you weren't aware of this because you weren't in the hearing but when b.l.m. came and spoke to the hearing, i asked them, states like colorado are doing a good job already, why don't you just regulate the states that don't have their own regulation? well, they said no, we want to regulate everybody. they really didn't care whether states had good regulations in place or not. so i think the gave away the game they just wanted to put more regulation on industry and what that means is that you have two sets of regulations to have to wade through and that's going to shut out marginal plays, it's going to shut at jobs of jobs, so b.l.m. wasn't interested in
listening to the states. they rejected that suggestion. they just want to regulate everybody. so let's let the states do what they do best. they know their territory. they know their water. they know their geology. let's let them regulate within the states. they're doing a great job already. no one ever raised any examples of where the states had not done a good job. so let's pass this amendment and b.l.m. can manage the land and not do what the states are already doing. that's the way it should be. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: i'm going to reserve, i have the right to close. he chair: the gentlelady has ms. mccollum: i thank the gentleman for an interesting discussion. but here is the zwugs.
32 states on federally managed -- if the then, if we federal government is is accepting a possible development on its own land they need to accountability. so our constituents. they are trying to form rules and regulations and i'm hopeful make .b.h. and i'll quireees are taking pest practices to develop accountability in the states exists and i yield ack.
habitat and the overnment removes the status when they are floushishing needs. modfment t should be re d the apscosh found in the e.s.a. ap the they le vow thelies every five years. under the act, the purpose of a five-yoorvoy is to ensure that they have the protection. and determine whether the senate tuesday has change or its lag
nd it in california the u.s. california has not followed i had. acknowledge forg by the courts the resues by enforcing the five-year review it is using the information in implementing the species agget include understanding the commnt and conserving efforts. i encourage my col ease that act and would ot violate curn law.
tcharmente for what purpose does minnesota man from is recognized. ms. mccollum: this is to termine the determination is propet and you gave appropriate the rs and it has give reduction reattend. delrgs mill squap less. this han time ap tame ap time depen. if you don't vermont resoarses and the staff and get out in the feel of the the reason why they e behind with the backlog on
this is because they don't have that. ources to do to congress' spobs built make sure to get right of the backlog. be ve a responsibility to ble to do their job and this piece of legislation and the cklog and i oppose the amendment. nd where that i i reserve. he chair: we are talking about $11 billion and they have to do
ber job of priority eyeding their work. that should be dng and need to get on the ball and do the roit thing and have a better set of priorities. it. need to get up ap do make them and follow the haw and sb ever re being conserved. so rett's pass this amendment. p i reserve. were i yield back. >> i thank the the gentleman
om because we had discussion on the policy commess and some of the challenges. s me grandmother would say and you can't get yet water of a rock of the we coop asking the fish and the national park service, wonderful people who get up everything morning to do more ap more and more and more do helps and they can't anymore because they dope have e scientists or the research handling rsap they are ham
risk fines and fppeding. nd a waiver, similar my does ot justify these dways that go toward protect he can ring a mouse. itis scientific studies that all. a subspecies at en the scientists that class fifed this mouse has since recaptained this work. e score meaning that efforts could have been spen. cause which the
work man would wouldn't and the amendment would create uncertainty and make make hmvull measurable to lawsuits. and not blocking it doing the job it is current lieu to do when it comes to this species cause nothing is time yet ap reswregget this amendment and i yield whack. na the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: this should not have been listed in the fist place. it was a mistake. we discussed how wish and -- how
fish and wildlife service are already too busy you say they don't have the money to do what they need to do right now. let's free up their work load, take this one off the table. it shouldn't have been listed in the first place. then they'll have more time to do everything else they claim to want to do. with that, mr. chairman, i ask for an aye vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate having ended, 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 ayes have it. the gentlelady from minnesota seeks a vote, pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offer by the gentleman from olorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 69 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. loudermilk: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment nerm 69,
printed in house report 114-683. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. loudermilk: under the clean air act, congress directed the e.p.a. to collect any pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicle or motor vehicle engines which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. they further defined motor vehicle as a self-profelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway. any reasonable person would understand that self-propelled vehicle means a vehicle that can protell itself. of its own initiative. one would think of a pickup truck, semis, vans, or cars. one thing that does not come to mind is the back portion of a tractor trailer, the trailer portion, which has no way of self-propelling itself. unfortunately, the e.p.a. doesn't seem to see it that way.
