{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2017-09-07-pt1-PgH7172-2", "2017-09-07", 115, 1, null, null, "DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H7172", "H7180", "[{\"name\": \"Salud O. Carbajal\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ken Calvert\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Scott Perry\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Betty McCollum\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Stevan Pearce\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bruce Westerman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michelle Lujan Grisham\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Paul A. Gosar\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"A. Donald McEachin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Garret Graves\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Glenn Grothman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Doug Lamborn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"504\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"504\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3354\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3354\"}]", "163 Cong. Rec. H7172", "Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 144 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 144 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]\n[House]\n[Pages H7172-H7180]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES\n                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504 and rule\nXVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House\non the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,\nH.R. 3354.\n  Will the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman) kindly resume the\nchair.\n\n                              {time}  2224\n\n                     In the Committee of the Whole\n\n  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the\nWhole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of\nthe bill (H.R. 3354) making appropriations for the Department of the\nInterior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending\nSeptember 30, 2018, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bergman (Acting\nChair) in the chair.\n  The Clerk read the title of the bill.\n  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,\na request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 56 printed in House\nReport 115-297 offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) had\nbeen postponed.\n\n                Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Carbajal\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57\nprinted in House Report 115-297.\n  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n  The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n       At the end of division A (before the short title) insert\n     the following:\n       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may\n     be used to process any application under the Outer\n     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) for a\n     permit to drill or a permit to modify that would authorize\n     use of hydraulic fracturing or acid well stimulation\n     treatment in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf.\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Carbajal) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.\n  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I am offering my amendment on behalf of\nmy constituents on the central coast of California. It simply prevents\nthe Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from issuing any new permits that\nwould allow companies to use hydraulic fracturing or acid well\nstimulation, otherwise known as fracking, in Federal waters off the\nWest Coast. It will prohibit the use of fiscal year 2018 funds to\nprocess any new applications for this purpose. This would provide us\nmore time to study whether offshore fracking is safe for the\nenvironment and public health.\n  In 2013, we learned that offshore fracking had been occurring off\nCalifornia's coast for more than two decades. In the Santa Barbara\nChannel alone, there have been more than a dozen documented instances\nof offshore fracking, yet we know very little about the environmental\nand health impacts this has had on our communities.\n  Already, the United States Geological Survey has concluded that the\npractice of injecting pressurized water into deep rock formations\ncauses earthquakes. My constituents deserve to know the risks\nassociated with offshore fracking on our environment, marine life, and\npublic health.\n  My constituents have seen the devastating impacts of some of the\nlargest oil spills in California's history, like the 1969 Santa Barbara\noil spill. My amendment echoes my constituents' concern surrounding the\nimpacts of offshore fracking and prohibits the use of funds to process\nany new applications for this purpose.\n  This is a commonsense measure that we should implement until we know\nall the facts and risks associated with this practice.\n  Mr. Chair, I urge passage of my amendment, and I reserve the balance\nof my time.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, last year, May of 2016, in the previous\nadministration, the Department of the Interior issued a finding of no\nsignificant impact with respect to these operations; thus followed a\nreview of 23 oil and gas platforms currently operating offshore in the\nState of California. The review drew upon the best available science\nand reaffirms that these operations are operating safely, as they\nshould.\n\n[[Page H7173]]\n\n  This amendment is nothing more than another attempt to restrict\noffshore development, and I oppose the amendment and encourage my\ncolleagues to vote ``no.''\n  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I will note that oil platforms off\nCalifornia's coast are already permitted to dump 9 billion gallons of\nwastewater, including fracking chemicals, into the ocean each year.\n  Fracking increases air pollution and can expose coastal communities\nto air pollutants that cause cancer and other illnesses.\n  Most offshore fracking jobs have occurred within 3 miles of the\ncoast. Injecting fracking wastewater underground can induce\nearthquakes, and all of southern California's offshore injection wells\nare within 3 miles of an active fault.\n  These are just a few reasons why it is important to pass this\namendment.\n  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the\nbalance of my time.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).\n  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes\nappeared to have it.\n  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further\nproceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California\nwill be postponed.\n\n                              {time}  2230\n\n                 amendment no. 59 offered by mr. perry\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 59\nprinted in House Report 115-297.\n  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n  The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert\n     the following:\n       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act\n     shall be used to give formal notification under, or prepare,\n     propose, implement, administer, or enforce any rule or\n     recommendation pursuant to, section 115 of the Clean Air Act\n     (42 U.S.C. 7415).\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.\n  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  This amendment would prevent funds from being used to expand EPA\nauthority pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act.\n  Now, this isn't an amendment to assail the Clean Air Act, but there\nis a flaw with it, which is section 115. That section of the Clean Air\nAct allows the EPA to mandate State emissions levels to whatever amount\nthe agency deems appropriate if they find two things. They have to find\nthat U.S. emissions endanger a foreign nation; and the endangered\nnation has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control emissions in\ntheir own nation.