unfortunately doesn't allow that to happen. i thank chairman calvert for yielding me the time and i yield back the time to you so you can reserve. the chair: gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: how much time is remaining? the chair: two minutes. mr. perry: i find a lot in common with the chairman and the gentlelady from minnesota that in times of emergency, we would want to use the assets that are available to us immediately. the amendment says it prohibits the agency to perform surveying, mapping or collecting remote sensing data. none of those are generally speaking an emergency situation. so i find some agreement, but this is what the amendment says. i just want to let everybody know that this is a $73 billion market and while we wait around in the united states and wait on the f.a.a. to promulgate the

rules, the market moves further and further away from the united states and drives $1 trillion in economic activity, more than 500,000 american jobs are related to the collection, storage of imagery and data and 5.3 million workers use the data. 90% ofhe government information has a geo spacial component and it is identified by the department of labor as 14 sectors.just i find it problematic that we are giving our government a leg up when the private sector pays for the government. this amendment is supported by the american farm bureau, the business coalition for fair competition and the association of mapping and geospacial firms.

i understand the arguments on the other side but i think it is important we stand on the cutting edge and not empower and enrich the government sector in this regard. with all due respect, i hope my colleagues will vote in favor of the amendment. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. calvert: in closing, based upon the way we read this amendment, it would shut down the department of interior's current operations on its ability to use unmanned aircraft system. while that may not be the intent of the amendment, that's what it says and does, according to our folks that have read through it. go hopefully next year as we through the authorization process, we can come back here and have a policy, because i believe in private contracting. but right now i don't want the unintended consequence of taking away vital equipment that is

being utilized at this time. i would oppose the gentleman's amendment and hope we could come to a resolution within the next year. and not just within the department of interior. there are other departments. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. perry: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment 380 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. perry: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 80

rinted in house report 114-683 offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, this amendment will reduce the funding to the environmental protection agency by 17% to ensure the e.p.a. bureaucrats are not immune to the negative impacts of their actions in the form of regulation. you wonder why 17%. i'm going to get to that. e.p.a. regulations germly jeopardize our nation's access to affordable and reliable power and will lead to skyrocketing costs by their own admission. unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats are pursuing an agenda while imposing real costs on the economy and on every day americans. an analysis conducted by the

national economic research associates found compliance about the clean power plan would .ost consumers $300 billion now despite the staggering costs, the clean power plan will have no effect on climate change co2 reduces officeric concentrations by one half of 1%. and that costs $300 billion. it estimates the clean power plan will burden the people of the state of pennsylvania with an average annual electricity price of 17%. that's where i came up with the 17%. they are saying my constituents are going to pay 17% more for their power so it seems that the e.p.a. should feel the pain as well. you can see what the estimated burden imposed on each state is by the clean power plan at the

.org.yatt america's power if you don't live in pennsylvania, it might be a lot more. this amendment will ensure that bureaucrats in the e.p.a. feel the impact that yare ideological agenda has imposed on the american citizen by reducing the emissions by 17%. my voters didn't have a choice. they are going to have to pay 17% more for their electricity and amounts to a funding reduction of $1.4 billion. that's what it costs the e.p.a. costs my constituents 17% every time they pay their electricity bill. it is only fair that the e.p.a. is forced to make hard decisions as to how divide up smaller budgets as it is forced to do as what families that i represent have to do if this rule is

enacted. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition. i certainly understand and share the gentleman's frustration with the e.p.a. and with this administration's overzealous regulatory agenda. in this bill, as the gentleman well knows, we tried to reversal of this overreaching agenda that this administration has placed on american -- the american people. we have gone through this bill line by line through the agency's budget to identify areas for targeted and strategic cuts. in total the f.y. 2017 bill cuts t by $164 million and $291 million below obama's budget request. and $93 billion.

