Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  July 18, 2018 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT

4:00 pm
4:01 pm
4:02 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 90.
4:03 pm
the nays are -- on this vote the yeas are 90. the nays are 123. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on amendment number 27 printed in house report 115-830 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. o'halloran, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. o'halloran of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. members are reminded this is a two-minute vote. 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.]
4:04 pm
4:05 pm
4:06 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 219. the nays are 196. -- 217 -- excuse me -- on this vote the yeas are 217. the nays are 196. he amendment is adopted.
4:07 pm
the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 29 printed in house report 115-830 offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. adams, on further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in house report 115-830 offered by ms. adams of north carolina. 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 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.]
4:08 pm
4:09 pm
4:10 pm
the chair: on this vote the eas are --
4:11 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 194. the nays are 218. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 39, as modified, printed in house
4:12 pm
report 115-830 offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin, as modified. 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 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.]
4:13 pm
4:14 pm
4:15 pm
4:16 pm
the chair: the yeas are 114, the nays are 297. he amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i move the committee do now ise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. accordingly, the committee rises.
4:17 pm
the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state union having had under consideration directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has reported that it has had under consideration h.r. 6147 and come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: i send a privileged report to the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 982, resolution of inquiry requesting the president and directing the secretary of health and human services to transmit respectively certain information to the house of representatives referring to the separation of children from their parents or guardians as a result of the president's zero-tolerance policy. the speaker pro tempore:
4:18 pm
referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. without objection, the chair apoints the following conferees on h.r. 2. the clerk: from the committee on agriculture for consideration of the house bill and the senate amendment and modifications committed to conference, messrs, quay, lucas, austin scott of georgia, crawford, mrs. hartzler, rodney davis of illinois, yoho, marshal, david cott of georgia, costa, walls, grisham of eu han new mexico of new mexico. from the committee on education and the work force for considerations of 4204 and 9131
4:19 pm
of the house bill and modifications committed to. ms. foxx, mr. allen and ms. adams. from the committee on energy and commerce for substilets a and b 6203, e 6, section 6202, 01, 407, 6409, 6603, 7 605, 8106, 8507. 9119, 9121 and 11101 of the house bill and section 6117, 7412, 206, 6301, 6303, 9111-13, 9106, 12628 of the nd senate amendment and
4:20 pm
modifications. messers. shimkus kramer and tonko. for consideration of section 12609 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to conference messers. hensarling, duffy and ms. waters of california. from the committee on foreign affairs for consideration of title 3 of the house bill and modifications committed to conference, messers. royce of california, chabot and engel. from the committee on natural resources of consideration of 8107,ns 2802, 6408, 8104, 8109, subtitles b and c of title 07.8402, 8502, 850 , 85 15 of the house bill and section 2425, subtitle 8611, 81, eight,
4:21 pm
12602 of 12601 and the senate amendment and modifications committed to conference. messers. bishop of utah, westerman and grijalva. for consideration of section 116094022, 4026, 8502 and of the house bill and sections 8632, 128, 8623, 8630, 12301 and 12407 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to conference. messers. walker, comber and ms. plaskett. from the committee on science, space and technology for consideration of section 7509 of the house bill and section 7409 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to
4:22 pm
conference, messers. abraham, dunn and ms. johnson of texas. from the committee on transportation and infrastructure for consideration 6224, ions 2404, 6223, 6503, 9117 and 9118 of the house bill and sections 2415, 2416, 6124, 6304 and 7412 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to conference messers. denham, gibbs and mrs. bustos. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on further consideration of h.r. 6147 and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 996
4:23 pm
and prule 19 the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, take the chair. mr. hultgren: the house is in the committee of the whole house for further consideration of h.r. 6147. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department ever interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 2018 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee arose, amendment number 39 printed in house report 118-830 ad been disposed of. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek recognition? ms. moore: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 42 115-830.n house report
4:24 pm
the chair: pursuant to house resolution 996, the the gentlewoman from from wisconsin and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman and let me thank the committee for really supporting me and my very important amendments last evening and i have another very important amendment that is before the committee here today. i urge support for my amendment that would prevent the administration from dismantling the e.p.a.'s great lakes advisory board. i'm so pleased that this bill has again rejected the resident's proposal to gut the glri and this amendment would prevent them from dismantling the advisory board. you know, mr. chairman, this is a critical matter for anyone who drinks water and the great lakes
4:25 pm
provides drinking water to some 40 million people. let me say that again, 40 million people depend on this resource for one of life's basic requirements, water. i mean, not to mention andlers and recreation and as an old african proverb goes, water has no enemies. hopefully the great lakes restoration initiative is something we are going to recognize of playing a critical role in protecting and restoring one of america's greatest national treasures, life-sustaining element, water, and just to mention not to bor people with a lot of statistics but the great lakes contain about 21% of the world's surface fresh water and over 80%, 85% of water. h water in fresh
4:26 pm
and it's critical. it is important that the e.p.a. receive advice and input from local stakeholders regarding priorities under that program. the great lakes advisory board provides such advice. e.p.a. established the board in 2013 to provide independent advice to the e.p.a. administration in its capacity as chair of the federal great lakes interagency task force. some of the past activities of the advisory board have been providing the eep with recommendations regarding what are the most stressors and needs for the great lakes ecosystem, providing the e.p.a. with recommendations on ways to ensure effective public input into the great lakes action plan process and providing advice on whether the glri should understand long-term future threats and communicates them to the great lakes community for action. in light of efforts, reports of
4:27 pm
efforts to undermine the board on a bipartisan basis, i have joined colleagues in writing to the e.p.a. earlier this year to make clear that we support the establishment and maintenance of the board. my amendment would put teeth behind this letter and make it clear to the administration what congressional intent is regarding this important advisory board, and that, mr. chairman, i would reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin reserves. mr. calvert: i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. calvert: this bill is consistent with years past and provided robust funding, so therefore this is an initiative we accept and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: i thank the gentleman from california. he is very effective leader on this issue. d i appreciate him and the
4:28 pm
great lakes advisory board is to make sure that it is successful and impactful in the years to come. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. now in order to consider amendment number 43. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. mullin of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 996, the gentleman from oklahoma and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. mullin: this would prohibit funds from the rule. this rule is currently facing litigation uncertainty and
4:29 pm
congress must act to block this job-killing regulation estimated to cost our economy 530 million annually. while oil and gas production has increased over 25% since 2005, related methane emissions have actually decreased almost 40% during the same time period. it is counterproductive for the federal government to enact harmful regulations and spends taxpayer dollars and forces hardship. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. -- the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the gentleman's amendment would block the e.p.a. from regulating methane emissions. methane is the primary component of not tral gas with global warming potentials, more than 25
4:30 pm
times greater than carbon dioxide. in 2013, one of the emissions came from oil and gas production, processing, transmission and distribution. there is no doubt, no doubt at all, that methane critz to the increased levels of greenhouse gas concentrations which will contribute to long lasting changes in our climate such as changes in weather and precipitation patterns. public health risks include heat waves and drought and smog, increasing intensity of extreme weather events and increasing the range of ticks and mosquitoes which can spread lyme disease and west nile virus and zika. scott pruitt tried to delay this rule but the courts blocked this effort and the e.p.a. cannot
4:31 pm