\n  Now, it was previously argued that the Paris climate agreement met\nthose requirements. When they wrote the Clean Air Act back in the\n1970s, they never foresaw the Paris Agreement. And the Paris Agreement\nis not a treaty. It is an agreement.\n  Fortunately, President Trump's decision to withdraw from the\nagreement has alleviated those prior concerns. Whether you agree with\nthis President or the last one or the future President is immaterial.\nThe point is that this portion of the law shouldn't exist. That\nauthority shouldn't exist at the executive level, especially when we\ndon't do treaties anymore.\n  Despite the temporary relief, the fact remains that section 115 of\nthe Clean Air Act is just simply bad policy. Section 115 delegates an\nincredible amount of authority to the executive branch without any\nsafeguards, without any oversight by the legislative branch.\n  This amendment would block the use of section 115 to delegate this\npower over the energy sector, over our States, to the unelected,\nunaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA.\n  In the future, such expansive authority at the EPA could be\neconomically devastating and could threaten the reliability and\nviability of our Nation's energy sector without any checks and\nbalances.\n  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. So the gentleman was talking about the Paris climate\nagreement, which the Trump administration withdrew from?\n  Mr. PERRY. Will the gentlewoman yield?\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.\n  Mr. PERRY. Yes, ma'am.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. And then you said you were worried about the\nadministration using section 115 of the Clean Air Act to impose\nregulations.\n  It has been my experience, from my point of view, representing my\nconstituents, we were disappointed about the withdrawal from the Paris\nclimate agreement, and we haven't seen this administration be\naggressive on clean air.\n  So could you please explain to me your concerns about the Trump\nadministration and section 115 of the Clean Air Act? Because, if they\nare doing things that you are concerned about, maybe I need to take a\nfresher look at what the Trump administration is doing, because I have\nseen them do nothing but block, cut back, and deny the ability to move\nforward on the clean air agreement. So I am confused to the point of\nyour amendment.\n  The Obama administration is gone, and the Trump administration has\nremoved almost everything I care passionately about with clean air.\n  Mr. PERRY. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, what I am\nconcerned about is not necessarily the Trump administration or the\nObama administration. Any administration with the unbridled power that\nsection 115 gives the administration, without any checks or balances,\nto make an agreement with another nation and then enforce--have their\nagency enforce their regulations at whatever they deem appropriate on\nevery single State in the United States, without any ability of\nCongress to intervene whatsoever.\n  It is not particular to this administration, the last administration,\nor any future administration. It is particular to all of them. The\nauthority, in my opinion, should not exist for them to do that without\nany checks and balances from the legislative branch.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, the Perry amendment would only be\nin effect for 1 year because this is not a policy bill. This is an\nappropriations bill. So the gentleman's concerns about having long-term\nconsequences of a future President in the future would not be addressed\nby this particular amendment.\n  So I oppose the amendment. It is a long line of Republican amendments\non the attack of the clean air and the EPA's authority. But I think\nthis really makes it crystal clear the point that we shouldn't be doing\ndeep policy that you want to discuss on an appropriations bill because\nit only lasts for a year.\n  As far as I know, the Trump administration has nothing up its sleeve\nto improve air quality over the next year, so I urge my colleagues to\noppose this amendment. And I urge my colleagues who care about these\npolicy situations: You control the House, you control the Senate.\nPlease go to the committees of jurisdiction.\n  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.\nCalvert).\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was adopted on the floor\nlast year. I believe it is a good amendment. I encourage my colleagues\nto support it.\n  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).\n  The amendment was agreed to.\n  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60\nprinted in House Report 115-297.\n\n[[Page H7174]]\n\n  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61 printed in House\nReport 115-297.\n\n                 Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Pearce\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62\nprinted in House Report 115-297.\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n  The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n       At the end of division A (before the short title) insert\n     the following:\n       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may\n     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the rule submitted\n     by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Onshore Oil\n     and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases;\n     Site Security'', published at 81 Fed. Reg. 81356 (November\n     17, 2016).\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman\nfrom New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might\nconsume.\n  Onshore Order 3, put in place by the last administration, creates a\nnumber of unnecessary and duplicative burdens that cause energy\nproduction to be much more difficult.\n  Now, many people visualize that oil wells are drilled into the ground\nand then they just produce oil on their own; that it flows to the\nsurface magically, and it remains unabated through the life of the oil\nwell. It is not true at all.\n  What actually happens is that there is a pool of oil at the bottom of\nthe well, and as it is produced, the production gets smaller each day\nuntil eventually the small production is classified as stripper well\nproduction.\n  Now, the Saudi Arabians, about every 10 years, come in and kill the\nstripper wells because that would be approximately 2 to 3 billion\nbarrels of oil a year they could produce that would be shut down here.\n  In my home county of Lee County, New Mexico, we hunker down when we\nsee these economic attacks coming, and we simply make it through; not\nbecause it is economic, not because it is productive, but because it is\none of the few economic drivers of New Mexico. Oil and gas provides\nabout 40 percent of our teachers' pay, 40 percent of police pay. So it\nis just our way of life.\n  But the stripper wells are not extremely economic. So when this\nOnshore Order 3 came into place, it actually is assisting the Saudi\nArabians to try to drive stripper wells out of existence because it is\nthe small producers, it is the guys who will stay there and produce the\nwells when nobody has economic interest in them. They like sweeping up\nthe crumbs off of the energy table.\n  So Onshore Order 3 puts in processes that require monitoring that is\nalready provided at the point of sale. So it is not as if somehow the\ngovernment's being cheated. It just is trying to squeeze more out of\nthese uneconomic wells.\n  The estimates are that we have shut down a great number of those\nwells, affecting teachers' pay, affecting the economy of New Mexico,\nkilling jobs.\n  So my amendment is very simple. It would prevent funds from being\nused to fund the BLM Onshore Order Rule No. 3.