Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House Takes Up Omnibus Spending Bill  CSPAN  September 7, 2017 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT

6:00 pm
amendments do. i would ask all to support this amendment to help those areas that are economically devastated in central appalachian and expand on a -- appalachia, and expand on a program that's already showing signs of success. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: is there a member that seeks time in opposition? ms. mccollum: i do, mr. chair. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes in opposition. ms. mccollum: i strongly oppose an amendment that narkse money away from the e.p.a. this bill already cuts the e.p.a.'s main operating count by $240 million and the 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 in communities across the nation. now, i understand from many cutting the e.p.a. is an easy target. but i want my colleagues to understand what this amendment would be cutting if adopted.
6:01 pm
this account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the country, toxic risk prevention and parts of the successful brown fields program and pesticide licenses. i understand the money would direct more funding to states in appalachia and appalachia is suffering, from raging environmental harm. unfortunately, i cannot support deeper cuts to the e.p.a. i oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i yield to the chairman such time as he may coe de-sire to consume. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. >> i understand the gentleman's goal. mr. calvert: we can accept this
6:02 pm
package of amendments at this time, work toward maintaining funding for six states in a final fiscal year 2018 enacted bill. if we're able to achieve that, i hope we can count on the gentleman's support to pass that package and the 2018 spending bill. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and yield back. >> i reserve the remainder of my time. chip the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i appreciate the challenges that the gentleman suffering in his state and throughout appalachia. but i can just not support any more deeper cuts to the e.p.a. and so i must oppose the amendment and if the gentleman is ready to close, i would yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i ask my colleagues to help us transition the economy in central appalachia and support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment
6:03 pm
as modified offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment as modified is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield to the gentleman from georgia for the purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, chairman calvert. i would like to thank the subcommittee chairs and chairman calvert for their work on this legislation. i am committed to pursuing a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy strategy and would like to take this time to engage in a colloquy on section 438 of this bill pertaining to offshore wind
6:04 pm
development. mr. hice: as a representative from a hostal area i want to ensure that all offshore energy development is mur sued in a pragmatic manner. section 438 restricts funding for the department of the interior to administer offshore wind leases within 24 nautical mile office the coast of maryland. this language hinders offshore wind development by imposing unprecedented and burdensome requirements on three existing leases. typically offshore wind turbines are constructed roughly 12 nautical miles from the coastline which is generally out of sight from shore. by doubling the setback, section 438 unreasonably restricts these projects and sets a poor policy precedent for future development. furthermore, modifying the terms and conditions of the leases violates the sanctity of the lease and creates considerable uncertainty for companies pursuing any offshore wind
6:05 pm
project. it's critical that we establish regulatory and contractual certainty in all areas of natural resource development. america's offshore wind industry is in its infancy and the poll sthirks precedents that we set today will affect investment long into the future. the language contained in text 438 is concerning for reason and i look forward to working with the gentleman from maryland in the future to find a more appropriate solution. i yield back. mr. calvert: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from maryland for the purpose of a colloquy. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me time to discuss an issue important to my constituents in ocean city, maryland. i'm proud that ocean city is home to beautiful beaches and views and as a as a result has a booming tourism industry. i want to respond to conference ocean city residents regarding
6:06 pm
the visibility of wind turbines offshore. siting turbines within 24 nautical miles of the shoreline, i believe our tourism will be compromised. i believe every effort should be made to minimize the effect of this on the view. this addresses the needs of the local community. i look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a practical solution to this challenge and i yield back. mr. calvert: as i mentioned in our full committee markup, i understand my colleague, dr. -- with all these offshore projects many varying viewpoints need to be take intoon account and i appreciate that we have been able to address many of these views and concerns here today. it's my hope we can work with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction and all interested stake holders to identify some better sloughs as we move
6:07 pm
forward flu fiscal year 2018 process. i thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair would like to announce that it understands that amendment number 14 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise to offer amendment number 15, h.r. 335 he storing funds to a.m.l. pilot program. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. thompson of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: mr. chairman, thank you. chairman of the subcommittee, appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment.
6:08 pm
prior to the surface mining and control reclamation act of 1977, coal mining played a role in the united states for nearly two centuries providing critical energy and job fours nation. across pennsylvania and throughout appalachia we continue to have great needs in reclaiming abandoned minelands and restoring waters that have been impacted by historical mining active thes. since 1977 we have made great gains in restoring our historical mine lands but much more work needs to be done. the federal office of surface mining has estimated that the unfunded liabilities of abandoned minelands across the nation exceeds $10 billion with nearly half of that obligation located in pennsylvania. to complement the funding from the a.m.l. trust fund, which was established through smkra, this legislation contains appropriations for the a.m.l. pilot program in order to support additional funding for abandoned minelands for areas
6:09 pm
that need assistance most. this program provides grants to states, to, quote, to accelerate the remediation of a.m.l. sites with economic development uses in mind. unfortunately this legislation provides $32 million less for the pilate program compared to last year's level. my amendment is simple and would not increase federal spending. the amendment would restore funding for the abandoned mineland reclamation program to its 2017 level. by reallocating funds from the e.p.a.'s environmental programs and management by the same amount. mr. chairman this -- where these funds are coming from is consistent with the mission of that account that would be -- they would be taken from. the difference is by putting it into the a.m.l. pilot program with laser focus, we're focused on environmental concerns that have been identified and we are funding remediation techniques
6:10 pm
that are proven. now we have an only fwation to clean up our environment and restore our abandoned mine larneds and waters. this program helps us to do just that. i thank the chairman and ranking member and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. >> i strongly oppose this amendment that takes more money away from the e.p.a. ms. mccollum: this is a duplicate of the last amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia earlier. it cuts another $32 million from the e.p.a.'s operating accounts. now our country right now is dealing with two catastrophes caused by hurricanes. the destruction is going to be felt for years. and the e.p.a. right now is one of the primary federal agencies responsible for protecting human health, monitoring air and water and managing recovery and
6:11 pm
cleanup. so it would be reckless to adopt another amendment that would further cripol the e.p.a. these two amendments would cut the e.p.a. by $18 million. i strongly oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: i thank the chairman, i thank the gentlelady for her comments, my point is, this takes $32 million and puts it like a laser on air air -- on an area we we know the environmental damage is well documented, it's a very -- and we have effective public-private partnerships to address. i'm pleased to yield to the chairman. mr. calvert: we're prepared to accept this amendment, i understand the importance of the amendment for those in the appalachia region, i encourage adoption of the amendment and i yield back.
6:12 pm
the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. thompson: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady is ecognized. ms. mccollum: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: i believe i have the right to close. the chair: the gentlelady from mp as the right to close. mr. thompson: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i thank the chairman. once again, i understand clearly what the gentleman from pennsylvania is trying to accomplish. i wish we could accomplish that goal. but with already $240 million cut to the e.p.a., all the challenges on the pemplet p.a. just recently agreed on this floor by a voice vote to cut the e.p.a. another $75 million. this would be another $33 million. so i hope that we can reach a
6:13 pm
place in the funding that the chairman and i have that we can address the serious concerns you bring to the floor where you have successful programs but at the same time i would be cutting opportunities for cleanup, especially with all the disasters looming, forest fires, disasters, cleanup i just had recently in my district that came out of the blue, the e.p.a. wouldn't have money to respond. with that, i strongly oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: i request a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will e postponed.