implementation. when is the majority going to stop the the assault on the environment? i reserve. . . the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. scott perry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. perry: the e.p.a. has imposed the substantial competitive barriers despite the industry's significant reduction in methane emissions through their own initiatives and innovation. what's not known is that through the e.p.a.'s own analysis, it shows that methane emissions from hydrolically fractured natural gas wells have fallen drastically. according to e.p.a. data -- not y data -- e.p.a. data, methane emissions went down 38%. nd natural gas wells, that was 73%. total emissions are actually
4:32 pm
down 11% from 2005 despite the significant increase in production. this is market forces at work. american producers developed means for capturing additional methane because doing so means they have more product to sell. profitability rather than a top-down washington regulation drove this unprecedented emissions reduction. in fact, in 2012 alone, voluntary methane emissions activities by the u.s. oil and gas industry generated $364 million in additional revenue. unfortunately, the methane rule represents the kind of one-size-fits-all policy that will actually stifle innovation and discourage further investment in emission reduction technology. actually has a result, the e.p.a.'s methane rule, if allowed to stand, will not only lead to economic harm but environmental harm as well. with that i urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
4:33 pm
i yield the balance. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i reserve but i reserve the right to close. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: i yield to mr. calvert. mr. calvert: e.p.a. was directed to take a second look at the methane rule promulgated by the obama administration. in conjunction with that review, e.p.a. attempted to regulated community. in light of the challenges, the time is right for a temporary pause on the enforcement of these requirements. so i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: we're prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: well, simply put, we urge our colleagues on both sides to come together and kill this job-killing regulation and
4:34 pm
support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized to close. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. as i said, i oppose this amendment. climate change threatens the health and welfare for current and future generations. as the gentlemen have pointed out, mr. chairman, industry has moved, has moved in part because of pressure from the e.p.a. and in part because just the financial loss of allowing this methane gas to escape into the atmosphere. it's dollars that are burning up. these are precious resources that we are taking from the earth and we should make sure that we don't waste any of it. and that is why i think the e.p.a. rule should not be delayed. as been pointed out, industry has the ability to capture this methane. it has the ability to make money from it, and i want to just make sure that we encourage everyone in the industry to move forward.
4:35 pm
mr. chairman, let me give you an example. the oil field in north dakota -- and i am very familiar with it because i spent many summer in that area -- burns brighter than the entire metropolitan area of the twin cities at night because of the flares from the methane that are being burned. that energy should be captured, it should be saved. we should be conservationists for future generations. we must take action, and i encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentlewoman from minnesota. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i would request a roll call, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 44 printed in house report 115-830.
4:36 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. mullin: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. mullin of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 996, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mullin, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. mullin: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would prohibit funds from implementing the obama administration's social costs of carbon rule. congress and the american people have repeatedly rejected cap and trade proposals. the obama administration used social costs of carbon models which could be easily manipulated in order to attempt to justify new job-killing regulations. the house has a clear, strong record of opposition to the social costs of carbon. voting at least 11 times to block, defund, or oppose the proposal. including h.con.res 119, which we will be considering later this week. a carbon tax will be passed a
4:37 pm
law into consumers undermining the success of the tax cuts and jobs act we passed last year. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: this amendment is a very harmful rider and it would prohibit the e.p.a. from considering the costs of carbon as part of rule making. it's an estimate of economic damages associated with small inyou creases of carbon dioxide emission in a given year. it represents the best scientific information available incorporating the impacts of carbon pollution into regulatory analysis. weakening or eliminating the use of social costs of carbon is the tool for federal agencies that would ignore the sobering costs of health, environment, and economic impacts of extreme weather,
4:38 pm
rising temperature, intensifying fog, and other impacts. we cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate change. so i strongly oppose this amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: i yield one minute to my colleague, greg gianforte from montana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gianforte: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the amendment. it would prohibit funds from being used to use to advance guidance or make rules that rely on obama-era social costs of carbon guidance. i've heard from folks in montana who cannot get a permit to expand a coal mine because they didn't account for the carbon released by the trains that would carry the coal. i've heard of the difficulties of building railroad bridges because they might allow more coal to be transported. we must stop relying on metrics that were designed by the keep
4:39 pm
it in the ground crowd. similar language passed on a bipartisan vote here in the house last september. i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from montana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: i reserve. i yield to my colleague, scott perry from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. perry: garbage in equals garbage out. we heard this on numerous occasions, and in this -- in this instance, the international -- correction -- the interagency working group has chosen to disregard the policy decisions from o.m.b. in circular a-4 how they set the modeling. as a result of that, they have interestingly -- the analysis generated by them would have been 80% lower than the mean s.e.c. value if they followed
4:40 pm
the guidance and the result overstates the benefits four times relative to what it would be if only the national benefits from considered as o.m.b. directs. this is a blatant pattern of disregard, mr. chairman, for the o.m.b. guidance in order to inflate the s.e.c. and begs the question -- how many input decisions were responsible where responsible people could disagree were selected in order to inflate the s.e.c. value? let's restore the faith and vote for this amendment. i thank the chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: i recognize one minute to my colleague from texas, mr. gohmert. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend for bringing this amendment. it's an important amendment to people. john dingell is a man of integrity. he has a huge heart. we disagreed on many issues, but i know him as a man of
4:41 pm
integrity. he was told he had to push through the cap and trade that would have gotten into costing people for this so-called cost of carbon, and he said it's not only a tax, it's a great big tax and he lost his chairmanship. but what john dingell knows, what i know is when you start creating taxes on fuel, the people that get hammered the worst are the nation's poorest among us. that's who it gets passed to. that's who gets crushed. let's don't do this to the hardworking poorest among us. let's vote for the mullin amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized to close. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i would just like to reiterate
4:42 pm
again, we should be using the best scientific information available and we should be incorporating the impacts on carbon pollution into regulatory analysis. when we see children being hospitalized because of intense smog, more people suffering respiratory and heart disease and other impacts from that, we all pay for that, whether we pay for it in emergency room visits, we pay for it in insurance. there are many ways in which we are individually paying for the pollution that is created, not alone recognizing the effects it has on climate change. so simply, again, we cannot afford to ban in science while trying to tackle climate change. i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. with that i yield back, mr. chair. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the i.c.e. have it. the amendment is agreed -- the yies have it. the amendment is agreed to.
4:43 pm
ms. mccollum: roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 45. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to rise today to . fer an amendment vembing. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 45 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. chairman. i'm so pleased to offer an amendment to increase resources available to help address a scourge that is occurring in so many of our communities -- lead poisoning. my district is facing its challenges like so many in our country, and the federal
4:44 pm
government must do its part by ensuring that we provide the resources to address this scourge. two of the most prominent ectors are old housing and old water infrastructure. lateral lead pipes. my amendment would attempt to address just one of the sources of lead -- old lateral lead pipes -- while recognizing the need to address housing when the appropriate funding bill comes to the floor. mr. chairman, we know that children throughout america are at risk of a major public health crisis, given aging drinking water infrastructure and housing stock. in my district alone, there are tens of thousands of lead service lines that pose a threat to the public health of children. we heard so much about flint, michigan, but i can tell you that lead poisoning in my district mirrors that of flint, michigan.
