costly impact on farmers and ranchers, municipalities who rely on those waterways for drinking water, private landowners, local governments who are trying to build and improve roads and bridges and small and large businesses across the state of arkansas that use water in manufacturing their products that help keep americans employed. the 21st century endangered species transparency act will go a long way to bringing some common sense and sanity back to the protection of vulnerable species and that's what we should be about. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, also experiencing the effects of this act. two minutes. the chair: the gentleman veck ighed for two minutes. >> it is amazing how when you

mention the endangered species reform act, people say, just putting some controls and limiting it, that you're anti-species, anti-environment. what we're talking about here, just like all the things in life are updated from time to time, this needs to be updated. i'm pleased to work on this working group together with the chairman and others to bring about some sensible reforms. and the reason we do this is because farmers, ranchers, folks back home, farm bureaus, have been hit with lawsuits and i appreciate what the gentleman just said, it's lawsuits, not science, that seem to be pressuring some of the -- some of this along. in 2007 they entered into an agreement with fish and wildlife that added a thousand species. but no one affected were allowed to participate. i have another bill, sue and settle that would have taken care of that, we passed it out of this house. it was said earlier when you take the e.s.a. you don't take

a meat cleaver approach. i think the problem is not a meat cleaver approach, but that many don't want to take an approach at all. they want to leave it alone. mr. collins: they don't want to take up having a reasonable cap on attorneys' fees. instead of putting a cap on lawyer's feese, they would rather go on, by the way, in that 2011 case, the attorneys' fees went over $300,000. in this situation. the problem here is in the wanting to deal with e.s.a., it's wanting to continue an ideological bent that says, leave it alone even at the expense of jobs, even at the experience of maybe we messed up, even though we could say, maybe we could have a different point of view or maybe addressing it. for those of us in northeast georgia, we want good, clean water, clean air, and protection of our wildlife. but also we understand that taxpayer dollars spent on this

needs to happen. we need to do this reform. by the way, mr. chairman, i still have no takers on my bat. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. stuart, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. is stewart: h.r. 4315 simply a no brainer. its primary purpose is to require that e.s.a. be available to the public. it is nothing but a commonsense reform in the application of a law that's subject to ex-fencive bureaucratic manipulation. some opponents wrongly assume the american people don't need to see this data. but how can anyone argue against transparency in our federal government? let me quickly list an example in my own district. we have the utah prairie dog, a species listed under e.s.a. in

1973. u.s. fish and wildlife says there needs to be at least 1,500 of these prairie dogs pob considered for delisting or recovered. but the federal government only counts those dogs living on federal lands, about 442 of them. in 203, there were almost 5,000 of these prairie dogs living on private land that went uncovered. earlier this year, i introduced h.r. 425 of, the endangered species improvement recovery act, something that would help in this effort as well tavepls commonsense approach. i urge my colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, a very active member on this issue, the gentleman from california, mr. valadao, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. valadao: this bill brings a lot of common sense to washington. in my district today, they have basically shut down agriculture

because of this tiny fish there. we've seen products, food products coming in from over countries and we see a group of people standing in a food line. what's caused all of this? an endangered species act, a species was added to the endangered species act list and do we know if that listing actually helped that fish? if turning off the pumps has helped save that fish? we know it's put people out of work. we know it's changed where we're getting our food from. it's -- it hasn't even, for all we know, saved that little fish. and it's something that needs to be looked at. what this bill does, it brings transparency to this when we pass the rules, pass the regulations on these industries and affect these people at home and put them in the food line, are we actually basing it on real science? are we basing on the fact that we're going to save this species. what we see going on in my hometown right now is a tragedy. we have an opportunity to actually make a difference today with some common sense.