the bill denies the administration request for additional staff and keeps the number of e.p.a. personnel at the lowest level since 1989. that's when george herbert walker bush was president. i think we have done a pretty good job of cutting it back to 1989. the gentleman's amendment would penalize states by cutting the grants they need. it would reduce the funding for the clean water and drinking water grant. it would impact the geographic program such as the great lakes. it would reduce funding for the cleanup of toxic superfund sites and the gentleman's proposal for a general cut would impact all those important programs. i would like to remind the gentleman that with the cuts included in this bill we have cut e.p.a. funding by $2.3 billion or 23% in this bill

since 2011. so we have continuously done this every year. i look at this bill very carefully and tried to make sure that we do responsible cuts to the environmental protection agency without damaging the environment. with that, i reluctantly oppose this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. r. perry: i reserve. mr. perry: i have said everything i needed to say and i'm happy to yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. mr. perry: i appreciate the chairman's efforts over this many years and i support everything you have done. what vehicleses me that with everything we have done and you have done, the e.p.a. still has found a way to reach in to the pockets of my consumers, the

people that i represent and take 17% of their power bill. they didn't say you have to take it out of the food budget or your kids' boy scouts' dues, they said we are taking it right off the top. so apparently, no how much we have taken from them so far, they haven't gotten the message yet. i appreciate your position, but in an effort to stand up for the citizens and say we don't want a 17% hike in our power bills just because the e.p.a. says so, i'm going to ask that my colleagues support the amendment and heap a little more trouble on the e.p.a. as they are heaping on the constituents that i'm privileged to represent. i yield back. the chair: the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will e postponed. the chair: the committee will rise to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate.

the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate agreed to the conference report accompanying s. 524, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act of 2016. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 81 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 381 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 820, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry and a member opposed each will control 20 minutes. mr. perry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, this amendment will prevent funds from being used to expand the e.p.a. authority pursuant to section 115 of the clean air act. the clean air act, which has served us well since 1973 and has been used over and over again to make sure we clean up our act. section 115 allows the e.p.a. to mandate state emission levels to whatever amount the agency deems appropriate if they find. the clean air act, section 115 allows the e.p.a., the federal government, to mandate our states, all 50 of them, emission levels to whatever amount the agency deems appropriate, whatever amount. if they find two things. this has been there since 1973. but it hasn't been relevant.

but it is now. if the e.p.a. finds that u.s. emissions endanger a foreign nation and the endangered nation has an agreement to prevent or control emissions in their own nation. . where that comes into play is the paris climate agreement. because we have the clean air act in section 115rks it is now operative or potentially operative. many believe and have argued that the u.n. paris climate agreement meets these requirements. once again, would allow the federal government to mandate or state emission levels to whatever amount the agency deems appropriate. period. the president has proven time and time again that he has no problem circumventing congress and working unilaterally to achieve his policy priorities. and i suspect since he's in favor of the paris climate agreement that this is one of his policies. with the clean power plan

caught up in the courts as the president's administration comes to an end, there is a serious concern and a legitimate concern that he will act unilaterally to cement his environmental legacy by enforcing section 115 in this way. this amendment would block this attempt to delegate nearly unlimited power and authority over the energy sector in each one of our states to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the e.p.a. such expansion of authority, expansive authority of the e.p.a. would be economically devastating and could threaten the reliability and viability of our nation's energy sector. i know the president's got five, six months left to go and he'd like to gets as many regulations on the books as possible. we simply cannot let this happen and we cannot take it to chance or leave it to chance. i would urge my colleagues to an affirmative vote on this amendment and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: as has been pointed out this amendment would block the e.p.a. from regulating air pollution under section 115 of the clean air act. section 115 deals with international pollution and allows the united states to work with other countries in transboundary pollution issues. because, as we know, pollution doesn't stop at a border. it moves. and it's moving around the planet. this amendment is a transparent attempt to clearly stop the paris climate change agreement reached in december, 2015. the paris climate agreement is a milestone on the global effort to combat climate change. something which my constituents feel is very clear, very present and is a huge problem in which the united states should show leadership in. more than 190 nations have made commitments to limit their climate-damaging pollution, including all the largest

developed and developing countries. future u.s. administrations could use section 115 to help ensure that the united states and try that other countries do their part too. the perry amendment would prevent the e.p.a. and the white house from even developing a well considered recommendation. or whether or not to use this authority. congress should not take a tool out of the toolbox for future administrations' climate change mitigation toolbox. this is a matter of global leadership. the united states needs to meet its paris climate commitments. and subsequently any commitment to act in the future. congressman perry's amendment and similar earths -- efforts to thwart the progress on climate change could, i would say would, undermine our ability to achieve needed pollution reductions and hit

our paris targets. this amendment is the latest in a long line of republican attacks on the clean air act and the e.p.a.'s authority to respond to the urgent threat of climate change. a vote for this amendment is another vote, in my opinion, for those who deny climate change is real. and to block action to curb the carbon pollution that is driving dangerous climate change. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: how much time is remaining, mr. speaker? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. this is not to deny climate change, this is about authority and whose authority. the united states and the individual states don't need foreign governments, through the federal administration, telling us, telling them how to run their railroads. and their businesses. and how much they regulate their own clean air, pursuant to the 1973 clean air act.

