Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House Takes Up Omnibus Spending Bill  CSPAN  September 7, 2017 8:00pm-11:41pm EDT

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 where
8:01 pm
plaster mining is still being conducted. unfortunately unelected bureaucrats have targeted these small mom and pop, usually retired people, family miners from getting regulations. so, mr. chairman, this is a sound piece of legislation which should be accepted by this committee and this body to make sure those people that would like to participate in mining on lands that are owed. the b.l.m. has decided to take these little miners and put them out of business. mr. tcharme, i urge the passage of my amendment. it is very simple and protects the smaller people in america and let them wish what they want to do and have an activity after they retire. it is absolutely important. it was adopted before and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek
8:02 pm
recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition to this amendment and i listened very carefully to what the gentleman from alaska had to say and the bulk of my objection, mr. chair, is this is better addressed in the policy committee than on the appropriations committee as a rider. and b.l.m. does many, many outreach activities including public meetings and interactions with individual miners and working with industry to incorporate best management practices and new science-based reclamation techniques. and in the course of these activities, it has been necessary to increase the annual cost to miners to recover these streams and restore stream function. this amendment would prohibit the cost of these areas that miners who are talking about not
8:03 pm
all businesses are all the same shape or size. so i really think that we should work through the policy committee and for that reason, i object to this amendment. and would courage the gentleman from alaska to work through the policy committee. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota yields back. mr. young: i yield to my good friend. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized. for how long? r. young: whatever time he wants. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate the gentleman's amendment and dedication to the sound management of natural resources on behalf of the constituents in his state. and it has a unique place in alaska. the b.l.m. proposal for reclamation and boppeding requirements needs to deserve
8:04 pm
additional review. nd i yield back. mr. young: i urge the passage of the amendment and i thank the chairman. i thank the minority member for this work. this is a mom and pop operation. if i thought it was going to do anything wrong, it has been a mine for 100 years and had a guy in a wheelchair that made him walk to his mine because he ouldn't use a mechanical vehicle. i yield back. the chair: 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. he amendment is agreed to.
8:05 pm
now in order to consider amendment number 45. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. westerman: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 45 offered by mr. westerman of arkansas. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: i thank the chirmen for their hard work on this bill. land management released a study. the b.l.m. claims that this rule would incorporate proven industry standards developed by
8:06 pm
oil measurement experts in the industry and b.l.m. seems like b. h l.m. set their standards regardless of industry input. in comments filed on december 14, 2015, the independent petroleum association of america, the american petroleum institute, the western energy alliance and citizens involved in oil production detailed serious concerns. many of the concerns were trying to adopt industry standards. i believe it is vital agencies such as the b.l.m. listen to and take into account concerns when proposal you will debating these new rules. my amendment would restrict funding in its current funding and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ar minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition. this new rule updates outdated
8:07 pm
regulations and establishes minimum standards for the measurement of oil production from federal and indian oil leases to ensure that activity is accurately measured and properly accounted for. the administration has aggressively sought to abolish rules that were developed over many years and in the administrative procedures act which includes tribal and public comments. updating this regulation avoids regulatory uncertainty and reflects the considerable changes in technology and industry practices that occurred over 25 years since the previous oil and gas order number 4. 25 years since the previous onshore oil and gas order number one. changes in technology. we should be embracing changes in technology and industry
8:08 pm
practices. we should not be using technology and practices from 25 years ago. the new rule responds to comments made by the g.a.o., the department of interior's i.g., , the yal policy committee objective of this rule is to ensure that the oil volume reported by the industry is sufficiently accurate to ensure hat they are paid correctly. and the rulemaking process has been comprehensive and has been transparent. and if there are to be changes to those rules, those changes eed to be done in accordance outlined in the administrative procedures act. there is a way to do that. there would be an opportunity for tribal and public comment. this does not provide for an open and transparent process. and i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and protect the american taxpayer to
8:09 pm
make sure the royalties are accurately recorded. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i won't take 1 1/2 minutes. i want to support the amendment. there are portions of the order that are widely accepted and some portions that need to be reworked. i hope the bureau improves onshore order number three and i'm happy to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i reserve. mr. westerman: another way the b.l.m. has ignored their obligations is by discounting the practical difficulties for both industry and the agency
8:10 pm
associated compliance. the b.l.m. ignored their rulemaking responsibilities by disregarding industry input and snuggling impractical time lines sm the b.l.m. should go back and re-examine this rule and listen and get it right. with that, i ask support for my amendment and i yieldack. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition for two minutes. one, this, once again, is a substantial piece of policy work being done on the appropriation bills on the floor of the house and we have committees which can take things up, government oversight. there are many venues in which the gentleman could ask for a hearing and bring people to testify if there are things that need to be done or just work through the administrative procedures act, which has opportunities before it if
8:11 pm
people feel they are not being treated justly. but the other reason why i rise against this is 25 years since the previous update has happened. technology has changed since then. industry practices have changed. and part of our responsibility -- and i truly believe this in my heart is to make sure when we do leases, when we are to receive royalty payments, we need to be looking out for the u.s. taxpayer to make sure they are fairly compensated for these leases. so with that, i object to the amendment. d i yield back. the chair: the gentwoman from minnesota yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. those in favor say aye. thosepposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to.
8:12 pm
amendment number 46 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 50 printed in house report 11597. for what purpose does the seek recognition? the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. goodlatte: today i rise to urge suppo for my amendment that woe reaffirm and preserve the rights of the state to write their own water quality plans. it prohibits the e.p.a. from watershed esapeake implementation plans to hijack states' water quality strategies. over the last several years, the
8:13 pm
e.p.a. has implemented a total maximum daily load blueprint for six states which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter the chesapeake bay. the e.p.a. has basically given every state in the watershed an ultimatum. either the state does what the e.p.a. says or faces a takeover of its water quality programs. congress intended that the implementation of the clean water act through which the states and the federal government work together. this process was not meant to be subject of the whims of politicians and bureaucrats in washington, d.c.,. my amendment ininstructs the e.p.a. to respect the important role states play in implementing the clean water act. i want to make it clear that my amendment would not stop the e.p.a. from working with the states to restore the chesapeake bay nor would it undermine the cleanup efforts under way.
8:14 pm
my language removes the ability of the e.p.a. to take over a state's plan or to take actions against a state if it does not meet e.p.a. mandated goals. again, it ensures the states' ghts remain intact and not usurped by the e.p.a. the correlation between the e.p.a.'s outrageous waters of the united states' rule and the bay tmdl. at the heart of both issues, e.p.a. is trying to control efforts throughout the country and to punish all those who dare to oppose them. mr. chairman, the bay is a national treasure, and i want to see it restored, but we know in order to achieve this goal, the states and the e.p.a. must work together. the e.p.a. cannot be allowed to railroad the states and micro manage the process. with this amendment, we are telling the e.p.a. to respect the important role states play in implementing the clean water
8:15 pm
act and preventing another federal power grab. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: mr. speaker, this amendment would prohibit the e.p.a. from spending any funds to ensure that states will fulfill their obligations to help clean up the chesapeake bay. this would endanger the progress we made and restoring the atershed and put in jeopardy and critical contributions that the bay provides. . bay state and the federal government have invested significant resources in cleanup and restoration efforts. cooperation is critical in these efforts and only under the cooperation and under the
8:16 pm
cooperative agreement agreed upon in the chesapeake water blueprint, we're seeing a lot of progress being made. but chesapeake bay cleanup efforts apart are back stops that make sure that each state does what it's tombly promised to do -- what it's actually promised to do. states have certainly -- states that have certainly had to certify that their investments are not made in vein and that other states will also -- vain and that other states will also make good on their investments. this would undermine that historic collaboration, endanger historic progress we've made and give stateses a loophole to avoid meeting their responsibilities under the clean water act. i believe that instead of ensuring -- instead of offering an amendment that undermines chesapeake bay restorations, we should be investing even more resources to ensure that they're successful. so i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized.
8:17 pm
mr. goodlatte: the my pleasure to yield one minute to the chairman, the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> i won't take a minute. i just want to say i support the gentleman's amendment. it's my hope that the gentleman from virginia and pennsylvania -- gentlemen from virginia and pennsylvania may be able to work with the new administration, find common ground on approaches that is will improve water quality and a flexible manner which works for everybody. mr. calvert: with that i support the amendment and urge an aye vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, how much time is remaining on each side? mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, as h.s.a.s two minutes remaining -- has two minutes remaining. mr. scott has 3 1/2 minutes
8:18 pm
remaining. mr. goodlatte: i understand that the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, has the right to close. i don't have any other -- the chair: mr. goodlatte has the right to close. mr. goodlatte: i will continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. mr. scott: mr. chairmanner i urge my colleagues to reject the -- mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. choip the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia -- the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized to close. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania, chairman shuster, along with mr. thompson for being co-sponsors of this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support it. it is simply not true that this amendment would interfere with the cleanup of the chesapeake bay. and i'm going to repeat what i said earlier. my amendment does not remove the tmdl or the watershed implementation plan. it only removes the retaliatory actions threatened by the e.p.a.
