oil and gas development. my colleagues included this language. we are trying to protect our schools, our infrastructure, our communities and the very livelihoods that depend on these revenues. i know royaltyy and valuation means little but to my constituents it means empowering schools. mike johnson, an operating engineer from billings summed it up best. i'm a working man from montano, i'm not a doctor or lawyer, but i have suffered from the mismanagement of our public lands. i'm a displaced worker from a paper mill. i work in eastern montana and if people don't understand the impact these jobs have on our lives. i saw five of my friends commit

suicide after the mill closed. y wife had cancer and i lost health care and i lost good pay paying jobs. coal is atey, a war on a war on the crow people. without revenue from coal, the crow people faced a loif time of despair poverty. they have very few options, but coal. and yet, this administration at every turn, trying to prevent the crow nation from being sovereign, from having their choice to export and have their resource as they want. these words are a real problem. and the cost is real people. i know that many don't know

where montana is. i understand montana. i understand that montana is blessed with the resources and we want to use them responsibly and in a responsible way. but i have to protect our families, our ability to provide a living in montana. for this reason, i ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment and stand with workers and families and the great crow nation. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. you have one minute remaining. mr. lowenthal: we heard a plea that this would hurt jobs and hurt coal. as i pointed out, the report indicated that production would not go down.

the largest impact, the dominant impact is the price of crude oil and natural gas, not the royalty rates. i would like to remind those on the other side of the aisle that states like montana at the state level and also on private property charge much higher than we are asking than at the federal level. i would agree to the same charge that montana charges its own oil and gas production. so with that, i reserve the balance of my time, if there's any time left. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: i request an aye vote on this very reasonable

amendment that will brings money back to both states and also to the federal treasury. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: we hear the devastating effects from states that are rich until natural resources that is what is happening in the oil industry. i respect their opinion and i oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lowenthal: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

it is in order to consider amendment number 35. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i ask that printed in house report 11 -63 be considered en bloc. the chair: without objection, so ordered. without objection the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcnerney: i have a amendments. the clerk: amendments number 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. mcnerney: i'm submitting an amendment to strike provisions

from the bill h.r. 28978 that were included as riders in this year's e.p.a. bill. i'm disappointed that they aattach bad policy on important appropriations bills and in this case they have attached the same damaging riders to the bill that would drain the california delta with overpumping. these provisions would ravage the aiege of the delta and harm communities we serve. they would undermine 0 years of progress. and they override environmental protection for california's rivers, fisheries, threatening endangered en the species act. republicans say this will not

harm fish. provisions that would impact the industry. these riders do nothing to prepare our communities for droughts in the future. these are droughts we know are coming. they miss stat current california law. when we need to work together to bridge those differences. h.r. 2898 has been opposed by the state including commercial and state fisher moon and groups and recreational ploirgs and the obama administration has threatened to veto it. they claim that water is being wasted. they have played a role in water delivers since the start of california's drought. in 2014, it was the third driest

in california's history and some experts conclude that the current drought may be the most severe in 1,200 years. one-third of the state is experiencings some level of drought in more than 0% is experiencing exceptional drought, the most severe drought classification athrough the drought monitor. e endangered species act accounted for 2% of the water deliveries in 2014 and current estimates suggest a small impact in 2015. california's state water resources control board estimated in 2015, only 2% of this water flowed out to the ocean solely for environmental

protection. the water that donald trump said was being shoved out to sea was used to prevent saltwhat ther intrusion that would damage the most valuable. water being released proper tects the farms from being contaminated. officials have been able to use existing authority. this action has helped maximize the use of what little water exists in the state. the lack of water is our biggest threat, not operational flexibility. and our colleagues wonder where the water went. approximately 2/3 of storm runoff was difficult verlted with one-third of the runoff making it through the delta. and through the period of october 1 last year to january

1, 60% was diverted or stored. the water scarcity is caused by is ht and the slow pace evidenced. and they have received 1800 percent of their allocation and the other right holders that much less but that what it means to be a junior rights holder. you don't get that much water. they have the right to stop torl protect water from our communities and farms and distribute it according to their water rights system and even though they have proven it, the service projects projects a record in the california.

2.5 rchards will yield billion pound before it would eclipse the record. i'm disappointed this bill has been included in this year's appropriations. and thapping you, mr. chairman. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. we know there has been a drought in california except for this year. this year, we have had some relief from the historic drought conditions that have been made worse by federal actions which have led to increased pressure for california to allow water. i have been following it every

day. feetay there was 180 cubic per second moving through the feet. nd only 1200 cubic and i'm going to give that as one example. and i yield three minutes to the gentleman who has been working hard for his farms and constituents. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank you for the opportunity. 380 million gallons a day, that is a number that should have quoted. 0 millions of sewage being dumped in this environment and think of that sewage being dumped and the same people being able to protect it. and they have been restricted

our water. there are provisions in these bills that help. we attack the invasive species that are attacking the smelt. we are offering million solutions like the author mentioned earlier, we had language in five pieces of legislation. we beg for an open and transparent process and have some commonesense ideas and voted and signed into law. but if you care about the delta, stop polluting it. if you care about the people of california and what it costs to feed your families and care about farmworkers and these small communities you would have an honest debate. i have been aapproached off-camera to have a conversation. no more conversation like that. everything on the floor. this is an open and transparent

process. five pieces of legislation have this language in it and we will fix this problem. those little communities where faucetclaim to fill up a and make some food to eat and bathe their children. we have houses when they turn on a faucet they have nol longer have water. i get the concern. if they are concerned about the environment. if you look at a community that had 100% of that water and the pipeline all the way the way to san francisco without one conversation about those water helping these rivers or these species. they're not willing to give up their water, they're willing to take other eem piece -- other people's waters. it's the same thing we hear on so many issues, take someone else's product, someone else's water and try to solve a problem with it.