in last year's proposed rules for greenhouse gas emotions and fuel efficiency standards for on road heavy duty vehicles and engine, they tried to regulate truck railers as self-propelled vehicles. furthermore, e.p.a. has a voluntary program called smartway for dynamics and smart wight. it's designed to increase fuel efficiency for tractor trailers. however it only improves when they're traveling at highway speeds of more than 50 miles per hour. it provides no benefit when they're traveling less than 50 miles per hour around towns which is where most tractor trailers are qused in the united states. but e.p.a. wants to mandate all trailers be governed by smartway, even those that travelless than 50 miles per
hour. in fact, if the government manipulates the weight of trailers, cargo gets displaced, which results in more tractor trail thornse road, higher consumer prices, just to meet current demands. the trailers e.p.a. is proposing to regulate are highly customized. trailer manufacturers should not be forced to comply with a one size fits all standard, especial will given that so many trailers do not gain any fuel efficiency benefits from smart way. my amendment will prevent the e.p.a. from using any funds in the bill to regulate trailers under the greenhouse gas rule. not only should these guidelines remain voluntary because they only benefit some trailers, e.p.a. has no business regulating trailers under the clean air act given that they are not self-propelled this proposed regulation by the e.p.a. is another example of a federal agency overstepping its bounds and attempting to enact a regulation that benefits some part of the economy but harms
others. if this attempt at overreach is enforced, it will be costly and counterproductive because the private sector is moving faster to improve fuel efficiency and reduce air pollution than the e.p.a. can move. congress would be wise to stop this regulation and keep the smart way program voluntary and let trailer manufacturers do what they know is best for their individual customers. i urge all members to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. any member seeking time in opposition? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in opposition. ms. mccollum: would the gentleman yield for a question? the fuel standards for the trailers that they're study wrg jointly proposed by the e.p.a. and department of transportation. douf a ride for the anything from the department of transportation to prohibit their funding? mr. loudermilk: not at this
time. ms. mccollum: even if you were to be successful with the amendment and i'm predicting you might be on a voice vote, it would still be moving forward under the department of transportation so these -- the standards that they're looking at is to help achee greenhouse gas emissions reduction. so that's -- my opinion, that's a good thing to do. and the amendment would prohibit themplet p.a. from final idesing, implementing its green house gas rules by carving out this exemption for trailers. now the other reason why i'm opposing the amendment and i'm being consistent with this is proposed regulation is still currently open for public comment and so we don't know what the final comment is going to be. we don't know what's going to happen into the future. and so i don't think we should
be interfering with a rule making process on an appropriations bill and so with that, i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and mr. chairman, i'm going to yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. loudermilk: once again, as we have seen with the agencies there's a lot of overreach and quite often they take, you give them an inch they take a mile. i think it's imperative we be proactive in this issue to ensure we protect an industry that's done a good job of regulating itself and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the sque 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. the amendment is agreed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 70 printed in house report 114-683.
for what purpose does the gentlelady from wye seek recognition? mrs. lummis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 70, printed in house report 114-683, offer by -- offered by mrs. lummis of wyoming. the chair: the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. lummis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mrs. lummis: i hope when i grow up i'll learn how to talk as fast as you do, it's a true skill. i also would like to observe that on the third -- i'm the third of three daughters and my father used to always say nothing good ever happens after midnight, which is why he gave us a midnight curfew. i'm hoping he was talking about mountain daylight time instead of eastern daylight time. especially with regard to my amendment. mr. chairman, my amendment is intended to prohibit funding to
complete e.p.a.'s proposed rule for the environmental protection -- it's for uranium intended to protect groundwater problems.tial e.p.a. officials acknowledge there's no evidence in uranium recovery a process that's been used for more than four decades, s ever caused an adverse impact to nonexempt aquifers. also the e.p.a. lacks injure diction to impose these standards. the e.p.a. has general standards -- standard setting authority but congress has designated the nuclear regulatory commission and its agreement states, as the lead when it comes to implementation and enforcement, a concern raised by the n.r.c.'s
general council. the uranium industry has offered to work with the e.p.a. to review existing data and conduct additional sampling if warranted. the industry made this offer in may, 2015. and the e.p.a. never responded. which is a problem, which has been acknowledged earlier this evening with regard to an amendment about inquiries by stake holders and congress regarding the e.p. ample. they're so busy making rules they forget to respond to stake holders and members of congress. the american uranium production already faces intense computation from overseas production and uranium sales where our stockpiles being sold onto the market, depressing domestic prices and causing also additional importation of uranium into the u.s. the u.s. imports upward of 90%