that's why we have the federal government and that's why it collaborates with the states. suddenly, because of this agreement, the agreement between individuals, this is not a treaty ratified by the united states senate. this is an agreement between individuals that gives the power, potentially gives the power to the federal government to regulate in an unlimited fashion every one of our states. no one in the state signed up for this. no one in the united states senate voted on this. this is an agreement between individuals and it should not be let stand in this fashion. this amendment just says that we're going to follow the clean air act passed in 1973, just like we've been. nothing has changed. because nothing has changed. for the states. it's changed between individuals and this administration and people all around the globe that wish to limit the united states' producttivity through regulation -- product ivity through regulation. that's -- productivity through regulation. that's why i support it and urge members to.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: i had the opportunity recently to be in china. because of our administration and, as the chinese people and government saw, our bold leadership, in standing up and saying that the united states was going to play its role in reducing the harmful effects of climate change, china came to the table for the first time ever and said, you know, we're going to do something about it too. now, the gentleman keeps saying that, you know, the senate never voted on it, this has never happened. well, the clean air act is a law and climate change is real. this is not 1972, 1973, when i grad from high school, back -- graduated from high school, back many years ago. the planet, the climate, the oceans, the ice shelves is all changing. and the legacy that we leave for our children and for future generations will be, what does

the united states, what does our country do, how do we stand up and show leadership? so, this amendment clearly is an attempt to stop the paris climate change agreement reached in 2015. something that i say with great pride my constituentses in the state of minnesota -- constituents in the state of minnesota think is a good idea. and something that we need to move forward on. mr. chair, i have the right to close, so i'll reserve at this time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: mr. speaker, no one denies that the 1973 clean air act is enshrined as law, in law. no one denies that. but what we are pointing out is that with the paris accord, it activates section 115 in a way never perceived as being -- that to happen in 1973, when the law was passed. they didn't think that other governments were going to

control the united states state by state by state. but that's indeed what can happen here and probably what will happen here. pursuant to the agenda of the administration to reduce co-2, produced by the united states, by 80%, i know that the air was dirtier in 1973, as you said, when you were in high school or what have you, but what this is going to do is take us back to 1900's, before the time of cars and x-rays and everything that makes a 21st century life livable for us. that's what this is going to do. if we allow the president's agenda to roll forward with the paris climate accord enshrined and then enacted through the e.p.a.'s -- correction, the clean air act and section 115, and that's all this -- all this amendment wishes to do and seeks to do is to make sure that that statute isn't enacted per the paris climate agreement. not a treaty, an agreement between individuals, not between our countries.

with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: can i please inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: one minute. ms. mccollum: the debate couldn't be clearer here right now. either you believe that climate change is real and it presents a clear and present danger, and if you read some of the reports from the department of defense, they're very concerned about what is going on in the world with food scarsity, with rising sea levels, with all kinds of potential things that could bring real security risks to our nation, and do we as a country stand up and do something about it and bring other countries with us? my state is not going to be compelled by a foreign government. my state is part of the united states of america, where we will work together under leadership to do something about climate change. or do we continue to deny that climate change is real, we

ignore what the department of defense is saying, and the united states doesn't play a clear leadership role in moving forward and bringing people with us on this issue that affects today, tomorrow, future generations, and what this planet will be like for our children? with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. 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 82 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. pompeo: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in -- 82 printed in

house report 114-683 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from kansas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds for the e.p.a.'s proposed risk management plan rulemaking for the remainder of this year. this is the e.p.a.'s program implementing section 112-r of the 1990 clean air act that requires facilities that use certain materials to develop a plan to prevent accidental releases. safety is at the very core of the chemical industry, industry stakeholders have worked cooperatively with the e.p.a. to achieve dramatic 60% reductions in accidental releases in the 20 years of the program to date. while the e.p.a. has proposed several constructive changes, many of the new regulations they have put forward are highly problematic and could actually lead to an increased likelihood of an incident. the e.p.a. has raced ahead of