4:45 pm
i mean, mr. chairman, there are just no safe level of lead for children. as noted in a recent report by the pew charitable trust, and i would quote, in the absence of lead, hundreds of thousands of children would be more likely to realize their full potential thanks to higher grade point averages, a better chance of earning high school dipalomas, and graduating from college. and a reduce likelihood of becoming teen parents or being convicted of crimes, unquote. yet, lead is a serious threat for kids and their families in our country. the only way to remove lead pipes as the source of lead contamination is to completely remove them. that is the goal that i have joined with my former colleague, dearly beloved the late great louise slaughter. in urging the e.p.a. in march of this career, we wanted them to
4:46 pm
update the rules to require full replacement of lead surface lines. but both public utilities and private homeowners are hard-pressed to finance this needed work. it's my urning that the average cost to be somewhere between $6,000 to $8,000 to replace such a line which is an unimaginable sum for the households that our constituents live in. my amendment would provide funding for one of the newest tools that congress created to help communities address lead pipes. this provides grants for reducing the concentration of lead in drinking water and providing assistance to low-income homeowners to replace lead-service lines. recognizing this need, congress
4:47 pm
authorized the program at $60 million, yet it received only $10 million in the 2018 omnibus appropriation bill. while i would like to get closer to the authorized level, my and ment is modest pragmatic and would continue funding in this program in 2018 level. mr. chairman, i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in support. this will provide funds to states and communities for lead reduction projects as authorized in the 2016. i might point out we have a program that's in the bill which will allow for communities throughout the country to leverage up to $5 billion
4:48 pm
annually and may be more in the future in their communities for such things as lead reduction within their towns and counties. and so therefore, this is an amendment we can accept. nd i yield back. ms. moore: i just want to thank the gentleman for his stewardship and for his recognition of the important taps of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 46 printed in house report 115-830. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise in support of my amendment. the clerk: amendment number 46 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mrs. mrs. mcmorris
4:49 pm
rodgers of washington. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise today in support of my amendment to reverse the past administration's decision to implement unattainable water quality standards through the agency,ental protection e.p.a. i want to be clear that this amendment is not about opposing clean water standards. this is an amendment to support the work that washington state that has an impeccable environmental record undertook. washington developed its own standards for more than 190 pollutants after three years of research and public feedback. these requirements would have been some of the more rigorous nationwide, but e.p.a. rejected them. spokane, the largest city in my istrict invested $340 million.
4:50 pm
this facility was celebrated and the republican mayor was invited to the white house to the white ouse to meet new environmental standards. the problem, even this seat state of the art facility would not be able to meet the immeasurable e.p.a. standards. spokane valley, another major city is facing an estimated billion dollars from muneal and industrial costs because of these rules. this will affect companies like inland paper who has been in business since 1911. the p.c.b. standards that the previous the administration imposed will force them to limit their capability and force them to send products to landfills. we often hear the term best available science.
4:51 pm
well, these requirements cannot even be measured by the scientific community. they are unattainable. it is not new for the e.p.a. to abuse their power. in washington state, we saw this abuse of the federal authority with the up what upstream campaign and misrepresent to our farmers and ranchers. when the federal government enacts a policy, it should not be pouring federal dollars into lobbying and support. requirements that continue be measured is an abuse of trust and it is vital we fix this. this will limit their water quality standards that preempt washington state. this amendment will allow flexibility and reasonable guidelines for states to move forward with water quality standards that can be measured and met. i urge support. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from
4:52 pm
washington reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota? ms. mccollum: this amendment would prohibit the implement of washington state's revised water quality criteria which protects communities from toxic contaminant such as arsenic and mercury and being from minnesota, i understand fish advisories very well. i see signs that limit fish consumption for pregnant women and children in particular. this action would ignore court decisions and the voices of native american tribes and pacific island communities and fishing interests which agree that seafood consumption standards are necessary to protect public health and water quality. he nest fisheries -- northwest fisheries asked to reject this amendment. and it puts the resources of
4:53 pm
tribes in washington at risk. many native families subcyst on the fish they catch. passing this amendment puts these families at greater risk of poisoning. and there is a lot of funding in this bill and some of the other bills we have on the floor, mr. chair, that work to prevent diabetes or to lower risk from diabetes with high blood sugar and tribal nations are finding returning to native foods such as fish is a great way of preventing or reducing the effects of diabetes. but after years of failure by washington state to propose protective standards, e.p.a. kindly put forth a standard which is more protective and meets the clean water act requirements. i understand that the regulated commumet has been uneasy about what stricter standards might be. the they took steps to address
4:54 pm
their concerns. they approved the use of new implementation tools including longer compliance, schedule and intake credit. that means if there is pollution and you don't discharge it, you are not responsible for having to remove it. if you didn't pollute, you are not responsible for cleaning it up. this amendment would circumvent all the work that has been done to protect public health and water quality. washington state officials believe that despite the congresswoman's good intentions and i believe these are good intentions, this amendment would hurt the state of washington and would not actually help the dischargers. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota reserves. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield to the chairman of the subcommittee. mr. calvert: i certainly support her amendment. under the previous
4:55 pm
administration, e.p.a. proposed this stringent water regulation standard in washington state without utilizing sound scientific data or evidence. in doing so, e.p.a. created regulatory uncertainty, imposed unachievable permit levels on the state which are nearly impossible for industries to comply with. i encourage the state and the tribes and e.p.a. to work together to find greebled standards and improve water quality and human health while at the same time providing clarity to the impacted communities and industries. in the meantime, i certainly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield back. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: when constam natured fish results in organ
4:56 pm
damage or impairment on brain development, native american tribes and pacific islander communities need the protections provided by this revised water quality standard. and i would like to state this amendment is not supported by the state of washington or the tribal communities in the area. and i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and clearly more work needs to be done and i look forward to having this amendment not passed and for people to get down to doing the serious work that needs to be done to address the gentlewoman's concerns. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. ms. mccollum: i request a roll call. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the
4:57 pm
gentlewoman from washington will be postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 47 printed in ouse report 115-830. the clerk: amendment number 47 printed in house report number 115-830 offered by mr. loudermilk of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the is georgia.om mr. loudermilk: there was authority to regulate from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines which may be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. to avoid any a.m. bigot, congress defined the term motor vehicle as a quote self-zwind
4:58 pm
vehicle on a street or a highway. until recently, regulateors understood that the term self-propelled vehicle relates to vehicles that can move such orcars, pickup trucks, semis advance. whether a utility trailer pulled by a pickup truck, a boat trailer pulled by a car is considered a self-propelled vehicle and they were never under the regulatory authority of the e.p.a. however, in 2016 without any authority of congress, the e.p.a. extended its regulatory authority and included semi-trailers in the rules for greenhouse standards for onroad heavy duty vehicles. this rule will add components that in some cases have shown to improve air dynamics resulting
4:59 pm
in some improvement in fuel efficiency. however this blanket policy which has resulted from regular tower overreach is not only costly to consumers but counterproductive in promoting clean air practices. the way for these components that are being mandated by the e.p.a. caused carriers to limit the amount of cargo a single trailer can carry and stay waiver o.t. restrictions. more instruction means more carbon emissions without improved efficiency. if the e.p.a. is able to enforce this regulation, it will not be counterproductive but costly to american consumers. the trucking industry has made strides in recent years to reduce air pollution without the government mandates. this amendment prevents the
5:00 pm
e.p.a. to regulate trailers under the greenhouse rule. congress never extended the authority to regulate trailers under the clean air act because trailers are not and never been considered self-propelled vehicles. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. ms. mccollum: i seek opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: this amendment would prohibit the e.p.a. from implementing or enforcing its greenhouse fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty engines. this amendment carves out an exemption. they were made by the e.p.a. and department of transportation and will improve fuel efficiency, cut carbon pollution. fact, the e.p.a. and d.o.t.