\n  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, there might be some very\nlegitimate points that can be worked on out of these stripper wells\nthat are at the end of their life, and we might find some common ground\non some of your issues, but this is the appropriations bills and this\nisn't the place to do it. It should be done in the Policy Committee.\n  Mr. Chair, we should be going to the Policy Committee, and we should\nbe asking the Policy Committee to take up and have hearings on these\nissues that are very important to some of the Members here in this\nHouse.\n  So when I look at this amendment on an Appropriations Committee bill,\nwhat it says to me is that it is continuing the administration's agenda\nthat favors oil and gas industry ahead of other uses of our public\nlands. It says to me that the administration has rolled back and\nabolished a lot of rules that have been made over many years that are\ncontained and outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, which\nincludes a consideration of public and travel comments so you can go\nand register your comment and your concern on it.\n  The whole point of the site security rule is to protect against the\ntheft of oil and to make sure that the oil and gas production is\nproperly accounted for.\n  So this rule that we are talking about today also streamlines the\nprocess for companies to get new measurement technologies to make sure\nthat they are using the most innovative technology. I think, after 25\nyears, most businesses, most people who want to make sure that they are\npaying for product, want to make sure that it is being measured and\naccounted for right.\n  This rule was also recommended by the GAO and the Department of the\nInterior's IG, the Royalty Policy Committee regarding the BLM's\nproduction of verification efforts. And those are things that, quite\noften, we do to safeguard and to protect to make sure that the\ntaxpayer, when involved on public lands, is receiving fair value for\nthe royalty.\n  So there is a rulemaking process that is comprehensive. There is a\nrulemaking process that is transparent. And there is also a way to\nchange the rule that is comprehensive, transparent, and allows the\npublic to have their voice, and that is to address these issues in the\nPolicy Committee.\n  So the main reason--and I want to be really clear about this--for\nopposing many of these amendments is they are properly done in the\nPolicy Committee, a committee which I served on when I first came here.\nMr. Chair, I think that is where these amendments need to start being\ndirect so that we can do the real work and make sure that when Members\ncome to the floor, that they know that we have had a full vetting and\nfull transparency.\n  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n\n                              {time}  2245\n\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the committee and\nsubcommittee.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. I\nappreciate my colleague for bringing the Bureau of Land Management's\nOnshore Order No. 3 to the House's attention. Mr. Chair, I urge my\ncolleagues to support the amendment.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, again, I appreciate what my chairman of the\nsubcommittee is saying in helping Members here, but we have a lot of\nwork to do just doing the oversight on how money is spent and\nappropriated to make sure that we are doing our due diligence when we\nappropriate funds, that they are used in the way that this Congress has\nasked for them to be used. There is a Policy Committee to look at what\nis happening with policy and to make sure that we move policy forward.\n  Mr. Chair, sometimes when amendments like this come to the floor, I\njust think we are failing totally as a Congress to do our due diligence\nin the Policy Committee, and then there is so much time spent on policy\nin the Appropriations Committee, we fail to do our due diligence on\nwhat has to happen for oversight for the tax dollars that we do\nappropriate in these bills.\n  It is my hope that the Policy Committee will step up, speak out, and\nstart requesting that these bills be heard in the committee of\njurisdiction and not just put on as riders on our bills.\n  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nArkansas (Mr. Westerman).\n  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pearce for his leadership on\nthis issue.\n  Mr. Chairman, this rule by the BLM is a classic example of agency\noverregulation at its finest. Should the new regulations take effect,\nlessees and operators will be forced to maintain original gas charts,\nmeasurement tickets, calibrations, verifications, prover\n\n[[Page H7175]]\n\nand configuration reports, pumper and gauger field logs, volume\nstatements, event logs, seal records, and gas analysis.\n  Most of these documents have nothing to do with determining the\namount of production at a lease and will force businesses to hire more\nstaff just to keep records.\n  This will also likely result in more Federal employees to oversee the\nbureaucracy. This makes zero sense and is simply creating work and\noverregulation for no reason. I urge a ``yes'' vote.\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear that what is at stake\nis 2.6 billion barrels of oil a day made from wells that make maybe one\nor two barrels, three barrels a day. They are not extremely economic,\nbut those businesses are located in New Mexico. Those businesses keep\ntheir headquarters there. They are just small mom-and-pop operators\nthat care enough about the energy business to stay out there, and so\nwhen the government does things that says we are not going to let you\noperate, that we are going to shut you down, it accomplishes what the\nSaudi Arabians have never been able to accomplish, and that is defeat\nthe spirit that says we can survive any attacks.\n  Mr. Chair, again, I urge people to support this amendment and the\nunderlying bill, H.R. 3354, and I yield back the balance of my time.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).\n  The amendment was agreed to.\n\n                 Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Pearce\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63\nprinted in House Report 115-297.\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n  The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n       At the end of division A (before the short title) insert\n     the following:\n       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may\n     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the rule submitted\n     by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Waste\n     Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource\n     Conservation'', published at 81 Fed. Reg. 83008 (November 18,\n     2016).\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman\nfrom New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico for 5 minutes.\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Chairman, the venting and flaring rule was, again, put in place\nby the last administration, intending for BLM to regulate methane.\nHistorically, that had been regulated by the EPA.\n  Now, keep in mind that methane production from oil wells is down 21\npercent since 1990, while production is going up. Production is going\nup, methane production is down. So we wonder why the administration\ncame at the last second to put this rule into place.\n  Basically, the argument is exactly the same for opposing that venting\nand flaring rule that what is at stake are not the good wells. Those\nwells are going to produce in their economic with whatever burdens are\nplaced on them. What is at stake are the stripper wells which, again,\nmake up 2.6 billion barrels of production in the U.S. every day, 145\nmillion barrels of production in the State of New Mexico. So you can\nimagine the economic catastrophe if that 145 million barrels weren't\navailable to the State to both tax and to provide jobs.