tv Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton CSPAN July 12, 2016 11:45pm-12:52am EDT
drol. r. byrne: mr. byrne: i represent coastal alabama and aye spent my entire life living on the gulf coast. like many of my friends and neighbors, my family has always enjoyed fish, swim, boating, and spending time in the gulf of mexico. it's safe to say that living on the gulf becomes a way of life. for some the gulf provides economic well being. no one is a better steward of the shores and waters than those of white house live and work on the gulf. since the water provides our way of life and our economic well being, we're going to do everything we can to protect and preserve our resources. we don't need the federal government to tell us what to do. that is why i'm so concerned by the national ocean policy which was created under president obama's executive order number
13547 in 2010. the policy requires that various bureaucracies work together to, quote, zone the ocean, close quote, and the sources thereof, largely affecting the ways in which we utilize our ocean resources. the national ocean policy is executive overreach at its very worst. the policy not only restricts ocean and inland activities but redirects federal money away from congressional directed priorities for over 0 federal agencies that meet as part of the national ocean council, tasked with implementing the national ocean policy. a council that has no statutory authority to exist and -- and no congressional appropriation. numerous and varied industries will suffer as a result of this well-meaning but ill conceived policy, including but not limited to agriculture, energy, fisheries, mine, and marine retail enterprises just to name a few. those who are affected most by
the policy don't have a say or any representation in the rule making process. there is no current system of oversight in place for the regional planning agencies created as an arm of the national ocean council. i urge my colleagues to stand up for our coastal community, say no to more executive overreach and support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. any member wishing to claim time in opposition. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> i rise in opposition to the bipartisan-floor rest amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in opposition. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chairman. ities agree with my colleague, i think the national ocean policy is a vital tool we have to make sure our coastal communities and stake holders work together and coordinate their ideas and make plans to achieve local goals, i think we need to recognize the importance of our oceans and ocean plans. unfortunately, each year we come
to the floor of this body on various appropriation bills to defend the vital work of the national ocean policy. we have debated over 10 riders on this issue in the -- over 15 riders on this issue in the past two cornings. instead we should be talking about the progress our local communities are making. in new england we're making progress and this year we have the new england regional ocean plan to be proud of. no process is perfect, i'll give you that but at least we've begun the discussion. fishermen, lobstermen and others have been included in the development of these voluntary regional ocean plans. i urge my colleagues to oppose this misfwided attempt to stop national ocean policy and the important work it does. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. byrne: we've heard the phrase land grab, this is an ocean grab. this is dictate by the federal government to people who live along the coast of the united states of america. it's time to take our oceans and
the watter of the united states back, not for the bure rat contracts in washington but for the people of the united states. that's who actually own this is water. not some faceless bureaucrat in washington who wants to tell us what to do. so i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and take back control of our oceans for the people of the united states and not allow it to be directed by bureaucrats in washington who couldn't care less what we feel like on the coast. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chairman, i yield a minute and a half to my good friend and colleague from rhode island, mr. langevin. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. langevin: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment and support of the national ocean policy established by president obama, an issue also championed by our junior senator from rhode island, senator white house. -- senator whitehouse.