5:01 pm
estimate these standards will lower co-2 emissions and cut fuel costs by $170 million and cutting fuel costs is a good thing to do. these standards will achieve greenhouse gas reduction that are associated with all the energy used by u.s. residents in one year. these efficiency fuel standards have been in place since 2016 and companies around the world have made massive investments in cleaner technology. blocking the rule now would have a negative consequence for human health and the environment and also for the economy. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve. . . the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. loudermilk: i want to thank my colleague, mr. griffith, for his hard work on this amendment. i'd like to yield whatever time
5:02 pm
he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. griffith: i appreciate my colleague for introducing this amendment. he's absolutely right. the clean water act never gave the e.p.a. this -- the clean air act never gave the e.p.a. this authority. their rationale is kind of interesting because they took the authority that said they could regulate new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines and the definition of new motor vehicle meaning any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on the street or highway and applied it to trailers, applied it to trailers. they are not self-propelled. when i asked the acting director of the air division of the e.p.a., how in the world could they do this? i presume she wasn't a lawyer and said, well, yeah, i am. i am surprised because the language is pretty clear. they don't have the authority to do that. she said, you can't haul any goods if the trailer is not attached to a truck.
5:03 pm
that's not in the code. the code says they only have authority over self-propelled vehicles. they created this out of whole cloth. it doesn't make any sense to allow an agency to create law. that's our job. i told her that day. if you think it needs to be changed, bring in a bill and we'll discuss it. they've never done that. they don't have authority. we shouldn't fund something that is clearly illegal based on the plain english reading of the terms. and i yield back to my colleague. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. loudermilk: i reserve. ms. mccollum: i reserve to close. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. loudermilk: i urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from virginia and myself in what is a common sense and upholding our constitutional authority as the urge a ive branch and i
5:04 pm
yea vote. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota. s. mccollum: this rule has a cleaner, more fuel efficient trucks. president obama was right when he said, we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it. this amendment is harmful and i urge my colleagues to reject it. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order tore consider amendment number 48 house report 115-830. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.
5:05 pm
the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 48 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. lamborn of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 996, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, the preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with a body approximately three inches long, a four to six-inch tail and long hind feet. this nocturnal mouse lives primarily in stream-side ecosystems in wyoming and colorado. o evade predators, the preble's meadow mouse can jump high. the most famous feet was its leap onto the endangered species list in may, 1998,
5:06 pm
which has hindered colorado springs, colorado, to the wyoming border. among projects that have been affected is the jeff could he parkway, expansion of the chatfield reservoir and housing developments in el paso county along tributaries among monument creek. builders, landowners have occurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of this mouse. and protecting the preble mouse has been placed ahead of protecting human life. on september 11, 2013, colorado experienced a major flood event that damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and public works projects. as a result of the preble mouse's listing on the endangered species, many projects were delayed as colorado sought a waiver. moreover, the scientific evidence simply does not justify these delays or the millions of taxpayer dollars that go toward protecting a
5:07 pm
rodent that is actually part of a larger group that romes throughout half of the -- roams throughout half of the north american continent. studies concluded that it does not warrant protection. it's related to one of the largest and widespread lineages of north american jumping mice. even the scientists that originally classified this mouse as a subspecies has since recanted his work. moreover, the preble's mouse has a low conservation priority score meaning the hundreds of millions spent on protection efforts could have been spent on other more fragile species. my amendment would correct the injustice that's been caused by the inaccurate listing of the preble's meadow jumping mouse and would refocus the u.s. fish and wildlife efforts on species that have been thoroughly, scientifically vetted and that
5:08 pm
should be managed by the endangered species act. this amendment is supported by citizens against government waist and has previously passed the -- waste and has previously passed the house of representatives all by bipartisan votes. i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. who seeks time? the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: first, i would like to just make the case, mr. chair, that this is a rider. this is authorizing on an appropriations amendment, and that the author of the amendment, mr. chairman, is in the majority. the majority could have a hearing in the authorizing committee. it could come to the floor. it could pass on the floor. the senate could move it. it appears to me that president trump is in a position to sign
5:09 pm
this into law should he choose to do so. so there is another alternative vehicle for moving the gentleman's amendment forward and that is to do it legislatively and not put it on an appropriations bill. the senate has chosen to put no riders on the appropriations bill but the amendment is before us. it would prohibit the fish and wildlife service from mplementing the listing of the preble's meadow jumping mouse under the endangered species act and would not offer resources to preserve the species. once it is in the act, it's part of fish and wildlife and is permissive to carry out the activities. i want to make sure the record is clear. fish and wildlife reviewed the information, claiming an allege error of the listing of the
5:10 pm
species and found no evidence that the preble's meadow jumping mouse is not a valid subspecies. under this amendment, the service would not be able to continue to offer to recover this species through the endangered species act prohibition, but still apply. the service would not be able to work with agencies. the service would not be able to work with developers. the service would not be able to work with landowners and others to provide, yes, a compliance. the fish and wildlife service would be barred from issuing permits or exemptions, and this means landowners, industry, and other parties who might need to ke the preble's meadow mouse incidentally into urban development. this would become vulnerable to third-party lawsuits. additionally, this amendment would also limit the service from undertaking a required status review of the subspecies or from any initial rulemaking to downlist or to delist the species as appropriate.