\n  Again, 40 percent of New Mexico's pay, roughly the teachers' pay, the\npolice pay, roughly that much comes from oil and gas production. You\ncan do the math and see how much New Mexico would be affected if this\nventing and flaring rule continues to place the burden on the well.\n  The estimates are for each well that a cost of $60,000 is going to be\nrequired to come into compliance. Again, keep in mind that this rule\ncomes after the methane is more carefully controlled today under\ngreater production than it ever has been. The estimates are that we\nwill lose thousands of wells if this venting and flaring rule\ncontinues.\n  Again, it is the stripper wells which are most at harm. If we lose\nthe 2.6 billion barrels of stripper well production every year because\nof the high cost of implementation of the venting and flaring rule,\nthat is going to mean we are less energy independent, that we rely more\non outside sources. It is going to drive the price of gasoline up. The\npeople who can afford it least are the people at the bottom of the\neconomic ladder. They will be the ones penalized most by rising prices\nof gasoline and decreasing supplies of oil.\n  Mr. Chair, again, I would urge people to support this amendment, the\nunderlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 2\nminutes.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nNew Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).\n  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, I want to thank\nmy colleague for yielding me time.\n  Mr. Chair, yesterday the House passed a $7.9 billion downpayment to\naddress the destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey, which is projected\nnow to cost as much as $180 billion--by far, today, the costliest\nhurricane to hit the United States.\n  Today, we are considering an amendment which would prohibit BLM from\nimplementing a rule to address the wasteful venting, flaring, and\nleaking of methane, which is a climate change-causing emission 30 times\nmore powerful than carbon dioxide.\n  New Mexico is currently home to the largest methane hot spot in the\nworld. Not only is methane a powerful greenhouse gas, but every cubic\nfoot of gas that is wasted into the atmosphere cheats hardworking New\nMexican taxpayers out of precious royalty and tax payments which go\ntoward public education, infrastructure, and community development\nprograms.\n  Our State desperately needs these investments, and we cannot afford\nto let money disappear into thin air. BLM, in fact, should work with\nstakeholders, especially small independent producers who have low-\nproducing wells to make this workable. But taking a sledgehammer to our\nNation's energy policy is a shortsighted and counterproductive effort.\n  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to\ncollaborate to make this rule effective for producers and taxpayers\nalike.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the subcommittee.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, the House has spoken several times on the\nBureau of Land Management's methane regulation in the past 2 years. I\nunderstand the administration is reviewing the regulation and that\nlitigation is ongoing.\n  In the meantime, I think action is needed, and so I support this\namendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.\n  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nArizona (Mr. Gosar).\n  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The BLM\nventing and flaring rule, or the BLM methane rule, represents one of\nthe Obama administration's most egregious abuses of executive power\ndesigned to destroy responsible energy production on Federal land.\n  BLM exceeded statutory authority by attempting to regulate air\nquality; authority that is vested solely with the EPA. Methane\nemissions from oil and natural gas have significantly declined in\nrecent decades without duplicative Federal regulations in a time when\noil and gas production in the U.S. has surged.\n  It is frustrating that this rule is somehow cloaked under the idea\nthat it will benefit taxpayers. It won't. It is an onerous rule with no\nconnection to the reality of the physics and chemistry of energy\nproduction. It will reduce American energy production on Federal land\nand, therefore, reduce royalties due to the U.S. Treasury.\n\n  This amendment brings accountability to executive rulemaking. I thank\nCongressman Pearce and applaud him, as well as Congressmen\n\n[[Page H7176]]\n\nWesterman and Cramer for their similar amendments crippling other Obama\nrules.\n  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.\nPearce) has expired.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said, I rise in opposition to this\namendment, as clearly this amendment would prohibit BLM from regulating\nflaring, venting, and leaking of methane from Federal onshore oil and\ngas operations.\n  In 2016, the BLM finalized its rule which updated regulations that\nwere almost over 30 years old. We have learned a lot about how we have\nto be more diligent about capturing energy and making America more\nenergy secure, because this rule would prevent the waste of an\nestimated 65 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year and save\ntaxpayers $330 million annually.\n  BLM has a responsibility to the taxpayers, and that means capturing\nwhat is flared off, what is burnt off, which is potential energy. We\nhave developed technologies in the past 30 years to capture this and\nmake it work even more effectively for the taxpayers when we lease out\nthese leases and royalties.\n  Just for a fact, I share that the Bakken oil field, when it was at\nits height, flared more--I am from the Twin Cities--flared more and\nbrighter than the metropolitan area in St. Paul and Minneapolis. That\nis how bright the flare was that the satellites captured at night. That\nwas burning energy, energy consumption that should have been captured\nbecause we owe it to future generations to get it right when it comes\nto our energy production.\n  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is bad for public health, it shortchanges\nthe American taxpayers, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I don't\nthink we are going to change each other's minds on this because the\nbottom line is, and I have been consistent with this, this belongs in\nthe Policy Committee. This only would change something for a year. You\nwould have to come back year after year after year. If there is\nsomething where we can find common ground on, we can find it in the\nPolicy Committee. We can't find it on an Appropriations Committee where\nit expires every year.\n  I ride the elevator with the gentleman, Mr. Chair, and I am sure he\nis going to enlighten me some more.\n  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n\n                              {time}  2300\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).\n  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes\nappeared to have it.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further\nproceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico\nwill be postponed.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 64 will\nnot be offered.\n\n                Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. McEachin\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 65\nprinted in House Report 115-297.\n  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n  The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert\n     the following:\n\n  limitation on use of funds for developing a new 5-year-offshore-plan\n\n       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may\n     be used to prepare a five-year offshore oil and gas leasing\n     program that would schedule any Outer Continental Shelf oil\n     and gas lease sale before 2022.\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman\nfrom Virginia (Mr. McEachin) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.\n  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may\nconsume.