8:19 pm
the current plans and processes the states are using to clean up the bay are working. that's absolutely right. they are working. and they started long before this imposition by the e.p.a. that occurred at the beginning of the obama administration. the states have made great strides in cleaning up the bay. so why continue to threaten them with an e.p.a. takeover of their water quality plans? the other arguments made is that the federal government needs to be involved in this cleanup process. i believe the federal government should be a partner in this effort, as the chairman has noted. they can play an important function. however, the current process has the e.p.a. dictating to states, local communities and businesses instead of a cooperative approach. that is not playing a part, that is controlling the process. so i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
8:20 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. scott: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. oodlatte, will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i seek recognition to speak on this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 51 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. sanford of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. ms. sanchez: -- mr. sanford: i thank the gentleman. i want to make clear i'm offering this amendment on
8:21 pm
behalf of frank lobiondo who i know has worked with my colleague, don beyer from virginia, on this bipartisan measure. i think it's one that makes sense. it would quite simply restrict money with regard to seismic testing on the atlantic waters and the waters of the florida straits. why do i think that that's important? i think it's important because you don't build a foundation if you don't intend to build a house. and yet fundamentally what we're trying to do is move forward on something that i think begs this most republican of questions which is, do we believe in home rule? because at home every municipality of every town and hamlett along the coast of south carolina has come out unanimously against the idea of offshore drilling and seismic testing. not because they're against fossil fuel, but simply because they believe that they want to determine themselves how the coast of south carolina develops. and that's obviously the case with many colleagues in florida now headed home to deal
8:22 pm
with the hurricane. and a whole host of other places up and down the atlantic and the straits of florida. and so i think that this amendment fundamentally is a about this motion of if you believe that the government is -- notion of if you believe that the government is best local, then wouldn't you give this amendment a try? what it says is places are nice, but what the people of south carolina have determined is we don't want our coast to develop that way because of the amount of onshore that is necessary to support offshore operations. with that, if i might, i would like to yield time to my colleague from virginia, mr. beyer. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for how long? the gentleman from south carolina, how much time? mr. sanford: i yield him the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you very much, congressman sanford. moving forward with permits for seismic air gun surveys, subsidy and oil gas deposits put our
8:23 pm
vibrant coastal economy at risk. i'm a virginia business man and i look at what seismic tufting does. we -- testing does. we wrote a bipartisan letter to the administration expressing our concerns about seismic air gun blasting. our coastal economy relies on healthy ocean ecosystems that generate $95 billion in gross domestic product, supports nearly 1.4 million jobs each year. and we've heard from countless business owners, as congressman sanford said, elected officials, residents all along our coasts who recognize and reject the risks. nasa, the department of defense, the florida defense support task force have all expressed concern that offshore oil development will threaten their ability to perform critical activities. the north, south, midatlantic fishery councils, which are responsible for the management of fish stocks and habitats in federal waters from maine to florida, also has significant concerns about the risks associated with offshore
8:24 pm
drilling and seismic air gun blasting. we have numerous fishing and tourism interests, including all the local chambers of commerce, tourism, restaurant associations and those representing 500,000 fishing families from florida to maine, opposed to offshore oil drilling activities as well. so opening up the atlantic to seismic testing and drilling jeopardizes our economy and these coastal economies in the most immediate terms. and i strongly support the lobiondo-sanford amendment and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this good amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. does any member rise in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment sets a dangerous precedent. not only for the energy future of the atlantic and the florida coast, but for the nation as a whole.
8:25 pm
although this is framed as an atlantic amendment, i would make clear that residents of south carolina, virginia, north carolina and georgia support offshore seismic survey activities pursuant to the all of the above energy approach that america needs. seismic surveys are routinely conducted off american coasts and around the world for oil and gas. we've been conducting seismic around the globe, in the oceans of the world, for 50 years with not a single verifiable instance of a marine ma'amle being harmed or killed -- mammal being harmed or killed. in fact, the bureau of ocean energy management has confirmed this. obama's own director confirmed this to me in a public hearing when i asked her last congress. mr. duncan: seismic surveys have not been conducted in the atlantic region for over 30 years. 30 years. today's advancement in technologies allow for 3-d and 4-d seismic work to look into the earth and see what may be there. i would argue that the folks that are against seismic work really aren't against seismic
8:26 pm
for the purpose of trying to save marine mammals. they just don't like fossil fuel development. we need to see what's out there. if members are generally concerned about russia, then voting in favor of oil and gas exploration should be a no-brainer. why would members vote to cut off the most significant tool in america's arsenal? that's our energy independence. for these reasons it's critical that we continue to permit safe geological studies in all areas off most's -- off america's coast. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i yield back. yes, sir, i yield. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i just wanted to let the gentleman know that i oppose this amendment. i don't think we should stand in the way of exploration research that coin form potential future decisions, whether it's for or against drilling. but we need to know information. so once we know the potential, we can allow the agencies to
8:27 pm
weigh those pros and cons. so with that i would urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. to the gentleman from south carolina. mr. duncan. mr. duncan: one final -- we do have hurricanes coming. the gulf of mexico has prepared for hurricanes and dealt with it in the oil and gas industry. that's not the issue. we're talking about seismic surveys so that we as american policymakers can see what may or may not be in the earth for future development. and i'd be willing to bet that if it was natural gas that was found off the coast of my home state of south carolina, we'd be having a completely different conversation. than if oil was found. let's at least have the guts to go out there and look and do g.n.g. work off the coast of the midatlantic, the south atlantic and florida and find out what resources may or may not be there and whether they're even recoverable or not. i yield to the gentleman. mr. sanford: i very much respect your viewpoint and want to be clear. i believe in fossil fuel. i think the real conundrum in
8:28 pm
this debate is who is best able to determine whether or not areas off of where they happen to live should or shouldn't be developed. should it be decided from washington, d.c.? or should it be decided by local folk? so i would frame this fundamentally as an issue of home rule. that all the pointses that you're making are very, very valid. but shouldn't that determination be made by folks that are most closest and would be most affected by what might or might not happen in the offshore waters off of the coast of south carolina? or florida or georgia or elsewhere? and so i just go back to -- if we found the mother of all loads, there has been testing out there, they say, 132 days worth of supply might be off of the coast of south carolina and what people have said is, we have a vibrant tourism industry on coast of south carolina. and we don't think the risks are worth the rewards based on what might or might not be out there. i very much respect your viewpoint. but what folks are telling me home on the coast of south
8:29 pm
carolina is even if stuff is out there, we are concerned about the tourism risk and we're concerned about the infrastructure. mr. calvert: i appreciate the gentleman's point. i reclaim my time. we need to find out what's out there -- mr. duncan: i appreciate the gentleman's point. i reclaim my time. we need to finet out what's out there. if we find oil, i'm willing to have a conversation with folks in charleston county or any county of south carolina. we find naturals gas, i believe the conversation would be completely different. but we need to do g.n.g. work which is safe to marine ma ma'am mals to find out what -- mammals to find out what might be there. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina still has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. sanford: if i might take -- i'll split it in the spirit of bipartisanship with my colleague from virginia. and i would simply say this. i want to go back to the most basic of all conservative themes. which is, we believe that the individual's paramount in the
8:30 pm
way decisions get made. and that not all decisions should be made in washington, d.c. and if folks have spoken out as clearly and as loudly as they have with regard to home rule on what should or shouldn't happen off the coast, that voice ought to be respected in washington, d.c. with that i'd yield the balance of my time to my colleague from virginia. >> responding to both my friends from south carolina. one of the dilemmas with the additional exploration is that by law the data obtained from the seismic surveys are pro prytary. they belong to the many different companies that will be doing this and they won't be available to the american public, they won't be available to local government officials, they won't even be available to members of congress. so this inability this will leave coastal communities without these cost benefit analysis. our constituents take on significant risks without being involved in the future development decisions. i encourage us to vote for the sanford amendment.
8:31 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina does have 15 seconds remaining. mr. sanford: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move that we do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.
8:32 pm
accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 3454 has reported no resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3454 and has come to no resolution thereon. house resolution 500 and rule 18 the chair declares the committee in the whole house fert of the state union for further consideration of h.r. 3354, will the gentleman from illinois kindly resume the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the house is in the committee of the whole house for further consideration of h.r. 3354.
8:33 pm
the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2018. the chair: amendment number 113 printed in house report 115-295 offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. gates. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to withdraw a recorded vote on number 97 printed in part b of ouse report 115-295 to the end that the chair put the question de novo. the clerk: amendment number 97 printed in house report of 115-295 offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: is there objection to the gentleman's request? without objection, the request for a recorded vote is
8:34 pm
withdrawn. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment number 98 printed in part b of house report 115-295 to the end that the chair puts the question de novo. the clerk: amendment number 98 printed in house report 115-295 offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: is there objection to the gentleman's request? without objection, the request for a recorded vote is withdrawn. the question is on the amendment on offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed o.