make sure we know that the science is honest and transparent before we pass these laws. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i recognize my -- i advise my friend from oregon i'm prepared to close. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i'll close where i ended my opening remarks. 25 major fires burning in the west, snevpb oregon, six in california, four in washington two in utah two in idaho, one in colorado and by this time next week, probably twice as many, but next week congress will be out of session. the agencies will run out of money. they can't stop fighting the fires. what they'll do is pull back money that would prevent future intense wildfires, from prevention programs. pull back money from recreation programs. they'll pull back money from a host of things americans care -- t and want to have fun

and want to have, to fund fighting these fires. instead we're spending multiple hours on a bill that's going nowhere, that's poorly drafted to the point where anybody, any city, county, tribe, state who writes on the back of a napkin can submit that the agency and it must be considered the best available science and commercial data and under the law the secretary has to quse that to make a decision. how is that going to work? you're say, you're worried about attorney's fees, you're creating a universe for new litigation with this misguided approach. so i wish we would return to a bipartisan addressing of the forest fire issue because i know there's bipartisan concern, there's a bill pending in the house. 54 republicans, 54 democrats, we should take that bill up. we should fund our fire fighting efforts. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i understand i have a minute and a quarter remaining? the chair: that's correct. mr. hastings: i yield myself se balance of the time. h.r. 4315 is not a crompe hencive reform to the endangered species act, it's very targeted. i might mention that several members on the other side talked about species going extinct. i wanted to say, mr. chairman, in testimony from the house natural resources committee, nobody testified that they were in favor of species going extinct. and several members said that this bill weakens the endangered species act. mr. chairman, how does transparency weaken a bill? i do not see how that works. finally, there seems to be a lot of discussion about allowing local entities and tribes to use their data in listing of species. several members on the other side said the act says, it deems that that should happen. it does not at all. in fact, let me read it.

it says the term best scientific and commercial data available includes all such data submitted by state, tribal or county government. we'll have more debate on this because there's two amendments that address this section. i just want to mention that this is a targeted look at the endangered species act, it is not a comprehensive reform, but it certainly will, i think, get more people involved, especially because of this mega settlement, the impact this will have on the rest of the country. mr. chairman, i urge adoption of h.r. 4315 and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a

substitute consisting of the text in rule committees print 113-95. that shall be considered as amendment. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those prinned in house report 113-563. each such amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 113-563. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 693, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings,

and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: 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. hastings: i offer this manager's amendment which would clarify two important items in section 2 of the disclosure of the e.s.a. day tafment it would provide an important clarify dation that the intent of the bill is for any federal public diskilo schauer on the internet under the bill to be completely consistent with data privacy laws in states including those that protect personal, identifiable information from disclosure. a significant amount of the best scientific and commercial data currently used by the u.s. fish and wildlife and the national marine fishery service for e.s.a. listing decisions is derived from states which have a diverse -- which have diverse laws protecting the privacy of their citizens and sensitive species data.

while some may make completely baseless suggestions that more data disclosure on the internet would lead to poaching of species this would allow states to add a layer of confidence that the information they choose to share with the federal government does not compromise their own data privacy laws. second, the amendment clarifies that the bill would not require disclosure of classified department of defense information related to lands, personnel, installations or waters within their jurisdiction. the endangered species act has a significant impact on u.s. military activities. according to fish and wildlife service website, more than 300 e.s.a. listed species are low cate on the more than 25 million acres spread across hundreds of department of defense installations across the nation. while greater data transparency related to u.s. fish and listing service or the decisions is important. bramples of the american military should not have to disclose information that would in any way compromise national security. so my amendment would make

clear that the fish and wildlife service, or the national fisheries service, the st -- disclosure of the best scientific data on the internet can be accomplished while preserving privacy. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i claim time in opposition though i will not oppose. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: this is similar to an amendment offered by the chairman in committee which carved out an exemption for private individuals. this would carve out another amendment for the department of defense. unfortunately,, you know, drafting legislation so it doesn't have unintended impacts is often a difficult

deliberative process. in this case, the overly broad language in this section would still require commercial data from timber, oil and gas companies, that's not covered by the exemptions in the bill, and also, you know, it could require data containing business activity locations, operation plans, information regarding species found on their lands, and they would be published on the internet. which would be an invitation to trespass in the case of private timber companies, having to ublish that sort of inviation. soy don't think that the -- invitation. so i don't think the exemption goes far enough. i don't think the entire provision should be stricken. but again, you know, i will not bostonner to oppose this amendment, but i -- i will not

bother to oppose this amendment but i -- i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. i thank the gentleman from oregon for his support for the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-563. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-563 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 693, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, and a member opposed each will