\n  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would prevent the Department\nof the Interior from preparing a new 5-year offshore oil and gas\nleasing program that schedules leases before the year 2022.\n  Mr. Chairman, offshore drilling carries real consequences, from the\nindustrialization of our coasts to the inescapable risk of another BP\nDeepwater Horizon-like disaster. Those risks can not be eliminated.\n  As Deepwater Horizon made clear, accidents can inflict damage of an\nalmost unimaginable scale. BP has spent billions of dollars responding\nto that disaster.\n  That figure reflects liabilities that arose from massive and\nirreparable damage to our environment, permanent harm to economically\nessential industries, and countless other impacts on the Gulf Coast\nresidents' quality of life. We have to make sure that other regions are\nnever exposed to those kind of harms. That is why my amendment is\nimportant.\n  In the event of a drilling accident, thriving coastal economies could\nbe decimated. Industries that rely upon a healthy marine environment--\neverything from the tourist trade to our fisheries--could disappear\novernight.\n  If a spill were big enough--and we have seen that they can be\nenormous--the economic consequences would ripple throughout the\nnational economy, hurting millions of Americans who live many miles\nfrom the sea. Again, we cannot afford such economic risks.\n  It is equally foolish to risk the natural beauty, fragile habitats,\nand irreplaceable species for the benefit of a few massive oil and gas\ncompanies.\n  Our coasts are home to some of our most iconic and unique wildlife.\nHealthy oceans are critical to traditional ways of life, having\nprovided subsistence resources for many generations.\n  Those places, those species, those customs are part of why we live in\nthe greatest country on Earth. No other place could match the richness\nand diversity of the United States of America. We must not endanger the\nincredible heritage in a quest for dirty energy, especially the kind of\nfuels that can drive catastrophic changes to our climate, with grave\nand permanent consequences for our society.\n  It is important to note that prohibiting the preparation of a new\nleasing program does not stop any of the currently scheduled lease\nsales until 2022 from happening. My amendment just puts us back on the\nregular schedule for writing the next plan.\n  Prohibiting the preparation of a new leasing program, however, does\nensure that millions of taxpayer dollars are not spent reworking a plan\nthat was just completed this year.\n  Restarting a new 5-year leasing process would throw away 2\\1/2\\ years\nand tens of millions of dollars of effort, ignore overwhelming\nbipartisan opposition from millions of people up and down our coasts,\nand eliminate the protections that President Obama provided for the\nfragile Arctic.\n  Mr. Chairman, the risk of a new 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing\nprogram are simply too high and the consequences are too severe.\n  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I\nreserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this\namendment.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.\n  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I certainly sympathize with\nmany of the comments that the sponsor of this amendment has brought up.\nCertainly, none of us have any intention of trashing the environment,\nof causing environmental degradation in any of our coastal areas in the\nUnited States.\n  But the thing is that this amendment doesn't cut production. It would\nnot result in any reduction in oil and gas exploration and production\nactivities. And if it were to do that, then all that would happen is it\nwould increase our dependence upon foreign imports of oil.\n  The reality and statistics are very clear. You are less safe\ntransporting energy than you are producing it. The statistics are very\nclear. Putting it into a ship is less safe. Putting it into a pipeline\nis less safe than actually producing it. So you are not doing anything\nto benefit the environment.\n  The next thing is that, within approximately 1 month of the Obama\nadministration's being sworn into office in 2009--as I recall, I\nbelieve it was on February 10--Secretary Salazar stood\n\n[[Page H7177]]\n\nup and said: We are rewriting the 5-year offshore leasing plan of the\nprevious administration.\n  They walked right in and said: We are throwing this out.\n  Which the amendment's sponsor said was billions of dollars in\nimplications and much planning.\n  It is exactly what the Obama administration did. So if the Trump\nadministration chooses to take a fresh look at these resources and\nthese resources, then I want to quote the Obama administration saying\nthat these are offshore energy resources that belong to all Americans.\n  Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other note. If you read the\namendment, it says that none of the funds made available in this act\nmay be used to repair a 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program\nthat would schedule any Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sale\nbefore 2022. This wouldn't just prohibit making changes to it, such as,\nperhaps, the idea of expanding it if public comments and other input\nfound that that was the best thing to do, but it also would prevent\nslowing down the lease sale schedule.\n  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. While I certainly\nsupport the gentleman's intent to prevent any type of environmental\nharm and degradation, I just want to say in closing that I was the lead\ntrustee for the State of Louisiana in the Deepwater Horizon spill.\n\n  When you look at Outer Continental Shelf energy production, we had\nproduced trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. We had produced\nbillions of barrels of oil. What the courts found in the BP incident\nwas that there was gross negligence and willful misconduct.\n  They didn't find that there were problems with the rules and other\nthings. That is why, as the gentleman correctly started, that they had\nto spend tens of billions of dollars paying for their gross negligence\nand willful misconduct, which is very different than the trillions of\ncubic feet of natural gas, and billions of barrels of oil that we have\nproduced safely; we produced them in the United States; and we have not\nput them in pipelines and tankers in other less safe mechanisms of\ntransportation.\n  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, what is the balance of my time?\n  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\\1/2\\ minutes\nremaining.\n  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the distinguished chairman of\nthe subcommittee.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prevent the Department\nof the Interior from performing a necessary and thorough review of the\nexisting 5-year plan. Meanwhile, the committee encouraged a review of\nthe 5-year plan in the 2017 omnibus, which we just enacted just a few\nmonths ago. For these reasons and others, I certainly urge a ``no''\nvote on this amendment.\n  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say\nthat, once again, while I understand the gentleman's intent to prevent\nany type of environmental degradation--I think everyone shares that\nobjective--the reality is that this amendment doesn't do anything to\nadvance that objective. And potentially, should there be some type of\nemergent situation where you would want to slow down lease sales, this\namendment would actually prohibit that from happening.\n  We should take a fresh look with public input and with the best\nscience to determine where we produce, how we produce, to maximize\ndomestic energy production, to maximize or to reduce dependence upon\nforeign energy, to maximize economic opportunities and employment\nopportunities in the United States.\n  Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the\nbalance of my time.