this is an excellent fample of how the government engages and partners with our states. we recently celebrated the release of the draft ocean plan management for waters off the coast of new england. since 2012, they've worked to build a plan responsive to our re's needs. this type of collaboration would not only have been tissue would not have been possible without the implementation of national ocean policy which requires agencies to work together in a more efficient and collaborative manner. due to this important program, we are now moving toward a more effective use of our common ocean resources. mr. chairman, our oceans are enjoyed and utilized by beach goers, commercial fishermen, boaters, recreational anglers, wind farms and others. with proper collaboration, these mixed uses can thrive. i ask all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment by supporting national ocean policy -- to support this amendment. by supporting national ocean
policy, we can continue to engage and ensure that our ocean is sustainable for years to come. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: can you give me a sense of how much time we have left. the chair: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. pingree: thank you mr. chairman, thunge my colleague from rhode island for once again describing what is a very important policy. i have to disagree with my colleague from alabama, mr. byrne. i do not think this is federal top-down. i think this is better decision make, bottoms up, not top down, it gives opportunities for local communities to have input. i want to state, we spend no money on ocean planning. the n.o.p. does not create any federal regulations or supersede any local or state regulations. but what it does do is it leverages taxpayer dollars to reduce duplication between federal, state and local agencies, to streamline data collection and strengthen public
involvement. that's what we want to have happen in our coastal communities. our oceans and coasts support three million ocean related jobs, generate 360 billion dollars through development, regular rational fish, boat, energy, shipping and other activities. this is a very effective planning tool to reconcile and coordinate those activities. it does not prevent them. and just in closing i will say that my colleague from alabama may look at this one way but i represent the state of maine which has a tremendous amount of coastline. i represent about half the coastline off the coast of maine and i've represented many astal communities prior to coastal communities. i live on an island. every person many any community is feint on the ocean. every coastal community has to have a working water front. it has to have tourism, fishing, all of them working together. i don't think that in the state of maine we don't understand
ocean planning. we know our oceans are desperately troubled, they're in danger, they need our attention and congress has to pay attention to that. we can't do this in a haphazard way. we have to have it coordinated. i ask my colleagues to support -- to oppose rider as we have many, many times and to support national ocean policy. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. all time for debate having ceased, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. ms. pingree: on that, i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in house report 114-683, for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota rise? mr. cramer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will bezzig date -- designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 51
offered by mr. cramer of north dakota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north dakota. mr. cramer: mr. chairman , in february of 2014, the united states fish and wildlife service issued an advance notice of proposed rule making called, and it's important to know what it's called, management of nonfederal oil and gas rights. in december of last year, the proposed rule was posted and comments were due in february of this year. mr. chairman, states, states, not the federal government, states largely regulate oil and gas operations, except in circumstances where the federal government has ownership of the mineral rights. that obviously is not the case in this rule given this title. where there is federal ownership it's the bureau of land management that has regulatory authority and for an agency that has hundreds of personnel and
decades of experience, even they have a hard time keeping up with the work load and maintaining adequate expertise in their agency. but mr. chairman, not only do states have the authority and the expertise to regulate oil and gas industry, they have the most natural and obviously incentive to do it well. the state regulators live in the states where the minerals reside. now the u.s. fish and wildlife service does not have the personnel or the expertise to regulate oil and gas operations as demn straited by g.a.o. recommendations. concerns outlined by the fish and wildlife service are concerns addressed by several other regulatory bodies including state regulators. therefore any attempt by fish and wildlife service to also regulate would be redundant and duplicative. enough already with redundant and duplicative regulations. the added regulation will only serb to increase the delays and costs to u.s. energy producers
and consequently ultimately to the consumers. mr. chairman, my amendment simply prevents funding to move this job-killing rule any further and i encourage my colleagues to support job by voting yes on my amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves. does any member seek time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition to the amendment. >> the objectives of this new rule are to improve the effectiveness of the regulations, so that they can protect refuge resources and values and provide clarity for both operators and the service. mr. kilmer: updating this regulation avoids regulatory uncertainty, provide manager clarity and guidance to oil and gas operators and refuge staff, instituting a simple process for compliance and incorporating tech in logical improvements and
exploration in drilling technology ensures that nonfederal oil and gas operations are conducted in a manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to federal resources. this makes huge advances in allowing nonfederal oil and gas operations to occur on these the landse protecting for future generations. i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cramer: i would respond to my colleague's concerns by stating that the concerns he raises and the -- and that the fish and wildlife raises are legitimate concerns but they're concerns being addressed by other regulatory bodies, including states who have the legal authority and expertise as well as the natural incentive to toyota well. it is where they live. i think it's also important to understand that it's sort of private property law 101 that
the minerals are often bifurcated from the surface. that's the case that we're talking about. in that case, at least in north dakota, the minerals supersede the surface rights. so this rule conflicts with not only common sense but even with basic private property law and i again would just urge a yes vote and assure my colleagues that the concerns raised are being addressed by other regulatory bodies. duplication is not necessary. i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. kilmer: i would just point out that what this rule is about is nonfederal operators operating on refuge lands. i think part of our job should be making sure the fish and wildlife service can do their job. with that, again, i oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north dakota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it.
he amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 52 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. draw -- mr. crawford: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 52 printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. crawford of oregon. the chaplain: the gentleman from arkansas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: i offer this amendment in support of companies that continue to feel the heavy hand of e.p.a. regulations. he spill prevention spcc regulations fail to take into account the relative risk of oil spills on farms and they do not recognize the simple fact that family farmers are already
careful stewards of the land and water. it's clear that no one has more at stake in the health of their land than those who work on the ground from which they derive their livelihoods. even if e.p.a. wants to ignore commonsense, the e.p.a. studied the risk of oil spills on farms determined that 99% of farmers had never experienced a spill. they made modifications to the exemption threshold and required e.p.a. to go back to the drawing board to determine how to balance the needs of small producers with the spill risk. instead they defied congress' wishes and put together a study without evaluating risk specific to agriculture. it offered the same unsubstan and could not cite a spill and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas.