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the chairman. as i said earlier, and it was mentioned by a number of democrats on this side, we don't think the endangered species act is perfect and we could work on a bipartisan basis on modernization-type reforms to bring it into the 21st century, compliant with current science. however, that's not before us today. but i'm hopeful that this amendment, because of a very unsettling precedent by the obama administration, will get bipartisan support. now, the republicans may in this case agree with the objectives of an agency of government which has gone rowing in this case, -- rogue, in this case, which is fish and wildlife. they've been trying for years to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species act. unfortunately the science isn't on their side. wolves have not recovered throughout much of the range. oregon and washington have a few packs, california, colorado, utah and new york

have none. so, however, you know, they have come up -- cooked up a little bit of science to justify their determination to delist. now, in the case of oregon, or-7, they might be safe, they're down in the corner of the state. california won'ting hunting wolfs -- won't be hunting wolfs because of their own endangered species act but his relatives up in the northeast corner of oregon, should they cross the border into idaho, they will be immediately assassinated. so, you know, that's the result of what fish and wildlife and congress combined have done. so, they cooked up this science . unfortunately science has to be peer reviewed and published in journals. no journal would publish it. not even some of the captive

industry journals or the livestock association journals. nobody would publish it. they said, this is junk. so what did they do? well, they came up with a zombie journal. they revived an internal journal called "north american fauna" which was an internal fish and wildlife little news letter, hasn't been printed previously since 1991. again, i imagine most republicans are saying, so what, if this helps us get rid of the wolf, which many on that side of the aisle would like to do, so be it, that's good. just think what's going to happen when fish and wildlife and this administration or another administration wants to make a decision contrary to what you care about? what if they want to cook up a phony science on the sage grouse, the lesser prairie chicken? you know, or on some of these other species that have been talked about today? they drag out the "northern american fauna" label and they say, hey, it's been published and that's what we base our

decision on. this is a very disturbing trend by an administration. inexplicable that this administration would go down this particular path. and again, even if you may agree with delisting the wolf and greatly reducing the populations which are nowhere near what they should be for a full recovery, you know, threatening again a future more comprehensive listing, again, but just think if you let this stand, if you let these people, these federal bureaucrats, these hacks get away with this. you know they cooked something up, people, i mean, really? you can't even get the sheep journal to publish this? because they really hate the wolves. or the cattleman's journal, they really hate the wolves. no, they wouldn't publish it. they had to come up with a phony internal journal because it was so bad that they knew they would be subject to ridicule and violating essentially their own morals

and ethics by doing that. so, i would hope that the republicans can support this amendment because even though they may agree with the ends here, they surely should disagree with the process. with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for as much time as he wants to use. mr. neugebauer: thank you, chairman. as i was listening to the gentleman, i was wondering if he was talking about the amendment that he had actually offered because actually he's making the case that i've stood up to make today. let me tell what you this amendment would do it. would exclude scientific information published solely in the internal interior department publications from the definition of best available science. which would allow the department of interior to avoid transparency requirements,

section 2 of the bill, which requires that the data used by the federal agencies for endangered species act listing decisions be made publicly available and accessible through the internet. so what the gentleman was saying is that this -- the -- they cooked the books, they cooked the information and he doesn't want that to be made available. so here we are making important decisions about potential taking of people's land, spending millions of dollars in mitigation for what may be false science. this gentleman's amendment defeats the whole purpose of transparency. and the intention of this bill. what we're trying to do is we're going to say, let's take the facts, let's take the best available science that the fish and wildlife and some of these agencies say that they have, let's compare it with what is the best available science from the stakeholders, and come up with the truth. but the gentleman's amendment,

which i have urged members to defeat, defeats the whole purpose of that transparency. the american people deserve that. their tax money is being used against them in the fact that they're, the tax money, is going out and being used to determine what is the best available science and now if we've got the best available science as cooking the science, then the american people ought to have an opportunity to dispute that and it not be hidden from them in some agency memo. so, with that i encourage members to defeat the amendment and with that i return the balance of my time to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves his time. and the gentleman from oregon. the gentleman from oregon has one minute remaining. mr. defazio: has what? one minute. well, i didn't understand that. look, a federal agency revived a journal that had been extinct