of the uranium we immediate for our power plants. the proposed rule's 30-year post-production monitoring requirements will present a significant burden on an already struggling pro-- on already struggling producers in texas, wyoming and the west and it could lead to more mining bankruptcies. employment in the industry has already groipped 21%. why are we putting miners out of work and employing them in other countries where we import the same product? the e.p.a. recently said think planned to finalize this rule before the end of the obama administration is on track this amendment may be congress' last chance to stop the rule. and save the domestic uranium industry. for that reason, mr. chairman, i offer in support amendment number 70 to h.r. 5538 and is -- and ask for its adoption. the chair: the gentlelady
reserves? the gentlelady reserves. does any member claim time in opposition in for what purpose oes the gentlelady rise? ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: once again my primary reason for opposing this amendment is it blocks the e.p.a. from finalizing regulation. this amendment would ensure that there are no public health or environmental standards to address technologies and challenges with this widely used method of uranium recovery. what the e.p.a. is looking at doing is establishing requirements for leaching, which is mining process which bore holes are drilled to deposits of uranium, liquid solution is injected in the holes to dissolve the uranium, to look and make sure the aquifers are protected. i believe that the e.p.a. should be looking at standards that
will establish requirements to ensure that groundwater is restored to premine levels that restoration is stable before a site is abandoned and that these rules should be moving forward being finalized. to the gentlewoman from wyoming, and i don't say this on the floor very often, i think she knows i consider her a dear friend, i will miss upon your not running for re-election, i am concerned when i hear my colleagues say that they're not hearing back from people in a timely fashion, so i'm going to be looking into that but right now at this particular time because these, you know, we're in the process of finalizing regulations, we don't know what they're going to look like as of right now, i have to oppose this amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota yields back. the gentlelady from wyoming. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. with great respect for the gentlewoman from minnesota, with
whom i have had the privilege to serve for these past eight years and whom i admire for her diligence and thoughtful representation of her constituents and our country, i would assert that the nuclear regulatory commission and its agreement states are the lead when it comes to implementation and enforcement and even the n.r.c.'s general council -- counsel has raised this issue. the states and nuclear regulatory commission are in control of this issue. it is adequately regulated. it is appropriately regulated in a manner that protects groundwater, the injection wells and the recory wells are from nonpoet -- and recovery wells are from nonpotable water sources and there are no instances where a nonpotable
aquifer has contaminated a potable water aquifer. for those reasons, i believe that this amendment is appropriate, i encourage its adoption. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. he chair: the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wyoming. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. is now in order to consider number 71 for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? merit merit i have an amendment at the desk. he chair: the gentleman from
from arkansas reservings smr i i rise in opposition . s. mccollum: this is a this is essential to preserve as well as the ecosystem. the interior subcommittee has pish built the per and not another dugses sm the authorize he can contest and there are the proper committees o dugs the personal nent requirements. is my that the frozen proublingts. will the gentleman address that
. e products mr. westerman: i believe these are -- ms. mccollum: it's my understanding they are frozz i yield back and and so he wouldry questions members oppose this nd produce from house of natural resources the to re soffing this issue and ask the gentleman whether they are in doubt. question and i think this amendment be tabled voted down until the proper committee has the vet. but this us a radical change and
iry serve. the chair: the good reservings. rit merit they are treated they are independent the lawsy act or the international trade of endangered species which they are not. well be relling lated under fmplet d.a. ap i encourp a set. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. mccollum: i have right to close. it's without doing an inspiration wf no way of knowing
sprentionlyhese are perfected. radical in nt is no the chearninging the practices and what we were looking to address was report language in he discussions we had in the community and have to a a though you turn ruined he men and women rn put at a disvack. iment strongly in opposition of this amendment and the
think we dbr and i nee a full discussion. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings the amendment is adopted. now in order to consider amendment 7 , for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? cleck the clerk: amendment number 72, offered by mr. murphy of
florida. charlte the chair: the the gentleman rom florida and a member opposed will wetch control 20 minutes. i rise to offered the amendment to olympic the ue of url seismic. and the offshove of shore lelling is not a mu. sice mike testening puts it by egg xtension pan our erica and it poses a grite rick. ismic testing could have
wenging hag ht assed and 1280,000 jbs supported by the ecosystems. our a issue and proud to stand ton continues to trust our ng and state our our dell gigs and we done want this and support this bipartisan effort. chormente for what purpose does the gentleman from seek reckfligs? and we us thery sticted