the gentleman from washington. >> i claim time in opposition fplgts this prohibits the e.p.a. against farms giving special treatment. this rule is not on the type of operation upon the storage of oil or petroleum products. d would reach waterways, you fall under these waterways. now some large farm operations a e fuel and cannot have spill plan. and make the plan. they amended its rule for facilities includeding farms
avoiding the expense. e.p.a. provideded a template for a plan. come ploins is not difficult. about 95% of farms subject to the rule are subject to the rule m this amendment to have devastating con see sceneses and a i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. >> they make a significant investment and disregard to the overwhelming safeguards. mr. crawford: and it would aon the farmers and ranchers and without having to worry about costs and red tarp. on three separate occasions they
passed the fuels act which rolled back which passed the interior and i reserve at this time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. >> i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington has a right to reserve. >> i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. >> i reiterate our opposition. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. thaferede. those opposed, no. he amendment is agreed to. now in order to consider amendment number 5 .
>> i have and amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number printed offered by mr. crawford of arkansas. the chair: mr. crawford and the chair recknuse owes the gentleman from ar cab saw. >> i thank the gentleman. it prohibits the e.p.a. for using funds norm alley as the anticipate act. ey engaged in grassroots act to the waters, a vast expansion. the g.a.o. found it went to length to online tools for the rule and persuade the members of
congress. and it occurred during a ritical time when it was finalizing the rules. and it reached 1.8 million people. ot only did the e.p.a. write the message and failed to identify itself as the author. nd hyper linchinging its grassroots effort. and contacting the members of letter. using a form ese were in an effort to undermine even though the g.a.o. clearly violated the law and nobody was health accountable to prevent this from happening
again. the chair: anyone wish to claim time in opposition? >> i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: maybe the ntleman is aware there is an a prohibition for employees lobbying. in my opinion this is unnecessary and redundant and federal employees are not prohibiting from giving information. t there must be an important program and that programs achieve their goals. a hould not operate in
vacuum. at this time, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota reservings. >> there are two specific violations by the e.p.a. that i violate the act and as ndicated, the agencies have to prohibits them from to influence the public. and it will prevent agencies om undermining congress that interfr. he amendment serves as a reminder of its constitutional roll. it is responsible for writing the laws and i urge my cool etion to support this. the chair: the gentlelady from
minnesota. ms. mccollum: there is a rohibition from lobbying and has been in mace. the federal employees breaks that, they will have to be accountsable. and there is is overriders. i urge my colleagues to oppose and i israel back. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair. the ayes have it. he amendment is aadoptedment for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois secretary recognition. pursuant to -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: offered by mr. rodney
davis of illinois. house r: pursuant to resolution 80 each will control 0 minutes. >> it is unfortunate that i have to offer this amendment. it was set up to specifically deal with members of congress and our staff and the different committees that all of us populate to answer questions ap in a speech that was laid out ap i'm willing go to condense it. authored ars ago, i language to deal with agriculture. to make sure that someone here in washing d.c. was actually to be at the table to be at the
table to deal with oil spills d but mr. speaker, mr. chairman, since the public the e.p.a. has failed to appoint bun single person. and 0 questions has been given after the administrator of the e.p.a. and we have yet to yet goat to a single response and i questions in numerous questions and we get nothing. it is an unfortunate situation that we have to go to the stream send a only way we can
response. it's wrong. their lack of respect i not only unconstitutional and i respond. do you respond? ms. mccollum: i want the gentleman to know i share your frustration and to your amendment is going to get everybody's attention but your amendment restricts the information provided by the's by eliminating by the office of and sometimes i agree with them but we have a dial ocean being go zigs i nd to make believe congress should have
information and they are not responding to you so i hear your passion in this and i share your frustration and i would suggest that we work together to figure ut ways to hold dialogue and put a bright spot on lit. and with that, i'm going to this yield back. the chair:. the gentlelady yields whack. >> i appreciate her frustration to i would hope you advocate give deer oovespodges. it's individual congressional responses and there is such a lack of action that i didn't fake this amendment lightly.