8:35 pm
pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 115-295 in the following order. amendment number 91, amendment mber 92, amendment number 99 by mr. grothman, amendment number 110. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 91 printed in part b of house report 115-295 on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 91 printed in part b of house report 115-295. the chair: those in support of
8:36 pm
the request for a recorded vote will rise. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united ates house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house the house working. they will vote on those measures to margaret the second group of amendments, they worked about less than half of the remaining amendments. this is amendment 91. it is a republican from pennsylvania, this would transfer $30 billion to the international narcotics control and law enforcement account. taking it out of the fulbright scholar program. cap -- take a look at a number of things to read about the 2018 creature is our interview.
8:37 pm
prices appropriations and a budget reporter. the spending package covers two thirds of the federal government for 2018. white house leaders take a look at this with the eight remaining appropriations bills? five spending bills. that before the year begins. with the fact that there is wayslative days, the only to clear all of those on the floor and process them all. know, clearly according to republican leadership as they sent this out is to have two rules structuring us and keeping them altogether including a
8:38 pm
previously passed bill that they worked on. then send the whole thing over to the senate in one package. i see when up to have two different rules. is theond part of this rules committee. deciding they were most controversial amendment such as those related to a border wall with the u.s. and mexico. including medical marijuana were not made in order despite hours of debate. why did they decide not to do this controversial amendment? >> this is something we have seen throughout the republican leadership management of the appropriations process. i would say in the past couple of fiscal years definitely. we have seen that in the past as well. do not want they controversial amendments to scuttle the appropriations are assessed. open a have a meta-process that allows any modification to be up for debate as was tradition with spending
8:39 pm
bills. past history shows that will make them impossible to pass. to control the flow of this bill to the senate house leadership has to clamp down on this. proposals multiple that were bipartisan related to how medical marijuana is dealt with banks. despite both parties the committee refused to make any of those amendments. a representative of california says that would be setting a new president for his amendment which would basically block the federal government from lawscing federal marijuana will i stay to the issue of marijuana.
8:40 pm
--re are a lot of sour gaetz sour grapes from rank-and-file members. republican leadership is committed to getting the full package to the senate so that they can have their part entered into the larger negotiation that will be going for the end of the year. >> what are the one or two issues or a menace you are focusing on? a couple of interesting ones. there is the integration amendments that for example would require e-verify to be used. one thatanother attempts to block funds for sanctuary cities. i think another one that is very interesting is a bipartisan amendment from pennsylvania. he is a democrat.
8:41 pm
it would block offshore drilling on certain parts of the atlantic. as well as other parts of the gulf. i thought that one was very interesting to be watching the house committee decide on that. let's earlier today they tweeted spending action continues. deal, they see our are talking about the deal made between president trump in the democratic leadership. of a doing with a extension of this resolution and that feeling, how does that feel affect the house? >> lawmakers to bring up the topical issue that they are addressing. these first two processes are essential right now. nature ofrates this the deliberation process and how lawmakers actually have to fund
8:42 pm
the government when the deadline approaches very quickly. buse is no way this on a package will be signed into law on october 1. lawmakers have not reached a budget deal to make sure that it is enacted. but this bill would spend the money it would. bill would spend $22 million. because of budget cuts to the defense which is something that will applicant the democrats and the president would not want. well there is the separate process on the debt limit and relief. there is another process going on now on the house floor. that really is for later in the year. they have lawmakers from all over commending this package.
8:43 pm
republicans and democrats. democratic amendment's. working bipartisan amendments. this allows one makers to have a say in the process. even though that is now getting shoved. >> that debate continues in the house. we have been following that. she is also on twitter. thank you for the update. >> talking about the process that led to this on the house for tonight. the house working on the remaining eight appropriation oils. this was oner 30 of 11 amendments that they are working on and this series. congressman keith russman would transfer $30 million out of the fulbright scholar programs and into international narcotics control and law enforcement accounts. also earlier today a member of
8:44 pm
texas took time to talk about hurricane party. it will take a look at the marks in this 15 minute phone. if it is twice. in the span of a few days. it took out our schools. our chops and our homes and our pets. our lives of over 50 texans. is one thing that party can never take from us. that is that we are houston strong. is the families.
8:45 pm
one who is going to labor as her apartment was being swallowed up. they prepared to have a home delivery for their first child. a phone call for help was unanswered. within one hour a rescue truck drove up. it happened one hour after the made that call. five hours later their family grew by one. their daughter was born. family in houston
8:46 pm
8:47 pm
8:48 pm
8:49 pm
8:50 pm
8:51 pm
8:52 pm
8:53 pm
8:54 pm
8:55 pm
8:56 pm
8:57 pm
8:58 pm
8:59 pm
9:00 pm
9:01 pm
9:02 pm
9:03 pm
the chair: on this vote, the eas are 163, the nays are 248, e amendment is n adopted. he use will be in order. membersill pleaseakyour seats. the committee will n oer. seats.s will please take their he committeeill be in order. mbers willlee take the he commiee will be in order.
9:04 pm
t committee will be in o. members please remove your conversations from the house floor. he committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of a scheduling announcement. the chair: without objection, the majority leader is recognized. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order, the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. the majority leader is recognized. mr. mccarthy: as we continue to track hurricane irma, i know many of our members in the southeastern united states are anxious to get home to their
9:05 pm
families an constituents so in order to ensure these members get home safely, last votes of the week will now occur tomorrow afternoon on the harvey disaster relief package at approximately 12:30 p.m. the house will complete consideration of h.r. 3354 next week. and i thank the speaker. unless the gentleman has a question? mr. hoyer: could the majority leader give us some idea so when members leave they'll have some schedule? t week's i know we'll discuss that tomorrow as well but it might be useful to do it tonight as well, give them an jove view. mr. mccarthy: as you know, we'll finish this premise package complete next week. we have a couple of other items we will list tomorrow but we will continue to monitor the storm. i know it's going to hit a couple of states. we'll keep you posted about the schedule for next week as well. as soon as we know we'll keep you updated. i thank the gentleman.
9:06 pm
mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield, i thank him for giving us an update and i also thank him for the consideration of our members who live in the harvey t and scheduling early and no votes subsequent to that, i know members have talked about their desire to get home as quickly as possible to be with their constituents and families. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman and yield back. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished by business is the request for a recorded vote on earment 92 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. austin scott, on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 92 printed in part b of house report 11515-2395 offered by mr. austin scott of georgia. the chair: a railroaded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise
9:07 pm
and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:08 pm
9:09 pm
9:10 pm
the chair: the yeas are 217, the nays are 193, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on
9:11 pm
amendment number 99 printed in parking lot b of house report 115-295 by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grthman, on which proceed wrgs postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 99 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:12 pm
9:13 pm
9:14 pm
9:15 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 105 and the amendment is not adopted.
9:16 pm
the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 110 by the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho and which proceedings were postponed. the clerk: amendment number 110 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. yoho of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested, those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:17 pm
9:18 pm
9:19 pm
9:20 pm
the chair: the yeas are 199 and the nays are 212. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments, pursuant to house resolution 500, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hairman. the speaker pro tempore: the committee of the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 335 and come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to house resolution 504 and the rule 18, the chair declares the house in the whole house for further consideration. will the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker, kindly
9:21 pm
ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house for further consideration which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: appropriations bill for related agencies ending september 0, 2018 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose, amendment number 51 printed in house report 51 offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. sanford, has been disposed of. amendment by mr. grijalva of arizona.
9:22 pm
amendment number 18, amendment number 29 by mr. biggs of arizona, number 31 by mr. lujan of new mexico, number 38, amendment number 39, amendment number 4 by mr. young of alaska, amendment number 50 by r. demrat of virginia. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. mr. grijalva: on which the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 offered by mr. griff of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has een requested. members will record their votes y electronic device.
9:23 pm
this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:24 pm
9:25 pm
9:26 pm
the chair: on this vote, the eas are 189 -- the chair: the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on
9:27 pm
amendment number 15 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. thompson of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:28 pm
9:29 pm
9:30 pm
9:31 pm
the chair: ton -- on this vote, the yeas are 207, the nays are
9:32 pm
205, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 18 pointed in house report 115-297, by the gentleman from arizona, mr. fwri hall va, on which the nays prevailed voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18, printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. two minutes in the house. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:33 pm
9:34 pm
9:35 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 190, the nays are 18. the amendment is not adopt. the unfinished business is the request for a vote on -- on amendment number by the gentleman in arizona, mr. biggs, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. biggs of arizona. the chair: a vorded -- a
9:36 pm
recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a railroaded -- a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. two minutes in the house. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
9:37 pm
9:38 pm
9:39 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 184, the nays are 228, the amendment is not adopt. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on earment number 31 printed in house report 115-297 by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in house report 115-297
9:40 pm
offered by mr. ben ray lujan of new mexico. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. two minutes in the house. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:41 pm
9:42 pm
9:43 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 220, the nays are 191, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the
9:44 pm
request for recorded vote on earment number 38 printed in house report 115-297 by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is ha two-minute vote. two minutes in the house. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:45 pm
9:46 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 194 and the nays are
9:47 pm
218 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a vote on amendment number 39 by the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in house report number 115-297 offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: a sufficient number having arisen having arisen. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:48 pm
9:49 pm
9:50 pm
the chair: the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 43 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. young. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: a recorded vote has beenry questionsed. those in support will rise. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:51 pm
9:52 pm
9:53 pm
the chair: the yeas are 215 and the nays are 196. the amendment is adopted.