the other agencies participating in the federal interagency working group, created to improve chemical safety and security, the no longer working in coordination with the -- it's no longer working in coordination with other federal agencies working in the process. the e.p.a. is looking to finalize the rule even though it changes plans to same program. this lack of coordination has the potential to create conflicting rules for individuals and companies struggling to comply with multiple federal oversight programs. i urge members to adopt my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman yield or reserve? mr. pompeo: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: this amendment would block the e.p.a. from finalizing or implementing a proposed rule that establishes accidental relief prevention s. uirement

earlier this year the e.p.a. issued a proposed rule to amend its risk management program regulations' response to an executive order on improving chemical safety. proposed rule seeks to improve chemical process safety, assists local emergency authorities in planning and responding to accidents. and improve public awareness of chemical hazards. this is an important regulation and its need was underscored in the tragedy like the one that occurred in 2013 in west texas. where a massive explosion in a fertilizer plant killed 15 people and injured more than 160. this amendment would needlessly and recklessly block the efforts to further improve chemical safety and security and coordination with owners and operators and i strongly oppose that. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek reck rigs -- recognition? >> mr. chairman, pursuant to house resolution 820, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number one, consisting of amendments 127 ed 83, 86, 107, 118, and 129 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. calvert of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from california and a member opposed -- the gentleman from california and the gentlewoman from minnesota will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: mr. chairman, the majority and the minority have agreed to these amendments being offered en bloc. they are amendments that address a variety of issues.

additionally, the sponsor of the amendments have agreed to consideration of these amendments en bloc. i urge the adoption of the amendments and reserve the balance of my time. and we will yield time as the members arrive. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. calvert: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. calvert: we have no one. so i yield back. ms. mccollum: i'll be very brief. i claim time -- i just oppose this and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendments en bloc are agreed to. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 384 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. ratcliffe: i have an amendment. the clerk: amendment number 384 printed in house report 114-683 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. ratcliffe. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. ratcliffe: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i'm here to offer a simple amendment to restrict funding to the e.p.a. for finalizing, implementing, administering or enforcing its proposed rule called the clean energy incentive program design detail. as many in this chamber are aware, the united states supreme court should an historic stay back in february on the e.p.a.'s so-called clean power plan halting the e.p.a. from

proceeding on any plans to move forward this harmful and costly regulation, a regulation that would raise household electricity prices by up to 34% in some areas of our country. despite the supreme court ruling we found out that since the stay, the e.p.a. has continued barreling forward acting as if the clean power plan will most certainly be upheld. according to the e.p.a.'s own documents, the final regulations of the clean power plan included would be d it unlawful and clearly forbidden by the supreme court stay. sadly it is no surprise that the unelected bureaucrats at the e.p.a. are once again choosing to ignore an order from the highest court in the land but this amendment will stop the e.p.a. from committing this atant and unconstitutional

plan. we need to ensure that the will of the supreme court and the provisions of the underlying bill are consistent in stopping the regulatory overreach of the e.p.a. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: this amendment would prohibit the e.p.a. from finalizing or implementing designs and details for the clean energy incentive program. the clean energy incentive program is voluntary, it's an option for states. states can choose whether or not to do it. it is not a mandate. the program provides incentives to develop renewable energy and energy efficiency projects of the the amendment is another example of some of the

majority's obstruction to anything the e.p.a. or the administration does to attempt to address climate change. this program is designed to diversify energy supplies used by power generation and provide cleaner power generation to improve air quality. this amendment seeks to block -- is a job creator. let me highlight again, this program is designed to have investments in renewable energy generation to reduce harmful emissions from electric generation facilities and many states have embraced this and many states are moving forward with this. but this amendment seeks to remove the barriers that we're trying to bring down in low-income communities so they are able to invest in renewable energy and help low-income customers reduce their energy bills and that's what we should be working forward with states

