Transcripts For CSPAN House Session 20240622

So i certainly hope they would be but i have no confidence as i sit here right now that they will. Senator nelson when, mr. Secretary, when you look at a map like this, a map of syria that i assume you handed out, somebody did thats a mess. And maybe it is the only solution is the solution of a political exit for assad so that we can go after these extremist elements. By the way, i had to leave the committee to do an interview on cnn, and the whole focus that they wanted to jump on was your statement earlier in the hearing that we had only trained up 60. But i pointed out to them what you said was the vetting is very difficult and in fact we are vetting some several thousands additional and the vet is a lot more tore tuesdayous because you certainly dont want to have a guy trained up and then you ends up aiming his gun back at us. In iraq, do you think that this new Prime Minister has the capability of getting out of his shiite mold and does he have the capability of bringing all the shiites with all of the iranian influence in his government in order to reach out with an olive branch to the sunnis . Secretary carter thank you. With respect to the first part of your remarks, im always going to be truthful to you and the number is 60 and i think we stated that number before but i said it today and i will always tell the truth. And that is a small class. It results from the fact that that is the number that got through the very rigorous vetting and Selection Process we have. General negata who runs that program believes he has learned a lot. He has 7,000 behind that so i expect those numbers to increase. But i wanted to tell the truth and i did tell the truth. We expect that number to improve but you deserve to know where things stand and im telling you where things stand. With respect to abadi, there id say also that he has indicated to us and he was in washington and i spoke to many of you as well, his intention to proceed in a way that is distinctly different than the way his predecessor preceded him which led to the situation we now have in iraq. Were certainly supporting him in that regard, but one can see that his intentions are contested in baghdad. And so we continue to support him. We continue to think get back to the earlier line of question that a multisectarian future for iraq is the best for stability and peace and the best for the defeat of isil. But he will have some substantial influence over that but its clear he doesnt have absolute control in baghdad. We are supporting him. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, secretary carter and general dempsey, for being here today. General dempsey, i especially want to thank you for your decades of service to your country and to the cause of freedom. We wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Im not sure whether this will be the last time were privileged to speak with you in a hearing but regardless, please know how much we appreciate all youve done for our country and i want to thank the men and women who are deployed in iraq and in so many other places in the middle east for their and for their service to our country. Senator lee although theyve not been labeled combat troops, theyre still operating under dangerous circumstances. I want to follow up on the discussion between senator mccain and secretary carter on how we might support Syrian Rebels once they return from training. Mr. Secretary, you stated that you believe we have an obligation to those we train to provide them with protection. And i agree with that. And i also believe we have an obligation to let the American People know and that you have an obligation to let Congress Know and help us to fully understand what the strategy entails, what that means. That the funding, the timing and the effort that providing any such protection might entail and what it will necessitate. So can you tell us, when will the department of defense fully explain to the American People and to congress what the strategy will involve, what its going to cost our government . Ive said this before but this is something that should have been made clear last year when the president came up with this plan. Regardless, its better late than never. Its good we do it now rather than not at all. Can you tell us when that might occur . Secretary carter ill continuously tell you whats going on over there with respect to whats gong in iraq and with respect to syria. Were going to have to, as i said, i think we have an obligation to support those fighters when they go in there. We have to decide under exactly what conditions and what way well make that tactical decision when we when we introduce them. But i think the main thing is that we increase that number from what is now very small number. Im not surprised that its running on television into a much larger number. I think we can do that. The officer who runs this program believes that he will be able to do that, and well keep you apprised of our progress and ill tell you every day what i know as ive done here today. Senator lee thank you. I appreciate that. I look forward to that. Now, u. S. Strategy in syria is to empower the quoteunquote moderate opposition to defeat isis and to put enough pressure on the assad settlement. For the sake of this discussion, lets say theyre successful in degrading isis to the point they are no longer a factor in syria. What does pressuring eye sad or his supporters into a negotiated settlement assad or his supporters into a negotiated settlement look like, especially given support from iran and hezbollah that they currently enjoy specifically what role will the United States play in bringing about the pressure and support to achieve this kind of settlement . Secretary carter i think the way it would look, the outcome that we are aiming for is one in which Bashar Alassad and those who have been associated with his atrocities in syria are removed and but the structures of government in damascus and in iraq that remain continue on our in an inclusively governed way that is multisectarian to clull to include others that can then return to the task of regaining its sovereign territory from isil to the east in a project that would look like what we are working with baghdad to accomplish to its west in iraq. That is the postassad transition that will be the best for the Syrian People and the best for our counterisil strat counterisil strategy. Senator lee do you think it is necessary to engage the assad Regime Forces that may come into conflict with any rebels we may train . Secretary carter im going to be very careful how i answer a legal question in that regard and i prefer to get back to you in that regard. Senator lee ok. Now, mr. Secretary, what level of command and control in your opinion does isis leadership have over these various affiliate groups across the middle east and Northern Africa as well as lone wolf individuals or groups in europe and the western hemisphere . Secretary carter its mixed. But in the main, not entirely, but in the main what one sees is a mixture of groups that were already radicalized and already intent upon attacking the west or attacking western interests or destabilizing places in the middle east rebranding themselves as isil because of this seemingly seeming success it had. And then to get to the lone wolf part, you see people who have had no training, no association with it, including americans who go on the internet and find themselves inthralled because whatever lost souls they are inthralled by the violence or whatever associated with isil and selfradicalize and unfortunately undertake to do violence. So you see that spectrum there. You do see some effort by isil in syria and iraq, to command and control but its not exclusively that way. I say all this because its very distinctly different from the al qaeda model. The al qaeda model was a very hire arcial goal very clear command and control type terrorist enemy and that meant they had discipline and that meant they could take on big things like 9 11 but it also meant that when we started to go after them they were vulnerable to attacks on the command and control structure and on their logistic structure. Isil is more resilient because its more decentralized and more informal in that sense. It takes a different kind of campaign. Were highly aware of that as is Law Enforcement, by the way. Senator lee thank you. I see my time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chairman mccain ask that i recognize senator fischer. Senator fischer thank you. I want to thank you, general dempsey, for the many, many years that you served the people of this country and the military families that have been under you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carter earlier senator rounds had a conversation with general dempsey about the act of patience and time and i know the general counsels patience and he has discussed time. What role do you see time playing in our strategy . Do you have a strategy on forces on containing isil . Are we going to allow them to be able to maintain control of territory for the next three to five years . Is that going to be acceptable to us . And do you see risks with that type of strategy . Secretary carter well i think were going to continue to strike and apply pressure to isil. Throughout this period. Were doing it now. We do it every day. Its had some effect. And were going to continue every single day as we did over this past weekend to defend ourselves against isil including these homegrown people. All that will go on and has to go on because we have to protect ourselves in the meantime. What takes the time and i think this is what the chairman was getting at what takes the time is and this is just in the nature of things, getting a lasting result. A lasting result is one where not only isil is defeated but they stay defeated. In order for them to stay defeated there has to be somebody on that territory whos keeping the peace and governing and replacing the isil in the territory. That takes some time. Were working with the kurds to do that. Were working with sunni tribes, but thats in the nature of things. We want that to go as quickly as possible. And were hastening that to the best of our ability, as are members of the coalition. But that is the thing that takes the time to build. But in the meantime we have to protect ourselves and we have to keep pressure on isil and well be doing that constantly. Senator fischer i agree with you on that. Would you mind . I thought about this a lot. Your question is really whether patience increases risk. General dempsey thats really your question. I think patience probably does increase risk to the mission somehow because it extends the time when other things could happen, right . Ment but i think were we to take things differently and but i think were we to take things differently it increases risk to our force and increases risk to the other missions that were held accountable to accomplish globally. What i get paid for is to give advice to the secretary of defense with the j. C. S. And the president on managing risk. So to your question, does risk increase due to patience . Of course. But the alternative increases risk in other ways and its our job to manage that risk. Senator fischer as you look at managing that risk and you look at balancing it. How do you reach a decision where you can maintain that patience when you know that when isil controls that territory that they have now and they continue to advance in other areas whether it will be in the region or in russia that that is recruitment item for them and it will inspire attacks whether its in that region or elsewhere around the world, how do you balance that and have the risk that we face in our homeland continue what i think would be continued continue to grow because of possibly an overabundance of patience . General dempsey as i said this is the issue which the Campaign Turns correct . What you have to be assured of is that as we manage risk, we look at those things which could threaten u. S. Persons and facilities around the globe and the homeland. And where we see risk accruing that could have threatened that National Security interest. Theres no hezz tans for us to act unilaterally and decisively. On the other hand, this campaign is built on the premise that it relies upon other actor that necessarily requires a degree of patience that we need to nurture, we need to reinforce and we need to understand in the context of the other things were trying to accomplish not only in the middle east but globally. So if youre suggesting that isils threat to the homeland could increase because of that patience, i concede that risk. We take onboard the responsibility to manage it, but i would also suggest to you that we would contribute mightily to isils message as a movement where we to confront them directly on the ground in iraq and syria. Senator fischer if we look at patience, if we look at restraint, dont you think that with our restraint were in many ways encouraging the iraqis to look elsewhere and to especially look to iran and invite them into iraq where they are because they know that iran will be there fighting a common enemy that they both face at this point . Arent we opening that door to iran with this what i kind of view as an overabundance of patience . To me is the greatest risk. General dempsey when you look what were degree, were trying by the way, the government of iran has been reaching out to iran since roughly 2004, and they have probably increased their outreach to iran but has very little to do what were doing or not doing. It has everything to do with the fact that they believe that their future that its their turn and that their particular form of governance which is not yet inclusive as it needs to be is the right form of governance. So they were going to do this whether we were there or not or whatever manner in which exert our influence. Senator fischer so they have boots on the ground in iraq through no action of the United States or inaction by the United States . General dempsey i would say that their the advisors that have been sent, the i. S. R. They are flying and some of the capabilities they provided to the government of iraq i would agree that they would have provided that whether we were there or senator fischer the question, it wasnt a statement. General dempsey the answer is yes, they would have been there regardless of our presence. Senator fischer thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for the testimony today. General dempsey, i want to join my colleagues in commending you for your decades of service and, secretary carter, its good getting caught up last week. I appreciate your Outstanding Service to our country. You know, theres been a lot of criticism of the president when you in had august, 2014, and then just a couple weeks ago at the g7 meeting talked about how we dont have a strategy yet with regard to isis. He said that in 2014. He again said it again a couple weeks ago. But what he really has not been criticized for and i think its something id like to get your view on is each time hes talked about a lack of a strategy, hes essentially put it on your plate. Senator sullivan resaid, the guys at the department of defense are coming up with options. Still havent gotten them yet. D. O. D. Is working this. Literally said that a version of that in august of 2014 and in june of 2015, did it take the department of defense a year to come one a strategy to defeat isis . Secretary carter first, thank you for your conversation. Thank you everything youre doing, especially to our asia pacific strategy. Senator, very grateful for your travels there and your leadership. We just spoke yesterday at the pentagon with the president about his strategy and the strategy is the one that you laid out. I described today. Senator sullivan ok. Secretary carter he described eight or nine months ago and that doesnt and this is important. It involves us and we have an Important Role. Senator sullivan right. Secretary carter but it involves other parts of the government as well. Thats one of the reasons to keep laborously citing nine lines of effort. There are literally nine lines of effort. We dont directly, for example, try to interdict selfradicalized americans. The f. B. I. Does that. We dont do that. But we got to do that were working on these difficult problems of iraq. Senator sullivan now, mr. Secretary, i agree with you 100 on that. To me it was a little bit maybe you just cant answer the question directly. I wish you would. But the fact that the president it just goes to some of the process here. The president for years essentially has been saying we dont have a strategy because the guys over at the d. O. D. Has given me one. A, its not how we develop strategy as you mentioned. This needs to be all instruments of american power. The military is clearly one but we need economic, energy, diplomatic. The whole list. That has to be developed by the white house, not by the department of defense. So i dont think it took a year for the pentagon to come up with a strategy. And despite the fact that the president eave time he said we