9:54 pm
the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, on which further proceedings was postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 50 printed in house report 115-2967 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested, those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. two minutes in the house. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
9:55 pm
9:56 pm
9:57 pm
the chair: the amendment is adopted.
9:58 pm
the chair: the committee will be n order. he committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. please take your conversations rom the well, from the aisles.
9:59 pm
he committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 53 printed in ouse report 115-297.
10:00 pm
-- it is now in order to consider amendment number 55 rinted in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 55 rinted in house report 115-297 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the time and i know that we have a lot of activity
10:01 pm
on the house floor tonight which sing a good thing. it shows that the people's house is here, that we are working and we are meeting the needs of the american people. one of those is making certain that we fund the activity of the government and that we do it in a responsible way. and i think that as i come to offer my amendment that i offer every single year on this piece of legislation, mr. chairman, it -- ry important to note the chair: the committee will be n order. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i do think it is important to note that this appropriations committee has done a phenomenal job of reining in out of control spending. one of the lessons that should
10:02 pm
have been learned over the past couple of years is that it is very clear the american people understand that washington does not have a revenue problem, it as a spending problem. the chair: the committee will be n order. ms. black burn: thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. we know this bureaucracy has an insatiable appetite for the taxpayers' money. we see it all the time. it is why we are having a vote to raise the debt ceiling. it is why we are right at $20 trillion in debt. it is because this -- it is because the spending is indeed out of control. so the work that has been done by this committee and -- to
10:03 pm
prepare these appropriations bills is so vitally important and is to be commended. i think we have to look at this interior appropriations bill and alize that last year, it was $32.28 billion bill. this year, they have worked that spend do you think to $31.4 billion. and that is indeed commendable. indeed, in this bill, they have cut the spending at the e.p.a. a total of 27%. indeed, commendable. and the bill that -- the amendment that i bring forward tonight is to reduce that budget authority by an additional 1%. and i do this in calling for a penny on the dollar cut to challenge the bureaucracy to match the great work that has been done by our colleagues on
10:04 pm
both sides of the aisle as they have worked through to reduce what we spend, to cut out waste, to look for fraud, to find ways that the taxpayer dollar is being abused and to end that abuse. and indeed, we know that saving a penny on the dollar is something we can do. it is important. to our children and grandchildren. indeed, i think we have a moral responsibility to do that. and there are areas where we can do this. i'll point out just a couple that we have, give you a couple of examples, where there is more that we could be doing. one is in ceiling fan regulations. through the e.p.a. and some of the regulations they have put on ceiling fans. which i actually -- which actually reduce energy consumption. are absolutely ridiculous.
10:05 pm
and we know that they yield a benefit, especially for people who live in areas like i live in in tennessee. so while we recognize the vital work of the department of interior, we also realize there are areas where more could be done to curb the waste and where we could challenge the rank and file employees in these bureaucracies and at this time i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayer dollars and i certainly support her in all the endeavor she is has done over the years to do that, but this is not the type of approach that i can support. mr. calvert: i certainly like the idea of challenging the
10:06 pm
agencies and i believe that the agencies are going to meet that challenge, to cut spending in a responsible way. this bill has made some very tough choices. within a subcommittee allocation that adhere's to current law. budget committee asked us to meet certain budget caps and we've done so in this bill. while asking that we increase spending for our national security, which is in woeful shape. so we had to make some very difficult tradeoffs. this bill is current -- in its current form balances our need. those tradeoffs carefully weighed for their impacts. we have funding for fire suppression, national park, maybe the most popular agency in the united states government, and meeting our legal and moral obligations. the process that the gentlelady
10:07 pm
proposes, an across the board cut, would cut all those programs, including indian health, national parks programs, are her programs which already -- which already are taking significant cuts. this amendment makes no distinction between what we need to be spening to invest in se energy independence, or to limit spending to meet our deficit controls. so i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment but i certain support the fact that we are trying to get our budgets in line. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate the chairman's work and the committee's good work. i do want to point out that across the board cuts work.
10:08 pm
we see them work in our state governments. we see them work in our local communities. and we -- and certainly families see these works, where they go in and they just shave a little out of everything that they're spending. and if you look at the discretionary spending components of our federal budget, and you say, let's find a way to save one penny out of every dollar that has been appropriated, then you put yourself on the road to reducing what the federal government spends. what they take from the taxpayer and then spend. we are spending too much money on programs that we don't need, programs that have outlived their usefulness, and programs that future generations don't even realize that they are going to have to pay for. so let's do the fiscally
10:09 pm
responsible thing, let's challenge these agencies, let's cut one more penny out of the dollar, and do this for our children, for our grandchildren, and for the fiscal health of our nation. with that, mr. chairman, i yield ack. mr. calvert: i yield time to the gentlelady from minnesota. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to strongly oppose this amendment. this amendment just cuts programs in this bill without any thought to the merit of what is contained in this bill. for example, in indian health service, it means, it really means fewer patients being seen. it means fewer safety inspectors ensuring accidents don't occur. deferred maintenance in our
10:10 pm
drinking water, sanitation infrastructure. and we will lose investments in environmental infrastructure and with that jobs will be lost. ut the e.p.a., as has been pointed out quite a bit tonight for cuts and for shifting funding around within this bill, s $2.2 billion less than 2010. $2.2 billion less than 2010. 2,000 fewer employees. so employees are being pulled out of my region and your region and all over to respond down in harvey. meaning work isn't being done. and i bet they're going to get the call to leave their families and go look at sewer systems that are broken apart, water systems that don't have the ability for safe drinking water. and this is an agency that was
10:11 pm
funded and cut again in this bill. and they have real jobs to do. so when you discriminately cut across, you're also cutting across those programs that we're relying right now for the e.p.a. to do in harvey. and then the forest service just notified us they are out of money for fire suppression so we're going to cut the forest service 1%, there might be places where you and i could agree, mr. chairman, where we could be doing some cuts and i could work with my colleagues on it. but across the board, this year, in this bill, is something i can't support and i wreeled back and i thank the chairman for the time. mr. calvert: i would urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
10:12 pm
tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the oes have it. mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman, i ask for a vorded -- a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 56 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. palmer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will degree is -- designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 56 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. palmer of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the
10:13 pm
gentleman from alabama. mr. palmer: thank you, mr. chairman. the environmental protection agency spends as much as $50 million a year to deploy nearly 200 armed agents at an average cost of $216,000 per year, per agent. in total from 2006 to 2015, the e.p.a. spent an estimated $715 million for its criminal enforcement program. this money could have been better spent on such things as improvement of our water systems. these 200 special agents are equipped with guns and ammunition up to 30 millimeter, come fladge and other equipment. a 2000 report by the open books $25,000 on spent ammunition. it's difficult for me to imagine
10:14 pm
what the e.p.a. has a legitimate use for ammunition of that size. the e.p.a. is one of more than 70 federal agencies that employ armed personnel, many of which most americans would never associate with law enforcement. they include the national oceanic ands a mot feerick association, the federal reserve board among others. we need to step back and rere-evaluate if arming the bureaucracy is the best way to ensure our laws are enforced. federal agencies should be able to demonstrate their need for armed personnel and absent that should rely on local or state law enforcement when there is a need for protection. my amendment would prohibit funding for e.p.a.'s armed agents and begin to address the militarization of our federal agencies. i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized.
10:15 pm
mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i understand and i've taken a lot of criticism over the last two years for cutting e.p.a.'s budget by 27%. over the last number of years. i believe this amendment is going too far. we have a new administration and a new administrator. i think there is a new day over at e.p.a. where none of us want to see our rivers polluted, toxic waste either on the grouped or in the air. and i think this administration will administer the law properly. we may not always agree on where it's appropriate to draw the line on environmental laws and regulations. some standards are too stringent, some think they aren't tough enough. that is a fair debate to have.