5:11 pm
so, mr. chair, i -- i think it's pretty obvious, i think this amendment should go through a different way of coming to the floor and that is through the authorizing committee and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i yield as much time as he might consume to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. calvert. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman. as you know, the house has spoken on this. last year's conference report, we directed fish and wildlife service to make this species among the highest priorities for consultation and permit processing. obviously, the agency has not moved fast enough and they need to get hopping. so i'm sure this amendment will squeak by with all of our support. so with that i urge an aye vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from colorado reserve? mr. lamborn: i reserve. ms. mccollum: i reserve for
5:12 pm
closing. the chair: the gentleman from colorado's time. mr. lamborn: i will conclude by saying if the fish and wildlife service worked together with developers, with local communities and other groups, that would be one thing. but when they come in with a hammer and say you have to do it this way, that's really not working together and that's unfortunately been the experience of many parties on the front range of colorado. so with that i would urge that we once again support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for the remainder of her time. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. the service has a statutory requirement to implement the endangered species act. defunding the agency's ability to fulfill the requirements makes it more vulnerable to lawsuits. i know that's something we are all trying to avoid here. and when you have lawsuits, it's an unnecessary cost to the taxpayers. now, the gentleman's amendment would undermine the service's states, work with local communities to conserve
5:13 pm
this species and it would create uncertainty for landowners and also make them vulnerable to lawsuits. so we should not pass this amendment. we should be supporting the fish and wildlife service efforts and not blocking the agency from doing its job. and my commitment to the chairman and to mr. chairman, my walking partner in the tunnels, we also come over for votes, is to work with them to make the fish and wildlife agency more responsible to the gentleman's concerns. but at this time i have to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. 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. ms. mccollum: mr. chair. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: could i please have a roll call? the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed.
5:14 pm
it's now in order to consider amendment number 49 printed in house report 115-830. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 49 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. lamborn of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 996, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. lamborn: my amendment is straight ford. it ensures that the fish and wildlife service is following current law. specifically, section 4-c-2 of the endangered species act by conducting that review of all threatened and endangered plants and wildlife at least once every five years. time after time the federal government refuses to follow the will of congress when it
5:15 pm
enacted the endangered species act. the government designates land as critical habitat despite not leading the e.s.a. definition, and the government consistently refuses to remove plants and animals from threatened or endangered status even when those species are flourishing and no longer in need of e.s.a. protections. but you may ask yourself, how does the government know when a species should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? how does the government know if a species is recovering? the answer can be found in the i.s.a. and the requirement that the -- e.s.a. and the requirement that they review all plants and species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered every five years. under the endangered species act, the purpose of a five-year review is to ensure that threatened or endangered species have an appropriate level of protection. and because they grant protection to species, including harsh penalties to landowners and other citizens, it makes sense to regularly
5:16 pm
verify if a plant or animal is being properly classified or if it should be delisted. . despite this commonsense requirement, the u.s. fish and wildlife service acknowledged earlier this year that had has neglected its responsibility to conduct the required reviews for nearly 1,000 species. by enforcing the five-year review, my amendment will ensure that the u.s. fish and wildlife service is using the best available scientific information in implementing its responsibilities under the e.s.a. including incorporating new information through public comment and assessing ongoing conservation efforts. this amendment is supported by citizens against government waste, the national mining association, and the american farm bureau, and has previously passed the house of representatives on three separate occasions, all by bipartisan votes. i encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the u.s. fish and wildlife service follows the law, the letter of
5:17 pm
the law, in the endangered species act. and that we do not allow the agency to spend money that would violate current law. i ask you to once again support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. who seeks time in opposition? the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. i seek -- claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: the service attempts to comply with the statutory mandate to review the status of listed species every five years, to determine whether their classification is threatened or endangered is still appropriate. however, the service has a backlog of such reviews due to funding limitations such as 42% listing reduction contained in this bill. in this bill, the work that the service would need to do to comply with what you want in this bill alone is cut $8 million. so that just puts them farther behind. in recent years, the service has only been able to comply to 100
5:18 pm
to 120 reviews per year, which is less than half of what's needed to keep up with the requirement to review all the species every five years. so, that falls on congress, for us not giving them the funds that they need to do the job effectively and efficiently, as you're requesting. and the way to fix that is to give them their proper funding. but as the gentleman might be aware, the chairman was given level funding this year. he did his very best that he could with what he had. to balance things out in the interests of the requests he had from members of the house. but this particular $8 million cut just makes your problem even worse. this amendment would not remove species without reducing the list of the species protected by the e.s.a. so the e.s.a. prohibition against would still remain. as would the ability of citizens to sue to force compliance. if funding cannot be used to
5:19 pm
force e.s.a. reviews, that will lead to species unprotected. while proposed language would prohibit the service from working with agencies, developers and landowners and others to provide e.s.a. compliance through section 7 of consultations, or section 10 of permits for federal and private projects that could potentially effect the species, it would not only effect the ability of third parties to sue those agencies or landowners for potentially enjoying their projects due to lack of e.s.a. compliance. o, mr. chairman, as i said about the last amendment, we don't need another rider or extraneous provision in this bill. it's already overburdened with many, many riders. i urge my colleagues to take this language to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction and work through and see if we can make positive changes and create win-wins. and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i
5:20 pm
would urge my colleagues, if they want the backlog to change, to help the chairman and i get more money into the allocation of this bill so the chairman and i can work to achieve those goals together. with that, i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. -- the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: two quick responses and then i'm going to yield some time. when it comes to funding the fish and wildlife service, they're going to have to basically do what every other private or governmental entity, families and individuals have to do, prioritize their spending. they have to live within their means. we all have live to within our means. -- to live within our means. they have to have the priorities where they can do the job with the money that they're given. number two, i think that maybe my colleague would agree with me that outside environmental groups are largely to blame for bringing massive lawsuits that tie up a lot of the resources of the fish and wildlife service so
5:21 pm
they can't be doing their business of protecting the species that they're already supposed to be caring for. so i think they really get a lot of the blame here as well. with that, i would yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. calvert. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman. i support his amendment. the root of frustration with the endangered species act is a species rarely gets de-listed. people are directly affected by a listing or condemned to a life of an additional federal rule indefinitely. congress tried to prevent this by requiring the fish and wildlife service to review the status of every listed species every five years. and to downlist or de-list species accordingly. today the service has a backlog of 892 species. 892. without a current five had been year -- current five-year review. without these five-year reviews,
5:22 pm
species could be recovered and we wouldn't even know it. i find this simply unacceptable. unless the service focuses its personnel on inherently federal responsibilities under the e.s.a., and non-federal partners take the lead on actual recovery, we'll never break the contentious and i will contingentous cycle that we have now. and by the way, we've actually increased the e.s.a. recovery budget in this bill for five-year reviews. so let's get e.s.a. working again. i urge an aye vote on this amendment and i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for the remainder of his time. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman for his remark. i would urge my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment which we've done in the past three different times on a bipartisan basis. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentlelady from minnesota.
5:23 pm
ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, could i please have a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from colorado will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 50 printed in house report 115-830. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 50 printed ins who report 115-830 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 996, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, today i rise to urge support for my amendment, which would reaffirm and preserve the rights of the states to write their own water quality plans.