the problem has to be solved the right way. language we've offered and that we've pushed over the senate and the conversation has to be had in an open, transparent process like our senators told us they wanted. we're here, we're ready for that conversation, we want an honest debate and want to talk thebt way we fix these problems. we're not going to try to accommodate communities dumping sewage in those deltas, but we want to help save the species and there's language to do that. and there's language to capture that water. use the infrastruck cher we've paid for to continue to store water we do have and not waste it. this is an honest piece of language that could help solve california's problems. i think we need to continue to have an honest debate. yield back to the chairman. mr. calvert: this is an emotional subject. it's not just water going to the central valley, but the southern

california region for the millions who live there. we don't want to see water wasted. this year we saw hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water being released through the delta, really with not saving one fish. even independ agencies will privately agree to that they -- they were overly conservative when they were managing the pump operations of late. so this suffering that's going on is terrible. it needs to come to an end. i certainly oppose this amendment and urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes visit. the amendment is -- the amendments are not agreed to.

mr. mcnerney: i request a recorded vote. tchoip pursuant to clause 6 of -- the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the ealt -- on the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 prinned in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 41, printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva and a member opposed each will control five minute. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. i offer an amendment to strike section 453 from the underlying bill. this section restricts funds from being used to establish a national monument pursuant to the anticity i -- antiquities

act in several western county, including maricopa county, a portion of which i represent in congress. while i understand the member who inserted this is generally opposed if not totally opposed to the use of the antiquities act this section that restricts the use of the antiquities act on over 160 million acres of public land, nearly a quarter of all federal land in the lower 48. i know many of the members of congress do not support this blanket restriction on the use of the antiquities act. so we are sosh so that we are absolutely clear, these monuments can be established only on land already owned by the federal government. this is how federal lands should be preserved, not about adding more land to the federal estate. since theodore roosevelt's designation of the first national monument, devil's tower in wyoming, 16 presidents from

both parties have used the antiquities act to protect more than 160 of america's best known and loved landscapes. only three presidents have not. america's public laces -- places are becoming more and more inclusive, more representative of all americans and as president obama has demonstrated with the use of the antiquities act, more representative of the real reality, history, culture and special places of this nation. that represent all people. that's why presently i'm working with the region's native american communities and in earnest i have asked the president to designate the greater grand canyon heritage monument on public land surrounding the grand canyon. section 435 of this bill will jeopardize not only that effort, other efforts around the country to honor, recognize, and protect our most cherished cultural, historic and natural resources shond should be removed from the bill. i urge my colleagues to stand up

in defense of the antiquities act and support my amendment to strike section 435 from this bill and i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise to oppose this amendment and yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. some 20 years, president clinton went to arizona and pointed across the border into utah in my district and he said, i am creating national monument over there. nearly two million acres he did not have the courage to come to utah to defend this monument nor to create it because he knew the local people did not support it that monument has been incredibly unpopular since then. it has kicked ranchers off the range, decimated the local economies, until we have reached this point. mr. stewart: some of the local school districts have had to declare an emergency because their schools are dying and their children are having to ride a bus for two hours, one way, two hour, to go to school.

why? because there are no jobs that can support a family and people are having to leave. local input is so important to the creation of these monuments and there are examples where local input and where people collaborate having worked together and come to a great solution. rob bishop has done that. just yesterday we held a bipartisan press conference where we had local mayors, republicans and democrats, on what we call the mountain of court. i'm asking president obama. please. come to my state, talk to the people in my district. see what they think about this monument. come talk to us and see how this will impact them. let me close with this. there is a reason i live in utah. i love to ski, i love to rock climb, i love to hike, i love to sit on my porch and look at the beautiful landscape around me. i want to preserve this. all of us do. but there's a right way to do this and there's a wrong day o-- a wrong way to do this the antiquities act thnd estroke of

the pen of a president who won't even come to the state to defend his action is not the right way. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. let me yield to the gentlelady from maine, representative pingree, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to my friend for yielding the time. i want to support this important amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. it's important because it will strike a section of this bill that will hurt a small group of states, including my state of maine. as we all know the congress gave presidents the right to create a national monument over 100 years ago. since then, the president has used that authority to create national monuments like yellowstone, grand canyon national park and acade in a national park in my -- and acadia national park in my district. the use of the antiquities act

has been an important conservation tool for over a century. for my state of maine, a national monument would bring new visit yrs to the area and create job, not just in the immediate region but throughout the state. for example, we already have a national mark in -- national park in maine, acadia. it started out as a national monument 100 years ago this very month and brings about three million visitors a year to the region. mr. chairman this bill has very problematic language in that it will brock e-- block the creeeags of national monuments even in areas where one might be supported by local communities. we need to strip this provision this the underlying by i urbling my colleagues to support the grijalva amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: congressman grijalva, who represents southwest arizona is seeking to lock up 1.7

million achers in northern arizona at the behest of special interest groupers in sole purpose of preventing mining, retiring grazing permits, closing roads to o.h.b. users and preventing foresting activeties. there's significant opposition to this proposed land grab, it was reported that a scientific poll found that 71.6% of arizonans are opposed. in april i held a public meeting to hear concerns about the proposal and hundreds of stake holders showed up in opposition. more than 30 arizona witnesses submitted testimony against this lanch grab, including representatives of industry, sports groups, aling groups and others. several comments today are out of line. in this proposal, the entire town of tucson would be swallowed up by the proposed monument. town managers te testified against it. arizona's state land department

manager submitted testimony saying in the 1.7 million acres included in the land gravent, 64,000 belong to the common schools beneficiary k through 12 education. the list guess on and on. i ask everybody, in fact, arizona governor dough doucy stated the objective overlay on 1.7 million acres of land thwarting arizona's land management objectives and values and does so by bypassing a public process that would most certainly result in a much more thoughtful result. the grand canyon national monument is not narrow, targeted, warranted or being considered through an open, cooperative process. last i bring up that this proposal monoyoument would tie up future surface water yution and future groundwater use and with that, i urge a no vote on amendment 41. with that, i yield back to the speaker.