do not need to place a moratorium and there are two moratorium ap i reserve. the gentleman from florida sike recognition? >> the gentlelady is recognized. ? thank you, mr. murphy and i appreciate this opportunity. but different amendment, but i ould like to say living? north florida i have seen the sfeag.il spill
. murphy: and they are the animals and i yield. the chair: all time have ex pirated. thaferede. thoifer. the noes have it and pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, members offered by the gentleman from from florida. it is now order to consider number 7 . >> i have an amendment at the esk. sthamping you mr. chairman. i offer ain amendment to the
fish and wild life service to the e.s. oofrlt providing these agencies were refupeding the gray wolf for nearly a year to work with the states for the mammingment plan when the management end. where stream importance e gri wolf is listed and delisted. agree ans there are no depraffic i have posening a live. and this issue should be settled. june 13, the service published a rule with and made this
determination of gray wolves listed in the u.s. and found the best the information indicates that currently listing entity is not a valid spooses. it is to recover a steeses to he point where it is no longer considered or threatened. it is in the wolf and the union in consempings nature has list the. in . my amendment does not delist the
gray wolf but encourages the service to move forward with its own proposed delisting rule. it restricts funding after june 13, 2017, four years after the original delisting rule was first published. providing more than enough time for the service to finalize the rule as well as to work with individual states to develop and implement their respective state management plans. this approach will support an orderly transition to state level management and allow state wildlife officials to more effectively manage wolf populations, which has proven successful in states such as idaho, montana, wyoming, minnesota, wisconsin, and michigan. my amendment is simple, provides interior and the service with an incentive to move forward with the delisting that the agency itself said is necessary and supported by best available science, evidence, and data. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and i
reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. any member wish to claim time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman seek time in opposition in ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: the gentleman pointed out the wolf is an animal that exists in the great state of minnesota where i'm from. this is not an issue i'm unfamiliar with, having worked on it in the state house when the federal government and state how oming to fruition on to protect the iconic american species. this amendment is an attack on that species. the wol san francisco a keystone species, it plays a vital role in keeping our ecosystem healthy. deer populations, we -- you and i, being familiar with that, know how important they are to he entire ecosystem.
it's also abanimal to my native american brothers and sisters in minnesota and around the area that have a deep kinship and bond with. in fact, at our wolf round table i had, i heard directly from many tribal leaders that the protections that are afforded under the endangered species act for gray wolves is the only way in which they've been able to keep wolf hunts away or out of the tribal reservation boundaries. i understand my colleagues have strong feels about listing and delisting about the way it affects their states. but currently this is in the courts. we don't know how the courts will come down on the rules. i think we should not interfere in what is a court process. the endangered species act also intists -- exists to offer necessary protections and ensure species survival. with a majority of my constituents and constituents all across the united states support. ands the same law that helped successfully restore another
iconic american species, the bald eagle. reassert ment would heir ability to the endangered species act. however it does not continue the protection. the amendment is problematic. its restrictions will ultimately hurt farmers, ranchers, landowners, business owners. because under this amendment the fish and wildlife service would not be able to offer any exemptions or permits for incidental killings of wolves to landowners, ranchers and other parties who might need them. and right now, the way the law stands, they can do that. if this amendment were to pass, they would not be able to do that. the prohibition against and ittly killed remains would be legally enforceable.
constituents would have to stop any activities that led to the taking of wolves or they would put in harm's way of losses and heavy penalties. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: i do appreciate the gentlelady's knowledge and work on this issue in her home state of minnesota. however, i think it's time that the -- that us in this country, we in this country declare a success. declare a win when it comes to the gray wolf. there are at least 6,000 wolves in the great lakes states, the rocky mountain states, the pacific northwest states. 14,000 in the whole united states. as i said before, this is no longer an endangered species. does not fit the criteria for endangered species. my own state fish and wildlife department, three years in a
row, has sent letters to congress asking and pointed out the reasons why the wolf could be, should be delisted. you talk about coexisting with other species, if you look at the elk population of yellowstone , in 10 years between 1996 and 2006, the population has been decimated by 50%. if you look at the moose population of utah, it's been decimated by 90%. because of these healthy populations of wolves. so i think there are issues that we are experiencing because of being unable to manage them in a way that states have proven they are capable of doing. and it does not take away the ability for states to do those kinds of things. they fully have, the federal government fully has until june 30 of 2017 to continue managing the wolf in the way it does now.