for 23 years, it's an internal document. they took phony science and published it in that and then they based a delisting decision on it. if they based a listing decision on it, you guys would be going berserk over there. what i'm precluding is future federal agencies, no matter where they come down on a listing decision, from using phony science which is only self-published. this is like whackjobs who write books about crazy things and they publish it themselves and say, look, it's a book. yeah, it's a book, you paid to publish it. and in this case they use taxpayer money to publish a phony study to justify -- to justify a decision which they already made which you might have to -- happen to agree with. but what happens when they use that same tactic to do that with a decision you disagree with, to actually list something? this has nothing to do with transparency, it doesn't need to be transparent because they couldn't use it. it's phony science. they would not be allowed to use phony science by self-publishing it. that's simply what the

amendment does and i can't believe you guys are going to oppose it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. the gentleman has three minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, when i listen to my good friend from oregon's arguments, in many respects, maybe indirectly, he is making precisely the argument that we are making with this bill. that is, whatever data is being used to list or delist should be made available to the public so they can ascertain if that data is correct. now, the gentleman talked about data that was made up. ok. that's his interpretation. if it is made up, shouldn't we know that? shouldn't we know that that is what the data is being used, to make these decisions, rather than just accepting it? mr. chairman, that is precisely

what this bill is all about, is to have transparency on this scientific data. that is really all we're asking about. the argument got shifted, you know, to other things like we're destroying the endangered species act and so forth. nothing could be further from the truth. his amendment, however, does something that i think violates the principle we're trying to do. he wants to exclude certain stuff from us being transparent with it or for the people having transparency to that data. so, mr. chairman, i urge also rejection of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, not have it. -- the noes have it. mr. defazio: i'd ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in ouse report 113-563. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-563 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 693, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i thank the chair and i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from nnl is recognized for as much too many -- new jersey is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. holt: the bill before us today has many problems, but one of the most egregious and obvious is in section 3, where the bill declares that any and all data submitted by states, tribes and local governments shall be considered the best

scientific data available. i'm offering here an amendment with my friend from california, mr. huffman, which would strike that provision and would force federal agencies to accept as the best available science actual science. the language in question says, the term -- this is a quote -- best scientific and commercial data available includes all such data submitted by a state, tribal or county government. the endangered species act is one of our nation's strongest and most successful environmental laws and one reason for that success is that the law has been based on scientific evaluation using peer reviewed science by trained scientists, not the whims and ideological wishes of legislators. the endangered species act is

not a shouting match or a fight for power and influence among interested party, it's a look at the need to protect endangered species as determined by the best science. and this language that the best scientific and commercial data available includes all such data submitted is as preposterous as it is impractical. where's the quality control? what happens if a locality submits something that is not in fact true? or not in fact established within the scientific community? or how about if a state or a tribe submits one thing and another state or tribe submits a conflicting view? are we -- are they both the best available evidence? what about where a county thinks its data is better than the state's data? these are all situations that not only might occur, are

likely to occur. witness at the committee hearing in this bill, in fact a witness that was invited by the republicans, testified to this very point saying that all does not equal best. highlighting the data that this bill creates -- and highlighting the fact that this bill creates more problems than it solves. agency decision makers must evaluate data from all sources to ensure that they're making determinations based on the best information available. and we should encourage them to do so. let's not have another case of congressional malpractice where members of congress play scientist and try to present political restrictions on the science. the peer review process is the best tool available and that's how we draw out the best science. maybe scientists occasionally

make mistakes, no doubt about it, and new findings can call for a revision of the science, but surely we don't think that members of congress are better at determining what is scientifically factual than the biological and environmental scientists. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves his time. the gentleman from washington? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. neugebauer: what the gentleman's language would do s strike the language that consider he agency to state or local best scientific and commercial data. that's not necessarily true.

the fish and wildlife service still has ultimate decision over what data it considers. but they must consider the data that's submitted. what you hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say, i guess all the best data and smartest people must be in washington, d.c. but we had mr. defazio stand up and say, no, sometimes they cook the books. i wonder if the memo the gentleman was talking about was the best commercial science for the wolf. he was saying it was not. what we're saying is, it's about transparaphernaliacism it's about recognizing that the people in the states, in the local governments, may actually have better information on the ground about a lot of these issues than somebody sitting in washington looking at some model or report that someone has drawn up. i talk about my state of texas, for example, the texas parks