mr. calvert: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: let me yield one minute to the gentlelady from nevada, representative titus. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. titus: thank you very much. i rise in support of mr. grijalva's amendment. i represent the heart of the las vegas valley which atacts 4 million visitors from around the globe every year to the world famous strip to visit our world class casinos, shopping and shows. but that's not the only reason people come to nevada. they come to see the west as it was hundreds, even thousands of years ago. horncome to see iconic big sheep, jsh what trees. congress rightfully entrusted the in the president the authority to designate such special places for protection but this bill would eliminate his or her ability to do that. to protect those places that tell america's story.

so i urge my colleagues to support mr. grijalva's amendment, to strip out this section from the bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserve. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: in close, let me say, the item came up about the grand canyon. the grand canyon is an icon to this whole nation. supported overwhelmingly by peculiar opinion to create a monument that protects it from degradation from uranium mine, to protect the watershed that feeds watt to 23 million people across the west and to save -- to say that this is merely a grabbing and a taking is to misrepresent history, misrepresent the reality of that resource, and in the long-term understand that this icon, the grand canyon, is there to be preserved and protected by this

congress, not to be turned other for exploitation. with that, i urge support of the amendment and to the protect the prerogatives of not only the president but the prerogatives of our natural resources to be protected in perpetuity for generations and generations to come. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i oppose the amendment and yield back. the chair: 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 amendment is not agreed to. mr. grijalva: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further pr seedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek

recognition? mrs. black: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42 printed in house report 114-683, offered by mrs. black of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. black: mr. chairman, i rise today to i rise to offer an amendment to protect workers from a misguided provision. ast year the e.p.a. released phase two efficient standards for new medyume and heavy-duality trucks. while many are not opposed to the phase two rule, one section in the proposal wrongly applies these standards that are none as demrider kit. it is known as a group of parts that can include a frame, cab or

axles but does not include an engine or transmission. it is less to purchase and extend the long life of a truck, businesses and drivers with a damaged or old vehicle may choose a demrider kit. demriders extend the useful life of engines while having a higher resale price. due to the rebuilt engines, they can be a more fuel efficient options allowing drivers to use less fuel. unform, the eep is proposing to propose the standards to glider kits even though they are not new vehicles. it is unclear whether the e.p.a. has the authority to regulate. while the e.p.a.'s stated goal

they reduce emissions, the have not studied the impacts of gliders compared to new vehicles. it appears the agency is to force businesses and drivers to buy new trucks. applying the phase two standards would harm the workers and owners in the demriding industry to have at the both the manufacturers and the dealership. the rule would limit consumers' choice and under this proposal many operators and businesses would use current vehicles leaving older trucks on the road longer. my amendment would protect these businesses and american manufacturing jobs by prohibiting the e.p.a. from finalizing, implementing and

administering phase two standards on demrider kits. to be clear, this amendment would not would fer bar the e.p.a. from implementing the rule. it would clarify that glider kits and vehicles are not new trucks as the e.p.a. claims. i urge my colleagues to help support american manufacturing and stop the e.p.a. from attempting to shut down the glider industry. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman eserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition to this amendment. mr. israel: last year, the environmental protection agency and the national highway traffic administration had standards as required by the energy and

independent security act. this amendment would prohibit them from administering or enforcing this proposed rule or any rule of the same substance with respect to demrider vehicles. these standards are designed to cut carbon pollution. these standards are expected to lower standards by one billion metric tons and cut costs and reduce oil consumption up to 1.8 billion barrels. and now heavy-duty trucks account for 5% of the vehicles on the road and create 20% of the greenhouse emissions and i would note this amendment doesn't suspend all aspects of e new rule but carves out an exemption for one particular

industry, the industry that produces glider vehicles. ey place an older or older engine. these are engines that date back to 2001 or older and have emissions that are higher. and this amendment would allow an entire cement of the trucking industry to arhode island compliance with the pollute ant standards that are in the rule. these are engines that will emit greenhouse gases and this amendment creates a loophole that you could drive a truck through toll continue to pollute our envimet. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i yield one minute to mr. calvert. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. calvert: the overall rule is supported by the truck industry. there are some specifics that need to be ironned out and my colleague has addressed concerns within the e.p.a.'s rule. so you can't drive a truck. with that, i support this language in the interior bill and i urge members to vote aye on this amendment and i yield back the time. plaque black reserve. the chair: the gentleman from ew york is recognized. mrs. black: this proposed language from the e.p.a. is improper and ill conceived with no regard tore jobs. it raises the costs and least they could do is have a few facts to back them.