dont have a strategy said it was essentially your fault. I dont think it was your fault. I think it was the white houses fault. I just want to be on record saying i think its unfair criticism to be put of the chairman or the secretary to say we dont have a strategy yet and its because of d. O. D. I guess he can say we now have a strategy. Is this the strategy . Secretary carter this is the strategy. And it is devised by the president and the white house. We play a role in it. I did not observe any waiting for us to come up with a strategy. Senator sullivan well, he actually said it twice. Secretary carter the strategy that i described, the nine lines of effort was i think described at the end of the last of last summer. It makes perfect sense our strategy has all the parts that the nine lines of effort described. Yesterdays meeting was to give him an update and to get his guidance on how we go forward. We did that. It happened to be at the pentagon and the focus was on the two of the nine lines of effort that were responsible for. But there were other members of the National Security community, which is essential to this, who were present and participated in that discussion and so senator sullivan mr. Chairman, i dont assume it took a year for the military to come up with options for the president. But general dempsey no. Id be happy to answer it. Were frequently and constantly adapting options but the context of when you said that, he had asked us, is there something more we need to be doing with the sunni tribes . Thats the context of your question. The real issue is whether we should be doing more with the sunni tribes and the outcome of that conversation and the planning that went into it was the air bass, train and advice platform. Senator sullivan i know there was discussion with the ndaa. I think its a good bill, very bipartisan bill. Senator reed and chairman mccain should be commended for the great work they did. One of the things we try and do in the bill is bolster the credibility where the United States is seen as working, having a strategy both supported by the executive branch and the legislative branch and some of us think our credibility in certain areas of the world has been weak and its been one of the weaknesses of our National Security and Foreign Policy strategy. But we tried to do that in a number of areas. I want to provide two examples. You kind of hinted at one, mr. Secretary. The rebalance to the asia pacific. Theres some Strong Language in there about the support for that from the congress. Very bipartisan. And how we need to be increasing troops in the asia pacific. Also very much a focus that i think an area that i think, mr. Secretary, said we were late in the game in the arctic. I would recommend you take a look at the newsweek this week talks about cover story on the arctic. The title is actually in the race to control the arctic the u. S. Lags behind. It takes about how this is developing as the new great game. Kiplings famous phrase, a critical strategic area. How the russians are very, very involved in the arctic. Mr. Chairman, you actually in testimony in front of this economy talked about the foreign combad brigade their exercise in the last couple months. And then the comment on the coast guard is saying its a new geopolitical cold war the u. S. Is in danger of losing. Were not even playing in this game at all. So i just wanted to ask a final comment, mr. Chairman. You talked about managing risk, mr. Chairman. Would removing our only Airborne Brigade b. C. T. , in the arctic, or the only b. C. T. In the asia pacific, would that do to our credibility . Would that boles you are our credibility in the arctic or asia pacific with regard to the rebalance . And you talk about risk. It seems to me Vladimir Putin is militarizing this part of the world. If were actually removing force, removing forces our own arctic trained forces, thats a way to increase risk because we know he views weakness as being provocative. Theyre making a move in the arctic. If we start withdrawing troops, the 425 in particular, i think that heightens risk. Would either of you care to comment on that . General dempsey yes. I think it increases risk but some of the decisions and youre talking about the army in this case but some of the choices that the Service Troops have to make in terms of resources, you know, the army is tasked going from 490,000 active where they are today to 450,000 in the next two years. They got to come from someplace. Senator sullivan its inviting a the Congress Says dont do it in the ndaa. But secondly, thats going undermine our ability in the asia pacific. Those are paid comm forces. General dempsey it sounds like you may have insight. Senator sullivan no, i dont. I hope the army wont make strategic blunder. General dempsey we are familiar with the congress telling us no on the reforms we were trying to make. Because we have 1 trillion thats a t, not bambings a trillion dollars less in Budget Authority over 10 years. Weve said from the beginning its a disaster. Senator sullivan thank you, mr. Chairman. I just do want to mention that. If were looking at b. C. T. s going to the area where Congress Said we need to increase forces, having those having our only asia Pacific Arctic capability which as you know general you cant develop overnight and our own airborne capability in the entire air asia pacific, to me that would be a strategic blunder and i think Congress Sometimes comes in has broader Strategic Insights that the military has on occasion, not always, but sometimes and this is one of them. On behalf of chairman mccain thank you for your testimony. Senator reed i want to thank you for your service to the nation and you, general demptiony as you conclude your uniform service. At chairman mccains direction, ill adjourn the hearing. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] and the Committee Room clearing out, wrapping up a hearing on the strategy for isis. If you missed in i of it you can find it online. We will have it in our Video Library at cspan. Org. Taking a look at capitol hill for the rest of the way, members returning from their july fourth break. The house gaveling in at 2 00 eastern time for a work on a number of bills including interior Department Spending. Also work on education policy and no child left behind, a measure to allow states to set their own accountability standards in education. And the designate in at 2 the senate in at 2 30 working on no child left behind and how they weight standardized test scores. And a nomination of a federal Circuit Court judge. You can watch the house live on cspan and senate on cspan2. And the Senate Select Intelligence Committee holding a hearing on terrorists and nation state threats as well as the effect of commercial inscription on the f. B. I. s investigative tools. Director james come will testify. And then a confirmation hearing thursday for the new chair of the joint chiefs, marine corps general joseph dunford, to replace general dempsey. The confirmation hearing live 9 30 eastern also on cspan3. This week on first ladies. We learned about mrs. Garfield, was an educated woman and a believer in womens rights. When her husband president James Garfield was assassinated she returned to ohio and ensured their his legacy of making their home into a president ial library. Chester arthur becomes president and his sister fills the role of first lady and establishes white house social etiquette used by future first ladies used by decades. This sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans original series first ladies, influence and image examining the women who fulfilled the first lady and their influence on the presidency from Martha Washington to Michelle Obama sundays at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3. Next, a look at how patents affect innovation and the economy. The center for strategic and International Studies held a discussion yesterday with patent and Trademark Office director michelle lee. Business Software Alliance c. E. O. Victoria espinel. And university of michigan federal Relations Executive director michael waring. They talked about Patent Infringement legislation to reform the patent system and intellectual property issues in china, russia and africa. The discussions about an hour and a half. Jim well, good afternoon. My name is jim lewis. Welcome to csis. Were very lucky today to have with us michelle lee, the undersecretary who is responsible for the u. S. Patent and Trademark Office, usbto, and with her also a very distinguished panel of experts. The format for today, as michelle will give opening remarks, and then the other panelist also join us up here. Well have an interactive session and then well turn to you, the audience, for questions. So im looking forward to this event. I think we can have a pretty good discussion of a timely topic. We have bios available on the website, but ill do a brief introduction. Asry said, michelle lee is the undersecretary for commerce for intellectual property and director of the uspto. Which i didnt realize was 12,000 employees. Thats quite a lot. Its grown since ive known. And she directs the daytoday operations. Her background is really interesting in some ways. Its kind of unique. Its unique in washington. Its not unique in Silicon Valley. Because she was at m. I. T. , worked for the Artificial Intelligence lab, and then was p. T. O. s the first director of p. T. O. s Silicon Valley office. And worked at google for patent issues and then came back after getting a law degree, which i probably got the order wrong, but youll just have to live with it. Came back and is now came back to washington, the east coast, and now director of the patent office. Ill introduce the other speakers when they get up. Let me turn it over to michelle now. Thank you. [applause] michelle thank you, jim. Good afternoon, everyone. And its a real pleasure to be here to talk about a subject that is extremely important to me. And i think to all of you as well. And thats the topic of innovation. I would like for us to consider the Critical Role that the u. S. Patent system plays in making the American Economy competitive in todays increasingly Global Innovation economy. To give you a little historical perspective, it wasnt so long ago that patent law was considered a niche topic. The most valuable assets of a company were oftentimes tangible. The plants, the warehouses and their inventory. But today the most valuable assets are leading companies are the intangible assets. The inventions the algorithms, the processees, the designs and the brands of the company, what we like to call intellectual property, or i. P. And because these tangible assets are more easily protecting them is important for investment and american competitiveness. Patents, which provide the Market Exclusivity for a limited period of time, are an important form of that protection. Its a fact that our economic competitors recognize appreciate and mention often in my meetings with them. Last may, i traveled to beijing, china, for meetings with the ministers and vice ministers of chinas trade patents, copyrights and Trademark Offices. But i began my trip with a meeting with one of the most senior officials in the Chinese Government and that is the Vice President premiere young. During that meeting he emphasized chinas desire to strengthen its i. P. Protections and enforcement system, not because its trading partners were asking nor these changes but because china views it as necessary in their desired transformation from a manufacturingbased economy of inventions developed elsewhere to an innovationbased economy with technologies developed in china to provide products and Services Higher up the value chain. Put another way, china wants an economy more like ours in which intangible assets play a greater role. And to get there they recognize the need for a patent system more like ours. From that meeting in china and many other encounters ive had with leaders around the world, i repeatedly hear that the United States is a Global Leader when it comes to protecting and enforcing intellectual Property Rights. Despite all of our discussions and debates here at home,our i. P. System is frequently what many countries look to when designing their own i. P. Systems and enforcement mechanisms. And while we can and should take pride in this, we also need to take heed that as china and other countries seek to move from a manufacturingbased economy to an innovationbased economy, we will face more and more competition. We cannot afford to stand still as other nations seek to catch up. We cannot idle as are other manufacturing economies seek to move up the value chain. And we cannot remain immobile as american innovators seek to compete in the 21st global economy. So we are faced with a question. Do we leave our patent system as is or do we strive to make it even better as incentivizing and promoting innovation and investment . Its worth noting that our patent system itself is quite innovative. At its core is the bargain between inventors and the rest of society embedded in the progress clause of the constitution. The inventor gets an exclusive right for a limited period of time to a patented invention. In exchange for Teaching Society how that invention works. That exclusivity makes it easier to secure investment and to commercialize the invention. And the Public Disclosure of how the invention works allows others to begin working on improvements while also letting others know which technologies require licenses or workarounds. But the constitution only provided a very broad level framework for our patent system. It left the specifics to congress to design and to update through legislation. And over the years that Legal Framework has further developed. Through courts interpretations of the laws in light of changing circumstances and administratively such as through the work of the United States patent and Trademark Office. That work continues to this day in an information economy where patents are increasingly viewed as assets like any other corporate asset. I saw this firsthand during my time in the private sector. In the past, operating companies would build their patent portfolios, sometimes cost license them with other companies but they wouldnt often transfer or sell their patent assets. Today in contrast, theres a much greater market for patent assets, and with that comes a greater chance that the assets end up in the hands of somebody else. With a patent system such as ours that imposes meaningful penalties for infringement, weve seen the rise in behavior of purely monetizing the value of a patent bought from another without contributing anything inventive and without making or providing any product or service. This can and has led to increased patent threats. And to the extent that Patent Infringement claims are made merely to coerce cost of defense settlements without regard to the merits of a claim, this is inefficient and costly for everyone involved. Particularly Small Companies and startups who oftentimes have limited Financial Resources. I can tell you from my time in the private sector litigating patent cases is very expensive. Defending against Patent Infringement suit can cost on average, depending upon a variety of factors, anywhere from 3 million to 5 million for a case thats not very complicated. For a venturebacked startup with an initial round of funding of say, 10 million, thats a devastating cost on innovation. Taking a patent case to trial can burn through one or even two rounds of funding. At a time when a Young Company should be spending its limited precious amount of money hiring employees, investing in research and development or growing its business. And lets be clear. This is not just bad for Small Businesses and startups. Its bad for all of us. For inventors, consumers, jobs and the American Economy. And worst of all it reduces the publics faith in our patent system. But theres some good news here and it is this. We can change things and we can do it in a way that preserves balance. Between maintaining strong patent protections that are necessary to incentivize innovation and ensuring a more efficient and streamlined way of handling patent disputes. Achieving this balance is the responsibility shared by all three branches of the government. Each has a particular set of competencies that make it better than others in addressing a certain aspect of the issue. We strengthen our patent system most effectively when we take advantage of what each branch of government does best. Let me start with the uspto which is an Administrative Agency within the executive branch charged with examining and issuing patents. Our patent examiners have the important duty of examining Patent Applications and issuing patents when the legal requirements are met and rejecting applications when they are not. Every one of our patent examiners understands that issuing patents accurately and a clear scope is more important now than every before so that than ever before so that inventors can better understand the scope of their invention and so that others, including competitors, can have the information they need to