and wildlife service in texas has developed over 8,000 wildlife management plans covering over 30 million acres. i would probably tell you that those people have some of the best available commercial science on a lot of the issues facing texas. probably a little bit more than maybe somebody sitting in washington, d.c. or some other state. so one of the things that i'm a little perplexed, my colleagues keep fighting the transparency. this president said he was going to have one of the most transparent administers in history. but that's been far from the truth. and so what i would encourage my colleagues to defeat this amendment, defeats the whole purpose of the bill and the intention of letting the american people know the facts. you know if you go to a trial you don't get to use only your facts, you have to hear everybody's facts and since this is a trial that determines whether he's species are in fact endangered or not

endangered anymore, we should be able to deal with the facts but we can't just deal with one set of facts. we have to deal with all the facts. so if you want to hear all the facts, defeat this amendment. i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i ask the chair the time remaining on each side, please. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has ha minute and a half, the gentleman from washington has two and a half minutes. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield three quarters of a minute, 45 seconds to the gentleman from oregon, the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman has 45 seconds. mr. defazio: i'm bemused by this it says, best scientific and commercial data available includes all such data submitted by state, local and county governments. if all the counties, states, and tribes don't agree, you have conflicting best available data.

we want them to take all data into account but you can't deem theirs is the best. in the face of the river, oregon and washington disagree. they have competing science. what if a tribe, and i have heard from this tribe say, to delist the salmon, you have to take all the dams out of the river. that becomes the best available science if submitted by a tribe? what are you guys thinking? we want them to listen to everybody, everybody can submit something, but we don't then deem it to be the best available data. that's not -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm prepared to kilo, i'll let the gentleman inish. mr. holt: if the gentleman is prepared to close, i'll use the remaining time. my colleague from oregon said it well.

all does not equal best. the other side evidently is embarrassed by the language in the bill. there are many problems with this bill. but this particular section has some language that they should be embarrassed about. and so they are saying what they wish the language said, or what they want it to say. the best scientific data includes all such data. does not say will consider all data. it says, all equals best. that cannot be true. that should be removed from the bill. that's what this amendment does. decisions on whether or not a particular study or data set have scientific merit with respect to an individual species listings should be made in the context of peer-reviewed science. not because one state wants one thing and one county wants another thing, it should be based on the best scientific day tafment that's what this amendment would ensure.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself se balance of i -- yield myself the balance of the time. first of all, i'm not embarrassed by this legislation. let me walk through this and explain why this language says what it says, because i think our friends on the other side of the aisle are leaving out a very important word when debating this issue. the language in question is, the term best scientific and commercial data available includes all such data submitted and so forth. now, they are arguing as if the word such was taken out. where it would read scientific and commercial data available includes all data. we didn't say all data. we said all such data. what does that mean? how does that relate? all such data, that rhett relates to scientific and commercial data, coming from the local communities. what is wrong with that argument? and by the way, the agency

still has discretion to use that data. but it should be part of it. because lacking sthrg language in the bill means that the only data is what my friend from oregon criticized when we were discussing the wolves. mr. chairman, i think this language is pretty straightforward. it says all such data that relates to as developed by local communities and tribes that should be part of the transparency system of i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will e postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in house report 113-563. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. duffy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 113-563, offered by mr. duffy of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 693, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman hastings for all his work on this legislation. i'm from wisconsin. i have the central and northern part of the state. and in my part of the state and for the state as a whole, we value our natural resources. we value our wildlife. we have people who love to hunt and fish and bike and ski. it's part of our culture and

our community. we have many organizations work hard to promote conservation. we have hunting groups, sportsman groups, conservation organizations, state and local organizations. many of them have come together to protect the gray wolf population, so much so that it's become healthy and in wisconsin, the great wolf has been taken off and delisted from the endangered species act. however, not all organizations come at this with a pure heart. we have some whose main purpose and priority is filing lawsuits, suing the government, under the endangered species act. it's these sue and settle tactics that don't advance the cause of preserving our environment and they aren't good for the american taxpayer. what's more is, many of these lawsuits are funded by way of federal tax dollars to support the litigation. so in essence, we're spending

