Skip to main content

tv   David Cameron Holds Final Prime Ministers Questions  CSPAN  July 13, 2016 10:24pm-11:04pm EDT

10:24 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 98 pribted in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: i have an amendment
10:25 pm
at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 98, printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. beyer of virginia. the chair: the chair would ask all members to please take their onversations from the floor. pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment simply strips the dirty water riders in this bill. these four poison pill riders do not need to be in the bill. each in its own right is a good example of a bad rider and together they represent an assault on clean water, an attempt to forcibly supplant agency expertise with ideology. the first dirty water rider, section 120, undermines the interior department's stream protection rule which updates
10:26 pm
regulations which would allow coal mining companies to pollute and often extinguish altogether our mountain streams. we need this rule. it's sufficiently flexible to accommodate regional variability and stringent enough to protect the people of appalachia from the negative health and environmental impacts of mountain top removal mining. the section dirty rider, section 425, prohibits the e.p.a. from updating the definition of fill material under the clean water act. it was never congressional intent to allow mining refuse and similar material, some hazardous, to qualify as fill material and thereby bypass stricter rules and meet environmental standards. constituents have every right to be concerned that it fails to protect them from hazardous substances. to freeze those definitions ties the hands of implementing agencies despite the evolving
10:27 pm
understanding. current and future administrations must have the discretion to implement key terms and clarify them when need the third dirty water rider, section 426, requires that certain dredge and fill activities be completely exempted from the permitting process. this is in direct contravention to the text of the clean water act and tpwhears executive from being able to implement the environmental safe forwards contemplated in the act. and the fourth rider, section 427, tpwhrokes e.p.a. and army corps of engineers clean water rule, which restores critical plugs standards to our nation's small streams at wetlands. at stake is the protection of almost 60% of u.s. streams. headwaters and nonperennial streams supply drinking waters to more than 00 million americans. without upkated guide ants, businesses will often not know when they need an army corps permit this uncertainty will
10:28 pm
continue in the light of the recent supreme court decision and underscores the need for the clean water rule to clarify the limits of federal authority. these riders are a far cry from sensible adjustments to the clean water act. on the contrary, they're just the latest in the seemingly end legislation effort to undo clean water protections and regulatory clarity. all four of those are not only unnecessary they pose a significant threat to water quality, public health, and fish and wildlife populations. just as important, poison pill riders like this prevent us from doing our jobs and pass appropriation bills that have any chance of passing the senate, any chance of being signed by our president. i urge my colleagues to oppose these riders and support this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: first i want to point out that we've had separate standalone debates on
10:29 pm
each of the provisions that the gentleman is trying to address, and so obviously we've already had this debate. but with that, i'm happy to yield two minutes to -- two minutes of three minutes? two minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment. over the last few days, we've heard from our colleagues across the aisle that it's the market, the market that's responsible for the downturn in coal. not this administration's regulations. but, if you issue regulation upon regulation that completely overhauls the entire industry sector is that really just the market at work? instead of acknowledging that it's the onerous regulations that play a big part in the problems impacting the coal
10:30 pm
industry, this administration has blamed coal's trouble -- troubles on the market and incredibly, this has been what our -- our friends on the opposite side of the aisle seem to agree with. they are minimizing the devastating impacts of regulations like office of surface mining's proposed stream protection rule. so let me tell you about the real world consequences, lost jobs, lost revenue, lost taxes, lost resources. the stream protection rule would reduce total recovererable coal by 65%. that means a decrease of $3 billion in coal taxes. our towns and counties rely on the revenue to pay for schools, police, emergency services and so much more. a big drop in coal production means a drop in good paying
10:31 pm
jobs. jobs are at risk because of this rule. coal puts food on the table, pays the bills and supports our families. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. jenkins: without the good jobs coal provides, decisions that will impact these individuals' lives. how will they get bills paid and make car payments and house payment. time to stand up for the miners, their families and american energy. i urge opposition to this amendment and i yield back or i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: it's time to stand up for coal miners and time to stand up for their health. i don't know west virginia's health statistics.