make better informed Business Decisions on how to invest their limited research and Development Dollars and when to take a patent license. This is why we launched our enhanced quality patent initiative at the end of last year, soliciting an unprecedented amount of input and feedback from the public on how the agency can enhance the quality of the patents that it issues. Our patent trial appeal board also plays an essential role as a quality check on patents. In this case patents that have already issued. The board provides a faster and lower cost alternative to District Court litigation where the validity of a patent claim is in question. The boards proceedings also have an important impact as the front end of a patent system. By making Patent Applications applicants more carefully about pursuing broad claims that may not ultimately be upheld. This is good as it ultimately drives down needless, expensive and timeconsuming District Court litigation while also encouraging applicants to seek patent rights of appropriate scope. You but the courts still have an Important Role to play in bringing about needed improvements to the patent system. Recent decisions have tightened the standards of clarity for patth claims and made it easier for judges to award attorneys fees in patten infringement cases. These are welcomed changes but we must remember they are also incremental. Judges can only decide the cases before them, and they can do so only one case at a time. And because their rulings can be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, judicial rulings take time to propagate throughout our entire patent system. If we want changes that are uniform, systemic and timely, that save our Small Businesses and startups the money they need to innovate now, targeted and balanced legislation is needed. And of course there are certain changes that can only be achieved via legislation which is why im pleased that the patent reform legislation is moving forward in congress. As ive said before, its important that these changes reduce the incentives to engage in abusive Patent Litigation tactics without undermining the strengths of our worldclass patent system. Targeted and balanced reforms can strengthen our patent system and level the Playing Field for all innovators. By providing increased notice to parties in patent suits about the patent allegedly infringed. By providing financial incentives for parties both plaintiffs and defendants, to take reasonable positions in litigation. By providing opportunities for manufacturers who are best suit and incentivized to step in and defend against infringement suits on behalf of their customers and end users. And proviggede increased transparency of patent ownership information to reduce barriers to patent licensing and patent sales. These reforms, combined with other changes that are occurring in the judiciary and administratively, will ensure that our patent system continues to remain an engine of innovation with strong, clear and balanced Property Rights of appropriate scope that are enforceable. These reforms will contribute to our competitiveness in todays increasingly global economy, reallocating resources from wasteful litigation to productive research, development. These will ensure american innovators will continue to define the top of the global value chain. Even as the rest of the world rushes to catch up. Reform is not a crisis it faces about our patent system but a way of keeping faith with its goals of promoting innovation and technological progress. If ive learned anything in my experience in the private sector, its that no good company ever rests on its laurels. Its always looking for new ways to improve, to streamline and to adapt to the new realities of an everchanging environment. From my advantage point as head of the United States patent and Trademark Office, i believe we should treat our patent system the same way. We must also strive to improve what can be prove what can be approved. The conviction that the best days of American Innovation are still ahead of us. Thank you for your attention and i look forward to continuing the discussion with my fellow panelists. [applause] jim thank you michelle. Please have a seat and if i could invite our other panelists to come on up. Both of these people ive known both of these people for quite a long time so its a real pleasure to have them at csis. First is Victoria Espinel who many of you know as the president of b. S. A. , the business Software Alliance. But before that as the first intellectual property enforcement coordinator at the white house which was kind of a pathbreaking job. And before that, you probably knew her from ustr where she handled many of the i. P. Related negotiations and broke a lot of new ground in all three jobs. So victoria thank you for being here. Ive also known michael for a long time. Michael waring is the director of the Washington Office and executive director of federal relations for the university of michigan. Someone ive worked with for many years on innovation topics and a real expert both in how washington works and on how washington policies might help us move the ball forward on innovation. What ive told them for the format and i was thinking of changing it while michelle was speaking but i will not. Well ask both victoria and michael to briefly say something, respond to michelle and then well go into questions from all three of us. At that point, if you have something, ill ask you to raise your hand, please identify yourself. Please keep it as a question, not as a speech, and well move ahead. Victoria why dont we go to you . Victoria thank you for inviting me to be here today. Its a pleasure to be here. Its a thoughtful and wellrespected organization. I really i thank you and michelle for pulling together this event. I also want to say congratulations to you and your confirmation. I know its a few months old. Its great. Youve been doing great work for many years. So the confirmation process is happily behind you. Its a real honor to be up here with michael. Our university is an incredibly important part of our innovation system in my country. I been working with that. So im Victoria Espinel. We my organization represents the Software Industry worldwide. And one of the reasons that my job is a really fun one is because our companies are among the most Innovative Companies in the world. And because of that they are also some of the largest pantent holders in the world. We really believe in and clearly understand the importance of having a wellfunctioning patent system. We also believe sort of what you said about keeping faith with the patent system that its important thature litigation system be set newspaper a way so it doesnt bad actors abuse our patent system. So for us its very important that there be changes to our litigation system to avoid the kinds of abuses that have been happening today. In essence, we want to make life hard for bad actors and life better for innovators. There are ill speak very, very briefly. I think people are probably aware of the fact theres been various pieces of legislation moving through our system. There are probably four things that were most focused on so ill mention them briefly and turn it over. One, we want to make sure if anyone gets sued for Patent Infringement they get genuine notice. The suit thats filed against them clearly lays out what the actual allegations are against them. I think that kind of genuine notice is really important to having efficient litigation system and a fair litigation system. Second with respect to where cases are brought, we want to make sure cases are brought in the right court and we want to avoid form shopping brought by plaintiffs. We want to make it as efficient as possible. So therefore we think it would be best if certain if discovery was delayed until certain preliminary motions had already been addressed and dealt with and get them out of the way. And fourth, we want to deter the frivolous cases that are being brought. So we think its important that there it be possible for fees to be awarded in cases where claims are brought that are objectively unreasonable, and there be some sort of efficient mechanisms so those fees can actually be rewarded. We believe if the financial incentives is shifted so its not costeffective to bring the kind of litigation brought today that will be better for the system as a whole. That will make our patent system better today. Its a big issue for us and something we care about. I could talk in length but i wont. I will conclude there and turn the mic over to michael. Michael first, jim, thanks for the invitation. Always a pleasure to talk with victoria and michelle. We just went through three congresses where we wrestled wh this whole notion of the patent system. What should the patent system be in america . How should we update it to fill with the International Norms . It took three congresses to america invents act. Here we are less than four years later trying to make major changes to that legislation. So i think thats an interesting dynamic, interesting place for us to be. I should also say first before i get too far down the road, while i work for the university of michigan, im really here speaking on their behalf. I hope im representing the hirer ed community at large, including those that worked together to work on behalf of the University System around the country. Im also not an attorney so i cant spar with my colleagues here on the law. I havent been involved in negotiations specifically with the congress on this issue by im fairly aware of whats going on with this issue so i will be i will respond as best i can to some of the questions and concerns we have. Hopefully well talk about things beyond just legislation. I think there are other issues that the p. T. O. Is wrestling with. Let me start by saying let me talk about why universities care about patents. There was an illusion to the dold act. It passed in the waning hours of that Congress Thanks to senator dold. They were trying to finish out the year and were able to get approvals by a couple of senators to take hold and move this legislation through congress. Up until then the government when it funded research, the government held the patent on that research. A lot of the things created didnt have a mechanism to get that invention out to the private sector to develop into a real product or real drug or real new technology. So we said lets do this differently. Lets have universities have the patent. And see if we can use that as leverage with licensees to create a marketplace for these ideas. So out of that was born the whole tech transfer system that we had at universities and have had for the last 35 years. I would submit that its been a very effective system for america. I think the most recent statistics that i have from the university of Technology Managers association is that its created in the last even less than 35 years 1 trillion in Economic Development for the country. Thousands and thousands of startup companies. Three million jobs. Hundreds of new drugs. We all are able to take advantage of to improve our health care in the United States. Thats a wonderful legacy. Other countries are now trying to mimic that with their own versions around the contry. That speaks well to the system that we have. If you think about the patent is really the bridge from the lab to the marketplace. For most discoveries. The discoveries created in the lab, they bring the idea to the Tech Transfer Office, the businesspeople in the Tech Transfer Office say thats an interesting idea, thats interesting knowledge, discovery, what can we do with that . Would there be somebody if we had a patent . Should we get a patent . Its expensive to get a patent. Its a new flodge. Could we find a licensee that would want to develop that patent . Would want to fund, provide further Research Dollars and finish up the work started at the university of campus which is probablely fairly basic. Get that out into a Startup Company or existing company to develop and we then reap the benefits of that, all of us do, as taxpayers as american citizens. Its really the linchpin. I was in a forum here a couple months ago an inventor described the patent as the collateral. The collateral that would then be used to try to attract the Venture Capital that will be needed to take that idea out of the lab and get it out to the marketplace where people can take advantage of it. Thats why patents are important. Patents are things that universities need in order to do their job. To get this transfer process working by and large. So when we see legislation that we think is going to make asserting pantents more complicated, more expensive potentially more risky for inventors and their patent hold earns licensees to pursue, we get concerned. I think thats part of the debate in congress is about where do we go from here . I will note that during those three congresses that we worked on a. I. A. It took that long to finally get to a consensus point of view. In the end when that bill passed, pretty much they didnt get everything they wanted. They were able to live with the outcome. I would submit that you look at the situation today that is not the situation we have now with this legislation. We continue to have large segments of the country, universities included, who still have Major Concerns about the legislation being considered, particularly in the house. I would just throw that out for people to think about. Difference in dynamic of the political situation in 2011 when we passed a. I. A. With fairly much a consensus viewpoint and now where we have such a divergence of viewpoints. Thats why we care about these issues. Thats why we are involved in these issues. Thats why we work closely with groups. Thats why we have been at the table trying to negotiate with both house and senate folks to work on these issues and why the University Community feels so strongly about that. Ill stop there. Thank you, michael. Im going to start with a general question. I think im pose it with all three i begin with michelle. One of the things we are looking at here is the transition in how we think about Economic Policy as we move into an economy thats driven more by instanding intangible assets. A wig challenge how we measure, construct policy. Many of our policies are out of date. Its also i think as michelle noted something thats a global problem. I note theres a lot of positive statistics. You can say, about the u. S. Patent system. We lead in any number of things. U. S. P. T. O. Is an unappreciated jewel. One of the things we lead in is Patent Litigation. Let me start by asking michelle. When you think about other patent systems japan e. U. , china as you mentioned, how do you think we stack up . Where is it we would want to improve our performance . Let me ask victoria and michael to comment as well. Michelle i think theres a lot we do right in this country. Now that i have the privilege of having the role i have in speaking to many of the i. P. Leaders in the world, i do hear a lot about both what we are doing right and you also get a sense of what they would rather not have a part of. Clearly our litigation system is probablely one of the more expensive litigation systems on this planet. Probably involves some of the most extensive discovery compared to other systems. And so i think what youre seeing is in the legislation that is currently before congress as victoria mentioned theres a provision in there dealing with streamlining discovery and perhaps greater notice and greater spess physicality in the pleading requirements of a complaint. I think its right for congress at this point to be focusing on the litigation related reforms. In the a. I. A. We made a lot of good progress. We moved and we harmonized with the rest of the world. Went from a first to envent to first to filecies tefment making clearer, simpler, and more uniform rules with the rest of the world. We got the ability to set its own fees and a whole set of post grant review proceedings which has been pretty effective as a quality check. In the area of litigation, the litigation related forums didnt get addressed in the a. I. A. Thats an area we are focused on and its a matter of striking that right balance. James victoria. Victoria i would say innovation is clearly one of the thention, the thing that makes the ns globally competitive. Something i that the a lot about in my previous jobs. Not to get too much off top eck, a lot of places where our policies and how we account for trade balances are completely out of date with where the value of our economy is coming from. I think thats a really interesting project that needs to be fixed. Going back to the topic at hand here, our patent system is one of the strongest in the world. I think our p. T. O. Does trem worked. Tremendous work. The concern about quality is one. And the caps you have taken on with vigor to improve and a big part of that is changing internal processes in ways that have been creative and innovative like getting input from the outside world, often making sure the p. T. O. Has the funding they need. They are getting the full a their fees back so they can