6:14 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in house ereport 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek reck -- seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dez egg nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 5004, the gentleman from arizona, from pl grijalva, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: my amendment would restore $1 million in cuts to the environmental justice program within the e.p.a. with an equivalent cut to leadership and administration within the d.o.i. office of the secretary. in 1992, the program was created and originally called the environmental equity office. it was created after a series of releases of reports that revealed polluter sites were disproportionately located in
6:15 pm
low-income communities and communities of color. with minimal support, the program has provided communities with leveraged resources to do things like revitalize neighborhoods, build health centers, expand affordable housing, create green space and recreation areas. more importantly raise the awareness of disproportionate treatment in both affected communities and decision making. despite the success within the e.p.a. for decades, we are not even close to dealing with the issue of environmental justice. in 2016, the united states commission on civil rights found that racial minorities and low income communities are still disproportionately affected by the siting of waste disposal facilities, permitted emissions facilities and they often lack the political and financial power to properly bargain with polluters when fighting a decision or seeking redress. .
6:16 pm
a report found that clean water access and sanitation infrastructure on numerous reservations across the nation resee him nl developing countries than the rest of the nation. nearly half of these homes lack access to drinking water, sewage. native families often end up drinking unclean water and increase disease and risk and impairs tribal economic development. additionally, low-income communities have been on the front line of houston's petro chemical facilities for decades and they were the first to feel the effects as chemical plants caught fire and polluted floodwater -- went into their neighborhood. the e.p.a. office of environmental justice integrates concerns of these communities within the general activities of the agencies. this is not a program that can
6:17 pm
be scaled back especially as concerns of environmental justice continue to arise around hurricane harvey and now in irma's path. it is critical we protect communities of color from disparity impacts caused by environmental pollution. $1 million is not a lot of money but reaffirms the significance of the office and sense of equality. today, i ask my colleagues to join in defense of these communities and show them that congress cares about their public health, housing and their importance as people. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman rise to seek time in opposition? >> i seek time to oppose the amendment. given our allocation, which was $824 million below the fiscal year 2017 level, we had to find
6:18 pm
areas to trim. mr. calvert: it is important to know that the bill does not support the elimination of the program as proposed in the president's budget. it was the committee's effort to find some middle ground. while i can appreciate the gentleman's interest to maintain fiscal year 2017 enacted level, the allocation of the committee doesn't support those levels. therefore, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the gentleman's amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me yield to the gentleman from from west virginia, a member of the natural resources committee as much time as he can consume. >> i thank the ranking member. mr. chairman, i'm proud to rise in support of this amendment to restore funding to the environmental justice program within the e.p.a. this program enables the agency to better assist front-line
6:19 pm
communities that are disproportionately impacted by pollution. low-income and minority communities face hazardous pollution and environmental contamnapts due to where their members live and work. the harms are real. for instance, higher levels of air pollution result in members of minority groups having higher death rates and higher numbers of emergency room visits and hospital stays. as the co-chair for united climate and environmental task force, it is my mission to combat these injustices and make sure they no longer bear the unequal burden of economic and environmental and health harms. that is why, mr. chairman, this amendment is so important. the environmental justice program leverages federal funds to greatly improve health and quality of life in our most vulnerable communities. communities have been better
6:20 pm
able to revitalize neighborhoods, build health centers and create new green spaces. i urge my colleagues to show low-income and minority communities that we care about their health, housing and overall well-being by supporting the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: i yield back and urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i urge a no vote and yield back. the chair: 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 gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i ask for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be
6:21 pm
postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in house report number 115-297 offered by mr. price of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price and member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: my amendment would restore e.p.a.'s science and technology account to 2017 levels. to underscore the importance of environmental research to the health and safety of the american people as well as thousands of jobs in my district and across the country. his amendment is framed in
6:22 pm
increase-decrease terms for the simple reason that given the subcommittee's inadequate allocation, there is simply no place to turn for an offset. e.p.a.'s science and technology account funds research and development activities within the agencies supporting the work of the world's leading environmental research enterprise and informing the environmental policies that congress enacts. the bill on the floor would cut this account by $105 million, a 15% reduction. not only good thing i can say about that, it's isn't as bad as the trump budget but it is a deep and devastating cut. mr. chairman, we have to restore these funds as this bill moves through the remaining stages of the process. e.p.a.'s office of research and development funded by this
6:23 pm
account not only support e.p.a.'s programs, but facilitates partnerships with some of the higher education and research institutions in the country. e.p.a. research facilities employ more than 2,000 people, supports some 700 affiliated jobs in my district alone. this includes advanced laboratory scientists and blue collar jobs, maintenance, cuss towedial and security positions. he e.p.a. research that this conducts, world class research, allows us to remain proactive in protecting the air we breathe and water we drink, resources we must never ever take for granted. i know e.p.a. is continually a scape goat when it comes to spending cuts. in times of crisis, however, we don't hesitate to call on them to respond quickly to respond to
6:24 pm
the public threat and safety. just last week, sites containing dangerous chemicals and contaminant were severely flooded and damaged. the office being cut in this bill proved invaluable inputting together a safe and effective response. in other words, the e.p.a. is part of the first line of defense to respond to events that pose threats to public health and safety. it follows that if we gut e.p.a.'s research budget, we are putting ultimately the american public at risk. e e.p.a. research cuts underscore, i think, how fraudulent the claim is that this is a bill that would make america secure and prosperous. really. really. in reality, it would cripple investments that americans count
6:25 pm
on each and every day to keep them safe and healthy. mr. chairman, i remain hopeful that a bipartisan budget agreement that will be reached to restore this research funding and do right by the people we represent. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from california seek time in opposition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition. i appreciate my friend's support for the research conducted at e.p.a. and particularly at the research triangle park. i'm a supporter of world class research that occurs at r.t.p. with respect to toxicology program and has helped to identify high through-put technologies to reduce the number of animals used in laboratories. the current allocation is below the 2017 fiscal level we have to find areas to trim. we don't have a funding level to
6:26 pm
support the 2017 enacted levels but we did the best to find common ground. and i look forward to working with the gentleman in the future if we come to some kind of budget. but again, because of our allocation, i must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no on the gentleman's amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: the chairman did a pretty good job of describing we have under way. and i know he understands that and wants to support it. i also know that we've got to do better than the allocations $8 billion n this
6:27 pm
omnibus effort. so i pledge to work with him and other colleagues to achieve that kind of agreement. and then also to revisit this account and other accounts we know need attention if we're do our duty as representatives of our communities and also maintain the investments a great country must maintain. with that, i yield 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 urge a no vote and 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 north carolina, 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 for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise to strike the last word.