we came to the floor because ere is a lack of respect and constitutional response pilt. and i have 1 people on this letter to the e.p.a. that is ted june 14 of this year wondering why they haven't a ponetted to the science aboard and it waist written. i hate to do this amendment but t's the only way we can send a message a congress means business and the constitution gives us that. and i urge a yes viet and i yield back. the chair: all time for the debate. offered. on is on the
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. it is endment is adopted . now in order to consider house number 57. >> cleck the clerk: amendment number 57 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed ill each control five minutes. mr. goodlatte: i urge to rise support to bright their own water quality plan. prohibits the e.p.a. from using the daily load in the
implementation plan to high jack he strategy. nd for the six states in the watershed that can enter. the e.p.a. has given every state an ultimatum. e.p.a. a threat of an takeover. . it was intended to be a collaborative approach in which the state and e.p.a. worked together. it was not meant to be subject to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats in washington, d.c. therefore my amendment instructs the e.p.a. to respect the role states play in implementing the clean water act. i want to make it leer my amendment woult not stop e.p.a.
from working with the states to restore the chesapeake bay, nor would it undermine the cleanup efforts already under way. my language only removes the ability of the e.p.a. to take over a state's plan or to take retaliatory actions against a state if it does not meet e.p.a. mandated goals. again, it ensures states' rights remain intact and not usurped by the e.p.a. it's important to point out the correlation between the e.p.a.'s outrageous watts of the united states rule and the bay tmdl. at the heart of both is the e.p.a.'s desire to control water quality improvement efforts throughout the country and punish all those who dare to oppose them. mr. chairman, the bay is a national treasure. i want to see it restored. we know in order to achieve this goal, the states and e.p.a. must work together. the e.p.a. cannot be allowed to railroad the states and micromanagement the process. with this amendment we're
telling the pemplet a. to inspect the important role states play in implementing the clean water act and implementing another federal water grab. i reserve the balance of my type. choi the gentleman reserves. does any member seek time in opposition in the gentleman from washington. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. kilmer: this amendment would allow those who pollute the chets peek bay to ignore the e.p.a.'s water quality standards. we final have have an administration that made the chesapeake bay a priority by providing water standards and providing financial assistance to thep them meet the new standard. this amendment would also put the funding at risk. the federal funding is tied to requirements for results. how long do you think the states and localities will meet the obligations they agreed to last sess in a -- last december if the financial federal assistance
gos away. if this amendment were to become law it would block e.p.a.'s ability to enforce the court rdered settlement, requiring them to meet requirements. in the end, operators should be responsible for controlling the pollution that they dump into our rivers and streams across this country both for the chesapeake an elsewhere. the courts have sided with the e.p.a. on this matter and i would urge defeat of this amendment and reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2. mr. gad loot: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, chame of the agriculture subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank the gentleman for his leadership with this amendment this amendment is meant to
address really the overreach, a punitive approach that the e.p.a. is taking, intervening itself within a process that the states are taking the leadership of cleaning up a treasure, the chesapeake bay. we're not talking about taking away funding. as chairman of the conservation and forestry subcommittee, there are significant conservation dollars that go into clean water sheds, it's part of the jurisdiction of the subcommittee i chair in this house on the agriculture committee. this amendment is identical to one approved by the house last year in consideration of the interior appropriations bill, mr. speaker. i've been hearing since 2009 from my constituents, many of which own farms, about the significant challenges and the cost of the chesapeake beto tall maximum day lay load, or tmdl, mandate. these extend to the state and local governments because the billions of dollars in direct cos and new regulatory burdens the tmdl imposes. the agriculture committee
conservation and forestry subcommittee which i chair has listened to the concerns of stake holders over the last few congresses. while each and every one of heartedly sses whole supports the restoration of the chesapeake bay, there remains concern with the inconsistent models and the welcome of needed flexibility when implementing the watershed implementation plan or wips. this amendment is needed in order to allow for that flexibility at the state and local levels. pennsylvania has been innovative in our efforts to do our part for the bay restoration. that innovation will continue into the future. however, rather than acting punitively, the e.p.a. must work collaboratively with the states. i strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from washington. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from virginia.