continue to do the great work they do. I think our system has lots of strengths. I would agree with michelle, its less something in our patent system thats a problem and the way our litigation system is structured that allows people to take unfair advantage of our patent system that is the problem. The issues that we have are similar to litigation in the United States are not issues we see in other countries around the world. That is because our litigation system in some ways is set up differently. In terms of for example how fees are awarded we have a difference here in the United States than we do in the rest of the world. I am keenly aware of that because when im negotiating trade agreements we had cars u. S. Fee shipping out of the trade agreements because it was out of step with what every other country that we were negotiating the system they had. I think there are some there are clearly changes that need to be made in how our litigation system interacts with our patent system. What that will do is make our patent system stronger. One of the things you see, when there are frustrations about the system because of inequities in the litigation process, that can cast a pall on the system as a hole. Whole. Its really bad for all of us collectively if people doubt whether or not patents are a good thing. A part of making sure that we have a strong patent system as possible is making sure we can clear out some of the frivolous litigation and get rid of it and get rid of the shadow of doubt it can quast on to a patent system cast on to a patent system. Michael i think michelle touched on an interesting word, balance. Thats what we are trying to seek here is a balance of interest here. Thats the tricky part. That was the tricky part four years ago at a. I. A. Essentially what we are really doing is relitigating a. I. A. To try to deal with these issues we werent able to wrestle to the ground four years ago and trying to deal with them again. They are not any simpler or easier to resolve. We talk about the issue of pleadings and making things very obvious what the case is all about. We would agree that pleadings need to be improved. These people who get these retailers who get these letters in the mail threatening them with a 500 or 1,000 penalty because they are using some kind of patented technology in the wifi they bought down the street at best buy is wrong. But its interesting h. R. 9 doesnt deal with that issue. Doesnt deal with that issue. Thats the kind of thing where we need to find a balance. If you make some people if youre going to make people essentially argue their entire case before the case even comes to trial in the pleadings, thats going to be tricky. Its going to make tem possible to even meet the pleadings impossible to even meet the pleadings if they are too high. Some wont get until you actually interact more with the lawsuit. Going to court is the last resort. Always the last resort. Most of the time when universities deal with people and send them a demand letter because they think there may be most of the time it gets resolved without the parties going to court. There is a license taken or realize the technology doesnt ink fringe infringe and thats not a problem. These are all questions of balance. The issue is where does that balance need to be . I would submit that, for example, in h. R. 9, where there is a presumption that anyone who goes to court and loses, err go must be a troll and must show they had a value to their case goes too far the other way of trying to seek to rebalance the system. So i think thats the issue, thats what the fight is all about. I think thats what we need to come back to. What is the balance point thats going to protect the interest of both the big parties and the small parties . The individual inventors as well as the licensees. I find it interesting too the Venture Capital community has seengsly now come out and raised as we have and other groups have had serious concerns about this legislation. If people arent going to invest in technologies because they think there is going to be some question about the validity of the value of the patent or ability of the patent to stand up under scrutiny, then we are not going to see innovation occur because people are not going to make those investments we need to get things out of the lab into the marketplace. James michelle or victoria . Do you want to respond . We did invite michael so he would be flamboyant and provoke you. Hes living up to our expectations. Pp michael legislation that says if you lose you have to pay fees is not something that we would support. I dont think its something that it says. It our companies are very innovative. Our companies are some of the Worlds Largest patents lovers. We have a real interest in making sure that it is not too difficult to assert patents. And we would not support and have not supported legislation that would say if you automatically if you have the plaintiff going and lose you award fees. We do think you as a plaintiff go and assert claims that are objectively unreasonable, then fees should be awarded. We think that will be helpful in trying to deter people, bad actors, from going out and making case that is are objectively unreasonable. We think thats a reasonable place for the system to end up. The second thing is, it sounded like you were saying people are concerned a patent canned hold up under scrutiny. I guess i would say there are companies, real innovators and inventors. There are real innovators and inventors inside the University System that you represent and they are going out and discovering incredible things. Those patents will be held up under scrutiny. I think thats what we should be looking for ways to support. Support patents that will stand up to scrutenifment im not that concerned about having a system where that patents that cant hold up under scrutiny are not part of the system. We want a strong patent system. Michael michelle ill just add i dont like to refer to it as a loser paycies tefment i like to refer to it as an abuser pay system. If you are abusing the system, as Virginia Tech torah said, if you are a plaintiff or defendant, if youre a plaintiff if you unreasonably asserted a claim of infringement, you should pay. If youre on the defense side and you are defending and unreasonably defend a case for longer than you should have when you should have settled or taken a license, you should pay. It imposes a financial position on the system to make it more expensive to engage in abusive litigation tactics. Thats number one. Number two, more broadly, i think we are all in the same boat together. Universities businesses, companies are innovators. Universities are incredible engines of innovation. We would not our society would not be where it is today if it were not for the contributions of universities. On the other hand, the universities when they license their technology out or when they license their technology out to that Startup Company, that Startup Company is going to be in the real world of the patent ecosystem. And if they are facing Patent Infringement lawsuits that are abusive, its not in the interest of the university or society to allow that to continue. We are all working together to make sure we strike that balance. That balance is critical. I think thats why youre seeing the sclagse just doesnt get done like that. People are very smart people, working on and thinking about these issues. Im optimistic we can get there. There have been a lot of good discussions, its going to require everybodys input and effort on this. Its not easey. We have to be able to preso the incentive to innovate, but also the ability to preserve your patent rights when you need to. James i think michael mentioned dole. A lot of times people in the room realize many people dont realize how important that was for the u. S. To sustain its technological lead. We have worked through a couple models of how the u. S. Innovates. We are in transition. Maybe a good question to ask, ill ask first what are you spending your time on now . What are the Biggest Challenges you have at p. T. O. . What are the changes you would want to see under the ones we have already talked about that would best strengthen the patent system to make it an engine of innovation . Michelle i have a lot of issues i am working o on. I do believe each branch of the government is uniquely suited to do and accomplish certain things. At the u. S. P. T. O. One of the issues we are very, very focused on is truly enhancing the quality of the patents we eshoo. And you might say, well michelle, youre not the first director of the u. S. P. T. O. And wont be the last one to say that quality is a priority. I get that. So why now . Why now are you so focused on quality . And the reason is because a couple of factors. Number one, all this discussion about litigation, it is even more important for us to issue patents that should issue and not issue pashents that should not. Bass a cost boat bothways. Number two, for the first time in a long time we have been given the ability to set our own fees. I cannot tell you what a difference that makes in terms of being able to do the job that we need to do. We spent the price of a Patent Application based upon the cost of us to provide that service f we are not getting access to the full amount of our fees, quite frankly, we are making do with less. And thirdly, our patent backlog was going up and up for a while now we have brought that back down. So now we are really in a position to focus on patent qualities. Patent quality is hugely important. A longterm initiative and everybodys input. Also getting the patent to do proceedings and trials rate. Making sure that those proceedings issue opinions quickly, promptly, and accurately. Is also an important priority. And ill stop there because i, of course, could go on on many other initiatives. I would say at least for purposes of this audience those are two of the Top Priorities at the u. S. P. T. O. Victoria i just want to thank you again for all the work. Patent quality is tremendous. The process that came out of a. I. A. We think has added some real value. I want to thank you for that. I would be curious to ask you a question about one of the things you didnt mention. Which is the satellite offices. A really innovative step the p. T. O. Has taken. Im familiar with them. At a little bit of a distance. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on how they are going and whether any of the communities, how you are using them. Michelle i would be glad to answer that. As many of you know i was the first director of the Silicon Valley satellite office, first director of any of the satellite offices. I was responsible for formulating much of the division for the satellite offices. Basically we have four satellite offices outside of the d. C. Area. They are in denver, dallas, detroit, and the Silicon Valley. I thought it would be a shame if all those offices did was help process Patent Applications. That would not be taking advantage of the full fonings of those offices. We have got so much innovation that occurs outside the washington d. C. Area. And so many small startups who are not as well funded as the Big Companies who dont have the resources to fly their outside counsel out to washington d. C. , to interview their Patent Applications or participate in the patent trial and awell board. Or know much about the filing process or registering a trademark or filing for a Patent Application. These satellite offices, my opinion, nothing but upside. Its the opportunity to bring a wider range of p. T. O. Services, educational materials out to the local Innovation Community rather than asking the Innovation Community to come to us. We develop lots of policies and procedures at the p. T. O. And we are now getting a much broader range of input like what is patent eligible subject matter how do you like our guidance . Its now no longer a big company, sophisticated companies with Legal Department and Governmental Affairs department providing input. Its the Smaller Companies also prosliding in providing input. The rules affect them too. That is critically important for to us do our job well. Its a win for everybody. Michael i want to thank you for opening the detroit office. We love that at the university of michigan. I recognize the number of engineers that are in that whole southeast area. Now more and more all industries. Its been very helpful, your director, has been to our campus and seen whats going on. Its great. I solicited input from our campuses to give you ideas. That is good to get ideas. The other thing i want to say is we are fully behind this whole notion that p. T. O. S fees ought to stay at p. T. O. Of the thats an issue thats not in this legislation, but there ought to be a way to sort of protect youall every time the sequestering comes around so youre not having to have some percentage of your fees taken off the top to do your job. We are very much behind that effort and support that. James sorry. Let me see if there are any questions in the room we can turn i have plenty. We have one in the front here. We were going to use microphones bass we are webcasting here at bass webcasting here at 12 00. Remember to interdoose yourself please. Kirk taylor. We are a small startup. We are interviewing patent and intellectual property firms at the moment. I guess from a standpoint of sort of down in the lean startup mode is there a way out of the p. T. O. s services that the inventor, entrepreneur, who is looking at web technology, putting together things that havent been put together before, that type of thing, do you have to hire a big firm . What im hearing is that you can go through the whole thing and put in your submit if they say its patentable you submit. Three years later you find out. And maybe might have gotten a different outcome if you go to a different firm. So the whole idea that you have to sort of put up 50,000 when youre a startup, or some equity in change with some of the firms who are in exchange with some of the firms set up that way with startup practice that is say youre worth this and for five points well do this. Selfserve searching what is patentable, etc. Michelle thank you very much for the question. I think as many of you know i come from the Startup Community and the community of technological innovation. When i was thinking about what i would want out of our satellite offices i had a long list of ideas based upon my past experiences. I will say that the u. S. M. T. O. P. T. O. Has a phenomenal panoply of resources targeted to support the startup environment. Thats where our future jobs are coming from. The highest growth of our future jobs come from the Smaller Companies. We have things like an inventor assistance hotline where if you have questions about the patent process or you can call and ask questions. We have a trademark video online available for viewing. We have a probono program where if you qualify as an underresourced inventor, can you get and well pair you up with an outside counsel for free. If you dont satisfy as an underresourced inventor, we also have a pro se program. Which means you can write the application yourself and we have a dedicate the team at the u. S. P. T. O. To help kind of handhold you more through the process. People who are very seasoned, very speerningsed who can spend more time you with you. So we like to say we have a whole range of services. Not only that about for or smal entities. If qualify for small entity status you can have 50 discount on fees. If you qualify for microentity status you can have up to 75 discount on fees. We are trying to be user friendly and make all our Resources Available not just the Big Companies. We hope one day you grow up into a company and pay full fees. What i would say is contact us. We would be glad to put you in touch with all the resources we have for small startups and our satellite offices ares are playing really Critical Role on the ground in the local innovation communities. James i have unleashed pandoras box. Right there. Todd dickerson. Id like to ask about a related issue thats fairly prominent. Patent eligibility. Its been a year since the alice decision came down from the Supreme Court where they attempted to define narrow what was eligible for a patent. Probably hitting the Software Industry particularly. Study just came down a week or so ago that said that the c. F. C. I think its only one out of the last 20plus decisions where one was raised was held patentible. The c. B. M. Process of the p. T. O. 100 of the cases coming through c. B. M. , which was unpatentable. Examining core is now doubled the number of rejections under 101. Is thinking patentable anymore under alice or not . Does that trouble you victoria . Is the presumption of validity for example. In the statute the presumption of validity never seems to apply. James that was a good question. For a while i copt tell which side you were on. Couldnt tell which tide you were on. Side you were on. Victoria we are obviously watching carefully to see how its being interpreted by the court and p. T. O. We agree with the analysis, the patent of issue in that case was not