6:28 pm
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i yield time to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. lance: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank chairman calvert and chairman frelinghuysen for their work on this legislation. i greatly appreciate the committee's efforts to fund the national endowment for the arts and the national endowment for the humidities. i stress the important tans of investments in the humanities and the arts. e n.e.a. and n.e.h. each 003% of the ly . three 3 trillion budget. for every dollar that the united states spends on federal arts initiatives, nine federal dollars are leveraged generating $600 million in matching support. federal arts and humidities
6:29 pm
funding is a catalyst for the economic development and job creation that we all need. having a multiplier effect in new jersey, the state i represent, but throughout the entire nation. the arts and humidities engage in nearly every community. in april, i visited the paper mill playhouse in millburn new jersey to see its project in action. and autism friendly program supported by the n.e.a. and provides an outlet for children with disabilities and their families. seeing these performances show our continued investments in the n.e.a. and n.e.h. i thank chairman calvert and chairman frelinghuysen for including funding for the delaware river restoration project authorized just last year to coordinate private investments and regional partnerships and to develop
6:30 pm
strategies to protect the recreational assets and historical significance. throughout the four states that are involved, new jersey, new york, pennsylvania and delaware, the delaware basin provides clean water and supports $25 billion in economic activity each year. it is imperative that we preserve these resources for future generations and i look forward to working with the committee in this initiative and let me repeat my deep thanks to chairman calvert and chairman frelinghuysen. . mr. calvert: thank you. i yield to ms. slaughter. ms. slaughter: thank you for yielding and thank you for your commitment to the arts. i have greatly appreciated the subcommittee's efforts to fund the national endowment for the arts and the national endowment for the humanities. the n.e.a.'s mission is to
6:31 pm
strengthen the creative capacity of our communities by providing all americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation. of critical importance, the n.e.a. has expanded their reach to help service members who have been diagnosed with t.b.i., traumatic brain injury, and other psychological conditions. this new partnership is critically important. the n.e.a. created forces military -- creative forces military healing network supports music and visual arts therapy. they are finding the best treatment for ptsd is yoga, which doesn't cost us anything. creative forces program faces the -- places the creative art therapies at the core of patient-centered care in medical facilities and research in the
6:32 pm
impact of benefits of these treatment methods. the cost-effective, noninvasive arts therapy rank in the top five helpful and wish to continue programs on patient satisfaction surveys of the men and women who have gone through the programs. and over 5% of military patients said art therapy was helpful to their healing. we may even be learning here that this might be the best thing as mr. lance pointed out for autistic children. throughout the art therapy programs, our servicemen and women are being able to transition away from the basket full of prescription drugs that they carry aid way and lived on and rejoining their families and life. so when they allow that heal, that psychological skill building, self-expression, self-estream that comes from these programs, that obviously
6:33 pm
is certainly something that we need to continue. as part of the n.e.a.'s mission to increase access to the arts for all americans, creative forces enables more service members, veterans, and military families to benefit from creative art therapies and community arts activities. n.e.a. is so cheap at the price, for the small amount of money we put into it we get about $9 billion back and many people who have been employed. we don't do anything with a better return than the money we spend for arts. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. calvert: i i would ask the minority to strike the last word for additional time. to . chairman, i rise
6:34 pm
strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: i yield time to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california -- ms. mccollum: i'm yielding to congressman price. mr. price: mr. chairman, i thank the ranking member for yield, i thank chairman calvert for engaging in this colloquy with mr. lance and ms. slaughter and myself. we're highlighting the importance of the national endowment for the arts and the national endowment for the humanities and the importance of robust funding for the work of those agencies. there's no more efficient dollar spent in the entire federal budget. i'll say in a minute what i mean by that but i'm very happy to be co-chairman with mr. lance of the congressional humanities
6:35 pm
caucus, to be a member of the congressional arts caucus which ms. slaughter and others have led. and proud to support the missions of these two agencies. federal support for the arts and humanities affirms america's rich and diverse cultural and artistic heritage. it is an investment in the quality of life of our people. i think we should see it that way. and we need to be sfed fast in our support, in our investment. it's one of the most efficient we make as i said. it leverages private, nonprofit and corporate dollars. and n 2015 alone, for example, federal n.e.h. museum grants leveraged $104 million in outside funding from only $33 million in federal funds. that's a pretty good return. for the taxpayer. they support millions of jobs, these endowments do, and the projects they fund. hundreds of millions of $s in
6:36 pm
direct economic activity. and the american public loves them. participation all over this country in communities large and small, rural and urban. s widespread and enthusiastic. so again, i thank the chairman for his attention to these important lines in the budget, i hope we can bolster our commitment to the arts and humanities and do even better they appropriations process moves forward. with that, i yield the balance of my time. ms. mccollum: i want to also commend the chairman in working with the whole committee to ensure the arts received the funding they did. i want to yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i want to thank the gentlelady from the great state of minnesota. i thank the gentleman from california. and just very quickly say that i come with my amendments, but i
6:37 pm
also come just to acknowledge the pending storm in florida and hurricane harvey because our arts communities were under water and are still under water. i offered amendments that deal with preservation of heritage areas, urban reforestation and the smithsonian outreach. i thank my colleagues for putting it in the en bloc. but as i do, i want to take note of again all the the brie and be able to say that in the course of hurricanes, historic entities are impacted. we're looking to establish an emancipation trail. one of my most important amendments is to ensure that there's policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings and object of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the united states. my community is looking for that emancipation trail. but it starts from galveston. we have not yet been able to assess whether any of those historic markers and places were destroyed by hurricane harvey. so the funding for the interior
6:38 pm
departments and the aspects that come under the interior department, the jurisdictional issues, is important to us because we'll have to look to see if our historic eventities have been preserved. in the midst of debris and danger othat our constituents face, this is equally important and it's equally important to restore the symphony, to restore the ballet and our theater. all of them you should water in my congressional district. i hope as we move forward, h.r. 3686, hurricane harvey supplemental appropriations, that all these issues will be considered. i thank my colleagues for those amendments and again in the course of a storm, the history of people are jeopardized my amendments deal with preserving the history of people and maybe as we come out of this we'll create the emancipation trail that's part of my amendment. i yield back to the gentlelady and thank her for the time. >> thank you and i -- ms. mccollum: thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields
6:39 pm
back. it is now in order this consider amendment number 27 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. before i get to my amendment, i just wanned to say in reference to the previous discussion about the properly funding for the national endowment of the arts and humanities, i commend discussion on both sides and the commitment to properly fund those programs. the national endowment for the arts and the national endowment for the humanities holds a special place in rhode island
6:40 pm
that was -- both of those programs were championed by and created by our late senior senator, clays be born fell, and we understand the importance of the arts and humanities in rhode island. the jobs that it creates. the quality of life that it enhances. i whole heartedly support properly funding those programs. i had led a special order when the president's budget came out when those programs had been zeroed out in funding and several of my colleagues and i got together and talk about the impact the arts community has on our states, our district, then ecountry as a whole. i want to reiterate my support for the national endowment for the arts and humanities an all it does for the country. with that, mr. chairman, my amendment that eff with before
6:41 pm
us would restore some funding to the southern new england estuaries program which is currently zeroed out in the underlying bill. this program, part of the e.p.a.'s geographic programs, has been a thriving success. anyone who has been to new england knows the beauty of where the ocean meets the land. our estuaries are in rhode island, along thenary began set bay, buzzard's bay and throughout cape cod. these sustain a diversity of plant and animal life. these funds are vital to conserving this wetland has been tet which is frequently under attack by human an natural damage. so i implore the majority to support this program as they have supported similar programs for puget sound, chesapeake bay and other areas. i'm proud to be joined by representative cicilline, keating and kennedy as co-spon so far as this amendment. but mr. chairman, finally, i
6:42 pm
just want to say that i intend to offer -- to withdraw this amendment provided my colleague is oopen to continues the discussion on the importance of this program. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california seek time in opposition to the amendment? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: while the amendment itself is drafted in order as a general increase to e.p.a. geographic programs, the gentleman proposes to fund a program not requested in the budget and is not authorized. further, he proposes to reduce grants from dura, the dura program a key program for improving air quality in areas like mine that are in a nonattainment area with existing standards. for those reason, i oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i reserve the balance of my
6:43 pm
time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: mr. chairman, as i said, i offer to withdraw the amendment as long as the chairman would continue discussion -- mr. calvert: i'm sorry, i didn't hear you. i'll happily work with you to see if we cant work sometime in the future to find room for this program that you're obviously very supportive of. mr. langevin: i thank the chairman and i'm grateful for his consideration. and look forward to working with him. with that, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. mr. langevin: i yield back the alance of my time. the chair: the committee will rise informally to receive a message.