this just sets a timeline, provides an incentive for the agency to move forward with its own rule and the process that's been in place. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: i thank the gentleman and i think we just disagree as to the timing of this amendment and what this amendment would actually lead to have happen in our constituents and in our communities. it's in the courts right now. the courts could very well rule in a way that you would be very pleased and very satisfied with and i think we should let the court procedure take place. so simply put, in my opinion, this amendment is bad for wolves, bad for our ecosystem, bad for business, and my constituents think it would be a really bad thing to have move forward. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. all time for debate having
expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment -- for what purpose duds -- ms. mccollum: a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offer by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 74 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. newhouse: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the chloric will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 74 printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. mu mouse -- newhouse of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. newhouse: i rise to offer an amendment i know the gentlelady will like. in 2013 the environmental protection agency approached
four dairies in washington state about high nitrate levels in nearby wells, suspecting semipermeable manure lagoons may be the cause. the dairies entered into a consent decree to identify and treat the cause if it was in fact stemming from the dairies. disturbingly, an environmental roup, foia'd the information the dairies provided and used it to file a citizens suit under the recovery act of 1976 against the dairies. unfortunately, in early 2014, a federal judge ruled the environmental group, asserting that dissolved nitrates constituted a solid waste under the law and high nitrate levels constituted open dumping. there are a number of problems with this case. however the biggest one by far is the very law used to file the lawsuit. to be clear, there are a number of laws and regulations, both at the state and federal level which apply to nutrient
management such as the safe drinking water act or clean water act. the problem is, congress never intended rcra to be used to regulate agriculture. e.p.a. eblings presses rcra doesn't apply to agricultural waste, including manure and crop residue, returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners. i don't know how you can get more clearer than nutrient management was not intended to be governed under this law. unfortunately, this ruling has left agriculture producers in a legal gray area, trying to figure out exactly how to comply with a law that was not intended to regulate them. all this decision has done is create a culture of fear andties trust between farmers and regulatory agencies. if you're a good steward and come forward to proactively address problems, all you're doing is making yourself a target for lawsuits. also it creates a fear that a judge could capriciously decide
that you are subject to a law despite clear intent that the law does not apply to you. mr. chairman, farmers rely on the land and water being cleaned and want to be good environmental stewards. this self defeating culture is not one we want to cultivate. my amendment does nothing to prevent e.p.a. from enforcing current regulations under rcra, it does nothing to prevent e.p.a. from issuing or enforcing clean watt herb act or safe drinking water act rules. all my amendment does is prevent e.p.a. from issuing and expanding new regulations under rcra that would reflect this poor interpretation of current law. while i'm not aware of the desire by e.p.a. to do this, unfortunately, there have been a number of other recent legal precedents directing e.p.a. to take actions they didn't want to take. this amendment will ensure e.p.a.'s current regulations stand until congress has the ability to weigh in and reassert its intent. mr. chairman, no one is saying livestock producers like all
americans do not share in the responsibility of good environmental stewardship. they certainly do. but there already exists appropriate laws and regulations intended to govern these activities and there are ones that are not intended to. we as members of congress have a responsibility to make that clarification which is what my amendment does. i reserve. the chair: does any member claim time in opposition. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. choi the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, to my colleague, i think we both would agree that drinking water is critical and limited in some of our rural communities. we need to work together to protection for these resources.