10:16 pm
however, we know where the line is ultimately drawn, there are individuals out there that are willingly and knowingly trying to find ways around those laws. as such, e.p.a. needs the ability to look into criminal activity, whether it's illegal dumping of waste, neg lent dumping of toxics of oil or the illegal importation of products by other countries by those who would choose to ignore united states law. so we can debate the law and what's appropriate, but we can't give criminals a free pass or ignore the laws that are on the books. so i must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. and i encourage a no vote. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. mr. palmer: i appreciate the
10:17 pm
chairman's great work on the appropriations bill and have great respect for him, but i would like to respond to some of the comments. this is not a crack to the e.p.a.'s budget but a redirection of finding a way of the division of the e.p.a. there's no effort at all here to diminish the e.p.a.'s ability to carry out its core functions. if there is a problem where armed agents are involved, they need to rely on people who are trained to deal with such situations. this would allow the e.p.a. to redirect these funds to make sure our environment is protected. with all due respect, i want to make sure it's understood this is not a cut to the e.p.a. abudget but a redirection of resources and demilitarization of a federal agency that i have
10:18 pm
seen where they have showed up at a city water system in full ar-15-'s andrrying it was totally uncalled for. and i support this and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i understand the gentleman's concerns. i would suggest that he go down to the administrator's office, new administrator. i think -- mr. pruitt, and meet with him. i don't think there is any desire on his part to militarize the environmental protection agency and you'll find that you will find this new administrator wanting to do the right thing. i oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time.
10:19 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. mr. palmer: i would like to close. i appreciate the response of the chairman, who i again want to say he has done a fine job and appreciate his concerns about this. i intend to meet with secretary pruitt and have known him with much better me and direction than over the last few years. he inherited this problem. this is not an effort by the e.p.a. to militarize. this example i gave you from the state of alabama is one example in the state of the alabama and other instances in the states around the country. we depend law enforcement to handle confrontations.
10:20 pm
people who are trained to the agree to handle situations where someone might get injured or killed. i think it is totally appropriate for us at this point for irect to remove this armed agents who by the way, and if you want to see this report, we are purchasing 75 millimeter ammunition and hard to imagine what purpose they have for ammunition of that size. i appreciate the opportunity to speak and i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the chair: 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 yes have it. and the amendment is agreed to.
10:21 pm
pursuant to the clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. > mr. chairman i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the
10:22 pm
union having had under consideration h.r. 3354 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 3354 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee of rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 509 house amendment to the senate amendment h.r. 601 to enhangs the transparency and accelerate the assistance provided under the foreign assistance act of 1961 to promote education in developing countries to achieve universal access and improve
10:23 pm
learning outcomes and eliminate for othern waste, and purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 624, an act to restrict the inclusion of social security numbers on federal documents sent by mail and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house of the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3354. would the gentleman from michigan kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the
10:24 pm
committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3354, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of the interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2018 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today a request for amendment 56 printed in house report 115-297 offered by the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, had been postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 57 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. carbajal: i have an
10:25 pm
amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 57 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. cash haul of california. the chair: a member oppose dollars each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. carbajal: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm offering my amendment on behalf of my constituents on the central coast of california. t prevents the bureau of ocean and acid to issue well stimulation known as fracking in federal waters off the west coast and prohibit the use of fiscal year 2018 funds to this would provide us more time to study whether offshore fracking is safe for the environment and public health.
10:26 pm
in 2013, we learned that offshore fracking had been occurring off of california's coast for more than two decades. in santa barbara county alone, there have been more than a dozen instances of offshore fracking and we know very little about the environmental and health impacts this has had on our communities. already, the united states geological survey has concluded that injecting water into deep rock formations causes earthquakes. my constituents need to know the risks associated with offshore fracking on our environment, marine life and public life. my constituents have seen the largest oil spills in california's history like the 199 santa barbara oil spill. my amendment echoes my constituents' concerns surrounding the impact of
10:27 pm
offshore fracking and prohibits the use of funds to process any new applications for this purpose. this is a commonsense measure that would implement -- that we should implement until we know all the facts and risks associated with this practice. i urge passage of my amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. mr. calvert: i rise in opposition. i rise in opposition to this amendment. the ear, may of 2016 and previous administration, the department of interior issued a finding of no significant impact with respect to these operations. this followed a resue of 23 oil and gas platforms currently operating offshore in the state of california. the review drew upon the best science and reaffirms that these operations are operating safely
10:28 pm
as they should. this amendment is nothing more than an attempt to restrict offshore development. nt. i oppose the amendme and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> oil platforms off of california's coast are permitted o dump nine billion gallons of waste water. fracking increases their pollution and affects coastal communities to air plusetants that causes cancer. most offshore fracking jobs have occurred within three miles of the coast. injecting fracking under ground can induce earthquakes and they are within three miles of an active fault. it is important to pass this amendment. i yield back.
10:29 pm
the chair: the gentleman from california yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 11-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. perry: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: printed in house
10:30 pm
report 115-297 offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. per question thanp a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. perry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. . this would prevent e.p.a. being companies based on the clean air act. section 115 of the clean air act allows e.p.a. to amend state emissions level to whatever amount they deem appropriate if they find two things. they have to find that u.s. emissions endanger a foreign nation and the endangered nation has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control emissions in their own nation. as previously argued that the
10:31 pm
paris climate agreement met those requirements. when they wrote the clean air act back in the 1970's, they never foresaw the paris agreement and the paris agreement is not a treaty, it is an agreement. fortunately, president trump's decision to withdraw from the agreement alleviated those concerns. whether you agree with this president or the last one or a future president is immaterial. the point is, this portion of the law shouldn't exist. that authority shouldn't exist at the executive level especially when we don't do treaties anymore. despite the temporary relief, the fact remains section 115 of the clean air act is simply bad policy. section 115 delegates an incredible amount of authority to the executive branch without any safeguards, without any oversight by the legislative branch. this amendment would block the use of section 115 to delegate this pewer over the energy
10:32 pm
sectoring over our states, to the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the pemplet: a. in the future, such expansive authority at the e.p.a. could be economically devastating and could threaten the reliability and viability of our nation's energy sector without any checks and balances. with that, i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition. i ask the gentleman if he would yield. ield for a question. ms. mccollum: i'm trying to -- you were talking about the paris climate agreement which the trump administration withdrew from and then you said you were worried about the administration
10:33 pm
using section 115 as a clear -- of the clean air act to impose regulations. it's been my experience from my point of view representing my constituents we were disappointed about the withdrawal from the paris climate agreement and haven't seen this administration be aggressive on clean air so culed you please explain to me your concerns about the trump administration and section 115 of the clean air act? because if there -- if they are doing things that you're concerned about, maybe i need to take a fresher look at what the trump administration is doing because i've seen them do nothing but block, cut back, and deny the ability to move forward on the clean air agreement. i'm confused as to the point of your amendment. the obama administration -- is
10:34 pm
gone and the trump administration has removed almost everything i care passionately about with clean air. mr. perry: will the gentlelady yield? i'm not concerned about the rump administration or the obama administration, any administration who can make an agreement with another nation and then have their agency enforce their regulations at whatever they deem appropriate on every single state in the united states without any ability of congress to intervene whatsoever. it's not particular to this administration, the last administration, or any future administration. it's particular to all of them, the authority in my opinion should not exist for them to do that without any checks and balances from the legislative branch. i yield. ms. mccollum: reclaiming my time.
10:35 pm
mr. chairman, the perry amendment would only be in effect for one year because this is not a policy bill. this is an appropriations bill. so your concerns about having long-term consequences and -- of a future president in the future would not be addressed by this particular amendment. so i oppose the amendment, it's a long line of republican amendments attacking the clean air and e.p.a.'s authority but i think this really makes it crystal clear the point that we shouldn't be doing deep policy that you want to discuss on an appropriations bill because it only lasts for a year. as far as i know the trump administration has nothing up its sleeve to improve air quality over the next year. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i urge my colleagues who care about these policy situations to
10:36 pm
control the -- you control the house you control the senate, please go to the committees of jurisdiction. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. r. perry: i thank the chairman of the committee and yield to him. mr. calvert: this amendment was adopted on the floor last year. i believe it's a good amendment. i encourage my colleagues to support it. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.
10:37 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 60 in house eport 115-297. it is now in order to consider amendment number 61 printed in ouse report 115-297. it is now in order to consider amendment number 62 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek
10:38 pm
recognition? mr. pearce: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 62 printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. pears of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pears and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, for five minutes. mr. pearce: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i might consume. order 3 put in place by the last administration puts in place unnecessary and duplicative burdens. many people visualize that oil wells are drilled into the ground and then they just produce oil on their own that it flows to the surface magically and it remains unabated through the life of the oil well. that's not true at all.