and with consumers who want to reduce their energy bills and reduce the effects of climate change. i want to state again. participation in this program is totally optional. this amendment is another attempt to address climate change and continue this nation's dependency on big oil. no reason to block a voluntary program going forward. i oppose this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. ratcliffe: i encourage all members to vote for my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: the clean energy incentive program is voluntary. why would we tell states that they couldn't choose to participate in something that will help their customers have lower utility bills, help with

renewable energy and help with the environment at the same time. i urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, i request a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 85 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 85 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. smith of

missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: natural resource trustees are acting on behalf of the public to assess potential damages to natural resources at certain sites. these trustees are authorized to seek compensation for natural resource damages from responsible parties. under the comprehensive environmental response compensation and liability act, these funds collected by trustees are currently not subject to appropriation by congress. unfortunately in southeast missouri, we have seen trustees run amuck. they have used money from settlements in places other than where the funds were intended to remedy resulting inland grabs by the federal government. my amendment would provide congressional oversight in the

natural resource damage assessment process by sending funds cleggetted by the trustees back to the general funds of the treasury. this amendment is a necessary step in bringing in overreach of the federal government and reasserting congressional authority. and i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. this amendment would limit the department of interior's ability in onduct damage assessment inland oil spill preparedness that is paid for by recovered settlement funds under the superfund. in fiscal year 2017, the department of interior will receive $500 million from the deepwater horizon settlement. this amendment would prohibit the distribution of those funds to the impacted gulf states.

the department's inability to distribute funds to its co-trustees would have a devastating effect on strong federal, state, tribal cooperation that the interior department has developed over the years and could lead to a reduction of future settlements and spliptering of cooperative restoration efforts among trustees and that would be a travesty. the amendment could also create uncertainty about its impacts on authorities under this to retain recovered settlement funds and manage the $800 million previously recovered in past settlements. this is a reckless amendment with far reaching impacts. if the department of interior is unable to effectively administer its natural resource damage program due to a change in its ability to use appropriated funds, it would likely have a

significant effect on its own ability to effectively manage many of these cases, including the deepwater horizon. so i strongly oppose this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: this amendment is simple. it's about making sure elected members of congress appropriate funds that are collected under serkla instead of being delegated. it's not reckless and being responsible and exerting congress' authority of the power of the purse. and i reserve. ms. mccollum: i believe i have the right to close if the gentleman has no further speakers. the chair: the gentlewoman is correct. the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: i would encourage this body to support this amendment. if they are in support of holding the power of the purse,

support the article 1 authority to make sure congress would appropriate funds instead of an unelected bureaucrat. this is bringing back the power and making sure there is more congressional oversight when this money goes to the u.s. treasury and the appropriations process is done. yield the balance of my time. ms. mccollum: i want to state again, this would not allow the department to distribute jointly recovered funds with co-trustees. it would have a devastating effect in the way the federal, state and tribal governments work together and have worked together over the years. it could lead to a reduction of joint future restoration settlements and splintering of cooperation among co-trustees. and when people work together, we have better outcomes and better results and that saves the taxpayers money.

this amendment would clearly limit the department of interior's ability to conduct investigations by prohibiting the support of restoration work that is paid for by recovered settlement funds under the superfund. and with that, i recommend that this amendment be defeated. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. ms. mccollum: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 87 printed in house report. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. westerman: i have an amendment at the desk.

the clerk: amendment number 87 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. westerman of arkansas. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of my amendment. it would bar implementation of a federal court decision issued on march 29, 2016 that stops implementation of the 2014 u.s. fish and wildlife's decision to issue an environmental assessment extension for the issuance of did he gradation rmits for double crested cormorants. it has allowed permits. in 2003, fish and wildlife issued the order through a final

impact statement which allowed for the federal government, state first and tribal leaders fish.e them as public environmental assessments in 2009 and 2014 renewed both of these orders. on march 29, 2016, u.s. district court for the district of columbia should a decision stopping implementation of the 2014 environmental assessment extension as a result of a special interest lawsuit. in the meantime, fish and wildlife service is beginning a new environmental assessment but new permits are not being issued to many farmers whose fish stocks are being depleted this is leading to considerable losses for farmers. farmers are constantly living on the margin and just getting by. my amendment prevents the use of funds by fish and wildlife for the enforcement of the march 29,

decision. the program needs to continue so our farmers continue to farm and feed america. mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentleman from california, chairman calvert for the opportunity to offer this amendment. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. let's stand up for small farmers in communities who find themselves under pressure economically. they should not have to compete with bad rulings. i reserve. . ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: in march, 2016, the court found the fish and wildlife service had violated nepa in giving an open-ended approval for the lethal removal of the double crested bird and that they were committing or about to commit spread dation on fish, saying that there was not current data or adequate analysis to support this order.