\n  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, of course, I was not here\nat the time, but it was my understanding that this is nothing unlike\nwhat the other side of the aisle did during the Obama administration.\nSo what this amendment seeks to do, in many cases, is not that unusual.\n  And while the gentleman is correct, the size of the payments that BP\nhad to make were because of a certain type of conduct: What we want to\ndo is just freeze things where they are.\n  While I acknowledge that there is a possibility that somehow someone\nwanted to slow down the process, I don't believe that this\nadministration would do just that.\n  Again, millions of dollars have been spent. Much time has been spent\nin developing this plan. I think we just need to leave it in place.\n  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield\nback the balance of my time.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).\n  The amendment was rejected.\n\n                amendment no. 66 offered by mr. grothman\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 66\nprinted in House Report 115-297.\n  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n  The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert\n     the following:\n       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may\n     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule\n     entitled ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone''\n     published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the\n     Federal Register on October 26, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 65292).\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman\nfrom Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.\n  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.\n3354. The purpose of my amendment is to prohibit use of funds made\navailable by this act to implement, administer, and enforce the EPA's\nNational Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone rule, which was\noriginally published on October 26, 2015.\n  This rule will make the standards more stringent in other places, in\nthe State of Wisconsin, up and down Lake Michigan, including counties\nsuch as Sheboygan County. As you make these standards more stringent--\nfirst of all, it makes no sense because they don't take in the fact\nthat there are areas like mine in which the ozone is coming from\noutside my district.\n  For example, Sheboygan County, whatever they do, I don't think they\ncould ever meet those standards because there is so much ozone coming\nup from the Chicago area. But there is an effect to these standards as\nwell.\n  The standards make it more difficult for industry along Lake Michigan\nto operate, to comply with the standards, putting us at a competitive\ndisadvantage not only with other parts around the country, but a\ncompetitive disadvantage compared to other areas around the world with\nmuch more pollution than we have. Right now our ozone is much less than\nit was when I was a child. Quite frankly, when I was a child, nobody\ncomplained anyway.\n  Another thing about these ozone standards, it is something that\npeople who are looking out for that not particularly wealthy people\nshould pay attention to. When you aren't meeting the standards, it\ncreates a situation in which your owners of automobiles have to have\ntheir cars tested every year. And sometimes these cars have to go\nthrough very expensive repairs to meet the standards.\n  Now, there are people who are going to think that is no big deal\nbecause they are maybe wealthy Congressmen and they need to buy a car\nevery 3 or 4 years and they don't have a problem. But if you are\nsomebody who has a 10- or 15-year-old car, maybe you can only afford to\nspend $500, $1,000 on a car, and then once a year you have to get the\ncar tested. You flunk the test and you have to put $1,000 or $1,500\ninto it. No wonder we have some people in this country who can't get\nahead as long as the environmental extremists are running the EPA.\n  So, in any event, I think it would be good if we don't spend any more\nmoney implementing this new rule. Give the EPA more time to reconsider\nthis rule and come up with something a little bit more reasonable.\n\n[[Page H7178]]\n\n  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment,\nand I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, while I understand the gentleman's intent,\nI share his concern with the 2015 ozone standards, the bill's language\nin the amendment goes a little too far. It ties this new\nadministration's hands with respect to reconsideration or flexibility\nefforts that they are trying to build in at the present time.\n  Meanwhile, the ozone language in the underlying bill provides the\nnecessary administrative relief for communities to comply with the\noverlapping 2008 and 2015 requirements. I think that this\nadministration understands the complexities that are being imposed by\nthis 2015 requirement. They are trying to deal with it. Mr. Pruitt has\nindicated that publicly.\n  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment,\nand I yield back the balance of my time.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).\n  The amendment was rejected.\n\n                              {time}  2315\n\n                Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Lamborn\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67\nprinted in House Report 115-297.\n  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n  The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert\n     the following:\n\n                       limitation on use of funds\n\n       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may\n     be used to implement or enforce the threatened species or\n     endangered species listing of any plant or wildlife that has\n     not undergone a review as required by section 4(c)(2) of the\n     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)).\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman\nfrom Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.\n  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that\nthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following current law,\nspecifically section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, by\nconducting a review of all threatened and endangered plants and\nwildlife at least once every 5 years.\n  Time after time, the Federal Government refuses to follow the\noriginal intent of the Endangered Species Act. The government\ndesignates land as critical habitat despite not meeting the ESA\ndefinition, and the government consistently refuses to remove plants\nand animals from threatened or endangered status even when these\nspecies are flourishing and are no longer in need of ESA protections.\n  But you may ask yourself: How does the government know when the\nspecies should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? How\ndoes the government know if a species is recovering? The answer can be\nfound in the ESA and its requirement that the Federal Government review\nall plants or species that are currently listed as endangered or\nthreatened every 5 years.\n  Under the act, the purpose of a 5-year review is to ensure that\nthreatened or endangered species have the appropriate level of\nprotection. The reviews assess each threatened and endangered species\nto determine whether its status has changed since the time of its\nlisting or its last status review and whether its status should be\nchanged or maintained.\n  Because the act grants extensive protection to a species, including\nharsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, it makes sense to\nregularly verify if a plant or animal is being properly classified or\nshould be delisted. Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish\nand Wildlife Service has acknowledged that it has neglected its\nresponsibility to conduct the required reviews for hundreds of listed\nspecies.