6:44 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 597 cited as the children of fallen heroes , in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be n order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. bigs: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. biggs of arizona.
6:45 pm
the chair: pursuant to resolution 504, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minute. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. biggs: earlier this year, president donald trump submitted his budget request for fiscal year 2018 to congress. the budget request included a 20% reduction in funding for the environmental protection agency's office of enforcement and compliance assurance to $114 million, below the 2017 level. the underlying bill cuts 15% of the e.p.a.'s enforcement budget and my amendment would get us closer to meeting the president's request by cutting ,000 -- ional $10,24 $10,240,000. reducing the e.p.a.'s enforcement budget will hep rein in inappropriate bureaucratic
6:46 pm
actions. it's necessary to revive the american to restore regulatory sanity. make no mistake. the american people cannot be burdened by an out of control e.p.a. that promulgates rules and punishes the economy. mr. chairman, i urge all members to vote yes and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. i can't support an amendment taking money from an underfunded agency, reducing our bottom line when it's already $824 million below f.y. 20717 enacted level and let me give you two examples gentleman's the amendment should not be
6:47 pm
supported. i have been talking to e.p.a. officials because we have a surprise toxic dump site that is close to a residential area as i am from the chairman. for the city ch of st. paul to handle, too toxic, too dangerous. the state of minnesota pollution control agency had a call into the e.p.a. for help. it is costing us as taxpayers millions of dollars to clean that up because because they just walked away, nothing that the e.p.a. can do but clean it up and clean it up they are. and the neighbors are ecstatic that the federal government is there to help them. the e.p.a., by taking more money away from it and putting it in a
6:48 pm
spending reduction account at a are that i know the e.p.a. sending men and women down to help cities and counties and communities out with a disaster that harvey has created. this is all money that is being spent right now in an agency million below 2017. so i think it is important that we protect the air that we breathe and the water that we drink and the consequences of further cuts to the e.p.a. i believe will be felt in communities like mine, like houston, like maybe what we will be hearing in florida where we haven't had the assessment in the virgin islands. and that to me is irresponsible.
6:49 pm
i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: we are prepared to accept the amendment and encourage adoption of the amendment and yield back. mr. biggs: mr. chairman, how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 3 3/4 minutes. mr. biggs: i reserve. ms. mccollum: i reserve the right to close. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. biggs: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. e.p.a. has no statutory duty to pursue an enforced regulation. my home state of arizona along the states west of the mississippi are those most affected by the heavy hand of the enforcement arm of the e.p.a. in my community, dust is the
6:50 pm
number one particular ate. e.p.a.'s response is to come to us in a desert and say, water it down. water it down. then they come after us because of misuse of water. this is the inconsistent that we see in e.p.a. that is weighing down the economy of many of the areas within the west. the more i meet with local and natural resource leaders, their number one concerns mostly deals with the e.p.a.'s burdensome regulations and enforcement regulations. it will limit its ability to tofle the economy and i want emphasize the need to restore fiscal. my amendment would return $10 million back to the national
6:51 pm
treasury. i thank mr. smith for partnering me and those who want to restore fiscal sanity in our country. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: as i said earlier, this account has already been 2017 40 million below the enacted levels, another $108 million on the floor, but the dollars are going back into something, in my opinion, meaningful. this is taking money away from the e.p.a. which is underfunded and undersourced, being asked to do more for less at a time, as i pointed out, we don't even know until there is an opportunity cede. waters to i oppose this amendment and i
6:52 pm
yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. 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 ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i request a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, 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 30 printed in 115-297. rt the clerk: amendment number 30 printed in house report number 115-297 offered by mr. katko of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york, mr. katko, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. katko: i rise in support of
6:53 pm
my amendment which restores critical water infrastructure funding to the clean water state revolving fund. communities are faced with aging infrastructure which poses a threat to public health and our environment. the state resolving funds are a proven critical tool for states and local communities to make investments that otherwise may not be feasible. earlier this year in my district, leveraged over $20 million through the state revolving funds to upgrade a assuming treatment plant. while i commend the chairman for his work on this legislation, with the e.p.a. estimating our national 20-year capital need to be over $650 billion for drinking water and waste water combined, now is not the time to roll back.
6:54 pm
the $250 million cut to this nd would prove harmful to my district. i was hartened to see the president's statement yesterday opposed this $250 million cut and reafffirmed the administration's support of pivotal infrastructure funding. this is a bipartisan issue that impacts yearly every congressional district. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure communities can continue to invest in critical water infrastructure projects and support their economies and a safe and healthy environment. i reserve. ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition. the chair: the the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: there is nothing more i would like to do than provide more resources for the clean water, it can't be done by reducing the e.p.a.'s
6:55 pm
environmental programs and management. this administration has clearly shown that they do not regard the e.p.a.'s work as a priority, which means that they have a blatant disregard for public health and the health of our environment. the account includes funding for programs like brownsfield enforcement, environmental justice, geographic programs and a lot of other critical programs. $250 ld suffer with million reduction. this amendment illustrates -- i gee with the gentleman, i wish we had more money to put into that account. what happens when we don't have dequate allocations? we are robbing peter to pay paul and it's not making us whole.
6:56 pm
so it is with great reluctance that i oppose this amendment and oppose it, i must, because the cuts have already been made to he brownfields enforcement and a myriad of other programs which are critical to the health and well-being of our communities and they are working on it, which is something i cannot support. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. katko: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i support the gentleman's amendment and i urge adoption and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. katko: in response to my democratic friends on the side of the aisle, the president has signaled not only this, he supports the plusing up as i propose in this amendment and plusing up in a much larger
6:57 pm
amount. so to say otherwise is simply untrue. this president wants everyone in the united states to have clean drinking program and for someone to say otherwise it's not true. she said robbing peter to pay paul is something that may be going on here. we are talking about clean drinking water, $250 million drinking water that would come out of the general fund. i would see a little discomfort from bureaucrats than to see people not having clean drinking water nationwide. i urge passage of this amendment. the chair: does the jar yield back? mr. katko: i reserve. ms. mccollum: i reserve until closing. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. katko: the program has done a great job nationwide and we need to find ways to make things
6:58 pm
work. take away from the general fund, take away from instances in which bureaucrats may not be able to rent a car that they choose or pencils, i would much rather have that than dirty drinking water. i urge members to support my amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: they drive to check out the sewer waste plants to make sure they are operating and making sure they the water is clean. tonight we have cut this account by 16%. that means we have cut brownfields enforcement, geographic programs, programs that you and i would like to see more money going into. i would urge my colleagues not to support this amendment.