communities where these kits are manufactured are struggling with above-average unemployment and would see more employment and there is little time for the demrider industry to respond and have little to no economic consideration given prior. our constituents, dealers and employees will disproportionately affected by the e.p.a.'s decision to ban the products that they sell, service and drive. and it will help the national economy and applying these new standards to the demriders will increase expenses for drivers. congress has recognized the value of remanufactured parts and components. the united states hupes has ted in the federal vehicle repair cost savings act which was signed into law last year to

encourage federal agencies to use remanufactured parts. it is helping in the federal government. this is going to help the private sector. and this is counter to the congressional intent. and they are therefore should be used outside the e.p.a. authority and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired and the gentleman from from new york. mr. israel: this amendment creates a loophole for one industry. it picks winners and losers. the winners would be one segment of the truck industry. the losers would be jobs, our health and our enjoirment. and with that, i ask for opposition to this amendment, mr. chairman. and i yield back. the chair: the alyields.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendent is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 114- 3 for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report number 114-683 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mrs. blackburn: i appreciate the recognition and i want to begin by saying i think the committee has done an amazing job with

consistently making reductions in what they are spending. that's appropriate that we do that because we are 19.3 trillion in debt. so my amendment is a very simple reduction in spending. it's a penny out of a dollar, 1% across the board. and i know it's not popular. i know everybody says it goes too far. but this will save us $321 million. of course no luck when you look at the total budget but very appropriate we begin to take these steps. it is so interesting, talking about ronald reagan and how he approached things. he would say let's take a few steps at a time and begin to get behind some of this and get our

government back in shape. and that's exactly what he did. and it paid off for our country, with economic growth, making certainty that our economy was growing and our revenues were growing. and indeed, mr. chairman, we have seen our country doesn't have a revenue problem, what we have is a spending problem. what we have is a priority problem. and what we fail to do is toe realize that the taxpayers are overtaxed and our government is overspent and they want us to make as many spending reductions as we possibly can. i come once again to the floor with this 1% across the board spending cut. what it will do is to make that reduction of another $ 21 million to build on the success that the committee has shown

with $64 million below below the enacted levels. they are to be commended for that. let's commend these savings and get our fiscal house in order and i reserve. the chair: the alreserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. israel: claim time in opposition to the amendment. and i believe that our colleagues will be treated to a rare display of harmony on this amendment. mr. chairman, i strongly oppose the amendment. look, this is not a perfect bill. and there are clear differences on this amendment but should not be underfunding. if this amendment were to pass, we are looking at fewer patients

that would be seen at indian alth services and inspectors making sure that accidents do not occur. investments in our public lands will be implemented. the bill is underfunded in my view and this amendment would not encourage the agencies to do more with less. it would force our constituents to do less with less. proud pose and i would to be yielding to the gentleman. mr. calvert: i appreciate the gentlelady's amendment and her intent to reduce spending. as she well knows, we have reduced this bill somewhat over the years as we have on the discretionary accounts that the appropriations committee is

responsible for. this is a decision based upon what a discussion regarding discretionary accounts versus nondiscretionary. d we would have balanced the budget-plus. but we aren't there. i would rise in opposition to this amendment. i commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect the taxpayers' dollars but this isn't an approach i can support. the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks. this bill makes the tough choices that adheres to the current law. we may not agree that is enough. but that's what the current law is. we have made difficult choices to make this work. i would urge opposition to this amendment and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: you know, i have heard every excuse that there is, always due. and i know that spending reductions aren't popular around here, i know it. and i get it. i think that it is immoral for us to spend money that we don't have. it's not our money but taxpayers' money and to spend it on programs that constituents don't want. and it is immoral tore us to pass our debt to our children and grandchildren. think about it. my grand sons who are seven and eight years old by the time they begin paying taxes, these programs will outlive their usefulness. do i hope we have the political

will to look at the mandatory side of the column? absolutely. couple of other points, i hope that there will be agreement that we are overtaxed and overspent and the fiscal health this nation needs to be addressed. i also think what we need to look at is the burden of taxation has caused many of our constituents to face deferred maintenance on their homes, on their businesses, on their dreams. because they're having to pay their taxes. they're having to pay what the federal government takes out of those paychecks. first right of refusal on those paychecks. it also causes job loss. it's time for us to address our

overspending and our national debt. i do hope we see some work on the mandatory side of the column. i urge a yes vote and i yield become my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> can i ask how much time we have left? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. >> the gentlewoman notice it is the taxpayers' money, and she's right. mr. israel: it is the taxpayers' money. taxpayers expect their money will be spent safeguarding their infrastructure. they expect their money will be spent on maintenance, maintaining the infrastructure. they expect their money will be spent making sure when they turn on faucets in flint, michigan, toxic water doesn't come out. they expect if they have health problems, they'll be able to get some monitoring and their health will be taken care of. they expect us to spend their dollars wisely. as i said before, mr. chairman, this is not a perfect bill but

the chairman is correct. this bill adhere's to the law. and while we would say, and we're not investing enough, while the chairman would say we are investing about what we have, the gentlewoman's amendment would actually force us to do much less with even less. and those are not priorities we could support, mr. chairman. which is why i urge my colleagues to join the chairman and our ranking member in opposing this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. adopted. ent is not mrs. blackburn: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentlewoman from tennessee will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 44 printed in house report 114-6 3.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. puce tany: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. boustany of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: my amendment would prohibit the use of funds by secretary of interior for he purposes of implementing, administers or enforcing any rule of guidance similar to the guidance released regarding financial assurances for oil and gas operations on the outer continental shell. the federal government currently requires american offshore oil and gas companies to buy liability bonds ranging from tens of thousand of dollars to tens of millions of dollars for every offshore lease. publishedof 014, they

an advanced notice of rule making seeking industry input on risk management, financial assurance and loss management. then inexplicably they elected to circumvent the rule making process they initiated and issued new rules to change the way oil and gas industry funds these decommissioning costs, also referred to as plugs or abandonment of wells, pipelines or other facilities in the gulf of mexico's outer continental shelf. the obama administration ignored warnings from stake holders that this proposed guidance could drive many companies into bankruptcy precisely at a time when the industry is suffering from commodity price collapse, a lot of workers in louisiana and across the gulf coast have been laid off. they've asserted these rule changes are necessary to prevent taxpayers from being left with a by for decommissioning work