about patents. Should have been overturned. We are watching to see how that develops. Wed be interested in michelle reas view. We take the v. A. W. Michelle the Supreme Court said as much. They didnt say software or per se still ruling for patent eligible patent for software. There has been significant changes in the case law. Including from the Supreme Court on what is patent eligible subject matter in the area of software. Youre seeing the courts respond to it. Discontribute courts having to respond to motions to dismiss based upon lack of eliblible eligibility matter. We have gotten a lot of input from the public. We all hope for greater clarity on an issue that is extremely complicated and i think well see lots i hope to see lots of developments in the foreseeable future in this area because theres still quite a bit of ambiguity. James the Higher Community has been weighing n we appreciate some of the movement we have seen. Michael we look for more as we move forward here. It is a complicated issue. James one in the back there. Jacob, person right behind you. Thank you. We have a young innovator in africa. Where we have invented things and ended up into the hand of Different Countries or big guys. How could you or can you recommend on such companies because maybe they dont have the resources they are Small Companies. And end up in the big guys hands who have the money. They cant protect themself. How can we go about that, thank you . James the question was there are innovators in africa who come up with something and then because of the patenting systems in those countries or lack of resources for these very small innovators they will see their innovations taken up by large European Companies without getting the proper due. The issue is, is there anything either in the legislation or u. S. P. T. O. Or b. S. A. Is doing that might help address this problem . Victoria i will say that we work with a lot of countries across the globe, including some in africa. Michelle my chief of staff was over just in the african continent in ghana working and talking about intellectual property. Or International Affairs team is always working with other governments and trying to get other governments to really develop robust intellectual property systems. Because it not only benefits the local indigenous inventors, but also benefits American Companies looking to export their products or service overseas. When we enter a market, we want to make sure American Companies and products, the intellectual property are also respected. To the extent we can have a level Playing Field for all countries in every country, all of us will be better off. There will be a global marketplace and everybody will be treated equally based upon the merits of their product or service. We should be encouraging innovation and supporting it whether it is foreign or demesseck. Our society will be better off if the best edecember come to the top. Michael i would just add that the little guy, big guy argument is part of the argument we are having here in this country as well. How you balance those rights. Especially in the courtroom. If you think about american jurisprudence, its designed to protect the little guy. The big guy will have the resources to defend himself or herself. Its the little guy that needs the help. If we bend over too far in this effort to try to change what the dynamics are in litigation, changes can be made, but we bend over too far, we are going to make it very hard for the little guy to have much of a chance if he or she has to go to court. James speaking of big guys, let me come back to another session which is china. Michelle brought this up in her remarks. The chinese do want to move up the value chain and gut out of being the people who make things based on other countrys patents being the people who patent themselves. I was reading a look a while ago written in the 1900 about a british diplomat in china who was complaining that within a couple months of a new british product showing up in china it was copied. And there were Copies Available on the market. Longstanding problem. I know victoria doesnt spend any time on china, but perhaps she can add michael at the university. How do you see us working with china on these issues . How do you see the chinese reacting to changes, significant changes in u. S. Patent laws in the last few ewe years . Victoria i just returned from a week in beijing meeting with the vice premiere and all the heads of the trade patents. Low pressure and i have to say that i am encouraged about their desire to want to strengthen i. P. Systems i. P. Enforcement and row text with you there is still a long way to go. They are undergoing changes to almost every aspect of their i. P. Law. They are undergoing legislative changes on their patent law, copyright law, trademark p law already, concurrently right now. We provided input to that eam we are helping them with that. And they are considering some trade secret law changes. Also theres the issue of antitrust, antimonopoly issues. We work very closely with our counterpart offices. We work closely with the American Companies. And im a cochair of the chinau. S. Joint commission of commerce and trade out of the department of commerce that the secretary also leeze. Shes not the head of the i. P. Working group but the principal and that groufment we are working to really get to a place where domestic and foreign innovators are treated equally and that theres a respect more intellectual Property Rights. Chinese is recognizing this. They recognize they have innovators on the ground at home. If they want those ideas to be protected and encouraged to develop, they need to have a strong intellectual property system. It will take time. Theres lots of work to be done. We have emphasized to the extent that market force can determine which companies and which products and what price things are set at, that would benefit everybody rather than so much government intervention. Victoria i would say a couple things. One is on Patent Quality. China has really struggled with Patent Quality. I think in part that was driven by because of big internals to get their numbers up quickly so their numbers would be closer to the numbers coming out of the u. S. Patent office. That puts so much pressure on the system they ended up with a number of patents that werent good quality. I think theres a recognition of that. There is a real desire to work on that. I dont know if it came up in your conversation. Michelle they also have a registration no examination system and examination system. You have this dual tract. You have patents that are unand patents that are. Victoria we have concerns about how the unexamined track is working. Even Patent Quality concerns about the examinedcies tefment my subset is something that china is they want to see that aspect of the system improved. The major concern that i was going to mention what you alluded to is how their patent system interacts with their anticompetitive with their monopoly law. And using patents or using their monopoly law to undermine patents in china and undermine u. S. Companies in china. So we do have concerns. And we have been working with the Chinese Government and u. S. Government on those concerns. I think there is a tremendous amount of innovation happening inside china right now that is good news. I think there are lots and lots of issues that affect software in china. Some are not i. P. Related. In the intellectual property space i do think taking somewhat long view of this looking at the amount of innovation going out of china, that will internally help changes that will be helpful for the system as a whole. And what we are talking about the quality and interaction between patent and monopoly laws, i am heapful in the long term we will continue to see hopeful in the long term well continue to see improvement. Michael im not aware universities got involved in that specific part of our relationship with china. My president is in china today meeting with Chinese University leaders. We started some as most universities have develop relationships with other universities around the world. China, clearly, is a partner with us. We exchange opportunities. We exchange faculty. All for the betterment of scholarship and for research. It not directly involved in those discussions, but if there is a role we might be able to play along the way, you might think how we might be helpful. Michelle i will add one more point. This is important. They are making a lot of judicial changes. They recently established a specialized i. P. Court to hear i. P. Cases. And this is a national court. Not a local court that might be subject to kind of local favoritism and so forth. National court. They are very much looking to it as an experiment for future judicial reforms. Greater amount of transparencies in terms of recordation of their opinions. Perhaps allowance of more discoverry. Maybe even greater damages or awards along the lines for infringement of i. P. Rights. Those are positive changes a that we are looking forward to and i think they are working hard on. Victoria it is a positive step b. S. A. Out of our Regional Office have been working with the i. P. Courts in the last six months they have been established. Doing training with the judges and various seminars on intellectual property issues. They have been going very positive reaction to that. Its been great to see the Chinese Government take that step and see they are taking it seriously. James when i talked to people from Chinese Companies it appears to me that they are eager to incorporate themselves into the global new orleans of business. The norms of business so they can sell to the global market. I got that sense when i talk to people from the in the long run i think youre right. This will be positive. It may be a bumpy ride in the interim. One in the back and one in the front. Raise your hand again, please. Remember to identify your sefment hi. Im from college international. An n. G. I. Had a that does access to medicine. I have a question about the phrma carve out. It seems that that would require deferential treatment for the enjoyment of pharmaceutical patent rights as compared to other fields of technology. But the u. S. And the pharmaceutical industry critique countries like india currently that treat patents differently and other areas of pharmaceutical patent law. Laws that prevent patents on drugs that dont show an improvement in safety or efficacy. My question is, if this carve out provision passes, will that make it more difficult for the u. S. To argue against those aspects of patent law in places like india that have deferential treatment . James i thought about having someone from phrma here. We dont have enough space on this stage. I apologize tore that. Michelle i think michelle i would be glad. Thanks so much for that question. I think your concerns are interesting and valid concerns. As you know, its a topic thats been discussed. It has not gone thrufmente no legislation has passed. I think this is a concern that a lot of people are focused on. James its one of the places where you see disparities in thep economy. Its not a phrma specific comment, its a comment between how the two countries administer things. Its been an issue of concern. We will one in the front and another in the back. Im with the american bar association. A senior counsel. I want to thank youall, jim in particular, for getting the patent gurus together here and getting them in one space. Victoria, we worked together in the economic report. I was with the government in 2011. We name not only china but russia and iran as persistent threats in this space. My question really is, russia also plays a big role as a violator. And im in private practice now. I think the enforcement issue is what we are concerned about for our clients. We are seeing a variety of activities that combines both patent trademark and cyberin which things are cyber in which things are going forward. We also had the indictments of the University Professors and the fact that universities are involved in cuttingedge work with the military and d. O. D. And we are seeing more and more penetration at the universities and information leaking out. Its for all three of you. What do you see as the role we can play in the private sector in increasing the capacity for enforcement given the fact that we are seeing extraordinary bleeding from our clients trademark n. I. P. Work . Victoria i would say in russia we have real concerns about the situation on the ground there. Enforcement of intellectual property. Never a strong suit for russia. It certainly is deteriorating, i think. And i dont think thats i just think that theres a lot of areas we are unhappy with positions the russian government has taken. One not related to intellectual property is data retext law. We are concerned about any country that would pass legislation so that data has to stay within their borders. Trying to create a russia only internet. Mandating a data center be located in a particular place. That is a real concern for software. And would be a real widespread would be a real blow to what we see from the data. It makes shooting impossible essentially on any sort of scale. So we are very concerned about some of the steps that russia has taken. I will say my impression of the interest, the other thing, some of the stuff that russia has taken for Data Retention laws, are coming to a very senior level of the russian government. So it is difficult candidly, sitting here to give advice on how to try to improve the situation in russia. We have found on the enforcement side at less senior levels, there is still an interest in trying to Work Together. I think its difficult in a system like russia to be able to make progress if the signal youre getting from the top is a different one. I dont think the enforcement of intellectual property is the main focus of putins government. I think thats a negative coral larry effect. Corollary effect. But its one of the effects. You look at the situation in china, we have real concerns here but it seems like theres progress here. This area looks like its going to be difficult to have constructive discussions, but in other areas, there are areas where governments or government and business can Work Together. At this moment in russia its hard to say that. It is difficult for me to give you advice on how to improve the system there. We have operations in russia. We are concerned about both personnel and the general state of our operation. Its something that we are we are keeping a very close eye on. But i think its difficult at the moment to see it any change there. The last thing ill say. One of the other things we are concerned about is other countries looking to russia. We have not seen that yet. But certainly it would be grave concern to it is we started to see other countries in the regionor region or elsewhere in the the Data Retention laws that russia put in place as a positive example. Michelle ill speak more to the patent copyright side of the equation. We share the concerns. In fact, we recently have now established an i. P. Attache in moscow. For those of you you who dont know we have an i. P. Attache program. That is is a u. S. P. T. O. Representative on the ground helping americans navigate the i. P. Landscape in a given contry. We have i. P. Attaches in a whole range of countries. Brazil new delhi, brussels. We have three or four three in beijing. So we have these resources on the ground. Because of the landscape is as challenging as you mentioned, we thought it important to offer that resource so American Companies know what they are stepping into. Its not the complete solution, but its a sharing of information and sharing how you navigate that environment given what it is. And also importantly its the opportunity to work with policymakers and lawmakers and Law Enforcement officials on the ground to try to do what we can to improve the situation. Its a difficult situation. Im not pretending its not. But at least if we are there on the ground we have the ability, some ability to get better information about the environment, conditions under which our American Companies are operating to try to make a positive change in the law. But also so that we in washington know them. So i would say for those of you who represent companies who are facing these issues definitely let us know when the government experiences you are facing. To the extent you can be more specific we can raise these issues and these concerns in conversations with specific examples. Which makes a big difference. Otherwise you are stating a generalization. Trade secret is not being respect. Who and under what circumstances . Please do that. We do gather that information in our communication and discussions with our peers and counterpart offices. Well have those conversations and raise those issues. Michelle two things. Victoria as i said at certain levels the russian government there are still areas to copt. The minister of interior, we are seeing cooperation. Thats great. I would encourage your clients where they still have those pockets of cooperation to try to work with the russian