10:39 pm
what actually happens is there's a pool of oil at the bottom of the well. as the -- as it's produced, production gets smaller each day until the small production is classified as strip well production. the saudi arabiaians come in every 10 years and try to kill the stripper wells, that would be two to three billion barrels of oil they could produce that would be shut down here. in my home county, we hunker down when we see economic attacks coming an we simply make it through. not because it's economic, not because pest productive, because it's one of the new economic drivers of new mexico. oil and gas provoids about 40% of our teachers' pay, 40% of police pay. so it's just our way of life. but the stripper wells are not extremely economic. so when this on shore order 3 came into place it is assisting the saudi arabiaians to try to
10:40 pm
drive stripper wells out of existence. because it's the small producers, it's -- it's the guys who will stay there and produce the wells when nobody else has economic interest in them, kind of sweeping up the crumbs off the energy table, on shore order 3 puts in processes that require monitoring that is already provided at the point of sale, so it's not as if somehow the government is being cheated. it just is trying to squeeze more out of these uneconomic wells. the estimates are that we've shut down a great number of those wells affecting teachers' pay, affecting the economy of new mexico. killing jobs. so my amendment is very simple. it would prevent funds from being used to fund the b.l.m. on shore order rule number 3. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek
10:41 pm
recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition this this -- to this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. once again, there might be some that canrit mat points be worked on about these tripper -- stripper wells, wells at the end of their life. and we might find some common ground on some of your issues. but there is the appropriations bill and this isn't the place to do it. t should be done in the policy committee. you should -- mr. chair, we should be going to the policy committee and we should be asking the policy committee to take up and have hearings on these issues that are verying very important to some of the members here in this house. so when i look at this amendment n a appropriations committee
10:42 pm
bill, you know, what it says to me is that, you know, it's continuing the administration's agenda that favors oil and gas industry over other uses of our public lands. it says to me that the administration has rolled back and abolished a lot of rules that have been made over many years, that are contained and outlined in the administrationive procedures act, which includes consideration of public and travel comments that you can go and register your comment. and the whoil point of the site security rule is to protect against the theft of oil and to make sure that the oil and gas production is properly accounted for. this rule that, you know, we're talking about today, also streamlined the process for companies to get new measurement
10:43 pm
technology, to make sure that they're using the most innovative technology and i think after 25 years, most businesses, most people who want paying sure that they're for product, want to make sure it's being measured and accounted for right. this rule is also recommended by the g.a.o. and the department of the interior's i.g. the royalty policy committee. regarding the b.l.m.'s production of verification efforts. those are things that often we do to safeguard and protect and make sure that the taxpayer when involved on public lands is receiving value for the royalty. so there's a rule making process that's comprehensive. there's a rule making process that's transparent. and there's a way to change the rules that comprehensive, transparent, and allows the public to have their voice.
10:44 pm
that's to address these issues in the policy committee. so for the main reason, and i want to be clear about this, for opposing many of these amendments is they are properly done in the policy committee a committee which i served on when i first came here and i think that that, mr. chairman, is where these amendments need to start being directed so we can do the real work and make sure that when members come to the floor that they know that we've had a full vetting and full transparency. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. pearce: i yield 30 seconds to the chairman of the committee, subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: thank you. i rise in support of the amendment. i appreciate my colleague for bringing the bureau of land management's on shore order number 3 to the house's attention. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back my time.
10:45 pm
the chair: the gentleman from new mexico reserves. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, again, and i appreciate what the -- my chairman of the subcommittee is saying in helping members here, but we have a lot of work to do just doing the oversight on how money is spent and pro-iped to make sure that we're ding our due diligence when we appropriate funds that they're used in the way this congress asked for them to be used. there's a policy committee to look at what's happening with policy and to make sure that we move policy forward. and mr. chairman, sometimes when amendments like this come to the floor, i just think we're failing totally as a congress to do our due diligence in the policy committee and in -- there's so much time spent on policy in the appropriations committee we fail to do our due
10:46 pm
diligence on what has to happen for oversight for the tax dollars that we do appropriate in these bills. so it's my hope that the policy committee will step up, speak out, and start requesting that these bills be heard in the committee of jurisdiction and not just put on as riders on our bill. so with that, i yield back. i thank the chair. the chair: the gentlelady yields. he gentleman from new mexico mr. pearce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from ar cap saw. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. >> thank you for your leadership. this rule by the b.l.m. is a classic example of agency overregulation. should the issue new regulation, lesseys will be forced to
10:47 pm
maintain measurement tickets, verifications and configuration eports, and volume statements, fuel records and gas analysis. most of these documents have nothing to do with determining the amount of production and will force businesses to hire more staff just to keep record. this will likely result in more federal employees to oversee the bureaucracy. this makes zero sense. and i urge a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields.
10:48 pm
mr. pearce: but those businesses are located in new mexico, those businesses keep their headquarters there. ey are small mom and pop business operators. when the government does things that says we aren't going to let you operate and shut you down and that's defeat the spirit that says we can survive any attacks. i urge people to support this amendment and the underlying bill and i would yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.
10:49 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 63 considered in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? the clerk: printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. pearce of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from new mexico and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: i yield myself such time as i might consume. the vinting and flaring rule was again put in place by the last administration intended for b.l.m. to regulate methane. that was regulated by the e.p.a. it was down 21% while production
10:50 pm
is going up, production is going up and methane production is down. d so, we wonder at why the administration came at the last second to put this rule into place. basically the argument is exactly the same for opposing that rule. that's what is at stake is not the good wells. they are going to produce with whatever burdens are placed on them. what's at stake are the stripper ells which make up 2.6 billion barrels, 145 million barrels of production in the state of new mexico. o you can imagine the economic catastrophe if that 145 million weren't available to the state to provide tax and 45%, the teacher's pay and police pay, much of that comes from oil and
10:51 pm
gas production and you can do the math and see how much new mexico could be affected if this continues to place a burden on the well. each well that costs at $160,000 and come into compliance and keep in mind this rule comes after the methane is more carefully controlled today. and the estimates are that we'll lose thousands of wells if this vinting and flairing rule continues. it is the stripper wells which are at moss at harm. if we lose the stripper well production every year because of the high cost of the production, that means we are less energy independent that we rely more on outside sources and drive the price of depass lean up.
10:52 pm
and and they will be the ones penalized most by rising prices of gasoline and decreasing prices of oil. i would urge people to support this amendment and the underlying bill. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico reserves. recognized. y is ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition to this amendment, but at this time, i would like to yield two minutes to the . ntlelady from new mexico ms. lujan grisham: thank you for yielding. thank you. i want to thank my colleagues for yielding, yesterday, the billion downa $7.9 payment to address the
10:53 pm
destruction caused by hurricane harvey which is projected to cost $1808 billion, by far today, the costlyiest hurricane to hit the united states. today we are considering an amendment which would prohibit b.l.m. to prohibit a rule to prevent the leaking of methane, which is a climate change-causing emission, 30 times more powerful than carbon dioxides. w mexico is home for the largest methane hot spot in the world. and cubic foot of gas, mexican taxpayers out of precious royalty and tax payments which goes to public education, infrastructure and community development programs. our state desperately needs these investments and we cannot
10:54 pm
afford to let money disappear.
10:55 pm
so in the meae, i t tion is needed and i support this amendment and i urge my colleagues to do e se and i yield back. the chair: e geleman fr ne mo resves. m mccollum: ullike to clos ne mexic is rcoized. man from mr. ce: iield oneite to the gentlem from arizona. mr. sar: iise inrtf isamdmt. this le or the methaneule reprts onef the obama admiistrats designed desty energy pduction. b.l.m. eeedheir statury authity to attempt t regulata thy. methane essonhas decld n recent decades without
10:56 pm
duplativ rulations it fruating this rule i cloaked will bef taayers. andhehycalics a it will reuc energ production. and th amendme brings methane regulation. i understand the administration is reviewing the regular ration and that litigation is ongoing so in the meantime, i think action is needed and i support this amendment and i urge my colleagues to do the same and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico reserves. ms. mccollum: i would like to close. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. pearce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i rise in support of this amendment. this rule or the methane rule represents one of the obama administrations designed to desi p accountability to executive rulemaking and i thank congressman pearce for the amendment. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new mexico's time has expired. the gentleman from mexico is recognized. ms. mccollum: i rise in op significance to this amendment. onshore oil and gas
10:57 pm
operations. finalized e b.l.m. its rule that was 0 years old. we have learned a lot about how we have to be more diligent about capturing energy and making america more energy secure. this rule would prevent the waste of an estimated 65 billion cubic feet and save taxpayers $330 million. b.l.m. has the responsibility to the taxpayers and that means capturing what is nared off and burnt off, which is potential energy. we have developed technologies in the past 30 years to capture this and make it work even more if he cantively for the xpayers when we sought these leases and royalties.