n a number of filings. ironically, boem's solution will likely trig they are major risk it's trying to protect against. if implemented these will pose an exiss ten rble threat to many o.c.s. shelf operator, discourage future investment, cost thousands of jobs and dramatically reduce the royalties to u.s. taxpayers. for example, under the new rule, each party would be assessed 100% on shared leases in a joint operating agreement that's no longer accepted as a reflection of actual liability this means if there were four companies sharing a project and it would cost an estimated $20 million to remove that particular platform, boem would then nevertheless require each party to post a $20 million bond to remove the platform. it hardly seems necessary to require $80 million in bonding for a $20 million project. the new rules also require full

bonding up front for all possible wells in the exploratory plan despite the fact that the wells may never be drilled. , the ose that are liability will not accrue for many, many years. facilities already in production, boem will require capital assurance for the lifetime production of the sthreefl property every year. that means each year the lessie will be responsible for -- lessee will be responsible for the production value. in fact, many of the industry experts have expressed concern that boem has not even provided a clear definition of the problem that the agency is trying to solve, nor has there been justification provided as to the need for changes to the existing regulatory framework. experts remain concerned that if this proposed guidance would be finalized it would limit the

ability to explore and extract oil and gas from the gulf of mexico. this new rule, a new rule, guidance or any other form of notice from boem will stifle oil gulf production on the of mexico. i urge adoption of my amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition kot gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: i th would block the bureau of ocean industry management from finalizing guidance to clarify financial assurances for oil and gas companies operating in the outer continental shelf. the guidance is important because it details the procedures that will be used to determine the lessees financial ability to carry out its obligation.

so that we, the taxpayer, our constituents can be sure that the oil company can pay for all of its costs associated with offshore drilling. the guidance is necessary to ensure that oil companies have the financial capability to properly decommission outer shelf facilities instead of abandoning them. and leaving the american taxpayer, our constituents, on the hook to pay the cost. now the guidance will modernize the financial assurance regulation to match the current industry practices, provide updated criteria for determining the lessee's ability to self-insure its liabilities base odd then lessee's financial capacity and financial strength. we should be working together to ensure that the u.s. taxpayer never pays to decommission an o.c.s. facility and that the environment is protected at the same time.

this amendment protects the special interests of big oil at the taxpayers' expense so i must protect the taxpayer and oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. boustany: how much time do i have? the chair: one minute. mr. boustany: i yield the time to my friend from louisiana, mr. graves. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: i thank the gentleman from louisiana for bringing this amendment up. here's the reality. this is largely a solution in search of a problem. there has not been a single case in the history of offshore energy production where the government has been left holding the bag. it doesn't exist. so yes, we should be working together and being one of the most -- representing one of the most coe logically productive coastal areas in the united states we're very concerned about what happens with the coastal area. but again we're proposing solutions in search of problems. all this is going to do is

result in a decrease in competition for offshore energy production a decrease in revenue for the treasury this funds the land and water conservation fund, something your side often stands up for and fighting for. this has provided nearly $200 million for the treasury, one of the largest revenue streams. i urge support of this amendment. this policy is ill advised, it simply has been done in the dark of night and it's a solution in search of a problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. we need in this day and age to make sure that the american taxpayer is protected. we have seen time and time again when environmental disasters happen and brown fields are left behind or what's going on in flint, the taxpayer picks up the

billle i just real with i believe that this guidance is necessary to ensure that oil companies have the financial capability, that they have on the books, a financial capability to properly decommission their outer continental shelf facilities instead of abandoning them, leaving the american tax payer to pay for the cleanup. with that, i yield back the rest of the time and oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. 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 45 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. boustany: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dez egg nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 45 printed in house report 114-683,

offered by mr. boustany of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, and a member opposed each will control five maines -- minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: my amendment will prevent any money being spent for the inch amount -- implementation of any rule or guidance. unfortunately, according to experts throughout the oil and gas industrymark of the prescriptive requirements contained within the final well controlled rule will neither improve safety nor reduce environmental risk in drilling. but will actually have unintended consequences of increasing risk beyond that of existing regulations. additionally, the final rule will create significant additional expenses and burdens for those engaged in exploration and development activities on the outer continental shelf. ultimately, these added economic and compliance costs, tens of billions of dollars over 10

year, together with other regulatory burdens, could force some smaller operators out of business and drive larger operators from the federal o.c.s. toward countries with less prescriptive regulatory environments or other opportunities. this means the negative impacts of this destruct i rule will likely be felt throughout all 50 states. to my colleagues who represent states that do not have offshore development, i would argue that you should support this amendment because it's jet another -- it's yet another example of the obama administration not listening to real experts and instead forcing rules and regulation into place that will hurt the domestic industry and ourist economy. in effect, the well controlled rule ultimately could increase risk, decrease safety on the ounter continental shelf. it's a one size fits all proposal that really is not realistic. it also will negatively impact the attractiveness of the gulf

of mexico for future investment and likely result in oil and gas operators choosing to develop resources in other parts of the world, changing -- taking those jobs and investment opportunities with them. as the house is reducing regular willer to burdens and restoring constitutional authority task force explains in their mission state -- statement, we as a government should be working to make it easier to invest, produce and build an america with a modern an transparent regulatory system that relieves the burden on small business and other job creators and encourages financial independence while balancing environmental stewardship, public safety. the well control rule does not do this. america cannot continue to be the global energy leader without policies that foster this kind of innovation, investment, and development of energy resources. safety, not convenience, must always be the driving force behind these initiatives. the well control rule not only leaves industry with numerous questions about compliance but