5:24 pm
my amendment simply prohibits the e.p.a. from using its chesapeake bay total maximum daily load and the so-called water shed irm mentation plans to -- implementation plans to hijack states' water quality strategies. the e.p.a. has implemented a total maximum daily load blueprint for the six states in the chesapeake bay watershed which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter the chesapeake bay. it has given every state in the watershed an ultimatum. either the state does exactly what the e.p.a. says, or it faces the threat of an e.p.a. takeover of its water quality programs. congress intended that the implementation of the clean water act be a collaborative approach through which the states and the federal government work together. this process was not meant to be subject to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats in washington. therefore, my amendment instructs the e.p.a. to respect the important role states play in implementing the clean water act. i want to make it perfectly clear that this amendment would not stop the e.p.a. from working
5:25 pm
with the states to restore the chesapeake bay, nor would it undermine the cleanup efforts already under way. my language only removes the ability of the e.p.a. to take over a state's plan or to take retaliatory action against a state if it does not meet e.p.a.-mandated goals. again, it ensures states' rights remain in tact and not usurped by the e.p.a. it is important to point out that the correlation between the e.p.a.'s outrageous waters of the united states rule and the bay at, at the heart of both issues is the e.p.a.'s attempt to punish all those who dare to oppose them. the bay's a national treasure and i want to see it restored. but we know that 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 micromanage the process. this amendment has passed the house with bipartisan support several times and i urge my colleagues to once again vote to ask the e.p.a. to respect the important role states play in
5:26 pm
implementing the clean water act and prevent another federal power grab by the administration. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition? the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: this amendment would allow those to pollute the chesapeake bay, to ignore the environmental protection agency's water quality standards. restoring the chesapeake bay and its watershed continues to be a priority and a priority for this committee to fund it. the e.p.a. established a mandatory water quality standard and congress has appropriated over $1 billion for the chesapeake bay program to help states, localities and businesses meet those needs. this amendment would jeopardize that funding and have devastating effects on the health of the bay. how long will the states and localities be able to meet their obligations that they agreed to in 2014 in the chesapeake bay
5:27 pm
watershed agreement if the federal government assistance goes away? this is a partnership. we should keep the partnership moving forward. furthermore, if this amendment be were to become law, it would block the e.p.a.'s ability to enforce a quart-ordered settlement requiring farm, community and agribusiness to meet watershed pollution limits. it would not, however, relieve the farms and agrobusiness from the requirements in the ettlement. the states and local governments want to move forward. they want to keep the partnership moving. but some they represent don't think they should be responsible for controlling the pollution that they dump into our rivers and streams across the country. the courts have sided with the e.p.a. on this matter. and the farm bureau continues to pursue their mandatory cleanups through judicial appeals through this amendment. there are enough special interests -- interest provisions for big business in this bill already. we don't need any -- big
5:28 pm
business in this bill already. we don't need any more. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia -- the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. goodlatte: at this time i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment prohibits the use of funds to take retaliatory actions against individual states. importantly, this amendment would not prevent the e.p.a. from working with states to restore the bay. in 1985 the states in the chesapeake bay region recognized the need to address pollutants in the bay and through their own initiative came together to conduct cleanup efforts. these states' driven efforts were largely successful. as a matter of fact, water quality improved almost 50% from 1985 to 2010. however, in 2010 the e.p.a. seized the states' authority to determine their own continued compliance and threatened to
5:29 pm
dictate federal requirements if the states were unable to comply. this 2010 power grab, known as chesapeake bay tmdl, directly contradicts the intent of the clean water act. the clean water act clearly acknowledges state authority in water quality and requires cooperation rather than coercion between the states and the federal government. these coercive methods have been tried and imposed and have failed. actually water quality has not improved since the federalization of the bay cleanup efforts. it is simply imperative that we return the constitutional rights of the states to make their own water quality improvement decisions and restore the state control that has been shown to actually improve water quality. the future of the chesapeake bay depends on it. mr. speaker, i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentlelady from minnesota. reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time the my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the chairman
5:30 pm
of the committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. calvert: i'm happy to rise in support of this -- the gentleman's amendment. this is another example of e.p.a. overreach. it's my hope that my colleagues from virginia, pennsylvania, can continue to work with the administration to find common ground on approaches that will improve water quality in a more flexible manner. i certainly support this amendment and i urge an aye vote. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, in closing, let me just say this amendment does not in any way take any resources away from any of the six states in the chesapeake bay region to improve water quality. what it does take away is the ability of the e.p.a. to dictate to those states one way, their way to do it. the clean water act was written
5:31 pm
that the federal government would set the standards and the states would figure out how to meet those standards. that flexibility has been taken away, starting in the obama administration, and it's time for this congress to stop them from doing that so we can have the kind of collaborative effort just described by the subcommittee chairman, mr. calvert, and get back to doing things the right way. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for the remainder of her time. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. for more than 35 years, 35 years there's been a regional partnership created through the chesapeake bay program and has sought to restore the most protected estuary and that's a partner with the federal government which includes funding that is working together to achieve those common goals. now, i have nothing before me saying that the state of virginia or any of the regional partners want to withdraw from this moving forward to continue to clean up this estuary.
5:32 pm
so this amendment would undermine decades of work and decades of dollars, federal dollars that the federal government has put in in partnership, and it would have devastating effects to the health of the bay. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, he ayes have it. the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: can i have roll call, please? the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed.
5:33 pm
it's now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in house report 115-830. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gallego: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 51 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. gallego of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 996, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. chairman. grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right, and ranchers should abide by the law and pay their fair share. on average, federal grazing is % lower than what the public is. my amendment would simply affirm grazing permits or leases should not be issued to anyone who refuses to comply
5:34 pm
with b.l.m. regulations, including the payment of fees. mr. chairman, this is a narrow amendment but it speaks to a broader principle. we can't claim to support the rule of law and then look the other way when ranchers like clive bundy. he thumbed his nose at the executive and judicial branches, running up over $1 million in unpaid fees. he put the lives of local and federal officials in danger during a standoff. later, when two oregon ranchers named dwight and steven, who also have a history of disregarding grazing regulations were sent to federal prison, members of the bundy family led an armed occupation of the national wildlife refuge. mr. speaker, president trump pardoned the hammonds, validating these tactics and insulting the courageous law enforcement officers who risked their lives during the confirmation in oregon. with these pardoning, trump has effectively given his groups to
5:35 pm
threats that intimidated. he legitimized them. make no mistake, donald trump is making a clear message, you can break the law, threaten deral employees and endanger people with complete impunity. mr. speaker, freeloading on federal land is unlawful and unfair. ranchers need to play by the rules just like the rest of us. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. ho seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from arizona. >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment previously failed by a recorded vote in july, 2016. the amendment tax ranchers and attempts to relit gait the bundy matter. d.o.j. was found to have withheld evidence. i re is no reason to relit
5:36 pm
gait this. -- relitigate this. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego. mr. gallego: if they don't pay they are freeloaders. if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail. if you don't pay your mortgage, you get your house taken away. ranchers are freeloaders and should pay for their freeloading and congress should not stand for it. let's pass my amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar is recognized for the remainder of the time. mr. gosar: thank you. the gentleman brings up exactly the point. we're trying to relitigate a previously settled issue. these ranchers were actually found that their rights were violated by the department of justice. well, when we start looking -- the hammonds were brought up. when we started looking at this case where they actually tried to look at their fire danger on their land and it got beyond their lands and onto public
5:37 pm
land. they were fined exclusively and hardlined. where is the same type of justice given to the forest service or the b.l.m. when their fires, predescribed burn fires go out of hand and take out private holdings? it's not the same. this isn't about freeloading. this is about a case where we need to look at how we take care of our public lands. with that i ask everybody to vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the agreement -- mr. gallego: mr. chair, i request a vote on freeloading. the chair: is the gentleman asking a vote on his amendment? mr. gallego: yes, i request a vote on freeloading, mr. chair. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed.