we should protecting communities and small farms rather than protecting those who make people sick. but your amendment isn't about drinking water. it's about rcra. and your amendment prohibits the e.p.a. from maybe in the future regulating an animal feed operation under rcra. which is a resource conservation and recovery act. right now the e.p. ample does not regulate animal feeding operations and the agency has no immediate plans to develop or issue such regulations. so this amendment is unnecessary and i strongly oppose it because it also gets involved in blocking the e.p.a.'s administrator from working on, you know, possibly anything else
in the future that we might agree that would affect drinking water. which i don't think is part of this. so the fact that rcra does not regulate animal feeding operations under the statute and the agency has no immediate plans to do it and the way that the funding is happening, i just have to oppose this amendment at this time. mr. chairman, if i could just say something about some of these amendments. i understand that sometimes people are fearful of what may or may not happen in the future. and so we've had many amendments that have either, you know, interjected before a court -- before courts ruled or interjected before a final rule making has taken place or interjected before all the public comment has been taken in consideration. and i just think that the authorizing committee needs to
be looking at what happens and public comment and then if congress disagrees with a rule that comes up, that's when our role is most appropriate. i don't think we should have a role in predicting the future. with that, i oppose this amendment and i will yield back the time. he chair: the gentlelady >> we must work together and that is why i'm presenting this amendment and know what rules they need to follow. the clean water act or the rules and they food to know ap can be sued. and it's like driving down the freeway and the officer says the
speed is only 45 and so that's the robe for the amendment. and i agree. e.p.a. is not miking plans to make new rules and shouldn't be a problem for us to put that being sued there are by environmental groups and judges are making rules as a bases for the decisions and i think it is important for row aearth as well as e.p.a.'s clear regular layings and keep santa clarita for our farmers and ranchers. my so with that, i reserving
time. i will yield back my time and urge adopping of the amendment. charment those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is adopted. it its now in order to consider amendment number 7 for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. byrne: i have the last amendment. the clerk: amendment number 75 ffered by mr. now house of what. the chair: yasm washington will each control five minutes. news mr. newhouse: i offer to the under ss this program is
lestemb. the chair: any member. opposition. e in harmingse people who hiven livestock. i want to be very, very clear ain spot ever sobbed that ment op in 01 ks this pralt to be recouping farmers and rarpers is in the ag bill it has president come to the floor yet. nf.he we aren't doing so we e seep the cut and funded this fish and wildlife
and now you are taking the fish fish andife out of the wild lir agency. are doing rgs ou cotcht canning to fund it out of the interior bill. the e.p.a. was already retuesdayed $1 bill more than. proper tects the tell of our environment amming clean air apcompleen water and i cannot support. i will join you to yoip you where this be lock the 201.
it. cannot spot it it be longs and i urge my colleagues to reyeg amendment. and i yield back. harlte . the gentlelady yields back. > the original program demonstration program was thrsed in trine and it waste propertied proceedingses act what i did.ipt what ms. mccollum: we port charlotted lemmings 1, the
legislation in sparge is not in thank ll any more ap i the gentleman for yielding to me. > i will that is authorizing lemmings and i could respect the and as well as wolf pop er for the p litigation a i would support. the chair: all time for zwabet. the questiones on the debate. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . e amendment is adopt the
for what purpose does the gentleman from california. the chair: i move the committee do now rise. e committee now rices of the the committee of the whole how had had occurs has col to no resscurgs of the. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has hat under consideration and has to come no the eration thereon sm
schare lace before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: misjowl until 0 ack today. jolly this will >> without objection, the recontests are grpted. flop the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask the house sfu a european. the speaker pro tempore: these in favor say no. the mowing is adopted. the house stand a
>> debate on amendments to the interior department and e.p.a. spending bill continues tomorrow. 131 amendments are allowed on the bill. the house takes up the $32.1 spending bill. devon henry with the hill. what are some of the agencies covered under this bill and how have the priorities for republicans changed from this year to last in terms of what's in this bill? >> so this bill includes the interior department, includes the national park service, environmental protection agency which is the big one that gets a lot o republican ire. the spending cuts are smaller than what republican have looked for in the past in e.p.a.
regulatory power. it cuts the spending a good amount and includes a couple of policy writers. it blocks a water rule, the clean power plan which is obama's climate change related rule, coal mining rule. there are a lot of legislation that the democrats don't like. it's very similar to what republicans have done in the past. but generally on the policy side this is pretty par for the course for what they've looked for under the obama administration. >> they've looked for 13431 amendments made in part by the rules committee. one herb shoe that came up last year that is the blocking of the placement of confederate flags at federal cemeteries. what happened last year and why wasn't it included in the bell for this year? >> the confederate flag blue up the appropriations pass.
it blocked the display of american flags at national cemeteries. certain republicans objected to that amendment after it was already attached and literally overnight republicans looked to attach another amendment to the bill undoing the confederate amendment. and rather than bring that up for a vote, the house leadership pulled the bull entirely and didn't get around to voting on this legislation. they didn't get around to voting on any more appropriations bills at all. there was an amendment offered to this bill related to the confederate flag but they were among the amendments that were not allowed under this bill. they were not rule in order and will not come up on the floor this year. >> let's talk about the energy and environment issues. you mentioned the administration's water rule, the issue in dealing with power plants, etc.