\n  By enforcing the 5-year review--which is in the law--my amendment\nwill ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best\navailable and most current scientific information in implementing its\nresponsibilities under that act, including incorporating new\ninformation through public comment and assessing ongoing conservation\nefforts.\n  Now, I am sure you will hear the ranking member say that the problem\nis that there is simply not enough money to comply with the law, but\nthe reality is that megasettlements and overzealous regulators have\ncaused the number of species listed under the endangered species list\nto balloon to unmanageable levels. For the recovery of a threatened or\nendangered species or plant to be successful, we must prioritize our\nlimited resources to where they are most critically needed.\n  I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish\nand Wildlife Service complies with the ESA and that we do not provide\nmoney in this bill that would violate current law. This exact amendment\nwas added to the fiscal year '16 Interior Appropriations bill by voice\nvote and was added to the fiscal year '17 bill by a bipartisan rollcall\nvote.\n  Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support this amendment for the third\ntime, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this\namendment.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado is right. We\nhave had this conversation in this Chamber, Mr. Chair, before. The\nService does attempt to comply with the statutory mandate and to review\nthe status of listed species every 5 years to determine whether or not\nit is classified as threatened or endangered.\n  It is correct. The Service has a backlog in reviews due to funding\nlimitations. This year it is a 17 percent listing reduction contained\nin this bill so that they have been working on the backlog. But the\nService still has only been able to complete 100 to 120 reviews per\nyear, which is half of what is needed.\n  So in this bill, you and I might agree that there are things that\ncould happen and that money isn't always the solution to a problem, but\nin this bill you might be surprised to know that it has cut another\n$3.4 million, so that only builds up the backlog all the more.\n  That is not necessarily the fault of the chairman of the\nsubcommittee, Mr. Chair. It is just the fact that the allocation that\nour subcommittee had to work with, tough choices had to be made. I know\nthat the chairman was trying to balance a lot of things.\n  The gentleman talked about the court and the environment. I would\nlove to have a conversation with the gentleman more about that, because\nit is my understanding--and I want to make sure I have it correct\nbefore we go into depth about it because, as the gentleman knows, we\nhave a good relationship, and I want to make sure that I am correct\nwhen I say things--that actually some of the things that have been\nhappening in court have actually helped to reduce some of the costs\nthat the gentleman is thinking about because it is in place.\n  I will get the information, Mr. Chair, and share it with the\ngentleman later.\n  But the fact is that this amendment would not remove species without\nreview from the list of species protected by the ESA so that the ESA's\nprohibition, again, would still remain, and it still would be the\nability of citizens to sue or force compliance even with what the\ngentleman is proposing. So funding cannot be used to enforce the ESA\nfor species with late reviews; it is going to leave the species\nunprotected.\n  Proposed language would prohibit the Service from working with the\nagencies. It would prohibit working with developers and landowners to\ncomply, compliance to section 7 consultations or section 10 permits for\nFederal and private projects that could potentially affect the species.\nSo as you can see, the other thing it doesn't do is the proposed\nlanguage would not affect the ability of third parties to sue those\nagencies or landowners.\n\n[[Page H7179]]\n\n  So I agree with the gentleman that we need to do a better job of\nmaking sure that these reviews are done in a timely fashion. I agree\nthat, when a species has attained a classification where it is no\nlonger threatened or it is no longer endangered, it should come off. So\nI think we have a lot in common.\n  But I think that the challenge with this amendment is that, without\nthe funding, in order for the Service to do the job that it has to do,\nit just kind of puts the Service in a box in which we are saying you\nare not doing a good job and, therefore, we are going to start changing\nthe way in which we proceed.\n  So I, right now, have to oppose this amendment. But as I said, in the\npolicy committee I think that there is room for some of us to come\ntogether and to make improvement, but legislating this rider for 1 year\nat a time on this appropriations bill doesn't allow us to have the\ndeep, transparent, and open discussion that we need to have to resolve\nyour issue.\n  So at this time I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance\nof my time.\n  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.\n  If we get additional resources in the future, I would love to make\nsure that Fish and Wildlife has the resources to make sure they meet\ntheir mandates, and they should meet them now.\n  One of the mandates they have is review the status of every listed\nspecies every 5 years and a corresponding change in the status if it is\ncalled for by those reviews. Instead of doing those reviews, in many\ncases, the Service chooses to spend the money to list more species.\n  If the government isn't willing to shoulder the responsibilities that\ncome with listing species under the ESA, perhaps it shouldn't be\nlisting those species in the first place. So I think they need to meet\ntheir obligations under the law.\n  I certainly support this amendment, and I encourage Members to\nsupport the amendment and vote for it.\n  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that statement.\n  I will say to the gentlewoman from Minnesota that I would love to\nwork with her on this. I know that, in the Natural Resources Committee,\nwe are going to be looking at some of the different facets of the\nEndangered Species Act, and I hope we can continue this dialogue.\n  This amendment seeks to make the agency comply with the law. That\nprovision is in there for a reason, so let's enforce what Congress, in\nits wisdom, put into the law many years ago.\n  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the amendment, and I yield back\nthe balance of my time.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).\n  The amendment was agreed to.\n\n                Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Lamborn\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68\nprinted in House Report 115-297.\n  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n  The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert\n     the following:\n\n                       limitation on use of funds\n\n       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may\n     be used to implement or enforce the threatened species\n     listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the\n     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).\n\n  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman\nfrom Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.\n  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Chairman, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with\na body approximately 3 inches long, a 4-to 6-inch-long tail, and large\nhind feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives\nprimarily in streamside ecosystems along the foothills of southeastern\nWyoming south to Colorado Springs, in my district, along the eastern\nridge of the Front Range of Colorado.