tens of millions of dollars of american hardworking tax dollars to sue ourselves. and so i think it's important that we have transparency in government. if an organization is suing the federal government under the endangered species act and they're cruising federal money, let's disclose it. we might come together and go, that's a good thing, that's a goodus of our federal tax dollar or we might go, that's outrageous that we should be funding suits against ourselves. this is a commonsense amendment. i ask my colleagues to support it. with that, i yield to the gentleman. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to the floor. i think it adds very much to what we're trying to do. with this underlying legislation. adding transparency to our effortsism support the gentleman's amendment and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. duffy: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

oregon. mr. defazio: i wonder if the gentleman can name one piece of litigation which was sponsored by federal tax dollars. i yield to the gentleman. mr. duffy: that's the purpose of my legislation. we don't know. mr. defazio: i reclaim my time. the gentleman can't name one lawsuit, one organization, using federal tax dollars. i guess that's probably because he's familiar with o.m.b. circular 887, neither a state, local government, nor an indian tribal government can use money provided by the federal government for legal expenses, for prosecution of claims against the federal government that leaves a big hole. what about nonprofits? they get federal money. oops, oh well, that would be o.m.b. circular 122, cost principles for nonprofit organizations. cost of legal accounting, consulting, or the prosecution of claims against the federal government are unallowable.

we are now going to have the agency chase a chick rah, that's something -- a chimerah. that's something that can't happen. if the gentleman could name one instance then that might change the argument. but he can't and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: money is fungible. to the point that this going to cost a lot of money, i disagree. all we're asking for is if you receive federal money and you're seeing the -- suing the federal government, you disclose it. you don't have to go on a witch hunt or go find it. if you receive these dollars and you're suing the federal government, tell us. if the gentleman is correct, there won't be any disclosure. but if what i suspect is true, there will be a lot of disclosure and the american people will see how their tax money is being used to sue themselves. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon.

mr. defazio:: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. pll duffy: -- mr. duffy: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from oregon has the right that close. mr. duffy: good government is a government that has transparency and we should know how our tax dollars are being used. this is not over burdensome. this is a simple request that if you use hard-earned taxpayer money to sue the federal government, under the endangered species act, that the federal taxpayer know how their money is being spent. this makes sense. it doesn't cost any money. it's not a hardship. and so let's stand together. let's work together and let's make sure we have full knowledge in how this money is being used. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: unfortunately, the gentleman misstated what his amendment does.

it doesn't say that individuals filing litigation under the endangered species act must disclose whether or not they receive any federal funds and are using any federal funds in this case. it doesn't say that. it says the fish and wildlife service must determine. now how is the fish and wildlife service going to determine whether or not someone used federal funds? as he's saying, money is fungible. they may be violating the circular that prohibits nonprofit organizations. they may violating the circular -- these are of course criminal offenses. that prohibits state, local and indian tribal governments from using federal money. he said that may be going on. and so then fish and wildlife should just discover it themselves. how is that going to work? it sends fish and wildlife on a mission that it is not equipped to handle. they can't say pretty please, tell us, if someone is violating the law, they're

probably not going to volunteer it to fish and wildlife. if you wanted to do this, you'd have to write an amendment that amends the rule of civil plead your or whatever, i'm not a lawyer, and would require that these litigants disclose at the time of filing their litigation, saying fish and wildlife should find out after it's been filed is absolutely absurd. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman wisconsin. mr. duffy. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in ouse report 113-563 on which votes were postponed on the following order. amendment number 2, amendment number 3.

the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-563 by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the anyways -- on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-563 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. 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 will be a 15-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.]

the chair: on this vote, the

yeas are 188, the nays are 227. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3, printed in house report 113-653 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-653, offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 204. the nays are 215. he amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a

substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hairman. the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4315 and pursuant to house resolution 693 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted by the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is interest a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopt -- is there a separate vote

demanded on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the endangered species act of 1973 to require publication on the internate of the basis for -- internet of the basis for determinations that species are endangered species or threatened species and for ther purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. business will resume when the house is in order. >> mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. members will take their seats. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? i am opposed to -- in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? objection is heard. therefore, the clerk will read. the clerk: mrs. kirkpatrick of arizona moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4315 to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith

with the following amendment -- section, consultation with indian tribes, a, requirement, the endangered species act of 197316 united states code 1531 is amended by adding at the end the following -- section 17, fulfillment of federal trust responsibility with respect to indian tribes. in carrying out this act, the secretary shall consult with affected indian tribes to ensure that the federal trust responsibility with respect to indian tribes is fulfilled. b, clerical amendment. the table of contents in the first section of such act is amended by adding at the end the following -- section 17. fulfillment of federal trust responsibility with respect to indian tribes. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the gentlelady from arizona is

recognized for five minutes. mrs. kirkpatrick: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee. if it's adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage. mr. speaker, i'm honored to represent a district that has more native american tribes than own tribal land than any other district in the country. i have 12 tribes in my district, including the navajo nation, where the people speak a beautiful language. so i'm going to start my speech tonight in their language. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. he gentlelady is recognized.