also has experts concerned that these new measures will increase risk. i reserve the balance of my time. . ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: there is a rider in the bill that accomplishes what the gentleman's amendment would do. it reverses the safety improvements that were developed following the deepwater horizon tragedy and would delay implementation of a rule that would directly access the recommendation. it was a full investigation. the investigations were conducted by industry experts and they determined the cause of the deepwater horizon tragedy nd we heard miscastor talk

about it. many of the requirements are not new. they were in existence. and guidance and equipment and requirements were in place. and makes them enforceable. yes, enforceable. the department of interior, estimates that the amendment would block between 657 million caused bylion damages blowouts in 10 years. but most importantly. this estimate does not take into account the elements of these human protections. the deepwater horizon was a tragic event. 11 lines were lost in that

explosion and it is unconscionable that this amendment once again looks to put the profits of big oil companies ahead of safety. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. boustany: i yield two minutes to mr. graves. the aves: i appreciate gentleman for yielding. let's talk about reality versus fiction. here's the reality. the reality is these regulations have not been out there and not subject to investigations and studies. i was the lead trustee for the state of louisiana. and i fought it and i was the natural resource manager under which there were 00 miles. i appreciate you trying to

defend our resources. the reality is 0% of the wells couldn't been drilled. the reality is the department of interior's cost estimates said it was going to cost millions it was going to be $the 9 billion and they have no idea what they are doing and actually 17% of the lives and the energy for the united states. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. ms. mccollum: may i ask how much time i have left. the chair: three minutes. ms. mccollum: i respect the gentleman's right to close. i have the right to close. but he brought up the amendment.

but this us my last statement. and i'm reading from the bill. page 69, that's why i don't understand the redundancy. this bill undoes what the regulation would do to protect the workers' safety. page 69, line , section 14 and this is about drilling margins, none of the funds made available may be used to adopt, administer or change any any changes and it goes on. folks, this amendment would reverse the safety improvements that would develop the deep water horizon tragedy and americans said no more, no more

loss of life. i oppose this amendment and i urge my colleagues to vote no. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. mr. boustany: in louisiana, we understand how good economic policy and we also know that the men and women who work on these rigs are our friends, neighbors and family and safety is first. we also know from experts across industry, that this proposed rule is a one size fits all proposal that increases risk and makes the more risky and we will not stand to allow this rule to go forward and i urge adoption of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. ms. mccollum: i request a roll call. the chair: pursuant to rule , rule 18, proceedings on the the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, pretion will resume on amendments on house report 114-683 on which further proceedings were postponed. amendment number one, amendment mber 3, amendment number 38, amendment number 39, amendment umber 10, amendment number 11, amendment number 12, amendment , mber 13, amendment number 14

amendment number 20, amendment number 21 by mr. luge and of new mexico, nalm 22, amendment umber 278, eament number 28 by the the gentleman from california. amendment number 31 by mr. peters. the chair will reduce to two minutes the tile for any electric thronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfind issued is businesses a request for a recorded vote by mrs. castor on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report offered by miscastor of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in a request of a recorded will rise and be counted. northward. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. house 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.] covering the debate, death and

henry. what are some of the other agencies covered on this bill and how have priorities for republicans change from this year to the last? >> it includes the national park service and the environmental protection agency, the big one that gets a lot of republican eyes. hard atgo pretty regulatory power. it cuts spending from that portion and includes a couple of policy writers. rule, thethe water clean power plan, obama's major climate change related rule, a coal mining rule for its very similar with what republicans have done in the past. generally on the policy side, this is the depart for the course for what they have looked for for a while. >> it's part of a bill that will

consider 131 amendments made by the rules committee, one issue that will come up this year came up last year and that was the blocking of the placement of confederate flags at confederate cemeteries. why happened last year and wasn't it included in the bill for this year? >> it really blew up the appropriations process in the house. the house adopted an amendment, blocking the display of confederate flags at national cemeteries. certain republicans objected after it was already attached and republicans looked to attach another amendment to the bill undoing the previous amendment. democrats demanded a vote on that one, putting republicans in and rather than bring it up for a vote, the leadership pulled the bill entirely and they didn't get around to voting on anymore

last yearions bills at all. there was an amendment offered to this bill related to the confederate flag but they were among the amendments not allowed under this bill for that they will not come up on the floor this year. >> let's talk about some energy and environment issues. the administration's water rule, the issue in dealing with power plants. what are you looking for in particular? >> they will be a lot of amendments from both sides to reinforce their position on this issue. republicans have taken aim at other rules they don't like that were not included in the base bill.

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 196, the nays are 225.

the chair: the amendment is not adopted. e unfinished business is a recorded vote on amendment 3 offered by mr. himes on which further proceedings were the

clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: printed number 3 offered by mr. himes of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on. a a sufficient number having arisen has been 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.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183 and the amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is a request for a vote for the gentleman

from minnesota on which the noes prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 8 114-683. in house the chair: those in support of a recorded vote. 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.]

the chair: the yeas are 17 and the nays are 250.

the the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on offered by the gentleman from nooge. on which further proceedings proceeded. the clerk: amendment number 9. offered by mr. norcross of new jersey. he chair: a recorded vote. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on. number, on recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the 14 and the nays are 2 2. the the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on printed in house report 114-6 3 on which further provision were postponed.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: printed in house report 114-683. the chair: a recorded vote has een requested. snord. this is a two-minute vote. fund fnd 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 ir: on this vote yeas are 190, the yeas are 235. the amendment is not adopted. the request is offered by the gentleman from golf which further proceedings were .ostponed and the nays were

complerk clerk offered by mr. huffman of california. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 184, the nays are 240, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offer by the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, on which further proceed wrgs postponed on which noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12, prinned in house report 114-683,

offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [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 chair: on this vote, the yeas are 186, the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in house report 114-683, offered by the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 prinned in house report 114-68 , offered by mr. huffman of california. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rizz and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

chor open -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 181, the nays are 244. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 offered by the gentleman, mr. smith. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house pe report 114-683, offered by mr. smith of missouri. the chair: a recorded vote

having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [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 208, the nays are 217. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 20 printed in house report 114-683 from the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed if house report 114-683, offered by mr. palmer of alabama. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be

counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [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 175, the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1, printed in house report 114-683, offered by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in house report 114-683rk offered by mr. ben ray lujan of new mexico. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[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: the yeas are 219 and he amendment is adopted. amendment number 22. noesed by the yosm and the prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in house 114 hafe 68 . the chair: those in request for a reported vote. 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.]