the court didn't stop it but required a remediation plan. n may, 2016, the court revoked these orders stating that individual permits should be sufficient. the court noted that in this decision, that the service ignored environmental benefits of the birds by controlling invasive species fish and economic disruption claims were imprecease, -- imprecise and not compelling. this amendment seeks to ignore the findings of the court. in other words, this amendment would tell fish and wildlife, you don't have to follow what the court said you needed to do. and it prevents a service from for appropriated funds using the court order. this language does not affect the law's prohibition against the taking of migratory birds and the people who would take

the birds would knowingly be violating the migratory bird treaty act and be subject as charges from wildlife officials or other law enforcement agencies. the gentleman might not like how the court ruled. but this is the ruling of the court. and we are a society that follows the law. and fish and wildlife is compelled to comply with the court. with that, i am just going to yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: mr. chairman, this is a unique situation where the fish and wildlife service has already begun a new environmental assessment. in the meantime, there are fish farmers who are hurting because of this ruling, as they're seeing their stock being eaten by these birds with no recourse to take against them. these birds not only effect fish farmers, they also effect

smallmouth bass populations in the lake states. these farmers should have the right to protect their crops while this new environmental assessment is being put in place. and i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment so we can stand up for small farmers that are doing their best to feed our country. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. 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 88 printed in ouse report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek

recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 88 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. smith of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from missouri and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. if this election cycle has shown us anything, it is that the american people are tired of our officials in washington, d.c., not listening to the voice of the people. they are tired of a federal bureaucracy that is accountable to no one and operates in the shadows without proper oversight. the united states is facing a crisis of executive overreach and nowhere else is this truer than at the environmental protection agency. the e.p.a.'s escalation of sue and settle cases to change the law through federal court rulings threatens to shut down

american businesses, by operating hand in hand with radical environmentalist groups that are willing participants in the scam. the e.p.a.'s use of sue and settle not only endangers the economy, but also our constitutional separation of powers. according to a 2011 g.a.o. port, between 1995 and 2010, three large environmental activist groups like the sierra club received almost six million -- $6 million in attorneys' fees alone. under our amendment, no funds can be used to pay legal fees under any settlement regarding any case arising under the clean air act, the clean water act and the endangered species act. period. litigants can still sue, but they will no longer be financially rewarded by the american taxpayer for their efforts. i'm hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this amendment to reduce the secretive transfer

of u.s. tax dollars to private self-interest groups. it is inexcusable to allow this legal collusion, by restricting federal agencies from paying attorneys' fees, we will not only reduce federal spending, but also reduce the incentive for these self-interest groups to continue suing the federal government and taking the american taxpayer dollars. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment so that congress can ensure taxpayers are protected from funding the legal efforts of special interest groups and reinforce our constitutional powers. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. the equal access to justice act is the law of the land. it allows for the federal payment of legal fees, within limits, to individuals, small businesses, nonprofits where they are the prevailing parties

in actions against federal agencies. unless the agency's able to show that the -- agencies' are able to show that -- unless the agencies are able to show that the award is unjust. this law helps deter government misconduct and encourages all parties, not just those with resources to hire legal counsel, to assert their right. i know my colleagues, including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, will agree with me that the ability to challenge federal actions is a most important tool for ensuring government accountability. the clean air act, the federal water pollution control act, and the endangered species act are also the law of the land. these laws have contributed greatly to the protection and improvement of public health in this country. a study by a nonpartisan environmental law institute found that the equal access to justice act has been cost effective and it only applies

to the meritorious litigation and that existing legal safeguards and independent discretion of federal judges continue to ensure its prudent application. there's a fact -- here's a fact. the claim that large environmental groups are getting rich on attorney fees is simply not supported by available evidence. in 2011 the g.a.o. did a study. it was requested by house republicans on cases brought against the e.p.a. they found that most suits were brought by trade associations and private companies. and that attorneys' fees were awarded only about 8% of the time. and among environmental plaintiffs, the majority of cases were brought by local groups rather than national groups. and that's just a fact. it's completely unfair to target these important environmental safeguards for removal from the protections of the equal access to justice