6:59 pm
the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. now in order to consider amendment number 31 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 31 in house report 115-297 offered by mr. lujan of new mexico. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lieu: a little more than -- lun a team was investigating an contamination of of the gold king mine and caused the spill
7:00 pm
of waste water impacting new mexico, colorado, arizona and the navajo nation. i was in farmington, new mexico in the four corners area when the toxic plume turned the river yellow and i heard about the toll that the spill was taking on businesses, farmers, families and individuals. i attended different community meetings not only in southern colorado but in that northwestern part of new mexico. despite repeated promises by the e.p.a. that it would fully address this environmental disaster, progress has too often been needlessly slow. in january of this year, the eep and the department of justice announced a deeply disappointing decision that the e.p.a. was not liable under the federal torts claim act for damages caused by the gold king mine spill. .
7:01 pm
while i appreciated administrator's pruitt's announcement that the they were considering this misguided decision, i believe the e.p.a. and congress should act to ensure that every impacted individual and community, especially new mexicans and the navajo nation, receive the compensation they deserve. the state of new mexico and the navajo nation shouldn't have to sue the federal government to ensure the federal government meets its moral only fwation to farmers, small business owners and others injured by this spill. this amendment however is about the long-term impact this bill will have on the river and all it sustains from drinking water to providing water for farming and livestock. robust long-term water quality monitoring is essential to ensuring that communs have the day-to--- the data they need to protect the health of all those who rely on the water and the state of new mexico has developed a robust an independent monitoring plan that
7:02 pm
deserve the e.p.a.'s support. that's why i'm offering an amendment to provide $6 million to work with affected states and indian tribes to provide long-term programs in response to the gold king mine spill. the same amendment would accepted the bithe house last year on a bipartisan basis. i thank both the chairman and ranking member for their work on this issue and because monitoring now and well into the future is necessary to protect the health of all those who rely on this water, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman -- >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i rise in reluctant opposition. i think it's important that e.p.a. right the wrong that was caused by the gold king mine spill and ensure the affected state the tribal areas, have the resources they need following the spill.
7:03 pm
the f.y. 2017 bill included $4 million to work with the states and tribes on independent water monitoring plan as authorized by the win act. therefore the proposed level in this amendment would exceed the authorized level. for that reason, i mist oppose the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of ms. in-- of his time. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. lujan: i thank the gentleman for his comments. we arrived at $6 million for water monitoring after consulting with the constituent of new mexico. it's my understanding that new mexico has about $50 million in priority needs related to the gold king spill, including $6 million specifically for monitoring. so we checked with the state before we came down this toveping debate this amendment and what the state of new mexico shared with me, they report ,193 e only received $577 in federal funding to support
7:04 pm
monitor, less than 10% of what my home state believes is needed. in addition, the navajo nation and other impacted communities still need support from the federal government to help recover from this disaster. so again, i look forward to working with both the chairman and the ranking member to ensure that all of the communities impacted by this spill are made whole and that we provide appropriate support to vital water and monitoring efforts in new mexico, colorado, arizona, utah, and the new tribe of the navajo nation. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the squone the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion they have chair he noes have it. >> i would like to request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico will
7:05 pm
e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in ouse report 115-297. it is now in order to consider amendment number 36 printed in ouse report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 36
7:06 pm
printed in house pe port 115-297 offered by mr. beyer of virginia. choir pursuant to the to the resolution 504, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. beyer: this amendment seeks protect our watt systems. they provide shoreline erosion control, recreation, general aesthetic improvement. the text of the bill seekto undermine the critical balance between protecting the watt thearnsd day-to-day operations of our nation's farmest, ranchers and foresters. under current law, farmers, ranchers and foresters can carry out normal operations in any water body without securing a clean water act permit. so what this means is farmers can continue to plowields,
7:07 pm
including potential wet areas that have been farmed were decades, plant seeds, harvest crops, without having to obtain approval under the clean water act. any normal farming, ranch, and will ing exemmingts include some exceptions. for example, a farmer can't use the exemption to turn farmland into a residential development. forestry operations can't use the exemption to change the course of a local stream to improve drainge on growing lands. in short, the way the clean water act currently operates is to allow normal ranching, farming, foresting operations to continue without a permit unless the actities change or convert the use of the water body to a new purpose or impear the flee or strength of a stream. if the planned activity iggers
7:08 pm
any of these limitatns, the current law requires th to to obtain a permit. section 4040 of this bill would in essence find an absolute clean water exemmingts regardless if they have any relation to these activities. mr. chairman this is a fundamental change to the clean water act and one where the impacts have never been explored. when the e.p.a. was asked what the impact of this would be, here was their response -- this amendment would be a significant departure from almost 40 years of implement eags of the clean water act by eliminating the requirement that exemptions apply only to normal as in established or ongoing farming or practices this could result in the loss or impairment of thousands of acres of water we are wetlands. we should not be using an appropriations bill to change federal policy related to the protection of our nation's
7:09 pm
rivers and streams. to the best of my knowledge, no hearings or investigations on the impacts of this provision have been held. if this congress is interested in overturning almost 40 years of clean water act precedent, regular order would require hearings before the house committee on transportation and infrastructure, which has sole jurisdiction over the clean water act and approval by the committee before consideration on the floor. this rider is bad policy for protection of our environment, for the protection of human health and bad policy for the protection of our public safety. i urge support for my amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. calvert: in 1977, congress made a deliberate choice to exems ordinary farming, ranch, mining related activities from requirements to obtain clean water act permits when undertaken as normal active it is, repair and maintain lands,
7:10 pm
roads, ponds and fisheries. unfortunately we heard concerns for several years that under the obama administration e.p.a. and the corps of engineers changed implementation of these provisions to significantly reduce the application of the statutory exemption. section 430 of the bill makes ear that congress has always intended that stamper to exemptions have meaning, that the agencies cannot ignore the will of congress as set out by law. for these reasons and a number of others, i oppose the amendment and urge a no vote. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: i thank the perspective of the chairman of the appropriations committee on -- subcommittee on this. i think our clear understanding is that the exemptions as currently written allow for all normal farming, ranching, forestry activities and that the permit would only be required when there's a substantial
7:11 pm
difference from the activity that's gone on before. s the way the law has been interpreted and enforced for the last 40 years. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield back and urge a strong no the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. 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 37 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. beyer of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. he chair recognizes the
7:12 pm
gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: my amendment would strike section 431. section 431 does two things. first, it withdraws the clean water rule and second and more importantly, it breaks procedure and creates a loophole so that the removal of the clean water rule does not have to abide by the administrative procedures act. in essence, we're creating a loophole to eliminate a rule. a rule requested by the supreme court and one that took several years to put together. this elimination without allowing tweaks, thoughtful removal or comment is a radical and dangerous precedent. in fact, over 80 members of congress and i actually asked for an extension of the 0-day comment period to eliminate the clean water rule to allow the american people to have a say. the trump administration agreed with us, extended the comment period an additional 30 days. i don't get to say that often. clearly there's a desire for comment period as evidenced by our letter and the administration's decision to appropriately extend the comment period. but the language in this bill
7:13 pm
would eliminate that process completely. is this our new status quo, that once an industry decides it doesn't like how a regulation turns out, we eliminate that regulation without comment or consideration from the various stake holders about its value? we're eliminating a process here that we, congress, put in place to ensure that as regulations were being considered, adjusted or even removed that they were done thoughtfully while keeping stake holders like the american people in mind. it could be any rule but the rule at stake this time is the clean water rule. over 100 members of congress joined me to reinforce the value of the clean water rule. without it, the streams that help supply public will be at risk. rolling back the clean water rule cannot be made in haste. in light of supreme court rulings in 2001 and 2006 about the uncertainty of the scope of the waters protected under the act. a e.p.a. and core held
7:14 pm
lengthy rule making process, 400 meetings across the nation, it reflecked over one million comments, the majority of which supported the clean water rule. we're overruling one million comments and 400 meetings to do this without the appropriate ad mrtive process. if it's withdrawn, i simply ask that the process be comprehensive and deliberative and the bill does not allow for that. with this rule, this time it's the clean water rule, it could be any rule going forward. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california -- mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the rule. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: since day one, the e.p.a.'s watt orse they have u.s. rule has been bad. we know that more permits will be required. the obama administration claimed the rule was based on sound
7:15 pm
science. but only released the science after publishing the rule. the previous administration changed the name to call this the clean water rule. and took to social media to lobby the public which led to questions about whether e.p.a. violated law which g.a.o. later confirmed. it was clear the previous administration had an agenda to implement a rule and they weren't going to be told otherwise. thank think this -- thankfully, the sixth circuit court put a stay on that rule. the language in the f.y. 2018 bill authorizes withdrawal they have watt orse they have u.s. rule and seeks to bring resolution to the issue. the language in this bill is consistent with the steps the new administration has already taken. for that and many other reasons i urge a no vote on the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: i yield one minute to
7:16 pm
the gentlelady from minnesota. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. mccollum: i rise to support this amendment. the rider we're talking about gives an unprecedented amount of mower to the e.p.a. it puts the agency above the law letting it get away with no public comment on its proposals, no economic analysis on the cost an benefit of repeal new york justification for repeal and not having to defend repeal against court challenges. and as congressman pointed out, for some this rider might serve a purpose this time but what about in the future? what do we really want to say cey that it's ok for the executive branch to circumvent laws we create and there's no accountability in our courts? this rider removes the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy. so i support the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: i yield back.