10:32 pm
i know the ones in virginia. "new york times" did a story about the 20 counties in america where the death rate was going up, seven of them were in the coal fields of west virginia. the incidents of sickness, birth did he effects are much higher. when you look at the streams buried by coal refuse, no administration has put as much money into research in trying to bring coal back, trying to make coal a vital part of our economy without the health consequences and environmental consequences. we cherish these people also and let's take care of them in a strong way rather than subbing them to conditions in a -- subjecting them to conditions in a lifestyle that destroys their lives. the chair: the gentleman from
10:33 pm
california. mr. calvert: we had debate on each of the provisions that the gentleman is trying to strike. this amendment is totally unnecessary. the committee included these provisions for sound reasons and each have their own merit. these policy provisions are included in the bill to put the brakes on flawed policies that this administration is trying to implement. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: yes, we have had debates and it's important that we continue the debates and ultimately wisdom will emerge and it is this back and forth hopefully that gets us to the very best policies and the very best laws. 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 virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it.
10:34 pm
the amendment is not agreed to. mr. beyer: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, 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 99 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 399 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentlewoman from california and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. mrs. capps: despite technological improvements we know extracting and transporting oil and gas is a dirty and dangerous business.
10:35 pm
and our reliance on these outdated fuel sources is plaguing people and our environment at risk. this is true for offshore drilling and the activities used to extract as much oil and gas as possible from these wells. the hydraulic fracturing or acking and acid wealth stimulation. this has been occurring off of california's coast. last year i introduced h.r. 1951, the offshore fracking transparency and review act which would require environmental impact statement to be produced for offshore fracking. we must know more about these activities and potential long-term effects before they should continue. and while my legislation has not been afforded a hearing, the bureau of ocean energy management and environmental
10:36 pm
completed an assessment providing the first attempt to examine the treatments which resulted from a legal settlement with stakeholders in my congressional district earlier this year. this assessment, in it they confirmed that the potential for negative impacts on the environment and wildlife from offshore fracking as well as the many unknowns as to the extent of the impact have been confirmed. despite this they discovered a more thorough analysis of potential impacts would not be undertaken. this has resulted in a missed opportunity to fully examine the .isks posed by these treatments additionally, there are severe lack of transparency as to what types of chemicals are being used for fracking and how they
10:37 pm
could be polluting our waters. i join my constituents in expressing significant concerns over the impact that these activities may have on our local environment, marine life and public health. given the many questions concerning the offshore fracking activities, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds to process any application for a permit to drill or permit to modify that includes hydraulic fracturing and acid wealth stimulation. this would provide a pause in activity to allow us to study both the need to extend the life of these wells as well as the safety and long-term impacts of these activities. my amendment provides a measured approach to a very uncertain practice that could have long-term and severe consequences to our oceans and public health. i urge my colleagues to support it. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from
10:38 pm
california reserves. mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i enjoyed serving with the gentlelady for a number of years from california. we shared many a plane ride back and forth here to washington d.c. but we disagree on this issue. in may, the department of interior issued a finding of no significant impact with respect to these operations. this followed a review of 23 oil and gas platforms that are currently operating off the shore of california. it drew on the best possible science and reafffirmed that these are operating safely, as they should. the amendment is nothing more than another attempt to restrict offshore development for oil and gas. i oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to vote no and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
10:39 pm
the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, also to my colleague with whom i have enjoyed serving and with whom we share a particular affinity for a particular coastline along my district that he and i both know we appreciate. oil and gas extraction, transportation and combustion is inherently risky and dirty and this, we do know. there is no denying it. but what we don't know equally concerns me. we have very little knowledge of the long-term impacts of offshore fracking on our oceans and our marine life as well as our public health and yes these activities continue to occur off our coast. mr. chairman, my amendment simply provides a pause in the se of fracking and acid wealth stimulation, so that we have the
10:40 pm
chance to evaluate the need for potential impacts of these practices. let's make sure we fully understand the potential damage we are doing to our sensitive coastal and ocean environments. the species that live in them and our public health. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i'm prepared to yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: bessie has done study and assessment and continues to do so as they look at the operations of oil and gas industry in california. many people don't realize how large a producer the state of california is in the oil and gas industry. it has a long history in the state of california and the largest oil companies in the country, chevron operates out of the state of california and we