the chair: all members voted? on this vote the yeas are 170 and the the unfinished business is the request for a recorded on which 16 proceedings were. clerk crerk printed in house report 114- 3. the chair: a recorded vote will ruse and be counted. 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. houpts house of representatives

the chair: the amendment is not adopted. and the the request on offer by the gentleman from california and the noes were prevailed. e clerk: amendment number 28 offered by mr. becerra of california. the chair: a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote.

the chair: the yeas are 190 and the amendmentes not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on overed by the gentleman from california mr. peert of peters. and the clerk will redesignate the amendment. petersrk: offered by mr. of mr. peters. [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 182, the nays are 294rk the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished request is the request for a rote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. peters, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. peters of california. the chair: a vort -- a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 185, the nays are 241, the mendment is not adopted.

for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i move that the committee rise. the chair: the question is on the committee rising. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under considering h.r. 5538, directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5538 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 822,res. lougs providing for consideration of the senate amendment to the house amendment to the bill senate 764, to re-authorize and c grant national sea college act, and for other purposes, and to improve motor vehicle safety by sharing certain information with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules. the speaker pro tempore: reported to the house calendar and ordered printed.

pursuant to house resolution 20 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5538. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5538. the clerk will port by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriationers in department of the interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2017, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 31 printed in house report 114-683 has been disposed of.

please have all members take conversation off the floor, out of the aisles, off the back aisle. all present on the floor come to order. the committee will come to order tsms now in order to consider amendment number 46 printed in house report 114-68 . for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: amendment number 46 printed in house report 114-6 offered by mr. bratt of irginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. brat: i rise to offer an amendment. mr. speaker, the land and watter conservation fund requires property acquired to develop with the lwcf assistance to be retained an used for public outdoor recreation. any property so acquired and/or

developed may not be converted to other uses indefinitely. federal funding through the nwcf grant shouldn't let them enforce the use on state and local lands forever. a quid pro quo condition in exchange for funds for some period might be reasonable but eventually federalism needs to kick in again. this amendment would prevent the n.p.s. from enforcing conditions on an lwcf grant far 20 year period. this allows the state or locality to use its land as it sees fit without needing permission. it is only reasonable for the state and local governments to reassess land use on behalf of their citizens. i urge my cloges to support my amendment to put our constituents back in control of local matters. i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

any member seeking time in opposition in the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment nullifies the term of land and water conservation contracts that are more than 20 years old. hen states, counties and other entities receive funds from the lwcf, they do so with the understanding that the lands will be used for public recreation purposes in perpetuity. mr. israel: if they no longer need the land for this purpose there's a simple process. since lwcf's establishment over 50 years ago, the conversion has been done thousands of time. under this amendment, any land could be converted to private use or sold on the open market. s that misguided outcome. our constituents deserve a fair return on investment and we

shouldn't allow one town's unwillingness to play by the rules to upend 50 years success. i urge my colleagues to defend the integrity of the lwcf. i'm happy to yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. royce: these local communities know what they're entering into when they enter into it. if they choose to do that they have the right to do that and they have to live by the decisions that they've -- that they've made. we have a lot of lwcf projects in communities that i've lived in in idaho. mr. simpson: and they get the benefit of that lwcf. i'll tell you if there is a local problem that the gentleman would like to deal work i know the committee and the chame of the committee would be more than willing to work with you to address that and try to address the concerns the local community has. there is a way, that, yes, with the agreement of the federal government, they can get out of the deals they have made but i

know in my community we had an indoor swimming pool that was built for our community, it was a great thing, became very expensive when the price of energy went up, they wanted to take the roof off the indoor swimming pool so it wasn't indoor. the federal government wouldn't let them. now we're glad they didn't. these decisions are made for very good reason. so i would oppose the amendment and i agree with the gentleman my friend from new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. israel: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has the only time. mr. israel: mr. chairman, the distinguished leader of the subcommittee, the gentleman from idaho, the ranking member from minnesota, agree that this amendment would have a misguided outcome. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: all time for debate having closed, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the opinion in the the chair the noes visit. the amendment is not adopted.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 47 printed in house report 114-683, for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. buck: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47 offered by mr. buck of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. buck: thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to speak about this important amendment to the department of interior, environment, and related agencies appropriation act. this amendment protects private property in soviet colorado by prohibiting the use of funds for the creation or expansion of environmental or cultural protection areas. these zones, often known as national heritage areas, are just another back door method for the government to impose federal zoning on private property. e heritage areas amount to a an t conservation area,

element imposes on the land. the citizens of colorado have fought this for years, desperate to save their farms and ranches. this will ensure that private property rights are restored in soviet colorado. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. any member seeking time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. israel: this stops the department of interior from entering into agreements for protecting natural, cultural or historic areas in soviet colorado. it's my understand -- in soast colorado. it's my understanding they -- in south yeast colorado.