10:58 pm
just for a fact, i share that the oil field when it was at its height flared more. i'm from the twin cities, where
10:59 pm
it exres everea so i ride th so i ride the elevator and he is going t enlin me mre. o iie back. th chair: thgentloman yies bac the questio is on the amendmt oered by theentlanrom new mexico. those infavoay aye. ospped, no. in the opinion of the cha the ayes it. ms. mcllum: mr. airwe would reqst aolcall, se. th chair: psuant to clae 6, rule 18, further votes on t amendmtered b the gentlemanrom new mexico will be postponed. chai understands that endment numbe 64 will not be
11:00 pm
ofered. it is now in ordo id amdnt nb 6 considered in house repor 115-2 clerk: mr. mc' chin: i have an amendment ath des thchair:ursuanto he resolution, the ntleman from virgin, mr. mceach-innd a mberpposed each -- . mcch and a member opp each will control fiv mutes. mr mceachin -- oshore drili iereal cseences f
11:01 pm
th indusializatin ur as to the escable risk of anther.p.orizon-le os rifpks can't be inated. accidents canliamage from an almo unimaginable b. h spet nyillions of dollarsespondg to tt that rlectialities to our environment, permanent harm to essential industries and countless other impacts on gulf coast resident's quality of life. we have to make sure other regions are never exposed to those kinds of harms. that's why my amendment is so important. in the event of a drilling accident, thriving coastal economies could be peranent
11:02 pm
11:03 pm
coeences oocty. 's poant to note gas companies. our coasts are home to some of our most iconic and unique wildlife. healthy oceans are critical to traditional ways of life. having provided sub stand -- subsistence resources for many generations. those places, those species, those customs are part of why we live in the greatest country on earth. no other place can match the richness and diversity of the united states of america. we must not endanger the incredible heritage and a quest for dirty energy, especially the fuels that can drive catastrophic changes to our climate with grave and permanent consequences to opreparation ofa new leasing program does not stop any of the currently scheduled lease sales until 2022 from happening. my amendment just puts us back on the regular schedule for the next plan. -- it does he ensure that millions are not spent reworking a plan just completed this year resm starting a new five-year leasing process would throw away two and a half years and tens of millions of dollars of efforts and eliminate the protections that president obama provided waters. ragile the risks are too high and the consequence taos severe. i urk my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from
11:04 pm
virginia reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is ecognized. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. mr. chairman, i certainly sympathize with many of the comments that the sponsor of this amendment has brought up. certainly none of us have any intention of trashing the environment, of causing environmental degradation in any coastal areas in the united states. but the thing is that this amendment doesn't cut production. it would not result in any reduction in oil and gas exploration and production activity. if it were to do that, all it would do is increase our reliance on imports of oil. the reality and statistics are clear, you are less safe transporting energy than producing it. putting it into a ship is less safe. putting it into a pipeline is less safe than producing it. you're not doing anything to benefit the environment. the next thing is, is within
11:05 pm
approximately one month of the obama administration's being orn into office in 2009 as i recall, within i believe it was on february 10, secretary salazar stood up and said we are rewriting the five-year offshore leasing plan of the previous administration. they walked right in, said we're throwing this out which you just said was -- excuse me, mr. chairman, the bill -- the amendment's sponsor said was billions of dollars in implications and much planning, it's exactly what the obama administration did. if the trump administration cloozes to take a fresh look at resources and resources that i want to quote the obama administration saying, these are resource that blng to all americans, mr. chairman, i want to make one other note. mr. graves: if you read the amendment it says none of the funds may be used to prepare a phi-year oil and gas leasing program that would schedule any
11:06 pm
outer continental shelf lease before 2022. this wouldn't just prohibit making changes to it, such as perhaps expanding it if public comment and other input found that was the best thing to do. it would prevent slowing down the lease sale schedule. mr. chairman, i urge opposition to this amendment. while i certainly support the gentleman's intent to prevent any type of environmental harm and degradation, i want to say in closing that i was the lead trustee for the state of louisiana in the deepwater horizon spill. when you look at outer continental shelf production, we have produced trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, we have produced millions of barrels of oil. what the courts found in the b.p. incident is there was fwrose negligence and billful -- and willful misconduct. they didn't find problems with the rules. and that is why they have had to spend tens of billions of
11:07 pm
dollars paying for their gross negligence and willful misconduct which is very different than the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas an billions of barrels of oil that we have produced safely, we have produced them in the united states and we have not put them in pipelines and tankers and other less safe mechanisms of transportation. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. mceachin: could you advidse me the balance of of the time. the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman re-- mr. mceachin: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. graves: i yield to the chairman of the subcommittee. mr. calvert: this would prevent the necessary review of the existing five-year plan. meanwhile, the committee encurblinged the review of the plan in the 2017 omnibus.
11:08 pm
i certainly aurge no vote on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. graves: in closing i want to say that once again, while i understand the gentleman's intent to prevent any type of environmental degradation, i think everyone shares that objective. the reality is this amendment doesn't do anything to advance that objective and potentially shoiled there be some type of emerging situation where you'd want to slow down lease sales, this amendment would prohibit that from happening. we should take a fresh look with public input and with the best science to determine whether we produce, how we produce to maximize domestic energy production, to maximize, or to reduss dependence on foreign energy, to maximize economic opportunities, i urge opposition to this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. mceachin: just briefly, i was not here at the time, but it is my understanding that this is
11:09 pm
nothing like what the other side of the aisle did during the obama administration. so with this -- what this amendment seeks to do in many cases is not that unusual. while the gentleman is correct, the size of the payments b.p. had to make were because of a certain type of conduct, what we want to do is freeze things where they are. while i acknowledge there's a possibility that somehow someone would want to slow down the process, i don't believe this administration would do just that. so again, millions of dollars have been spent, much time has been spent in developing this plan, i think we just need to leave it in place and i would ask my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields. 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 visit. the amendment is -- the noes have it.
11:10 pm
he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 66 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. grothman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 66 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin five minutes. mr. grothman: thank you for yielding. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 3354. the purpose of my amendment is to prohibit use of funds made available by this act to
11:11 pm
implement, administer and enforce the ambient air quality standards for ozone rule, origin nam lil -- originally published october 26, 2015. this rule will greatly -- will make the standards more stringent, among other place, in the state of wisconsin, up and down lake michigan, including counties such as sheboygan counties. as you make the standards more stringent, first of all it doesn't make sense because there are areas like mine where the ozone is coming from outside my district. i have a county, sheboygan county, i don't think whatever -- they could ever meet those standards because there's so much ozone coming up from the chicago area. but there's an effect to these standards as well. standards make it more difficult for industry along lake michigan to operate and comply with the standards. putting us at a competitive disadvantage not only around the
11:12 pm
country but competitive disadvantage compared to other areas around the world with much more pollution than we have. and right now, our ozone is much lower than it was when i was a child and when i was a child nobody complained anyway. another thing about ozone standards, something that people who are looking out for the not particularly wealthy people should pay attention to. when you aren't meeting the standards, it creates a situation in which your owners of automobiles have to have their cars tested every year. and sometimes these cars have to go through very expensive repairs to meet the standards. now, there are people going to think that's no big deal because they're maybe wealthy congressmen. maybe they can buy a new car every three or four years, don't have a problem. but if you're somebody who has a 10 or 15-year-old car, maybe only afford to spent $500 or $1,000 on a car and once a year you have to get the car tested,
11:13 pm
you flunk the test, may have to t $1,000 and $1,500 into it, no wonder there are some people who can't get ahead. in any event, i think it would be good if we don't spend any more money implementing this new rule. give the e.p.a. more time to reconsider this rule and with come up with something more reasonable. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i understand the gentleman's intent. i share his concern. with the 2015 ozone standards. the bill language in the amendment goes a little too far. ties the administration's hands, this new administration, with respect to reconsideration or
11:14 pm
flexibility trying to build in at the present time. meanwhile, the ozone language in the underlying bill provides the necessary administrative relief for communities to comply with e overlapping 2008-015 requirements. i think that this administration understands the complexities being imposed by this 15 requirement, trying to deal with it. mr. pruitt has indicated that publicly. and so otherefore i would urge my colleague to -- i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is the only one with time remaining. r. calvert: that's fine. i yielded.
11:15 pm
mr. grothman: i yield back. the chair: the question isen the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. 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 67 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 67 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. lamb born of colorado. the chair: pursuant that house resolution 504, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized.