10:41 pm
are proud of that. it hasn't been a perfect history but the science has improved. the production practices have improved and certainly an important part of our economy and we want to make sure they continue to operate safely. and we are going to make sure that these agencies do the necessary regulatory work that they need to do and so i'm opposed to this amendment. and would 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 gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. capps: mr. chairman. i ask for a recorded vote the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider
10:42 pm
amendment number 100 printed in 483. report 114- mr. grijalva: afe an amendment. the clerk: amendment number 100 printed in house report 114-683 a of ed by mr. grijalva arizona. mr. grijalva: this amendment will ensure that none of the funds made available by this legislation are used to abolish the bureau of land management or u.s. forest service law enforcement unit. blm and the law enforcement units are highly expression liesed and trained professionals enforcing laws across our public lands. these responsibilities include enforcing grazing regulations, monitoring mine safety and
10:43 pm
protecting resources and enforcing fire restrictions. a vote for this amendment will send the message that congress supports these important responsibilities and does not condone any effort to underminor eliminate this important federal authority and the officers in that law enforcement -- in those law enforcement units. today more than ever federal law enforcement officers charged with protecting our public lands deserve our respect and support. tragically marked by the illegal occupation of the national wildlife refuge by armed militants earlier this year, an occupation that house republicans officially condemned. there is growing hostility towards federal land management and is increasingly exposing federal law enforcement officers to violence, threats of violence, intimidation and
10:44 pm
disrespect. whether it's individuals like bundy who believe they are above the law and refuse to pay below market grazing fees, people trying to bomb a federal facility or treasure hunters ttempting to loot precious resources, federal law enforcement have to enforce laws, like the laci act and they deserve our support. but despite these important functions, house republicans aim to strip federal land management agencies of their law enforcement authority going so far to introduce legislation h.r. 4571 to completely dissolve b.l.m. and federal law enforcement authority. to do so would be disrespectful and outright dangerous. instead of pouring gasoline on the fire and contributing to the
10:45 pm
climate that leads to violent armed occupations, we should stand up to the integrity of the federal law enforcement officers and not cast them away with disrespect. with this amendment we have the opportunity to send a clear message that congress supports federal law enforcement officers and the rule of law across our public lands. please support this amendment to ensure none of the funds can be used to abolish b.l.m. or forest service law enforcement units. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment by voting in favor of this simple, commonsense and reassuring amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise to oppose this amendment. the bill provides for law enforcement functions of the forest service and the bureau of land management. even if these agencies wanted to, they couldn't eliminate
10:46 pm
their law enforcement office. they couldn't provide more or less funding without the approval of the appropriations committee and this committee has no desire to end the law enforcement function of either the forest service or the bureau of land management. this amendment has no purpose and this amendment has no purpose, it is not needed, it is a nuisance amendment in my opinion. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: h.r. 471 does exactly that, strips the authority. congress has the authority to strip from law enforcement units at forest service and bureau of land management their authorities and ability to enforce the laws they have been responsible under their jurisdiction to enforce. this amendment as i said earlier is a reassurance that the
10:47 pm
intentions are both good intentions to retain thesester vises but that by approving this amendment, we effectively nega and hold harmless and impotent the present legislation that's out there to indeed get rid of these units. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from -- the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: as i said, there's no need for this amendment. i oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield back. the chair: the -- the question isen the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. poe poe -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the oes have it. mr. gri hall have va: i ask for a recorded vote -- mr. grijalva: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6
10:48 pm
of rule 18, fourth proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 101 in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. higgins: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. higgins of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins and a member opposed each will control phi minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. higgins: at the outset i'd like to thank the chair and ranking member for their work on this bill. while not perfect, it funds the great lakes restlation -- restoration initiative at $00 million to critically important work to clean up the great lakes can continue. my amendment would prohibit funds from this act from being used by states in violation of the great lakes compact, an agreement among the eight great
10:49 pm