5:38 pm
it's now in order to consider amendment number 52 printed in house report 115-830. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. byrne: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 52 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. byrne of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 996, the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: thank you. i rise today to offer a straightforward amendment to event any effort to redirect funds from the gulf of mexico energy security act known as go mesa. texas, louisiana, mississippi, alabama, the program is set to
5:39 pm
split up revenue in the outer continental shelf of gulf of mexico. it ensures appropriate funding for the coastal areas that provide the work force, assume the environmental risk, build of the infrastructure. it only makes sense the coastal areas should receive an adequate share of the revenue. previously, there have been devoting -- while i appreciate the trump administration not including such proposal in this year's budget, i still believe it's appropriate for congress to send a clear bipartisan message we don't support moving go mesa funds away from the coastal sure. the department of interior disbursed $400 million to four of the gulf producing states. the two coastal counties in alabama received an additional combined amount of $5 million. i've seen these go mesa funds
5:40 pm
put to good use back in alabama. whether it was from environmental rehabilitation, protection projects, or programs that boost the coastal tourism economy, go mesa is working to supporting our gulf coast communities. if you talk to the local mayors and county leaders they will tell you how critical gomesa funds is critical. it would be bad to redirect these funds away from our respective coastal communities. by including theament, we can make sure that congress does not support reallocating these resources and ensure our strong support for the gulf coast. i reserve the balance of my time . the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. ho seeks time in opposition? seeing none, the question is on the amendment -- the gentleman from alabama may close. mr. byrne: at this point i ask for an aye vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
5:41 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 53 printed in house report 115-830. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, -- mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 53 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 996, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair does recognize the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman.
5:42 pm
i recognize myself -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. burgess: i rise today to offer an amendment on the issue and i worked on this for several years on the committee on energy and commerce as the authorizing committee. in 2006, the committee on appropriations, without an authorization from the committee on energy and commerce, included a provision in the annual interior e.p.a. appropriations bill to allow the environmental protection agency to begin using a special pay program that was explicitly and exclusively authorized for use by the public health service administration under the department of health and human services. the special pay mechanism allows a government employee to leave the normal g.s. pay scale and receive nearly uncapped compensation. this provision was intended to be used only in unique circumstances for leaders in the health care industry who would never leave the private sector to work for the federal
5:43 pm
government except for those special, more competitive salaries. under current law, this justification can never be used at the environmental protection agency. indeed, some of the employees at the environmental protection agency pays under title 42 the part of the u.s. code that allows for this special pay were previous government workers who were merely moved into the special pay scale because they desired more money. the environmental protection agency has claimed in the past that, because the environmental protection agency is a health organization, it may use this statute to pay special hires, and the committee of appropriations has agreed to let them despite the authorizing committee's objection. originally, the environmental protection agency was granted only a handful of slots to fill with title 42 hires. that number has now increased to over 50. the cost to the taxpayers for
5:44 pm
these employees is tens of millions of dollars. this amendment would prevent the environmental protection agency from hiring any new employees under title 42 or transferring any current employees from the g.s. scale to title 42. it would not affect current employees being paid in this provision. this would give the committee on energy and commerce the authorizing committee the time it needs to address whether the e.p.a. truly deserves this special pay consideration. the government accountability office looked into the department of health and human service's abuse of title 42 several years ago and found problems with the implementation of this program. within the department of health and human services, where arguably this could be allowed, why would congress ever allow the environmental protection agency to implement the same problematic pay structure? in multiple hearings in the energy and commerce committee, both former administrator jackson and former administrator mccarthy refused
5:45 pm
to give specifics regarding the program. a freedom of information act request by the peaverplet union, by the american of federation of government employees, sent to my office showed that 42 hires at the peaverplet are showing dissent among workers with the union asking the congress to stop this abusive and unfair hiring technique. a report in 2015 discovered that the e.p.a. did not properly demonstrate a need to use a title 42 hiring authority, nor did it provide clear and convincing justification for its continued use. this is further proof that the e.p.a.'s hiring authority must come to an end. i've introduced legislation further clarifying the public health service act written for h.h.s. that does not permit the e.p.a. to use this language to hire employees under a special pay structure. i urge adoption of the amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. who seeks time in opposition?
5:46 pm
the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, as i said earlier, this amendment, like some of the other amendments that we've seen, could be handled in the authorizing committee. which the gentleman's a member of. if memory serves me correctly. the gentleman's in the majority, call up, have a hearing, pass a legislation. and then do it in a way that doesn't add more burdensome amendments, riders, to this bill. the senate is also controlled by the same party in the majority and the president is of that party. so i would encourage the gentleman to go through what i would call regular order. this amendment would prohibit the e.p.a. from hiring scientists through title 42
5:47 pm
authority. the flexible hiring mechanism that allows agencies to attract and retain staff without -- with outstanding scientific and technical skills. this authority is used by the e.p.a., the c.d.c., the n.i.h. and other agencies that require candidates that have special degrees in areas such as medicine, science and engineering. it's not always eagles easy for the federal government to attract -- easy for the federal government to attract high-level professionals who have invested many years in school and can easily make more money in private practice or academia. we've heard the usgs and b.l.m. quite often have problems in place ineers because the private sector comes and just offers them so much more money. so the federal government has found it wise to allow these agencies to provide some additional funding to retain and recruit these employees. and we should want to have the best and the brightest working for us and the american people.
5:48 pm
the best doctors, the best scientists and the best engineers. so i'm disappointed that the gentleman does not believe in such highly specialized employees deserve the title 22 -- excuse me, 42 designation. with our nation facing crises climate disease, and change, we should be invest vesting in our scientists. we encouraging them to seek employment with the federal government. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: it's a reasonable amendment. it only effects employees in new hires in title 42 in the environmental protection agency. not in the c.d.c. not in n.i.h. it is an amendment which would allow the authorizing committee the opportunity to catch up with what the appropriations committee has done without an
5:49 pm
authorization. i urge adoption and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for the remainder of her time. ms. mccollum: thank you. well, once again, you know, this amendment could go through a different order and not be placed on an appropriations bill. this is a short-sighted amendment. i think it deserves to have a fair, open vetting. with the house concentrated on just what this would mean to the e.p.a. so, i don't think we should attack federal employees who sometimes have taken a choice to not receive as much compensation and devote their lives to public service. with that, i urge defeat of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.