-- south yeast colorado. i would remind that the sponsor that the preserve america executive order was issued by president george w. bush, a republican, and emphasized public-private partnerships that limit, not expand, ownership. if there are specific concerns about federal management in the region, the sponsor, i would hope, would work with the authorizing committee, not use the appropriations process to wall off a section of the country and that's why i oppose this amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. israel: again, i would urge opposition to this amendment, there are opportunities for the swrelt to work with the authorizing committee. the appropriations committee should not be used as a vehicle to wall off sections of specific areas and with that, i close. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. all time for debate having closed, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 48, for what purpose does the swrelt from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 48 printed in house report 114-683, offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i rise to offer an amendment on an issue i have worked on as well as the energy and commerce committee for the last six years. in 2006, the appropriations committee, without consultation with the energy and commerce committee, 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. this special provision was intended to be used only in unique circumstances where leaders in the health care industry who could never leave their -- the private sector to work for the federal government but for special hire salaries. this justification can never be used at the e.p.a. indeed, some of the employees that the environmental protection agency pays under title 42, the part of the u.s. code that allow for this special pay were previous government workers and were merely moved to the special pay scale because they wanted more money.

they argue that because it's a health agency they can use the special hires and they've been allowed to. recently the e.p.a. was given only a handful of slots to fill with 42 hire -- title 42 hires and that number has ballooned to 50. 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 by this provision. this would give the energy and commerce committee the authorizing committee the time it needs to address whether the e.p.a. truly deserves this special pay consideration.

they fund problems within the program, within the department of human services where it arguably could be allow. why would congress ever allow the environmental protection agency to implement the same problematic pay structure. multiple hearings in the committee on energy and commerce, beth administrator lisa jackson and geena mccarthy, refused to give specifics regarding the program. the freedom of nsks act request by the e.p.a. union, the american federation of government employees, sent to my office showed that title 42 hires at e.p.a. are sowing dissent among workers. with union asking that congress stop this abuse of an unfair hiring technique. chirme emeritus barton and i have introduced legislation further clarifying that the public health services act, written for h.h.s. does not permit the e.p.a. to wruse this language to hire employees under a special pay structure. i urge adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. any member wish to claim time in opposition? .

that's why the federal government needs to allow these agencies to provide some additional incentives to recruit employees. with our nation faying so many crises like zika, we should be investing in our scientists. this unfairly attacks federal employees who devote their lives to public service. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is yielded the balance of the time. mr. barton: could i inquire how much that is? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. barton: i want to thank the gentleman from tarrant and

denton county for offering this amendment. it's unconscionable we're using a provision in federal law first passed during world war ii to ive a handful of elite medical professionals the capability to get a little bit more than the average federal pay scale. this has ballooned over at the e.p.a. and has been pointed out as far as we know in the neighborhood of 50 people that are now getting this above average pay. we ought to be eliminating the program, we ought to be just putting the nail through the coffin in this program at e.p.a. in, instead, buzz of the generosity of my good friend dr. burgess, he's just saying don't hire any more. . and let us in the authorizing committee and pass a

urge for the a and adoption. the chair: mr. chairman, we have eaning array of public health pandemic nd ebola and and now is the time to recruit the best and the brightest and this amendment would undermine i s ability and with that, would be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> mr. barton: we are talking about public health in our national in the h.h.s. and talking about the e.p.a. and i yield back. mr. israel: the e.p.a. uses

scientists engaged in emergencies. deploy those e to scientists and make sure the federal government is deploying this and why i yield back. the chair: all time have has been. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. yease pib of the their the have it. and the amendment is agreed to. in it is order to considered number 49. >> i have an amendment at the defbling. the clerk: printed in house report offered by mr. byrne of

alabama. the chair: the chair recognizes the chairman from alabama. mr. byrne: i like to news to this amendment. this would redreekt funds under he gulf of mexico and this was off shore 006 and of revenue and four states, texas, louisiana, texas and louisiana. and the revenues from oil and shelf. s from the outer and sovietal preparedness. there is a reason. work force but they

have inherent economic risk. and instead be spread around the. ot only does it contradict and undermines the law and states that splay the work force and iran hernt risk. this is not the first time the president has made this proposal and congress has stood in we ngest ep situation . and ould not allow the revenue into a slush fund. i urge my colleagues to support this and i reserve.

the chair: any member wish to claim time in opposition. . mr. israel: this is an overreaction to the budget request. states to d to federal programs. the proposal wasn't included. the appropriations process is just that. it is a process. the committee virginia evaluated it and it lay with the committee. this amendment would stifle any proposal to the proip because congress would need to blake changes. and and basically, this amendment would prohibit the department from sulingting an idea to consider.

and it committee on i propose his. the chair: i yield one minute to he jam from mr. garrett. the revenues. 39 % of the revenues. 2006 when they reached an agreement to share 37.5 with the . f shore revenue revenues restoring our et land and the impounded by our hurricanes. this is to save taxpayers to

and re our ecosystem and create this this rescind these fund and treat these funds and as a result e funs of. i urge adoption. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. the gentlewoman from new york. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from alabama. >> this administration has been reversed by the united states sfreem court than the history of the united states of a.m.

there is nothing that it will do including going against the clear statute. see we have to have language that think can't spend this ney otherwise they will go against the statute. so that's why we have to have this. this is very important. not om to the gulf state. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from yields back. >> there is nothing radical about making a rule that could i t funds from states sm a understand the gentleman and his concerns about this particular concerns. but this is an overreach.

is would prohibit the agency and it ought to be considered as part of a broader approach from the gentleman. and i urge defeat and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. . he amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 50? . >> i have an amendment at the desk on the national ocean policy. the clerk: amendment number 50 offered by mr. byrne of alabama. the chair: the gentleman from and a member opposed will each