mr. good lat: i yield mist -- mr. goodlatte: i yield myself the balance of my time. this does not remove the tmdl or watershed implementation plan. it only removes the retaliatory actions proposed by the e.p.a. those who oppose this amendment are right that the states have made great strides. the states have made great strides. why continue to threaten them with e.p.a. takeover of their water quality plan. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. kilmer: i'd just say in closing a few things. one, our country has some extraordinary gems an the chesapeake bay is one of them this language was rightfully pointed out was part of a bill last year but that language was removed in conference. part of the reason it was removed in conference is this is part of a court ordered settlement where water quality standards were established and
financial assistance was tied to results. if this amendment were to pass, i think it puts in jeopardy that funding and puts in jeopardy one of our nation's true gems. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate having closed, 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 ayes have it. pursuant to rule -- clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 48 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have amendment number 58 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dez egg nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 58 printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed each will control five minute. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i rise to offer a simple amendment to protect private water rights and prohibit the e.p.a.'s attempt to expand clean water regulation beyond what congress has intened. this amendment prohibits the use of funds to carry out the draft e.p.a. usgs technical report entitled protecting aquatic life from hydrologic alteration that aims to expand the scope of the clean water act and federal control over waters currently under the jurisdiction of states. a march 1, 2016, scientific investigations report from the environmental protection agency argues that the clean water act is the e.p.a. -- gives the e.p.a. the authority to regulate not just the quality of watter of the u.s. but also the quantity and amount of water in the water system. the management of water rights and allocation quantities from all natural streams, lakes and other collections is an authority enshrined in state constitution and compacts across the west. legal protections explicitly designed to exclude interference from the federal government. under the expanded scope of the
authority the e.p.a. suggests in their report that the federal government should require an individual -- could require an individual private water own oh local municipality any time they alter the amount of water available in streams or other water systems. in their comments on the draft report, the family farm alliance stated that, quote, the report relies heavily on concepts rather than real science and that legal strategies advocated in the report could embolden some regulators and special interest groups to seek full requirements on water projects even if doing so has no support in federal or state law. unfortunately, this is par for the course for the obama administration, to push an economically dast louse ayenta at the expense of science, the rule of law, and basic common sense. in their statement endorsing my amendment, americans for tax reform explained, quote, american citizens cannot afford more economic hurdles and the commandeer offering state powers over precious water supplies
from an overso louse, unaccountable federal government. states, local governments an private water rights holders should not be subjected to such costly and you are burdensome federal overreach, end of quote. in addition, the family farm alliance and the american tax -- americans for tax reform dozen os national, regional and local organizations have endorsed my amendment to rein in federal overreach and experience -- express serious concerns regard willing ethe e.p.a.'s dubious report. the u.s. chamber of commerce said the chamber is concerned they'll use these arguments to further expand jurisdiction over land and water features without proper constitutional authority. the national association of conservation echoed the same, saying that nacd believes the report attempts to expand clean water beyond congress' intent. another group stated it constitutes rue making in the
form of guidance. saying it's vague and ambiguous. in my home state, the arizona farm bureau stated not only is this federal joach reach but it becomes a bureaucratic and lo case call nightmare for individual and businesses. i think the moe haw see livestock association -- mojave livestock association summed it up best then they said, the last more rules.d is i'm honored that the amendment is supported by americans for limbed government thembing american public power association, americans for tax reform, the council for citizens against government waste, the family farm alliance, the national association of conservation district the national water resources association and countless other organizations and individuals throughout the country. my amendment prohibits the e.p.a. from implementing, administering or enforcing their misguided attempt to jew surp water states rights and control.
i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i thank the chairman and ranking member for their time, for their good work on this bill, a with -- and with that i reserve. choi any member seeking time in opposition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. alter the: this would draft published by the e.p.a. on march 1, 016. this draft technical report is not a policy. it's not guidance. it's in the a criteria document. it shows no advocacy. doesn't require states to do anything. this technical document provides information to help states and tribes and territories and water resource managers and other stake holders actually understand how water flows impact water quality and gives examples of what some states have chosen to do to address flow concern.