11:16 pm
mr. lamborn: my amendment is straightforward, it ensures the fish and wildlife service is following curn law, specifically section 4-c-2 of the enteenaged species act. time after time the federal government refuses to follow the original intent of the endangered species act. the government designates land as critical habitat despite not meeting the definition and the government consistently refuses to remove plants and animals from threatened or endangered status even when they're flourishing and are no longer in need of e.s.a. protections. you may ask yourself, how does the government know when a species should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? highway does a government know if the species is recovering? the answer can be found in the e.s.a. and the requirement that the government reviews all plants and species listed as
11:17 pm
endangered or threatened every five years. under the act the purpose of a five-year review is to ensure that threatened or endangered species have the appropriate level of protection. the reviews assess each threat and endangered species to determine whether its status has changed since the time of its listing. or its last status review. whether that status should be changed or maintained. and because the act grants extensive protection to a species, including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, it makes sense to regularly verify if a plant or animal is being properly classified or should be delisted. despite this commonsense requirement, the u.s. fish and wildlife service has acknowledged that it has neglected its responsibility to conduct the required reviews for hundreds of listed species. by enforcing the five-year review, which is in the law, my amendment will ensure that the u.s. fish and wildlifer is is is
11:18 pm
using the best available and most current scientific information in implementing responsibilities under that act. i encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring the u.s. fish and wildlife service comply twhess e.s.a. and we don't provide money in this bill that
11:19 pm
would violate current law. this was added to the bill and added to the fiscal year 2017 bill by a i ask you so support this amendment for the third time and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. and the gentleman from colorado is right, we have had this conversation in this chamber before. in the center attempts to comply with the statutory amendment and determine whether or not this is classified as threatened or endangered, it's correct, the service has a backlog and
11:20 pm
reviews the funding limitations. this year, it is a 17% reduction so they have been working on the backlog. but the service has been able to complete 100 to 120 reviews per year which is half of what is needed. so in this bill, i mean you and i think that money isn't solution to a problem, but in this bill it has cut another 3.4 million and builds up the backlog only more and not necessarily the fault of the chairman, the subcommittee, mr. chair, but the fact that the allocation that our subcommittee had to work with, and i know that the chairman was trying to balance a lot of things. and you talked about, you know the court and the environment, i
11:21 pm
would love to have a conversation with you and it's my understanding and i want to make sure we have a conversation with it because as the gentleman knows we have a good relationship and i want to make sure that i'm correct when i say things, that actually some of the things that have been happening and the courts have helped to reduce some of the courts -- and i'll get some of the information and share it with the gentleman later, but the fact that this amendment would not remove species without review from the list of species protected by the e.c.a. and the prohibition would still remain nd the ability would force compliance. funding cannot be with late
11:22 pm
reviews, it's going to leave the species union protected. proposed language would prohibit the service from working with the agencies and prohibit with working with developers and land owners to come apply with section 7, consultation or section 10 projects that could potentially affect the species. as you can see the other thing it doesn't do is the proposed language would not affect the language to affect those land owners. so i gry with you that we need to do a better job of making sure that these reviews are done in a timely fashion. i agree when a species is written, obtained a classification that is no longer in danger, should come off. we have a lot in common.
11:23 pm
but the challenge with this amendment is that with -- without the funding in order for the service to do the job that it has to do it puts the service in a box in which we are saying you are not doing a good job and start changing the way in which we proceed. so, i right now, have to oppose this amendment, but as i said in the policy committee, there is room for some of us to come together and make improvements but legislating this rider for one year at a time doesn't allow us to have the deep, transparent open discussion. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. mr. lamborn: i yield to the gentleman from california.
11:24 pm
mr. calvert: i appreciate the gentlelady's comments. and if we get additional resources in the future, i would love to make sure that the fish and wildlife have the resources to make sure they meet their mandates and one of the mandates they have is to review the status of every listed species every five years and corresponding change in the status if it is called for. instead of doing those reviews, the service chooses to list more species. if the government isn't willing to list more, perhaps you shouldn't be listing those in the first place. they need to meet those obligations under the law. i support this amendment and i encourage members to vote for it and i yield back.
11:25 pm
the chair: the gentleman from california yields. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: i will say to the gentlelady from minnesota, i would love to work with her on this. in the natural resources committee, we will look at the different facets of the endangered species act. this amendment seeks to make the agency comply with the law, that provision is in there for a reason. so let's enforce what congress in its wisdom put into the law many years ago. and with that, i ask for support of this amendment and 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.
11:26 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 68 printed in for what t 115-297, purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition the clerk: amendment number 689 offered by mr. lamborn of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from golf h colorado, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. lamborn: i yield such time as i may consume. e tiny road ent with three nches long and four-ink long tail. this mouse lives in ecosystems along the foothills of southwest wyoming and in my district along
11:27 pm
the front lidge. evade, it can jump up to 18 inches high. onto the list. and among projects that have een affected, the expansion of chatfield reservoir and housing investments in el paso counties. builders, land owners in affected areas have incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of this mouse and protecting the mouse has been placed ahead of human life and protect. on september 11, 201, cole experienced a major flood event that destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure and public works projects.
11:28 pm
were this listing, many delayed. fema was so concerned they sent out a notice that legally required review may cause undertaken in the people's house habitat and local officials who perceive projects risk fine and could lose federal funding for those projects. while a waiver was grapted, the scientific evidence doesn't justify the millions of dollars going to protecting a mouse that goes through the continent. the people's mouse does not warrant protection and is related to the bear lodge jumping mouse. even the scientists that classified this mouse as a
11:29 pm
subspecies has since recanted his work and depreed that the designation is no longer defensible. he people's mouse is a low parityy score and hundreds of millions have been spent on protection efforts that should have been spent on other more sensitive species. this has been caused by the people's meadow jumping office. it would focus the efforts on speaks yes, sir that have been velted and should be managed by the endangered species act. this was added to the 2016 added byvoice vote and a roll call vote. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield the balance of my time.
11:30 pm
the chair: for what purpose does gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in pposition to this amendment. clearly what this amendment does and different from the other amendments, it prohibits the fish and wildlife service from implementing or enforcing the sting of the people's meadow jumping mouse from endangerered species. species like this is listed. it is the role of the fish and wildlife -- it is fairly personal miss i have and help parties carrier out their activities. the service is considering all the comments they received during the public review comment
11:31 pm
period. and a draft recovery plan, as you know, being worked through to develop a final recovery plan. with this amendment, the service would not be able to recovery the species. so in other words, we would stop them from we'd stop them from moving forward but they'd still be under jures diction to comply. they wouldn't be able to comply by working with agencies and land developers and landowners o provide e.s.a. compliance. so u.s. fish and wildlife service would be barred from issuing permits or they would even be barred from offering exemptions. that means land owners and industry and other parties who the jumping take mouse incidental to otherwise lawful activities such as urban
11:32 pm
development are vulnerable to third party lawsuits. another, you know, limitation of the service would have would be undertaking the required status reviews of subspecies or initiate anything rule making or delisting species. so now we're talking about deep dives into what the u.s. fish and wildlife may or may not be impacted by doing or helping landowners or developers on an appropriation bill. so quite frankly, you know, as i've been saying all night, and i understand people have the right to come here with these amendments, but it's, you know, the service has a responsibility to implement the endangered species act. they're charged with fulfilling their legal requirement. and when they don't fulfill their legal requirement, it makes them more vulnerable to
11:33 pm
lawsuit which is i know is not the goal of the author of this amendment, mr. chairman. but when there's lawsuits incurred, it creates more costs for american taxpayers. so the gentleman's amendment would just undermine the services -- service's ability to work collaboratively with state and local communities, open the service up for lawsuits and it would create even more uncertainty for land owners and make them more vulnerable to lawsuits. so i think we should be working to support the fish and wildlife service efforts, not blocking the agency for doing its job, going back to what we discussed earlier and that is working through the committees of authorization and then the authorizing committees having conversations with the appropriations committee on how they can achieve their goals, this being one of them. so because of those reasons, i do not support this amendment
11:34 pm
and i will yield back and i thank the gentleman for bringing this forward but at this time i just cannot support it. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. .r. lamborn: i yield 30 seconds mr. calvert: i want to jump up and support this amendment. obviously the agency has not leaped fast enough and the problems persist. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i know it will squeak by by large margins. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: i'll conclude by saying there's one other sort of arbitrary element in this whole episode and that is that when you go from colorado into wyoming, the mouse is no longer threatened or endangered. there's a political boundly --
11:35 pm
boundary line between the two states and in its wisdom, the fish and wildlife service says, you go north far enough and it's no longer threatened or endangered. that's an element of arbitraryness that i think also call into question why this was ever done in the first place. so i would ask support for this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
11:36 pm
the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 335 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3354 and has come to no esolution thereon. the chair lays before the house
11:37 pm
-- the chair lays before peff -- before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. garrett of virginia for today. the chair: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i move that the house now adjourn. the chair: the question is on the motion to ad journ. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. >> work on these bills is expected to finish up next week. now, hurricane harvey --
11:38 pm
tomorrow, hurricane harvey eight and the debt ceiling. you can watch live on c-span. >> president trump held a news conference with the amir of kuwait today. he will have that next beard the, betsy devos announcing revamping of title ix policies on college campuses. involving theons uss fitzgerald and the uss john s mccain. on c-span twos book tv you'd saturday at 7:30 p.m., bernie sanders offers his thoughts on how to bring about change in america. >> what is the agenda? what should we be doing as a nation? if you have a middle-class which is shrinking, if you have millions of people living in poverty and sometimes desperate
11:39 pm
poverty, the first thing i think we're got to do is demand that if you work 40 hours per week in iowa, vermont or america, you are not living in poverty. >> then, douglas shown discusses in the age america of trump appeared >> my book tries to forge common sense bipartisan solutions to the problems we are facing. i would argue that those problems are getting worse and being, to a great degree, made worse still by our political leadership you'd -- leadership. >> then sunday night, daniel allen examines the issue of mass incarceration. get prison system as they
11:40 pm
hours, 25% of the worlds population, prison population, affectsrisons, it everybody? there are a lot of stories we're not telling. we are letting this thing live. we have got to get the stories out so we can see the damage we are doing and take steps. >> for more on this week's schedule, go to book tv.org. aboutsident trump talked the fight against isis, options regarding north korea and the dispute between qatar and neighboring countries. he was joined by the amir of kuwait at a joint news conference at the white house.

59 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on