5:50 pm
the chair understands that amendment number 54 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 55 printed in house report 115-830. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mrs. emerson: i have an amendment at -- r. emmer: i have an amendment mr. emmer: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 55 printed in house report 115-830 offered by mr. hemmer of minnesota. pursuant to house resolution 996, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. emmer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. emmer: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. emmer: mr. chairman, i rise to offer an amendment which i'm pleased to say i intend to withdraw. because after months of hard
5:51 pm
work in this chamber and with the administration, it's no longer necessary. minnesota is the proud home to the iron range, which boasts an abundance of natural resources and critical minerals. when it comes to protecting the environment while developing our economic assets, nobody does it better than minnesota. despite this history, on its very last day in office, the obama administration proposed to withdraw over 240,000 acres of land in our state from mineral exploration and development. this last-minute action was an assault on our way of life. threatening thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in state revenue and school trust funding, and handicaps our national security by increasing our reliance on foreign sources of minerals. that's why i offered this amendment, to stop this foolish action. this amendment is identical to one that was unanimously adopted by this chamber last year and echoes the good news delivered by the president to thousands of minnesotans on june 20, when he announced his intent to rescind
5:52 pm
this arbitrary withdrawal. which is now in process. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves his time. who seeks time in opposition? the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: the gentlelady from the minnesota. thank you, mr. chair. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: i understand that the amendment is going to be withdrawn. but let me explain what this language would have done. and so to the best of my knowledge, the leases haven't been permanently withdrawn yet. this language would have prevented the forest service and the interior department from acting to protect our nation's most visited wilderness area. the boundary waters canoe area wilderness is located in northern minnesota and it is one of the truly last undisturbed wild places in america. it's a national treasure and it's under threat from sulfite or copper mining. the proposed mine is next to the wilderness. there is no buffer. there's no barrier here.
5:53 pm
it's literally in the same water. sulfite ore mining is the most toxic industry in america. it pollutes waterways with acid drainage that contains arsenic, mercury and lead. the forest service recognized how damaging this type of mining could be to the boundary waters so, they proposed a 20-year halt to federal mine leases in the watershed. they were urged to study this withdrawal by our governor from minnesota, tribal governments and people from all across america. who were worried that sulfite mining could destroy the surrounding waters and land. and they have a right to be worried. all these mines have failed. in 2014 a sulfite ore mine in british columbia failed, dumps billions of liters of toxic sludge, causing permanent environmental damage. so the forest service wisely decided to conduct a science-based assessment to see if mineral withdrawal would make sense for the water-sensitive
5:54 pm
ecosystem of our boundary waters. now, despite what you might hear about what the gentleman said, the proposed mining withdrawal is not some overreach or past current administrations being out of line. in 1976 congress established this exact review process under the federal land policy management act. congress intentionally provided a way to protect our country's natural treasures and vulnerable places. if the gentleman's amendment would have come to the floor for a vote and would have passed again, it would have stopped that review process. it would make the withdrawal study meaningless, because it dictates the outcome. if this amendment had been on the floor, and it would pass, the withdrawal from the boundary aters sull file ore mining would have -- sulfite ore mining would have been off the table. no matter what the study had said was best for the wilderness. every conversation i have had,
5:55 pm
and i've had many, with secretary zinke and secretary purdue, they have told me the same thing. the study should be completed. so i hope my colleagues and the president would reject having these leases go through without having a study. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. emmer: i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to my colleague from minnesota and co-author of this amendment, representative nolan. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. nolan: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. emmer, for yielding. the lady for whom i have enormous respect has failed to mention the fact that this or any other project anywhere in the country, let alone the state of minnesota, would nevertheless be subject to endless reviews by the environmental protection agency, some of which take up to 10 and 12 years. so it's not as though we're
5:56 pm
approving a mining project here. it's going to have to undergo rigorous review. as my colleagues from minnesota know, i was an original sponsor of the 1978 boundary waters wilderness legislation. i'm very proud of that fact. at the time i, i want everybody to know here, however, we made a solemn commitment to preserve and to protect some 1.1 million acres out of the superior national forest for the b.w. -- bwca and to protect it from all man-made harm and damage to the environment. but we also made a commitment to reserve the remainder of the superior national forest for mixed use purposes. and specifically cited recreation, forestry, the department of forestry described mining as a desirable use purpose. in fact, that was the forestry service at that time. and our word is our bond in this business. this amendment will uphold that
5:57 pm
hard-fought compromise. the simple truth is we've been mining on the iron range for 130 years and yet we have the cleanest water in the state of minnesota and perhaps the country. and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that we keep it that way. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. i guess i don't have -- i yield whatever's left. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota, mr. emmer. mr. emmer: reserve. the chair: reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, could i inquire as to how much time i have left? the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota has two minutes. ms. mccollum: i would like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. he will me first start off by saying i have great represent for my colleagues, both representative emmer and representative nolan and the rest of our delegation. and this has been an ongoing debate. i just want to make sure that folks understand and know and
5:58 pm
can appreciate, and know the gentleman's going to with draw the amendment, hundreds of thousands of people have been weighing in on this ongoing public process. and their comments should not be ignored. that's the bottom line. nor should we be ignoring a science-based assessment of the best management practices that are important for one of minnesota's and the country's national treasures. we should be open to new types of mining in minnesota. but only when those necessarily environmental reviews are met. i refer to the boundary waters as minnesota's yellowstone. there's a reason for that. it's got a national perspective with hundreds of thousands of americans visiting it each and every year. whether it's canoes or fishing. some of my best memories in my life have taken place there. so i want to mike sure we are owing it to ourselves and future generations to rely on science before undertaking any activity that would disrupt this fragile ecosystem. so i want to the gentlewoman for yielding some time. thank my colleagues for their ongoing discussion on this issue and i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, yields back. the gentlelady from minnesota
5:59 pm
reserves. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. emmer, is recognized. mrs. emerson: -- mr. emmer: i yield 30 seconds to the chairman of the interior appropriations subcommittee, representative calvert. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. calvert: now you know how it feels about california water. i got the drift of this thing. i certainly appreciate the gentleman's interest on this issue and appreciate the variety of opinions about it. i thank the gentleman as well as the gentlelady from minnesota, the subcommittee's ranking member, for her willingness to work with the committee and as we work together to trying to move forward with this bill in a compromise, i hope -- this bill, a compromise i hope will be found. with thattering i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from minnesota. mr. emmer: may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. emmer: thank you. i thank the chairman for his work and continued support on this issue. to make a few closing points. nothing about this amendment would allow for mining in the
6:00 pm
boundary waters, period. in fact, to demonstrate the disconnect and level of misinformation on this issue, my colleagues who stand in opposition to this amendment worked to have report language accompany this bill which incorrectly calls attention to a, quote, proposal to withdraw lands within the boundary waters canoe area, despite the fact there is no such proposal and it remains unlawful to mine within the boundary waters. nothing about this amendment eliminates any existing environmental protections. this amendment reinforces the commonsense reality that economic growth and environmental protection do not have to be mutually exclusive. i'm pleased to have the support of the house on this very important issue during this 115th congress. i'm pleased to have the pledge support and continued commitment from the administration to end this withdrawal, and i'm pleased that we will soon be able to get washington out of the lives of thousands of hardworking minnesotans. thanko

41 Views

1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on