e.p.a. and usgs collaborated to develop this report in response to state and e.p.a. reeblingal requests. the draft report had 105 tai comment period which closed on june 17, 2016, receivemark 100 submissions from federal and state partner, mining around farming associations and other highly engaged stake holers. now that the comment heered has ended, they'll consider the comments and revise the document and publish a final document which will serve as a source of technical information for states, tribes, territories an other stake holders. why would we prohibit producing a resource document? the e.p.a. is targeting the release date for the final publication as september 30, 2016, the end of fiscal year 2016, meaning the final report will supersede the prohibition on the draft technical report in the fiscal year 2017 bill. this draft technical document received extensive internal and external technical peer review by scientists with expertise in
environmental flow. if the report is not finalized, states won't be able to benefit from critical scientific information nor the effective solutions shared by other states. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: as i said, it is well established legal doctrine that the constitution and the clean water act strictly limit the federal government's authority to usurp state water rights and come paggets. i urge my colleagues to join me in protecting state authority, private property rights and reining in yet another e.p.a. federal overreach. i urge a yes vote on gosar amendment 58 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. kilmer: thank you, chairman. i would again say in close,s that draft technical report that doesn't set policy, doesn't set guidance, doesn't have advocacy, doesn't require states to do anything. this is a resource document and i don't know why we'd prohibit producing a resource document. with that, i will yield back.
the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. all time for debate having ceased, the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. ayes ayes -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is dopped. - is . e chair: amendment number 61 62.in order in krt number for what purpose does the gentleman from welftswe. zregget the will amendment.
ms. jenkins: pursuant to house resolution 820. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. ms. jenkins: what it would do is preserve our glass manufacturers from e.p.a. overregular rage. the small businesses and employes less that 50 employees churches and art is and products. est virginia has a proud tradition. n fact one of the oldest traditions iin my district sm
they are prized by cleggetors and been happeneded down. sense.give you a lonial west burg the eplacepment h glass and jackie kennedy used the glass at the white house. chapel. t. pat particular's ca treed dral and it has given out to thery sip yepts. this is proud tradition and that is now in jeopardy. it is facing changes that would make it tharder. he e.p.a. is considering
resizing to make the harder to industries to make it hard. nd make the furnances. e rules for bigger glass these es which produce glasses. i urge my support to protect our mall and our he chair: yasm washington is recognized. the gentleman from is recognized. >> this would and e.p.a. arsenic and s to
schools. e should be shielding shes communities instead the necessary ases. out and i urge my oppose this. >> there are curp regular layings but the exemptions from the curp regulations are for the ass regulation and produce a ertain amount. they are lookic to change those regulations and we are just
trying to success stein and remaine or contain in the current law the exemptions for we are urn answeres and rage to maintain the current exemptions and lookic to exemptions and the sol be jeopardizes that mean much. i encourage support and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. >> i have seen much of this glass work and it is improsecutors i have and and i that are a lot about kids
to are not exposed pollutants. the chair: the question is on theamendment offered by the entleman is recognized washington. those in favor say aye. consider n to amendment number 3. >> i rise as the december ig florida of mr. jolly. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report offered by ms. deprame of florida. >> i would like to recognize mr. jolly and mr. clawson who are my
good friends. would like to remind my col ease that it passed lastier. you know and who have visit the florida and enjoyed our beautiful beaches, sunshine, water, white sands and i don't en to brag but we brive in a paradise . the federal government has listened and drig in the ghusk. hat would protect beaches by protestening the drilling. con servingses oppose it.
and i'm proud to work with mr. jolly and mr. clausen on this important amendment and i hope you enjoy us. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. >> i rise in opposition of the amendment. >> this dove tailings therefore the amendment is a negs for this year and i urge a no vote. rsh in is to strengthen the ban sawi was on the beaches and washing on the shoors
and they don't want ta have this this on our military and this is omething in a bipartisan nailt was approved last year and i would reyes, sir it woo be pproved pi voice vote gts. the speaker pro tempore: mr. calvert: we already have a dr more torium in effect. this has be a long-standing consensus that for military as well as milk reasons should be strengthed and and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment.