7:17 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back, the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i yield back and urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. 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 it is now in er order to consider amendment number 3. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from minnesota and a member oppose the each will control five minutes -- opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, all americans deserve access to clean air. we have a great deal of progress that we've made in making the air cleaner and reducing pollution. but we should continue to learn
7:18 pm
from the most recent science to continue to improve air quality. instead, this bill delays needed public health protections like the ozone standard. my amendment would strike language that delays the implementation of the new ozone standards until the year 2026. we don't have until 2026 to protect our children's lungs. we don't have until that time to protect our seniors, w.h.o. are most vulnerable to -- who are most vulnerable to respiratory harm. the consequenceses of this pollution are real and significant. especially for ozone pollutants. chronic exposure to ozone at the ground level is dangerous. it increases the risk of hospital admissions and in my district in minnesota we have a real epidemic of respiratory injuries known as asthma. north minneapolis is mostly a community of low-income and color, and has the highest rates of unemployment and poverty and
7:19 pm
asthma. our children deserve better. allowing the implementation of these ozone standards will protect them. i just want to say, mr. speaker, much is said on this house floor about job killing regulations. well, as a person who believes in the right of a business to open up and make a profit, i also believe that that business must absorb the cost that they impose on society as well. this rule says that you can take all the money you can possibly make as you expand an increase ground level ozone, but you don't ever have to pay the cost of the externalities and the health costs you impose on everybody else. so with that, mr. chair, i would reserve the time i have. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota 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 for five minutes. mr. calvert: where i come from, the inland empire, with i --
7:20 pm
which is where i live, my whole life, is part of the south coast air quality basin. which has been a nonattainment ozone for about as long as the federal standard for ozone has existed. it's not for a lack of trying. as the south coast has a long history, actually the longest history of implementing some of the most stringent air pollution control measures in the entire united states. we've done about all we can to reduce emissions from stationary sources. our issue is the amount of cars and trucks traveling through the region. so you'll find no stronger advocate for clean air than myself. which is why this bill funds targeted air share grant programs and dera grants. states and communities need resources to help meet the overlapping 2008 and 2015 air quality standards. to be clear, the language in the bill does not change ozone standards. it gives communities some administrative relief to
7:21 pm
allocate more resources to meeting the 2015 standard of 70 parts per billion. and similar language by the way passed the house in july. therefore i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, to strike. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: the administrative relief sounds like a euphemism for you guys got to keep breathing this bad stuff. with that, mr. chair, i reserve 90 seconds or a minute and a half to mr. lipinski from illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. lipinski: mr. chairman, i first thank the gentleman for yielding. and for his amendment. we all know that ozone is a hazardous pollutant that contributes to health problems such as asthma attacks, heart disease and birth defects. problems that are made worse by climate change. more than 40% of americans,
7:22 pm
almost 130 million people, live in counties that receive an f grade in air quality from the american lung association. this include the district i represent in illinois as well as washington, d.c. this amendment would remove a needless delay in implementation of an ozone rule designed to protect public health. the rule in question involves a modest lowering of the ozone limit from 75 to 70 parts per billion. a small change that would yield large health benefits. including preventing 230,000 asthma attacks in children, and 188,000 missed school and work days each year. this decision to lower the ozone limit was a result of rigorous multiyear processes carried out by expert scientists. i want to urge my colleagues to stand up for the health of our
7:23 pm
constituents and support this amendment. with that, i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, i'd like to share with everybody that over the past several weeks, americans have seen this body try to strip health care away from them, if there was a full repeal with no replace, 32 million people would have been without any health care that they had before and many, many more would be unprotected from pre-existing conditions. that fortunately was held off. but now here we are again today with more attacks and assaults on people's health. when will the congress take people's health seriously and when will we hold businesses accountable who emit toxins that
7:24 pm
cause the ozone lair, the ground to increase -- layer, the ground to increase and cause respiratory illnesses? it's time for the congress to act responsibly in the public interest to make sure that the health of all americans is protected, that people have the right to breathe. let's go forward and eliminate and strip out this language that delays the implementation of the new ozone standards. until many years from now. let's do it now. and i do yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: again, i would reiterate that california has done more to clean air than virtually any other state in the union. based upon its regulatory structure that we created. and i continue to support the technology -- support -- the technology do not exist to meet the standards that were set out by the obama administration.
7:25 pm
so this gives us time to do what we need to do and that is to clean up ose and that's exactly what we're -- ozone and that's exactly what we're going. -- going to do. this is not the amendment that's going to do that. i urge a no vote 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 minnesota. 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. ellison: mr. chairman, we would call for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 39 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lowenthal: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california.
7:26 pm
mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment preserves the national ocean policy. the national ocean policy is a commonsense way to facilitate multistakeholder collaboration on complex ocean issues. and it promotes economic opportunity, national security and environmental protections. mr. chairman, i represent a coastal district in southern california. and i know firsthand that we can have a thriving ocean economy and at the same time protect and conserve our precious ocean resources. off the coast of my district there are marine protected areas, state waters, federal waters and department of defense installations. we are a marine life hot spot.