mrs. kirkpatrick: [speaking oreign language] mr. speaker, i grew up on tribal land, on the white mountain apache where my father ran the general store and my mother was a school teacher, my father spoke apache. my first words were in apache, and it's important that we know that language of our native american tribes addresses their spirituality, their culture and their land. and what i want to talk about tonight is tribal sovereignty, because all of our tribes have their own culture, their own history, their own language. but what they share is a deep respect for tribal sovereignty. and what that means is they are entitled, they have a right to government-to-government negotiations. and so what i want my colleagues to do tonight is do not turn your backs on our

native american people. do not turn your backs and shut the door to our tribes. i urge you to push for the inclusion and the respective tribal sovereignty in this legislation and there be abundant government-to-government negotiation. our tribes deserve that, they have that right. let's stand with our native americans and make sure that we do everything possible to strengthen those government-to-government relationships, conversations, negotiations, tribal sovereignty. i close my remarks tonight as i began in dene. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

and the gentlelady from arizona will provide the clerk with a translation. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman is correct. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, of course this body should recognize the treaties that we have made with our native american neighbors, and i say that with the privilege of representing the central washington district that has two indian tribes in reservations within my district. so that goes without saying. however, we have had on this floor i don't know how many motions to recommit, and

sometimes i wonder exactly what these motions to recommit are trying to do other than maybe make a platecal point. and i have to say, mr. speaker, that is probably so true with this motion to recommit. why do i say that? i say that because this motion to recommit implies that tribal members should be part of the discussion. well, of course they should. but apparently my friend from arizona did not read the bill, because section 3 in the bill says very specifically that consultation should be made with locals, including tribes. d to add insult to injury, mr. speaker, the amendment -- last amendment that was offered, offered by my friend from new jersey, mr. holt, would take out the section that says tribal respect ought to be in the underlying bill and the gentlelady from arizona voted

for it. now she comes down to the floor and says we ought to ensure -- insert into the bill something in tribal authority that we already had in the bill. i have no idea, mr. speaker, where these motions to recommit are going, but i will say this. this bill deals with transparency in the federal government to the citizens of the united states. that ought to be number one on our mind and that's what this bill does. i urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and for the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentlelady from arizona. mrs. kirkpatrick: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote's requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4809, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered, and this is a five-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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 197 and the nays are 225. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: may i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 233, the nays are 190. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. unfinished business is on the vote of the motion from the the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4809 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4809, a bill to re-authorize the defense production act to improve the defense production committee and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a five-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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 386. the nays are 32. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question of agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from

the committee on rules for the filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 694, resolution providing for consideration of the resolution, house resolution 676, providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the president or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the constitution of the united states. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 935, to amend the federal insecticide, fungicide and rodent side act and the federal water pollution control act to clarify congressional intent regarding the regulation in or se of pesticides near navigable waters and for providing for proceedings during the period of august 1, 2014 through september 5, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, our nation has lost a true public servant, congressman caldwell butler, who represented the sixth congressional district of virginia from 1972 to 1983,

passed away last night. he will be remembered for many things, including his sharp legal mind and an integral role in the watergate investigation and the nixon impeachment proceedings. a genuine family man, he treasured his wife, june, and their four sons. i am especially thankful to have served as a member of his staff many years ago and to serve the same sixth district today. my thoughts and prayers are with the butler family during this difficult time. mr. speaker, i ask that my colleagues join me and members of the virginia delegation in a moment of silence in honor and in the memory of m. caldwell utler. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak for the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: i rise in support of our kurdish allies in the middle east. they are one of america's strongest allies in the middle east. in 2003 leading up to the iraq war, the kurdish people positioned in the northern part of iraq, opened their arms to american troops and welcomed their liberation after decades of oppression from saddam hussein's regime. recently, the isis insurgencey in iraq, the kurdish regional government has remained firm in protecting iraq and has managed to maintain stability in a volatile facility. occurred currently a kurdish tanker is anchored off the coast of texas with an estimated $100 million of crude oil aboard. the k.r.g. presently maintains