theaped. those opposed, no. >> i like would like to ask tore the yeas and nays. it is now many order to consider amendment 4. >> mr. king: i have an amendment by the detching. the clerk: printed in house report 16 4 offered by mr. king of iowa. mr. king: any amendment is an amendment that i have brought in past years none of the funds may fister to implement, in of bchart of chapter four
the davis backon act. it was passed in the early 19 of 9 's and it was going in the difficult presentation years. ash it happened to be blockic the black workers and brought to it isa house remember and the books and imposes the prevailing wage. and since 1975. e have dealt with the brickon- wage scale and every single roject but brings about in efficiencies because of the
confusion that is there and machine to jump have machine. that is one ig. here are many numbers that are lames from 8% to 5% and does not reflect the revailing wage and this is something that this congress has to come to grips to it. i reserving the ball aps of my time. the chair: who is seeking time in op significance? ms. mccollum: i claim in time in opposition. over the past few years we have should waivever we
wages and the congress has reject the these efforts for fair labor standards. and it's a fair bun. the davis-bacon act protects the government. decent wage. on workers be made less in the community and i want to stress this again. it requires every contractor in which the government is in a ovision defining the labor others and mcknicks. this law has helped workers and
there is no need to aban dan those workers. and i reserving. . . the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: the actual application of the davis-bacon act is not a fair labor standard, not when you have some hacks that sit in a room once a year and decide whether and who gets how much of a raise. it's not free enterprise. it's not merit. it's based on back room deals. it's based on imposing union scale and making the taxpayers pay for that and if i don't hear that this year, it's the first year i haven't heard it and that is the target -- and that is the argument that the quality of the work isn't there. the honor of our employees for 41 years and other shop employees is on the line. we meet plans and specifications. they are federal projects, they are inspected, and the standard
of the work is indy certainable except we don't have union squabbles on our jobs. wage that is necessary to get good hope. weapon we keep our workers on year round, so do the merit shop people i know. so often i hear from the other side of the aisle that the federal government has no business interfering in a relationship between two or more consenting adults. this is one of those cases. it's a contract of labor between the employer and employee, the federal government needs not be involved in that. when they are, it invariably cost the taxpayers more money. we can dredge five harbors instead of four. we can repair five locks and dams instead of four. if we pass this amendment. why would we, with the starvation of resources to our interior, why would we deny those resources the most efficient application? so i urge the adoption of my
amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota. how ccollum: can i inquire much time i have left? the chair: the gentlelady has three and a half minutes. ms. mccollum k i would like to yield a minute to my colleague from washington, mr. kilmer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kilmer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i oppose this amendment because i support davis-bacon. studies have shown that davis-bacon actually doesn't increase cost to taxpayers, but what happens is that it -- if this amendment were to pass, you'd see a reduction in wages, you would see an increase with these protections from davis-bacon being pulled away, an increase on on the job injuries. you'd have fewer work wers health benefits. davis-bacon is about preventing wage exploitation, preventing undercutting local wings. this is about ensuring when the
federal government builds a project with taxpayer money that it's not just about building a road or a bridge or a facility it's about building the middle class and it's about building the next generation of works. it's about providing train, providing a good wage for people to be able to live and earn a good living and live with dignity. with that, i yield become. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i have to say in contradiction to the gentleman that just spoke, on the job injuries, i don't know what would that support that, that has to do with your safety precautions and the culture of the company. the fewer benefits side, i think it goes the other way. davis-bacon requires that you add dollars into this federal mandated union scale to pay benefits an when that happens, you're paying a benefit figure, a dollar figure to the employees rather than say, health
insurance package that's going to take care of them far better in the long term. i point out also that today we had testimony from the secretary of transportation, from the state of oklahoma, secretary gary ridley who said that they run into this, the inefficiency driven by davis-bacon, you've got as many as three or more different pay scales on a project that hay stretch six or eight or 10 miles, they have different pay scales. contractors have to keep track of who crosses that line in which machine. the most important thing is that the taxpayers are paying an unnecessary premium for projects that we could be far ahead of where we are right now if we hadn't had all these years of davis-bacon wage scale and i reiterate it's ironic that it's the democrats always on the floor defending the last jim crow law on the books. it's time to get rid of the last jim crow law on the books.
let the taxpayers be the ben fish yiferse this. i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i would like to point out that many claim davis-bacon increases taxpayers cost but there's not a study that proves that. in fact a study showed that prevailing wage laws not only did not raise construction costs but repealing those hurt workers. after kansas wage laws were repealed, wages fell 11%, job site injuries rose 19%. highway construction costs are higher when workers are paid less according to an analysis of the federal highway administration data by construction labor research council. the study showed that the cost to build one mile of highway in $1.65 per hour
compared to lower wages of $9.75 an hour. on arch money was saved on verage by higher productivity. people better productive -- productivity, better wages. in wisconsin, a study of the state's prevailing wage law showed that potential save frgswabling cuts were never outweighed by the cost of income to communities. annual cost of repealing the law has estimated between $123 million in lost income and net tax re-knews to a loss of $6.8 million. in missouri a similar study showed a los loss -- a loss to the state of $380 million to $284 million. cost overruns are more likely without prevailing wages. as a member of the democratic farmer labor party, i urge my colleagues to oppose the king amendment and to pe