\n  To evade predators, the mouse can jump, like a miniature kangaroo, up\nto 18 inches high. In 1998, it leaped onto the Endangered Species list,\na move that has hindered development from Colorado Springs, Colorado,\nto Wyoming.\n  Among projects that have been affected: the Jeffco Parkway southeast\nof Rocky Flats, an expansion of Chatfield Reservoir, and housing\ndevelopments in El Paso County along tributaries of Monument Creek.\nBuilders, landowners, and local governments in affected areas have\nincurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of this\nmouse.\n  Protecting the Preble's mouse has even been placed ahead of\nprotecting human life and property.\n  On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event that\ndamaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and\npublic works projects. As a result of the Preble's mouse being listed\nas an endangered species, many restoration projects were delayed as\nColorado sought a waiver. In fact, FEMA was so concerned that they sent\nout a notice that stated: ``Legally required review may cause some\ndelay in projects undertaken in the Preble's mouse habitat.'' It went\non to warn that ``local officials who proceed with projects without\nadhering to environmental laws risk fine and could lose Federal funding\nfor their projects.''\n  While a waiver was essentially granted, the scientific evidence\nsimply does not justify these delays or the millions of dollars in\ntaxpayer money that go toward protecting a mouse that is actually part\nof a larger group that roams throughout half of the North American\ncontinent.\n  Scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's mouse does not\nwarrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all and is actually\nrelated to the Bear Lodge jumping mouse. Even the scientist that\noriginally classified this mouse as a subspecies has since recanted his\nwork and agrees that the Preble's mouse subspecies designation is no\nlonger defensible.\n  Moreover, the Preble's mouse has a low conservation parity score.\nWhat that means is that hundreds of millions of dollars have already\nbeen spent on protection efforts that could have and should have been\nspent on other more sensitive species.\n  My amendment would correct this injustice that has been caused by the\ninaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. It would\nrefocus U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that have\nbeen thoroughly scientifically vetted and that should be managed by the\nEndangered Species Act.\n  This exact amendment was added to the fiscal year '16 Interior\nAppropriations bill by voice vote and was added to the fiscal year '17\nbill by a bipartisan rollcall vote. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues\nto support this amendment for a third time.\n  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this\namendment.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n\n                              {time}  2330\n\n  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, clearly, what this amendment does--and it\nis different from the other amendment--is prohibit the Fish and\nWildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the threatened species\nlisting of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the Endangered\nSpecies Act. It full-out restricts the Service from offering any\ncritical protections to preserve the species.\n  Once a species like this is listed under the Endangered Species Act,\nthe role of the Fish and Wildlife Service is fairly permissive. They\ncan help parties comply with the act as they carry out their other\nactivities.\n  The Service right now is reviewing and considering all the comments\nthat they received during the public comment period, and a draft\nrecovery plan is being worked through to develop a final recovery plan.\nBut with this\n\n[[Page H7180]]\n\namendment, the Service would not be able to continue to recover the\nspecies. All the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply.\n  So, in other words, we would stop them from moving forward, but they\nwould still be under jurisdiction to comply. They wouldn't be able to\ncomply by working with agencies and land developers and landowners to\nprovide the ESA compliance.\n  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing\npermits or from offering exemptions. That means landowners, industry,\nand other parties who might need to take the Preble's meadow jumping\nmouse incidental to otherwise lawful activities, such as urban\ndevelopment, are vulnerable to third-party lawsuits.\n  Another limitation that the Service would have would be undertaking\nthe required status reviews of subspecies or initiating any rulemaking\nor downlisting or delisting species.\n  So now we are talking about deep dives into what the U.S. Fish and\nWildlife may or may not be impacted by doing or helping landowners or\ndevelopers on an appropriations bill.\n  Quite frankly, as I have been saying all night--and I understand\npeople have the right to come here with these amendments--the Service\nhas a responsibility to implement the Endangered Species Act. They are\ncharged with fulfilling their legal requirements. When they don't\nfulfill their legal requirements, it makes them more vulnerable to\nlawsuits, which I know is not the goal of the author of this amendment,\nMr. Chair. But when there are lawsuits incurred, it creates more costs\nfor American taxpayers.\n  The gentleman's amendment would just undermine the Service's ability\nto work collaboratively with States and local communities. It opens the\nService up for lawsuits and it would create even more uncertainty for\nlandowners and make them vulnerable, as I said, to lawsuits.\n  I think we should be working to support the Fish and Wildlife\nefforts, not blocking the agency from doing its job and going back to\nwhat we discussed earlier, that is working through the committees of\nauthorization, and then the authorizing committees having conversations\nwith the Appropriations Committee on how they can achieve their goals,\nthis being one of them.\n  Because of those reasons, I do not support this amendment. I thank\nthe gentleman for bringing this forward, but at this time I cannot\nsupport it.\n  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Calvert) to weigh in on this issue.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to jump up and support this\namendment. Obviously, the agency has not leaped fast enough and\nproblems persist. So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this\namendment, and I know it will squeak by with a large margin.\n  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying there is one\nother sort of a temporary element in this whole episode. And that is\nwhen you go from Colorado into Wyoming, the mouse is no longer\nthreatened or endangered. There is a political boundary line between\nthe two States.\n  In its wisdom, the Fish and Wildlife Service says that if you go\nnorth far enough across the State line, it is no longer threatened or\nendangered. There is an element of arbitrariness that I think also\ncalls into question why this was ever done in the first place.\n  Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for this amendment, and I yield\nback the balance of my time.\n  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).\n  The amendment was agreed to.\n  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.\n  The motion was agreed to.\n  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.\nLamborn) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bergman, Acting Chair of the\nCommittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that\nthat Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3354)\nmaking appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment,\nand related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and\nfor other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2017-09-07-pt1-PgH7172-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 24.71984107978642, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}