lake states outlining how this precious and nonrenewable resource is to be managed. it prohibits waters from being pumped to airs -- areas beyond the drainage basis and settings criteria for diversion request. to that end, a municipal government had an application approved to divert up to 8.2 million globs a day from lake michigan, most of which will be returned after being treated. this diversion request was only approved after conditions were met lowering the volume of water to be withdrawn as well as reducing the service territory it would be provided to. going forward, it will be important to ensure the approval of this request does not set a precedent that would threat ton deplete this resource by encouraging further diversion requests that do not uphold the strict water management standards outlined in the compact. and as fresh water supplies in
10:50 pm
other parts of the country and world dwindle, the desire to divert water by tanker or the construction of pipelines could become a greater threat to the great lakes. the great lakes are a nonrenewable source, less than 1% of the water is renewed annually through rainfall and snowfall. snow melt. the onslaught of climate change will likely cause water levels to decline in the future. irresponsibly diverting water rom the basin could damage the fragile ecosystem. this amendment is supported by the appliance for the great lakes, the national wildlife foundation, the citizens campaign for the environment. by prohibiting the use of funds y states in violation of the compact, congress can send a clear message that it takes seriously the responsibility to protect the largest surface fresh water system in our
10:51 pm
nation. i reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. calvert: will the gentleman yields? we have no problem with the amendment and accept the amendment. mr. higgins: thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. o -- is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lowenthal: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 102, printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
10:52 pm
the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: my amendment would ensure the department of interior continues to address the impacts of climate change on our public lands, waters and cultural resources by maintaining a 2009 secretarial order on climate change. across the country, our public lands and wild fires are often on the front line of climate change. -- our public lands and our wildlife are often on the front lines of climate change. every week we learn more from scientists about the impact of rising levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. ocean acidify case, droughts, increased frequency of wildfires, heat waves, extreme weather events, diminished air quality, habitat laws, species migrations, and more changes than even these to our environment are occurring because of climate change. the department of interior is in a unique position when it comes
10:53 pm
to climate change because it is responsible for where fossil fuels are extracted, how fossil fuels are ect tracted and the am of fossil fuels ects tracted from our public lands and our waters. public waters. of course fossil fuels, when burned, contribute a significant amount of climate changing pollution to the atmosphere. but in addition, the department of interior's also responsible for managing much of our public lands and waters that are impacted by that damaged climate. therefore the department of entiror should play a significant role in both promoting the transition to a low-carbon economy and mitigating the effects of climate change on our peculiar lands and waters. that's why i'm so glad the department is finalizing a rule making for renewable energy development on public lands, paving the way for massive clean energy development. the department of interior also
10:54 pm
recognizes that climate change is drastically changing the landscape and the wildlife it is working to preserve and so the department has taken a series of commonsense steps to protect our national resources from the impacts of climate change. these steps include coordinating responses across multiple bureaus of the department, communicating the science of climate change impact, establishing regional hubs to study existing climate change impact, and management strategies, engages the public through education, developing a network of local, state and national partners to devise strategies for responding to climate impacts, and understanding the limitation that the department's -- of the department's own pollution footprint. understanding and limiting, i should say, the department's own pollution footprint. the complexity of a changing climate requires a
10:55 pm
multidisciplinary team covering large swaths of the landscape who strive to understand what is going on, respond appropriately, and adapt long-term management strategies so that the public lands, the waters, and resources continue to be accessible to the public and resilient to the impacts of climate change. my amendment supports these commonsense measures to help our public lands and resources become more resilient to the impacts of climate change so that future generations will continue to beb fit from our rich natural and cultural resources. my amendment also ensures that these department of interior actions continue into the next administration. therefore, i urge my colleagues to support the department of interior's efforts by voting yes on my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek
10:56 pm
recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: my friend wants to ensure that funds are being ex-pebbeded to address climate change, i understand that. simply put, we are not here to write blank checks. so programs may have merit. many certainly co-not. we would not be doing our job if we athroid secretary of the interior to unilaterally make policy decisions without allowing congress to weigh in with appropriate policy debates. certainly, we're not going to allow a future secretary to be able to bound by a prior secretary's fiat without congressional input. in the meantime, we must use congressional power of the purse to rein in executive branch overreach. and i would think, whoever is in power, we cannot allow an executive to continue to use executive orders in violation of the separation of powers.