what are you looking for in particular? what are you focusing some of your reporting on? >> there's going to be a lot of amendments from both sides to reinforce their positions. republicans have taken aim at certain other interior and e.p.a. rules that were not included in the base bill. for example there was an amendment dealing with methane or offshore drilling. the interior department has rule on that. there's a fracking rule that republicans are going try stripping from this bill. they're going to reassert some of these thrules they like that the bill blocks that's the methane rule, lead-based -- a lead rule that the e.p.a. has. there's a little bit of funding from flint for drinking water related issues that came out of the debate and the response for that. so there are a lot of things that the bill is going to see debate on. and there are a lot of things that democrats won't get what
they want, republicans won't get what they want. it's pretty par for the course in terms of what they're looking for here. >> one of the 131 amendments by congressman hudson, republican amendment would prevent travel by e.p.a. officials. what's behind that? >> that's going to be one of those that the debate will be interesting in. it was 168 amendments were offered and only about 30 or so were left off. i don't have the backstory too much. but i'm looking forward to that debate to see where he's coming from that and how democrats would do that against that. the e.p.a. administrator does travel between both places. that's not unusual among high ranking administration officials. so it's possible that that's going to come up in the debate as welcome. >> and there's another spending bill in which the administration has threatened to veto e.p.a.
what in in particular don't they like about it? >> they don't like the spending levels and the policy writers. it's pretty much the same thing they've said about the other bills. the white house wants to spend more. they want to go beyond the spending cap and they don't like some of the writers in this bill. pulling back on some of these things as the g.o.p. wants to do is a big fight between these two right now. he's probably going to -- he has threatened to veto this bill and it's going to be one of these issues that gets thought out. >> you can follow devin henry's reporting at dhenry. thanks for that update. >> thank you. >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning,
vermont democratic congressman peter welsh will be on. he'll discuss bernie sanders and hillary clinton. and r.n.c. chair committee bruce ash will talk to us. he'll talk about a rule change which will allow people to vote their conscious. be sure to watch at 7:00 eastern on wednesday morning. join the discussion. before next week's republican national convention, this weekend c-span city's tour along with our cable partners will explore the history and literalry life of ohio. and we'll talk with john grobowsky in his book "cleveland: a history in motion." then we'll visit the cleveland
public library relating to the no velist while helied in cleveland. >> it was at central that he developed his love of writing and and he was introduced to the work of carl sandberg an walt hitman through his teacher ms. wimer. and he also composed a poem while they're -- that's kind of famous when susana jones wears red. >> and on "american history tv" we'll visit the american history center and take a tour of the politics exhibit with the chief cure ator relating to ohio presidential history and cleveland's past political convention. then we'll tour the crawford auto muesweem derek moore. and hear why cleveland was nicknamed motor city before detroit. >> the kilo cation of cleveland,
we're on lake eerie. so great shipping routes. we also had the railroad in the cation. there are a lot of shipping routes that could be taken. we values the steal industry which is very important in the automobile industry. and there was also a lot of lumber in this area. >> this weekend watch c-span's cities tour saturday at noon eastern on book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on c-span 3. the c-span city's tour working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. at a memorial service for the five police officers killed in dallas, president obama smoke -- spoke about the need better communication between law enforcement and the community. dallas mayor michael rawlings and the police chief michael
>> to begin the program please welcome the mayor of dallas, mike rawlings. [applause] mayor rawlings: please be eated. good afternoon. welcome. at 8:58 p.m. five days ago the soul of our city was pierced when police officers were ambushed in a cowardly attack. in the days that followed, we have searched a massive crime scene. we've sob and paid tribute to a growing memorial at the police headquarters. we prayed together at thanksgiving square. we lit candles to honor the
lives of our five heroes. today we open our city's doors to our friends and to our neighbors. we realized that our pain is your pain. you want to do what we want the do, honor the lives of these five officers. ohl, michael thompson, patrice yo zamarippa. of our great dallas city council, we want to say thank you and thank you for accepting our invitation. some of you have traveled from across our state and some from across our country. i want to recognize my fellow mayors from out of state for being here on such short notice. ok