act. more importantly, this amendment would have a serious consequence on the public health. in order for our nation's environmental safeguards to work properly and ensure the protection of public health, citizens, including those, including those citizens with limited means, must have the ability to challenge federal actions. this amendment is clearly designed to make it more difficult for citizens, every citizen, to ensure the accountability of the federal government. so i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to my friend from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleague from georgia. mr. carter: the constitution grants the power to make all laws which will be necessary

and proper to congress. not the executive branch. yet many executive branch agencies are using sue and settle techniques to circumvent the rulemaking process, to enact overly broad and costly regulations. without any input or comment from the public. one of the worst offenders is the e.p.a. which is increasingly relied on outside special interest groups to bring lawsuits demanding expanded regulationses and the e.p.a. -- regulations and the e.p.a. is all too willing to settle immediately. my colleague's amendment would restrict the use of taxpayer dollars from paying the legal fees of these outside groups when suing the federal government under the clean air act, the clean water act or the endangered species act. this amendment does the not prohibit affected parties from bringing these lawsuits, but restricting agencies' ability to pay attorneys' fees will reduce the incentive of using lawsuits as way to expand the power of the executive branch. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield

back. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, once again i have the right to close so i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman is correct. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: how much time do i have? the chair: two minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, as the young lady across the aisle made note to the g.a.o. report in 2011, also in that same report, as i noted, is that that report recognized that environmentalist groups such as the sierra club received almost $6 million in settlement fees, of just suing the government. under no circumstances should the government be rewarding any group to sue the government on their behalf. they definitely don't do that to every individual citizen, to

every small business owner that is being targeted by the e.p.a., whether the being targeted by other federal agencies. this is about fairness and this is making sure that self-interest groups are not profiting off of the federal government. i encourage the body to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. smith: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i just want to state again that the g.a.o. report clearly found that most suit were brought by trade associations -- suits were brought by trade associations, private companies, and that attorneys' fees were only awarded about % of the time. among environmental -- 8% of the time. among environmental plaintiff, the majority of those case were brought by local groups rather than national groups. so this amendment is clearly designed to make it much more difficult for citizens, my constituents, to ensure that there's accountability to the federal government, that they can have their day in court, with being a plaintiff against the government when they feel

it else in. so i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: i request a roll call, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 89 printed in house report 114-683. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 89 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 820, the gentleman from alaska and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to

.evise and extend mr. chairman, my amendment prevents funds from this act to be used to finalize, implement or enforce the newark tick regulations the department of interior rushed to last week. in addition to the billions of dollars already spent, $7 billion on these sales, these regulations, would cost an additional $2 billion for the oil and gas industry. this regulation is nothing more than a tactic to lock safe arctic energy development up in red tape because explores would become a full and necessary operational burdens. the national petroleum counsel of the arctic report found that arctic resources can be safely developed today using existing fuel-proven technology. locking up arctic resources only hurts our nation by prep preventing responsible energy development. i ask my colleagues to support the state of alaska, stand up for the alaska natives of the north slope who support this production in energy explores, and vote yes on my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: this amendment would block the bureau of ocean and energy management from finalizing regulations that deal with exploratory drilling n the outer -- on the arctic outer continental shelf, that's conducted mobile oil offshore drilling units, excuse me. oil and gas exploration on the outer continental shelf is expensive and requires industry to make significant investments. blocking this rule creates uncertainty for industries. delaying or inhibiting implementation of the rule would likely defer rather than encourage future exploration. it would also undermine efforts for alaska native's health, livelihood and native traditions. as we know, there are alaska

natives that do have grave concerns about what is going on with oil drilling and exploration in alaska. the impact of the catastrophe oil spill would have extremely high cultural and societal costs to these native alaskans. the amendment would derail efforts to set specialized safety requirements and environmental precautions to account for the extreme environmental conditions, geography and remoteness, lack fixed infrastructure and existing operations in the arctic continental shelf. -- ands in the way of responding to any spill may be beyond capabilities. with eneed to protect our precious arctic resources and make sure they're managed responsibly. therefore i must oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time.