7:27 pm
some of the best blue whale watching happens a few miles from our shores. we have a booming recreational fishing sector. we have a large shell fish aqua culture ranch that is now operating. we have beautiful beaches. we also have oil and gas activity with some rigs right near our shores. my district is also home to the port of long beach, which is the second busiest port in the united states. with so much activity happening, it simply make sense to have the navy at the table when noaa is working on siting for a new aquaculture installation. it makes sense to have the fishery management council weigh in when oil rigs are being decommissioned. and it's a no-brainer that noaa, the coast guard, and the ports all work together to get those
7:28 pm
massive ships in and out of ports safely. we want these collaborations to happen because we want to have a sustainable ocean economy. and by developing regional plans and having a framework for multistakeholder involvement, we can streamline this process and promote a robust ocean economy that conserves our precious ocean resources. mr. chairman, as we look to the future, the need for an overarching policy only grows. issues like sea level rise and ocean acidification are too big and too serious for any one community or agency to tackle alone. increased aquaculture development and new technologies for clean, local energy are
7:29 pm
creating economic opportunities but must be thoughtfully implemented. prohibiting the allocation of funds to this important program would stifle collaboration, and among all the stakeholders on these complex issues, that as i pointed out before relate to both environmental protection, national security, economic and economic opportunity. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minute. mr. calvert: while i understand the importance of agencies working together to protect our coastal resources for future generations, we must also ensure that such coordination is done carefully. with congressional input. to ensure that it does not lead to federal overreach.
7:30 pm
when the previous administration created the national ocean policy through executive order, the impacts were so broad, so sweeping that it would have allowed the federal government to evaluate everything from agricultural practices, mining, energy production, fishing and anything else with activities impacting our oceans. the subcommittee asked d.o.i. and e.p.a. to provide estimates of the policy on they budget bus the administration failed to work with congress and provide such information. how can congress adequately budget for something without knowing expected expenditures and implication of the policy. the bottom line is, if the administration wants to fund the national ocean policy with such sweeping inch cailings, it must work with congress to provide relevant information and allow congress to provide necessary
7:31 pm
oversight to prevent that federal overreach. with that i support the language of the underlying bill and i encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, is recognized. mr. lowenthal: we just heard an interesting argument that said we should not have -- we should not support or fund the national oceans policy because instead of by executive action it should have been done through congressional legislation. i would remind everyone watching this that prior to the national oceans policy by the previous administration, over the four years before that, four bills were introduced, each one -- two by republican leaders, two by democratic leaders, which did just what was just asked of us,
7:32 pm
to introduce it by the congress. it was never taken up by the congress in the administration prior to president obama. it was -- what was called the oceans conservation education and national strategy for the 21st century act was never heard and that is why it was done through executive action and that is why we need to continue this because without having coordinated ocean policy, because we will have, we will have tremendous problems as we move forward as i pointed out beth in terms of economic opportunity, national security, and also environmental protection. and with that, can i ask how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lowenthal: thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: just because legislation isn't passed in the house and the senate and made into law doesn't mean that the
7:33 pm
president then can go out and create an executive order. we have a constitution and we have a process we must abide by. so with that and for other reasons, i strongly oppose this amendment and urge a no vote 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. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lowenthal: i request a roll call vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 40 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. long: i have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. the chair: the clerk will bezzig date the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 40 printed in house report 11-297, offered by mr. long of missouri. the chair: the gentleman from missouri, mr. long, and a member
7:34 pm
opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. long: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment is very straightforward. it would make clear that two laws enacted several decades ago to manage the after effects of industrial toxic waste spills would not apply to everyday emissions that are simply a way of life on family farms across the country. a court decision earlier this year overturned the e.p.a. exemption for agriculture from row reporting requirements under the superfund emergency planning and community rights to know laws. this court decision means that over 100,000 farmers and ranchers will be forced to report low level odor emissions from livestock and poultry. if farmers and ranchers don't submit these reports they face lawsuits from the government and any citizen who wishes to sue them, subjecting farmers and ranchers to penalties as high as $397 per day for not filing paperwork. farmers will lose time and money
7:35 pm
that would orse be spent growing our nation's food supply. mr. speaker, i think it's important that i note that the obama administration as well as the bush administration defended this exemption. this is not a partisan issue. this is simply a case of reaffirming congressional intent under the law as the e.p.a. already tried to do several years ago. i urge all members to vote in favor of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition many ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: this would prohibit the e.p.a. from requiring agriculture sources to report emissions. the purpose of this amendment is courtcumvent 20 out of 17 decisions that exempted agriculture sources from such reporting. policy riders like this don't
7:36 pm
belong in appropriation bills and the e.p.a. should either accept the court's decision or they should appeal the decision. at a minimum, it doesn't -- something that's this impact bd court policy does not belong as a rider on an appropriations bill. i urgecally -- i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? ms. mccollum: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. long: i yield to the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i'm happy to support this amendment. it was mentioned a recent court decision earlier this year overturned a long-standing e.p. ample exemmings for reporting from farms. family farms and ranchers across the nation shouldn't be burdened with more and more paperwork to do an activity they've been doing for many, many years in this country. that's not what congress intended and congress, last i look, made the laws around here. i support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption
7:37 pm
and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. long: this is a nonpart season issue. i would like to point out that organization of the national association of cera tite 38 officials back in 2012 in an earlier version of a similar amendment had opposed this. back in may 28 of this year, they announced that they are no longer in opposition. so i don't think it's controversial at all. with that, i yield back. choi the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i want to point out that as a state representative and even now as a member of congress i will encounter people, i was just at our state fair but over the years people who have, you know, built homes and tissue in rural areas and contributing to the schools and maybe have soybean
7:38 pm
builtr a community that's up, you know, over the years around farms and all of a sudden a hog farm comes in and people are sick. they're unable to go to work. their children develop, you know, lung issues. and all kinds of problems. and they come and they come to the state or they come to us as members of congress and say, what's going on here? the air is so polluted, it's making me and my family sick, i'm losing my home, i'm losing my investment. so i think that there is a role to have these discussions about hat do we do as communities to make sure that people who live in some of these rural areas all of a sudden find themselves after decades of living in the same area unable to open up their windows on a summer day.
7:39 pm
so as i said, that's why i don't think this policy rider belongs in this bill. i think we need to have a thoughtful discussion on it and really hear out both sides on many of these agriculture issues, especially in rural communities. with that, i yelled back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. 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 41 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. beck: -- mr. buck: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: ealt number 41 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. buck of colorado. the chair: pursuant to
7:40 pm
resolution 504, the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. buck: i rise in support of my amendment to protect private property rights in colorado. it would prohibit the expansion of a heritage area. heritage areas open the door to new land use restrictions that are opposed in this part of my district. i recently held multiple town halls to hear the unique concerns of these rural communities. at the top of their list was the need to cut burdensome red tape that hurt theirs businesses and threatens their way of life. these small family farms an ranches should not be forced to follow new regulations and give control of their private lands to washington, d.c. that's why this amendment is so important. it allows coloradans to keep control of their land. my amendment would only affect nine counties in colorado and protect them from new, unwanted land use restrictions. this amendment passed last year by voice vote and i urge my colleagues to again support the private property rights of these
7:41 pm
farmers and ranchers. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: this amendment prohibits the department of the superior from entering into agreements to protect. this amendment restricts the expansion of natural -- national heritage cor course, national heritage tour reeds and national heritage districts. all these preservation partnerships are important tools that enable the federal government to work with private partners to preserve and to protect our nation's shared heritage. new unfortunately this amendment takes those options off the table for the people in southeastern colorado. w it's my understanding that
7:42 pm
it will prevent the expansion of a federal footprint in his district. but i'd like, mr. chairman, to remind us that the sponsor of the preserve america executive order was issued by president george w. bush, a republican, and it emphasizes public-private partnerships that limit, not extend, federal ownership. and i have worked on some of these corridors and i -- we always make sure that it is a partnership and it is not the federal government coming in and taking over land. it is a partnership that the community comes to the federal government for. if there are specific concerns you have about the federal management in this region, i believe the sponsor should work with the authorizing committee to make sure that they are addressed. and not use the appropriations process to wall off a section of the country from partnering with
7:43 pm
the federal government to preserve its historical and cultural natural resources. these discussions that take place at a local level with sometimes the business community, sometimes it's schools, sometimes it's churches and that come together to talk about what can we do to preserve our cultural history or what can we do to preserve something is driven by local control. i have never attended a meeting once where it was driven by federal control. the federal government has asked to come in to be a partner. i oppose this amendment and i urge my colleagues to vote no. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves, the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. buck: i yield to the subcommittee chair such time as he needs. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman. we are happy to accept your amendment in the last year and we'll be happy to support it again this year. with that, i urge passage and
7:44 pm
yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. buck: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: i just really think that we need to better utilize in this congress in this institution, our policy committees. they should be the first call for help if there's questions if there's concerns if there's adjustments that need to be made. not the appropriations committee where there's been no hearing on this. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. buck: thank you. this amendment will protect private property rights in southeast colorado. these families have worked for generations to maintain their land. they should not lose their livelihoods because of restrictions from washington, d.c. i yield back. the chair: 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. he amendment is agreed to.