federal control over their region despite the objections of the iraqi central government. even though the ship was cleared on sunday by the u.s. coast guard, a federal judge ruled that the cargo could be seized by u.s. marshals at the request of the iraqi oil industry. the claim of misappropriation by the iraqi oil ministry could be viewed as exclusionary. congress and the administration need to pressure the maliki government to be more inclusive. the kurdish regional government has presented exports, billions of dollars each year in crude oil to major allies of the united states all over the world. it should always be our mission to support our allies in the middle east and move in the right direction. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, if a cincinnatiian were audited tomorrow, the i.r.s. would expect my constituent to have

the last seven years of records to prove compliance with the law. mr. wenstrup: the i.r.s. not so much, a different standard with them. after years of trampling the constitution to silence opposition, the i.r.s. is hiding from the american people. now, instead of coming clean, the i.r.s. is essentially saying, sorey the dog ate my home work. they say, our emails are missing. it would appear that lois lerner knew what she was doing in april, 2013, she warned staff to be cautious about what information they put in emails. the federal government cannot and should not expect to live above the rules that govern every hardworking man and woman. the breach of trust is devastating. the american people deserves a government that doesn't shirk accountability or responsibility for the advantage of political abuse. a viable special prosecutor must be appointed to get answers. we can't continue to let bureaucrats hide from justice. mr. speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. south florida has a booming marine industry, from our huge freighters to our sunday boaters, generating over $8.9 billion a year to our local economy. so i'm very proud to join debbie wasserman schultz, my colleague, and christy hebert, in trying to fix a problem. businesses like christy's have to pay upwards $200,000 a year or providing recreational boat services, the same for companies that are providing rvices to 100,000-pond

petroleum boats. -- 100,000-pound petroleum boats. obviously the rules are different. our bill will fix this problem. workers are still going to be protected at an affordable cost for the employers. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i was down on the texas-mexico border this weekend. i met with federal officials. i met with state officials as well. i want to commend the work that the state of texas is doing to protect and secure the sovereignty of the united states, including the department of public safety, local law enforcement, parks and wildlife law enforcement and the texas rangers and soon to be the national guard. it's obvious to me that they are on the border and they are protecting the sovereignty of our country for all americans.

while meeting with the border patrol, i say where are these people coming from that are quickly coming from the united states? he said, they're coming from 144 countries. more recently, three weeks ago three ukrainians entered the united states. why? because the word is out to the world, if you can cross into the united states through texas you're going to get to stay. that is too bad. it's tragic. it's the first duty of government to secure the national borders of any country. that is the obligation of our country. it's the obligation of this administration. we protect the borders of other nations. it's about time we protect the border of the united states of america. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to include any extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized 1. ms. kaptur: today in toledo, ohio, to which he dedicated his

selfless life, the roman catholic bishop, robert w. donnelly, was laid to rest. this priest of priests, gentle soul, humble leader and compassionate shepherd passed from this life on july 21, 2014. with loving gratitude, our entire community extends its deepest appreciation for his life and deepest sympathy to his family and friends at his passing. his religious life spanned 57 parish d he served as priest for seven congregations and taught in catholic high schools. everywhere he was for the people and revered. what a priest, what a bishop, what a shepherd was he, a gentle and holy man and a powerful religious leader. the thousands upon thousands of religious messages he shared were not bombastic but wise. the thousands upon thousands of people across generations that he touched with baptisms, graduations, communions, marriages, funerals and

confirmations, bishop donnelly was a man of peace, he was hard working and always present when it mattered. with his extraordinary brother priest, father martin donnelly, with whom he retired, their service cannot be measured in ears but rather in devotion to inviewing real mean. may god grant him eternal rest as the joy of his spirit is released to eternity. mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to reaffirm my support for one of our closest allies israel as they combat a surge of violence from the terrorist group ham ause. the history of jewish people is faith, honor and most importantly survival and this