10:57 pm
so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal is recognized. mr. lowenthal: i remind my colleagues that these are tions that the secretarial action that i'm asking to continue has been going on since september of 2009 with the approval, with the oversight and reports back to this congress and i say that these are rational, logical steps that the secretary has put into place and i ask my colleague, what would you oppose? we should not communicate responses across multiple bureaus? we don't need to understand the science of climate change impact? we don't need regional hubs to study this which are ongoing? all we're saying is let's continue this course of action, we need to develop resiliency,
10:58 pm
we know these impacts, the science is overwhelming. this is an ongoing activity. to deny this now means to stop what is already ongoing and that would be a shame at this time. i urge my colleagues to continue the actions of the department of interior to really coord nate -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. calvert. mr. calvert: call me old fashioned, i think that the folks that are elected to office should have some authority around this town. so with that, i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal. all those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. the amendment is not agrowed. to mr. lowenthal: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings
10:59 pm
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 103, printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. pocan: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 103, printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. pocan of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. i believe climate change represents one othe greatest threats to our economic livelihood, our national security, and the health of the planet. to help combat this growing threat, on february 19, 2015, the president issued a historic executive order which requires that the federal government commit to key sustainability goals. this executive order builds off of ongoing low cost efforts throughout the administration to
11:00 pm
reduce emissions, save energy, and achieve key sustainability goals. the efforts bolstered by this executive order have already helped federal agencies save $1. billion in cumulative energy costs. surely we can all agree that the federal government, as the country's largest consumer of energy, should be a lead for the cutting energy costs and saving taxpayer dollars, which is exactly what this executive order enables us to do. ensures 25% of their tive it consumption is from clean energy sources and reduces energy in eachal buildings by 2 1/2% year until 2025. these are goals to strive for because the consequences of not acting are dire. professor at stanford
11:01 pm
said we are throwing away money by not addressing climate change. to be clear, this isn't something that only environmental groups are concerned about. ctigroup found that minimizing temperature rises could reduce the global domestic loss by $50 trillion. while climate change and the effects of our warming planet are being felt. given the nature of this threat and the goals that this executive order sets to help combat the economic security and health risk climate change poses to us, i hope to push through these commonsense measures and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to this amendment. my friend wants to ensure that funds are ks expended on executive order issued by the
11:02 pm
president. the president did not consult congress on these executive orders. again call me old-fashioned but around here, you should be able to pass a law in the house of representatives, united states senate, have it signed not do things unilaterally. we were not consulted. from the perspective of the majority, we have a problem with this executive order. we would not be doing our jobs if we allowed the president to unilaterally make policy decisions without congress having the ability to weigh in. in the meantime we must use our congressional power of the purse to bring in the executive branch overreach. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pocan: i thank the gentleman may have a little confusion, not
11:03 pm
about funds being expended but the ones saved, the $1.8 billion in cumulative energy costs. the billions of dollars we will save by addressing climate change. in 2015 in the gentleman's home state of california, they had the worst water shortage in 1,200 years which has been intensified by global warming. in my home state of wisconsin, farmers are facing disease from higher humidity and warmer winter temperatures. this isn't about expending funds but saving taxpayer funds which people on the other side i would think would want to do. i hope you would support this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. california california being from california, we have our own versions of what's going on with the

48 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on