7:45 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 42 printed in ouse report 115-297. it's now in order to consider amendment number 43 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 204, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed each will control five minute. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. chairman, i have the amendment, it was included in the house fiscal year of
7:46 pm
2017, which prohibits funds in this act to be used to implement the obama administration's national park service rule that interferes with state wildlife management authority on national preserve lands of alaska. mr. chairman, when we became a state, we were guaranteed to have management on all federal lands and state lands on fish and wildlife management. under the obama administration, they tried to do differently. on the wildlife lands. and now they're trying to do it on the b.l.m. lands and the park preserves. not the parks themselves. so i'm suggesting respectfully, if you want to follow the law, you adopt this amendment. as is proposed. and we will be able to manage lands we were guaranteed by this congress to the state of alaska. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which undercuts an important rule meant to protect our public lands and the
7:47 pm
species that inhabit them. the national park service has an important mission, which is, i'm quoting here, to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. ms. jayapal: as a result of this mission, the national park service has implemented an important rule that protects a variety of species critical to the ecosystem in our national preserves in alaska. in 1994, alaska did pass a law that undercut those efforts by allowing for extreme predator control. which led to fringe practices that could hardly be called traditional hunting. now, the other side may argue that this amendment is a state rights issue, but that's simply not true. these are federal lands and are therefore subject to federal regulation. these national lands are intended to be enjoyed by all americans, including those who visit and hope to have the rare opportunity to see bears and wolves in their natural habitat. now to be clear, mr. chairman,
7:48 pm
the rule that this amendment aims to reverse is not intended to ban hunting in its entirety. the rule simply regulates that there be no use of bait, which has been as extreme as grease-soaked doughnuts and bacon, allowing for point-blank shots. no use of artificial light to spotlight black bear dens. no killing bear cubs, no killing pups or wolves and coyotes during the dening season. no hunting of big game that is swimming. no use of dogs to hunt big game. and no predator control simply for the purpose of increasing stocks for human consumption. now, these are reasonable regulations that prevent cruel hunting practices. let us be very clear, mr. chairman. that reversing this rule would actually be thumbing our noses at the voices of tens of thousands of citizens who took part in a public comment period process that was extensive. before the rule's adoption, the national park service held two separate comment periods which resulted in 26 public hearings.
7:49 pm
two teleconferences and two tribal meetings. more than 70,000 public comments were received and the majority of those supported the existing rule. ignoring this process and the thoughtful public input would be a major slight to the democratic process and to everyone who participated. these processes are in place to ensure that the voice of the people is heard and circumventing this is unacceptable. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i yield to my good chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman. i understand the specific rule is now being reconsidered by the department of interior, which is a good thing. and i encourage my colleague -- colleagues to support the young amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i rarely do this but i'm deeply disappointed in my good lady from washington.
7:50 pm
doesn't know a damn thing what she's talking about. this was a preserve, we guaranteed this. no more. no more. in the state, under the constitution -- and the state, under the constitution, has the right to manage fish and game. i know your side doesn't believe in states' rights. you don't. i do. my job is to protect my state. not your state. my state. and what you said a while ago was really nonsense. it was written by an interest group, not yourself, maybe your staff is affiliated with the humane society or some other group. i'm disappointed. my native people support this amendment. ou talk about natives. alaskans, the first americans, support this amendment. and i really am disturbed. you may not know me, young lady. but i'm deeply disturbed.
7:51 pm
i am still talking. ms. jayapal: the gentleman has already inpuned my votives by saying that i don't know a damn thing about what i'm talking about. he's now called me young lady. and, mr. chairman, i ask that he take down his words. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will take a seat. the clerk will report the words.
7:52 pm
7:53 pm
7:54 pm
7:55 pm
7:56 pm
mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my offending
7:57 pm
words. and to the lady, i do apologize. i get very defensive about my state. you know, we've gone through these battles for the last actually 45 years. and we're a state. and i have my people to represent, as you do yours. so i do apologize for my statement. i recognize it was out of order. so i hope you accept my apology. the chair: without objection. ms. jayapal: i thank the gentleman from alaska. i do accept your apology. i thank you for it. we have obviously some work to get to know each other. but i can tell you that i care about my state as deeply as you do. and i look forward to getting to know you. mr. young: i thank the lady. the chair: without objection, the words of the gentleman are taken down. mr. young: mr. chairman, i urge the passage of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's words are stricken from the record. the gentleman from alaska has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. young: i yield back the balance of my time. i urge the passage of my
7:58 pm
amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. and has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. chairman. let me continue by saying that the reason i do feel strongly about this is we also believe that this amendment would be bad for the economy and for the people who depend on it. every year wildlife watchers contribute more than $2 billion towards the economy. and according to the national park service in 2016 $2.8 -- 2.8 million park visitor spent an estimated $2.8 billion in local gateway regions, while visiting national park service lands in alaska. these expenditures supported a total of 18,900 jobs. 644.7 million dollars in labor income. $1.1 billion in value added. and $1.9 billion in economic output in the alaska economy. i do believe, and the reason i'm speaking soup strongly about this, we all have very strong perspectives on all sides, i do believe that we must do
7:59 pm
everything we can to preserve our natural lands and their inhabitants. particularly as climate change takes its toll all over the country and the world. in my home state of washington, which i care deeply about, wildfires are destroying thousands of acres of land and threatening homes, while across the country residents of houston are reeling from hurricane harvey and floridians brace for hurricane irma. we need to invest in our public lands for all americans, so that generations in the future can continue to enjoy the beauty that our country has to offer. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. jayapal: may i have a roll call vote, mr. chairman? the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska will be postponed.
8:00 pm
it's now in order to consider amendment number 44 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. young: mr. chairman, my amendment, which was d.c. the chair: the clerk will suspend. does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. young: i do, i'm sorry. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. . mr. young: mill amendment was included in the this year's appropriation bill prohibits to use funds to change their plaster mining plans. alaska is one of the few places left in the united states

9 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on