government. And then to add on to what michelle said about concerns of the u. S. Government. There is an agreement between ustr and russia that has pretty concrete obligations that the russian government is committed to work on and bringing concerns to the ustr as michelle said are specific as possible. Could be one potential avenue. Im sure there is a very specific agreement and a couple that were very specific concrete concerns that may be a possible avenue. James theres a lot of fonings jokes with russian trademark violations that in the interest of time ill skip them. One of the things i know michael has wrestled with this, how do you measure success . A lot use proxy measures. Particularly for inin vation. Number of ph. D. S startups, patents . You can use time. Time is a proxy. How long does it take . How do you measure success . What is it you each look at when you try and say this is wrk working not only as patent system but something that contributes to the American Economy . Michael thats something that the higher ed community has been looking at how do you measure output . Theres lots of these numbers you can put on patents and startups. The a. A. U. , association of american universities, and association of public land grant universities set up task forces with president s last fall to walkthrough a little bit of that discussion but really think more about why we do what we do. Why are we in this business . Why are we in this innovation business . If you look at the results that each came up with in a parallel track, they are saying the same thing. Its about doing this activity, this tech transfer, this discovery commercialization on the basis of the public good. Thats how we ought to value it. You can track a lot of these different variables. It doesnt tell you the right story. First time i have ever been to the bioindustry. An amazing trade showed. They have hundred it is not thousands of companies talking about the work they are doing to solve Health Care Issues or agricultural issues. Amawsing amazing place. There were some Amazing Stories told about this sort of thing about people. The people stories. About a little girl who had a rare form of cancer. They had run out of ideas. And these this doctor came up and said, out of the box solution, and she walked on to that set four years later cured of that cancer. And there wasnt a dry identify. Those are the eye in the place. Those are the kind of stories you you can see. Anecdotal, but there are a lot of stories out there where peoples lives have been changed by the work being done by researchers both on campuses in companies and labs, National Labs around country. It is an issue thats hard to quantify. If you look on balance, what has been the effect on the economy and on the community as a whole . Are we bert off economically . Do we have better quality of health care . Do we have are we training the next generation of scientists which i would say we certainly are. The biggest tech transfer at universities is not this movement of ideas at the marketplace. Its setting up millions of educated students into the economy to do great things. Whatever their job might be. Whether its Research Related or not. Thats really an important measure, too. You look at these things. Its hard to agree on one certain set of criteria you are going to use, the overall benefit of this enterprise ought to be is the country in a better place on these measures in this way than it was five years ago, 10 years ago, whatever. Victoria i think its important to have metrics like number patents. I dont think it should be the measure of success but its important to have those for comparison. Im going to answer the question from the Government Point of view. I think government are good at many, many things. Governments are really important. Governments are not particularly good at innovating. Private citizens are tremendously good at innovating. So i think from a Government Point of view, the measure of success should be whether the government can credibly say that it has stepped back and removed as much friction from the system as possible to let inventors innovate. So whether that is making sure there is an immigration system, that makes it as easy as possible to get skill into this country, whether that is making sure there is an Education System that ensures we have our own pipeline of young innovators and Software Engineers and developers and bioengineers coming up through the system, whether that is making sure that we have a litigation system that is not throwing unnecessary fans into the system and diverting money. To me that would be the measure of success of the government. Looking atal of the denver factors of enknow veags and seeing has the government done everything it k it cant do everything. About everything it can to teak as much frickshn ott of the system as possible so that individuals and companies and universities can innovate as much as they possibly can. Michelle i agree. James do you have a white board in your office . Michelle we clearly track all those things. I thought we were talking more global. Joip we are. You have nothing to add. Michelle we have lots of things we track. We track our time, tendency, we track the number of cases in our appeal board that are adjudicated within the statutory time frame. Which has been 100 . The outcomes of these cases once they go up on appeal. For the most part they have been affirmed. We track a loft things. On the issue how do we measure the effect of government and government policy on innovation, victoria and michael hit it just right. Victoria you track the number of cases in particular subject areas . Michelle everything. Victoria i would be curious whether or not do you ever see biotech for example, do you see a dip for some reason, do you track trends and try to diagnose why upswings or down swings are happening . Michelle we see trends. A lot are macroeconomic driven. Factors find our filing fee and backlog factors in the economy. What we are doing now is we are trying to make our data if you think about it the u. S. P. T. O. Has valuable information which is a very early telltale sign about where investments are made, where companies are actively engaged. We are looking forward through our Big Data Initiative to make available publicly available information about patent filings filings. So that people businesses, can take that and make informed Business Decisions. How crowded is that landscape . Where is the activity occurring in this area . What region is this located, to unleash that information and make it available has tremendous Economic Impact and sort of societal planning benefits for our country. James interesting. Michael i commend the p. T. O. For the work that began at the campus and continued. I remember dave telling us stories about once a week he he would sit down in his office and have them bring to him the 100 oldest Patent Applications. They would dispose of them that day. As a way to say look these people have been hung up, three four however long its been. Its unfair to people to hold up their innovation because of our bureaucracy or whats going on. I think thats why we are all in favor of you having more resources so you can deal with that and continue to get the process of getting these applications looked at, add adjudicated and out the door. Is james i love leading edge indicators. If youre putting more in the market thats great. Question in the back. Two questions. G. E. We have two sort of visions of patent reform. Senate version and house version. I just would be interested in hearing from you which of those do you believe is tuned to, as you put it nicely victoria, taking the most amount of transaction cost out of thecies tefment i think you put it really well in talking about that little girl coming up on stage making sure we are going to be as innovative as possible. Do you favor the house or Senate Version . Why would that be . Michael the Higher Community has been working very closely with the senate. We very much appreciate the tenor which we have negotiation was them on a number of issues. The draft that was voted out of committee here several weeks ago has improvements on two of the major points we are concerned about. One is the fee shifting language and also the joinder piece which allows the joinders attempt to reach back to people who are other investors. The way the senate bill is written is a bert way to sort of shield off people who shouldnt be held libal in that situation. The house bill we pretty much have indicated is not to our liking on a number of reasons. Those are you two areas in particular that we have highlighted in the past. All our statements have been fairly public about that. This process ever growing. We were tacking beforehand i think the Senate Discussions are continuing. I dont think i get the sense there is not the floor time to take up that bill before the fall. Fls further discussion opportunities there. I think the house is looking to act much sooner on their bill. Victoria i would say what you might expect from a former negotiator. Both bills have good things and both have concerns where we would leak to see thention change or made better. More specific on the senate side i think we have concerns over the review and the house has a provision on venue we like and the senate bill doesnt have. We would like to see that provision, the Forum Shopping issue. The senate bill moved to committee, it made pretty clear they understood there was going to be more work on that bill and they continue to be and our experience open about having those discussions. Well continue to work with the senate on the bill. On the house side, i think we have some concerns on the house side. One specifically goes to pleadings and trying to meak sure that there is language in there to try to avoid the kind of gaming that can happen at the beginning of litigation. Mothers letters are being sent out that dont assert what the claims are. The thought made clear what or how the patent is being infringed. We think that could be improved in the house bill and well continue to work with the House Judiciary Committee on the concern as well. It is good from our perspective to see things are continuing to move and congress is continuing to focus on trying to eliminate some of these concerns. Michelle just to add. We are working very closely with stakeholders and congressional members on these issues. And there are strengths, certainly more activity on the review side of the proposed amendments on the senate bill. The venue provision in the house in the house bill, not in the senate. There is a whole range in the middle that has many common issues. Fee shifting, heightened pleadings, discoverry, customer stay. There are minor variations between the bills between the house and senate. So i hope that and i am optimistic that people will Work Together. Will get the best parts of each respective bill so we can get a consensus bill on the president s depesk this year desk this year. Still work to be done but a lot of thought has gone into many of the provisions. Some more so than others. Its definitely heading in the right direction. James you dont want to change these things. Taking live in just a moment here on cspan live to the floor of the u. S. House of representatives. You can watch the rest of the program we just left online. Thats cspan. Org. The house today working on a number of bills under suspension of the rules including some interior Department Spending some time this week. Also work on education policy and no child left behind and the measure to allow states to set their own accountability standards in education. On the other side of the senate, they are in 2 30 eastern working on their own no child left behind measure giving states more authority in how they weight standardized test scores. Senators will also be confirming vote to confirm a federal Circuit Court judge. You can watch the senate live on cspan2 and house here on cspan. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. The clerk the speakers room washington, d. C. , july 7, 2015. I hereby appoint the honorable Ralph Lee Abraham to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. Signed, john a. Boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. The speaker pro tempore the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. Chaplain conroy let us pray. Loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. As the members of this assembly return from days away celebrating our nations birth, grant them safe journey. May they return ready to assume the difficult work which must be done. We pray for the needs of the nation, the world and all of creation. Blet those who seek to honor you bless those who seek to honor you and serve each other and all americans in this house through their public service. May the words and deeds of this place reflect an earnest desire for justice and may men and women in government build on the tradition of equity and truth that represents the noblist heritage of our people. May your blessing, o god, be with us this day and every day to come and may all we do be done for your greater honor and glory, amen. The speaker pro tempore the chair has examined the journal of the last days proceedings and anonses to the who is his approval thereof. Prsoont to class 1 of rool 1 shall the joornl stands approved. Joornl stands approved. The pledge of allegiance will be led bethe gentleman from memi, mr. Kildee. Mr. Kildee please join us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The speaker pro tempore the chair will entertain requests for oneminute he speeches. Oneminute speeches. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. Revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. Mr. Poe mr. Speaker, on july 17, 2011, the United States womens soccer team lost to japan in the world cup title match. It was a crushing defeat, one that motivated the Womens National team. The world cup is every four years and the rematch this sunday was one for the history books. Scoring the most goals in any World Cup Final game, the United States Womens National team earned their third world cup championship. That is unprecedented. Just 16 minutes into the game, the u. S. Center mid fielder scored her third goal of the game. It was the hat trick seen around the world. The roar of the announcers echoed in living rooms across america. 25 Million People cheered on the u. S. A. And a near American Hero carli lloyd became a household name. The United States defeated japan 52 as the red, white and blue proudly waved over the field in vancouver canada. Congratulations to the 2015 Womens National team and coach jill ellis. The team motto she believes made believers of the whole world. Thats just the way it is. Speaker i ask unanimous consent to put the names of all the players, the hometown, and their jersey numbers into the record. The speaker pro tempore without objection. For what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition . Mr. Kildee i seek nuke to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Kildee thank you mr. Speaker. Well, at the end of this month the highway and Transit Trust Fund will expire. Which would be devastating to our countrys competitiveness and threaten 660000 american jobs and thousands of projects to rebuild americas roads rails, and bridges. We cant let this happen. Not during the middle of the summer construction season for sure. Thats why congress, democrats and republicans really have to Work Together in a bipartisan fashion to pass a plan to invest in our nations infrastructure. Our roads rails and bridges. Right now as a percentage of g. D. P. China is spending 10 times what we are on infrastructure. They are investing in their future. Meanwhile, here at home we cant even act to extend the Highway Trust Fund. Let alone adopt a 21st century plan that invests in our future and invests in america and rebuilds this nation in a way that puts people to work and makes us more competitive. How are we supposed to compete with china if we cant even rebuild our own roads and bridges . We need to act together, mr. Speaker. The time is long past. Lets act today. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition . Mr. Wilson unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Wilson mr. Speaker, im grateful to recognize the flying tigers, a Courageous Group of volunteer pilots of world war ii who carried out strategy air support missions to protect the citizens of the republic of china. This elite group became the 14th air force included my father. Through the leadership of the general they achieved impressive victories, destroying 296 enemy aircrafts, stopping the invadors, and saving millions of chinese lives. American always appreciates to the republic of China Military who rescued most of the crews after 15 u. S. Planes crashed into china following the doolittle raid in 1942. This raid was formed in my hometown of springdale, a Columbia Army air base in South Carolina. I have visited at the president ial compound in beijing on a delegation where upon hearing of my fathers flying Tiger Service he interrupted the meeting to announce his view that because of the flying tigers, quote, the American Military is revered in china, end of quote. In conclusion, god bless our troops. May the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to enter the following words into the acrosstheboard congressional record. No union is more profound than marriage because it embodies the highest ideas of loves, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a Marital Union two people become something greater than once they were. Mr. Marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect him, respect it so deeply they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Mr. Takano their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the court of appeals for the sixth circuit is reversed. It is so ordered he, these words mr. Speaker, were written by Supreme Court justice an none think kennedy in ruling and they embody when the Lgbt Community has pursued for decades. Equality under the law. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition . The gentleman from minnesota is recognized. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to congratulate my friend and minnesotas own, phil housley, on his recent induction into the hockey hall of fame. Hes a true minnesotan, born and raised in the state of hockey, he graduated from south st. Paul high school in 1982. Phil was drafted by the buffalo sabers right out of high school and spent 21 years playing in the National Hockey league for eight different teams. Phil is a seventime all star and the highest scoring u. S. Born defenseman in nhl history. He also helped team u. S. A. Win a silver medal in the 2002 he olympics. He played his last professional game in 2003, but his hockey career did not end there. Hes currently working as the assistant coach for the nashville predtomplets he was born to compete at the highest level and hes being recognized with the highest honor his sport can grant. Mr. Emmer induction into the hockey name. Congratulations phil, you deserve t i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition . The gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. Mr. Kennedy thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yesterday i spent part of my day with a number of families from tawton, massachusetts. A city in my district that has been tragically impacted the families that were there, one young man stood out. Corey was an honor student from tawton high school, starting pitcher for the Baseball Team when a pitching injury sidelined him and forced him into surgery. After 12 bouts in rehab, he ended up overdosing on heroin. Today continues to suffer brain damage from that overdose. Mr. Speaker, these stories have become far too common. Not just across the commonwealth of massachusetts, but around our contry. Which is why i rise today to recognize the tremendous work of my colleague, congressman whitfield, and his work in introducing with me the national all schedules prescription electronic reporting act, and as well our colleague, congresswoman susan brooks, who has interduesed the heroin and prescription open yoid abuse, prevention education, and enforcement act. Mr. Speaker there are there is no Silver Bullet for these challenges, but together this body piece by piece, can help craft a legislation that we need to get this epidemic under wrap. Thank you mr. Speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Smith mr. Speaker, dangerous policies have deadly consequences. We were reminded of this last week when a young woman in San Francisco was tragically murdered by an illegal immigrant who should have been deported long ago. Unknown to many americans, cities across the nation like San Francisco have declared that they will be a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. They refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in violation of federal law. And victims like kate pay the ultimate price. This administration regrettably has condoned sanctuary cities and has done nothing to make them abide by federal immigration laws. In this case, the killer had been ordered deported five times and charged with seven previously felonies, but had been redecembered instead. If this administration and local officials in sanctuary cities care about the safety of the American People, they should work to secure our borders and uphold not undermine our immigration laws. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition . The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. Ms. Granger mr. Speaker as an original cosponsor of the United States Jordan Defense cooperation act of 2015, i rise in strong support of this bill. Jordan is a vital and loyal partner in the middle east. Jordan continues to play a Critical Role advancing peace and stability in the region and in the Ongoing Campaign to defeat isil. Jordan is a leader in the fight against islamic extremism. Conducting air strikes training partner nations, and rebel forces, and supplying allies. Due to the unrest in the region the hosting 700,000 Syrian Refugees, jordans economy is facing ongoing economic and security needs. As chair woman of the state foreign operations Appropriations Committee, i thought to ensure that the jordanians have the it items they need. The United States continues to provide assistance jordan needs to ensure its success including strength yening oiler borders with iraq and sir strengthening their borders with iraq and syria. That is a key component of u. S. Efforts to keep terrorism in check and protect the American People. This should not be delayed because of unnecessary bureaucracy. Such a valued partner deserves and needs our assistance immediately. This resolution allows jordan to be treated as if it were a member of the natoplus group of countries which makes they will eligible to receive special treatment for the transfer of u. S. Defense articles and services. The speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition . Mr. Connolly i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Connolly thank you, mr. Speaker. This congress must, must come up with a longterm Infrastructure Investment plan and it must do it this month, before the Highway Trust Fund expires. No great country can stay great without investing in its infrastructure. And owl great leaders of both parties throughout our history have understood there is a return on that investment. George washington understood that on the need for internal improvements, so did henryically Abraham Lincoln in the middle of the civil war. He invested and this congress invested in the transcontinental railroad. They had the vision to understand we were making decisions for future generations. If we dont, the chinese will. Our combeptors will. They are making our competitors will. The American People deserve better from this congress. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bills were signed by the speaker pro tempore thornberry. The clerk h. R. 893, to require the secretary of the treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of boys town and for other purposes. H. R. 1295, to extend the african growth and opportunity act, the generalized system of preferences, the preferential duty treatment for haiti and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. Recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. For what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition . Ms. Roslehtinen mr. Speaker i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h. R. 907 as amended. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk h. R. 907, a bill to improve defense cooperation between the United States and the hashemite kingdom of jordan. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from florida, ms. Roslehtinen, and the gentleman from virginia mr. Connolly, will each control 20 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida. Ms. Roslehtinen mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit statements or extraneous material on this measure. The speaker pro tempore without objection, so ordered. Ms. Roslehtinen i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she wishes to use. Ms. Roslehtinen thank you mr. Speaker. H. R. 907 before us is a simple straightforward, commonsense bill that not only helps secure u. S. National security interests but also the security interests of one of our closest allies in the middle east, the hashemite kingdom of jordan. This bill will give jordan the ability to buy defense articles, Defense Services and major defense equipment under the arms export control act as long as any sale is fully consistent with the United States security and Foreign Policy interests and objectives. The bill also supports the hashemite kingdom of jordan in its response to the syrian refugee crisis, to help alleviate the domestic burden to provide basic needs for the assimilated Syrian Refugees and the bill also calls for greater cooperation with jordan to fight the terrorist threat from the Islamic State of iraq and the levant, isil or any other terrorist organization. Late last year, mr. Speaker, i introduced this bill after leading a congressional delegation to jordan. We traveled to jordan to see how the people of jordan were dealing with the strains put on them from the humanitarian crisis developing in syria. The king of jordan had taken in somewhere in the neighborhood of one million refugees. Despite the toll this has taken on his countrys infrastructure and resources. But despite the added pressures that the kingdom was facing from the refugee crisis, the king told us one of the most pressing issues that he was facing was the encroachment of isil toward its borders. He stressed that he was willing to help lead the fight against isil, but he just did not have the sufficient military equipment with which to do so. I understand how important the stability and security of jordan is and not just for the region but also for another strong ally of our, the democratic jewish state of israel. So it made sense that in order to maintain the fragile stability in some of the countries in the region we would need to help bolster the capabilities of our friends who are committed to defeating this radical extremist threat. We marked up the bill in november of last year but we simply ran out of time at the end of the congress. So i reintroduced the bill again this year alongside mr. Ted deutch of florida, the Ranking Member of the middle east and north africa subcommittee kay greaninger, the chairman of the state foreign ops appropriations subcommittee, and nita lowey, the Ranking Member of the same subcommittee, state foreign ops appropriations subcommittee. And i thank chairman royce and Ranking Member engel because it is through their leadership that we were able to pass the bill out of our Foreign Affairs committee unanimously this past april. Mr. Speaker, in jordan the u. S. Could not ask for a more committed partner in the fight against isil. King abdullah is committed to that fight. He understands the urgency. He understands the need to address isil head on and he has shown that he is willing to take the necessary measures to defeat these extremists, but he needs more resources to fight isil and he needs these resources to protect the security of his people. Congress must do everything that we can to help our friends defend themselves and defeat this scourge of terror. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and with that mr. Speaker i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady reserves her time. The gentleman from virginia. Mr. Connolly thank you mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. Mr. Congressionally i thank the speaker and i thank my friend, ms. Ileana roslehtinen of florida. I rise to support h. R. 907, the u. S. Jordan defense cooperation act of 2015. As the middle east has become more unstable and as isis continues to terrorize the people of syria, iraq and its neighbors, jordan remains resolute. While isis threatens its borders and terrorizes its people, jordan has fought back. When Jordanian Air force pie lat captain was brutally murdered burned alive in a cage mr. Speaker, jordan did not shrink. It did not retreat. Instead, it took an even more active role in air strikes against the isis threat. The Syrian Civil War and instability created by isis has placed tremendous pressure on the country of jordan. Jordans absorbed 620,000 Syrian Refugees during this crisis. Its health care and educational systems under severe strain as a result. The United States has provided over 460 million in response on top of the over 1 billion in bilateral foreign assistance jordan received last year. In february the u. S. And jordanian government signed a memorandum of understanding outlining the intentions to provide jordan with 1 billion per year for the next three years. This agreement and this legislation seeks to ensure that jordan is able to defend itself in the wake of these severe threats. For the next three years, the bill would treat jordan as a nato member and how weapon sales, maintenance, manufacturing, Licensing Agreements and Technical Assistance are considered and notified to this congress. The bill also authorizes an m. O. U. With jordan to increase economic and military assistance as well as joint military operations. The u. S. Jordanian relationship is mutually beneficial. Now more than ever, jordan needs u. S. Support and we need strong jordanian resolve in the face of the threat against isis. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and mr. Speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. The gentlelady from florida. Ms. Roslehtinen mr. Speaker, i would like to we have no further speakers, so ill reserve our time in order to close. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia. Mr. Connolly i thank my friend. Let me close by noting that this bill is crucial because it shows that if given proper assistance the region can stand up for itself. This measure does not put u. S. Boots on the ground. U. S. Support and leadership is appreciated of course, but jordan is seeking to defend itself with our help. Weve had many solemn conversations in this body and on this floor about issues of war and peace. This bill demonstrates u. S. Leadership in preparing others to fight their own battles and that is an important strategy as we move forward. This legislation is consistent with that principle. I urge my colleagues to give it their full support, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. The gentlelady from florida. Ms. Roslehtinen thank you, mr. Speaker. I will consume as much time as use as much time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Roslehtinen thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from virginia for his for his comments, and i know that it comes from great experience and i believe that he also served as a staff member on the Foreign Relations committee in the senate, and that has definitely helped him to form his opinion and expertise. Mr. Connolly if my friend for yield . Ms. Roslehtinen ill yield. Mr. Connolly im glad that my friend had such information and thank her. Ms. Roslehtinen thank you, mr. Connolly. I continue my time. In bill could not come at a more important time mr. Speaker. In march, i was honored to join Speaker Boehner on a congressional trip to jordan in order to discuss the growing threat to that region. I had previously gone there on my own codel, and now going back in march i would see how much isil has created an even greater threat to the hashemite kingdom of jordan and the refugee crisis continued to build up for the kingdom of jordan. And we expressed our appreciation to his majesty for his steadfast commitment to support his efforts to fight this isil threat and help him with the burden of the refugees. And the king reiterated again his commitment to defeating isil and the need for more assistance from the International Community and we told him that we would do what we could do ensure that he had all of the tools needed to win this fight against isil. And since the Coalition Campaign against isil began, mr. Speaker, the terror group has made great gains in iraq, in syria. It has expanded its influence across the globe to places like libya, tunisia, to sinai europe and even here in the United States. So Congress Needs to do our part. We need to step up. We need to show our allies that we are committed to help them. They are taking the fight to isil. Lets help them with these tools. We need to show isil and all of our enemies that we will stand by our allies, we will stand by our friends and help them do what is necessary, all that is necessary to defeat terror and to defeat radical extremism. So i urge my colleagues to support this vitally important bill, support our key ally, the hashemite kingdom of jordan and id like to thank mr. Royce and mr. Engel, again, for their leadership as long as as well as mr. Deutch, ms. Granger and mrs. Lowey. With that mr. Speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from florida yields back her time. The question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h. R. 907, as amended. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, 2 3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . Madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate Amendment to h. R. 91 the veterans i. D. Card act. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk h. R. 91, an act to amend title 38, United States code, to direct the secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue, upon request, veteran Identification Cards to certain veterans. Senate amendment. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. Abraham, and the gentleman from california, mr. Takano, each will control 20 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. Abe abe mr. Abraham madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on the Senate Amendment to h. R. 91. The speaker pro tempore without objection, so ordered. Mr. Abraham madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Abraham thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, many businesses show their gratitude to our Nations Service members and veterans by offering special discounts on goods and services to those who have served our nation in uniform. Unless a Service Member is a qualified military d. O. D. The military does not issued an i. D. Card as prove of service. That means many of the veterans cannot easily provide evidence of their service. This bill as amended would change that by directing the secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a veterans i. D. Card that would display the veterans name and photograph to any veteran who requests such a card as long as a veteran is not entitlemented to military nor enrolled in the v. A. Health care system. This card would give those who served in the armed forces convenient way to prove that they are veterans for the purpose of receiving the promotions and discounts offered by many businesses around the country. The bill as amened would also require the secretary to determine a fee that would be charged to cover all costs of producing the card and managing the program. The bill also specifies that the card does not entitle the holder to any v. A. Benefits. H. R. 91 passed the house by a vote of 420 on pay it on may 18. The Senate Passed it by unanimous consent with an amendment that would authorize v. A. To provide this card to any person who meets the statutory definition of a veteran. Under current law, a veteran is defined as a person who serve in the active military, naval, or air service and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable. I thank my colleague, mr. Buchanan, for his efforts on this commonsense legislation. With that i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. At that mr. Takano thank you, madam speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Takano h. R. 91 passed the house 4020 as my good friend mentioned in may. It was amended by the senate and passed two weeks ago. Today we are taking up the Senate Amendment to h. R. 91. This measure will assist veterans in proving that they are indeed veterans. In most instances a veteran must be enrolled with the v. A. To receive a v. A. I. D. Card or utilize their dd214 to prove their military service, which may contained personal health information. Veterans who retire from the Armed Services are issued a department of defense i. D. Card that serves this purpose. However, the majority of Service Members do not retire in service, leaving millions of veterans sometimes challenge to prove provide proof of their honorable military service. Extension of option of a veterans i. D. Is a simple way to resolve this issue and honor americas veterans. Madam speaker i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california reserves. The gentleman from louisiana is recognized. Mr. Abraham i now recognize my good colleague, mr. Buchanan from florida, for two minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Buchanan id like to thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for our nations veterans. My legislation will allow all veterans to receive official i. D. Cards through the v. A. No longer will veterans be forced to carry around documents that contain Sensitive Information that puts them at needless risk of identity theft. It does all this at no cost to the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a prime example of what can be accomplished when we put partisanship aside and the needs of our country first. Thank you. And god bless our men and women in uniform. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Takano madam speaker i join veterans of america, the association of u. S. Navy american veterans, and others in wholehearted support of the Senate Amendment to h. R. 91, the veterans identification card act of 2015. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from louisiana is recognized. Mr. Abraham i encourage all members to support the Senate Amendment to h. R. 91. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is, will the house suspend the rules and concur in the Senate Amendments to h. R. 91. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair 2 3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative the rules are suspended the bill mr. Abraham i request the yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. The yeas and nays are requested. All those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. A sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition . Madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h. R. 1531, the Land Management work force flexibility act. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk Union Calendar number 134, h. R. 12531. A bill to amend title 5 United States code to provide a pathway for temporary seasonal employees in federal Land Management agencies to compete for vacant permanent positions under internal merit promotion procedures, and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia mr. Carter and the gentleman from virginia mr. Connolly, each will control 20 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Carter thank you, madam speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Carter i rise today in support of h. R. 1531, introduced by our colleague, mr. Connolly of virginia. The Land Management work force flexibility act allows certain temporary workers to compete for fulltime positions when vacancies arise. Many of the federal governments firefighters work on a temporary basis and gain valuable experience as they return year after year to battle western wildfires. Current law prevents these experienced employees for competing for fulltime jobs under internal merit promotion procedures. This commonsense bill will allow federal land agencies to fully consider the applications of experienced workers when they identify the need for a fulltime employee. Covered agencies include the Forest Service the bureau of Land Management, the National Park service, u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service the bureau of indian affairs, and the bureau of reamation. The bill does not change the total number of federal Jobs Available or the salaries paid to federal employees. Rather, it expands the pool of individus eligible for federal Land Management positions. Of course the bill does impose a few conditions to be eligible to compete for a fulltime position, including length of servic and adherence to performance standards. I urge support for this bipaisan legislation and reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Connolly i thank the speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Connell mr. Connolly i thank my friend from georgia, mr. Carter, for being here on the floor. I rise in strong support of this la management work force exibility act. I recognize our colleagues congressman don young of rob bishop of utah two of the chambers advocates to the men and women of the civil service, particularly the nations courageous temporary season wild fire firefighters. It was an honor to join my esteemed colleagues who have each served as chaian of the House Natural Resources Committee to develop an introduce this Good Government legislation. The spirit of bipartisanship that went in to creating it is reflected in e equal number of democratic and republican cosponsors. Further, i was pleased tt the entire committee on oversight and government reformed joined us in unanimously supporting this much needed reform to remove arbitrary barriers to prevent talented longterm temporary seasonal employees from just competing for vacant permanent positions as my friend from georgia described. As the committee noted favorably in reporting the bill, our legislation will improve government effectiveness by enhancing the quality of the pool of applicants for federal positions. Our commonsense legislation provides long serving, temporary seasonal firefighters and other seasonal employees with the same Career Advancement opportunities available to all other federal employees. Specifically, the Land Management work force flexibility act authorizes qualifying Land Management Agency Employees serving under time limited appointments to compete for vacant permanent positions under internal merit promotion procedures. Just as any permanent federal employee is eligible to do. Our bill is deficit neutral, as my friend from georgia indicated, because it only strengthens the pool of individuals eligible to compete vacant federal permanent positions. It does not create new positions. As a Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted, c. B. O. Estimates that implementing legislation would have no significant effect on the federal budget. Nanthing the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues because our bipartisan bill would not change the total number of federal Jobs Available. As many of my colleagues understand, particularly those members who represent western constituencies in america, many federal Land Management employees including wild land firefighters are often hired under temporary appointments that amount to less than six months or 1,040. These individuals so often called temporary appointments repeatedly are extended on an annual basis. As congressman stephen lynch, my friend from mass marks former chairman of the federal work force subcommittee observed at a 2010 hearing, oftentimes seasonal temporary employees have worked in the same capacity year after year after year, decade after decade. But despite those years of service and putting themselves often in harms way, Career Advancement opportunities are severely limited. Its difficult to overstate the adverse empact, the unfair polsiff precluding their ability to compete for the same jobs as fulltime federal employees has on americans serving under term limited appointments. Since many agencies utilize merit promotion to competitively fill nonentry level jobs. Indeed, bipartisan concerns have been raised over status quo no matter how long individual may serve under term limited appointment, even one originally obtained under open competitive examination, he or she never can acquire the status that would enable him or her to compete for vacant permanent positions. For example, a former chairman of the House Civil Service subcommittee addressed the illogical inequity of this position at a 1993 hearing stating, furthermore, there needs to be better access for all temporary employees, not just term employees, to apply for permanent positions within the federal government. Its simply unfair after years of employment the temporary employee applying for permanent position jobs is no better off than someone off the street applying for a job. Agencies could save large sums of money on education and training by hiring more temporary employees for permanent positions. At the same hearing former congressman dan burton quote, one of the best things we can do for temporary employees sin crease their opportunities to compete for permanent positions. Current barriers to competition placed on our nations temporary seasonal employees demoralizes the dedicated and courageous core of temporary Civil Servants that serve in Land Management agencies and contributes to increased nutrition and ultimately to a higher training cost and less experienced and capable work force. As the devastating 2014 California Wildfires demonstrated, our country cannot afford to degrade its wildland firefighting and Emergency Response capabilities. They put themselves in harms way. Our bipartisan bill is consistent with the office of Personnel Management support for the concept. In closing, i strongly urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan Land Management work force flexibility act and i yield back my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time virginia yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from georgia is recognized. Mr. Carter i would like to make mr. Connolly aware i have no further speakers and am prepared to close. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Carter i urge adoption of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h. R. 1531. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair 2 3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. D the speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Calvert mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on further consideration of h. R. 2822 and that i may include tabular material on the same. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Pursuant to House Resolution 333 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h. R. 2822. Will the gentlewoman from florida, ms. Roslehtinen kindly take the chair . The chair the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h. R. 2822 which the clerk will report by title. The clerk a bill making appropriations for the department of the interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. The chair when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, june 25, 2015, an amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. Benishek, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 76, line 4. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Calvert i would encourage mebts who have amendments on members who have amendments to come to the floor immediately. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Poe madam speaker, amendment at the desk. The chair we have yet to read to that section. The clerk will read. The clerk page 76, line 5 Capital Improvements and maintenance including transfer of funds, 357, 363,000. Land acquisition 20 million. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Poe madam speaker i still have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Poe of texas. Page 77, line 14, after the dollar amount insert reduced by 1 million, increase by 1 million. Chilly pursuant to the rule the gentleman from texas the chair pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. Mr. Poe i thank the chair. Madam speaker, this amendment takes a Million Dollars out of the Forest Service Land Acquisition account and then for technical reasons inserts it back into the same account with the intent to identify unused land for potential sale. The United States federal government currently owns around 640 million acres of land. Thats just a number. But thats 27 of the land mass in the United States owned by uncle sam. Thats the same size as all of western europe, if you could imagine that, that being 27 of the United States land mass. The Forest Service alone owns over 230 million acres of this federal land, and this amendment is very simple. All it does is have the federal government examine the land that it has in its possession for the potential sale back to americans so that americans can own america. Were not talking about National Forests. Were not talking about the grand canyon. Were talking about unused land thats owned by the federal government have the federal government go through that land, 27 of the land mass in the country and decide whether some of that might actually be better to be in the possession and the property of americans so that if americans then own the land, that land in some state like utah can then be developed by americans and then those people can pay taxes on the land that would go to the state of utah for example. Right now the land is unused its not being able to be productive and so thats what this would do. Have the Forest Service study the possibility of selling some of that unused land back to the United States. And with that id reserve. I will yield to the gentleman. Mr. Calvert if the gentleman will yield. I would urge adoption of the gentlemans amendment. Mr. Poe and i reserve. The chair does any member wish to be heard on this amendment . The gentleman from texas. Mr. Poe and i yield back. Mr. Poe the gentleman from texas yields back. The question the chair the gentleman from texas yields back. The question is on adoption of the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is approved. The clerk will read. The clerk page 77, line 17, acquisition of lands for National Forests special acts. 950,000. Acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges for acquisition of lands such sums to be derived from funds deposited by state governments to remain available until expanded. Range Betterment Fund for necessary expenses 50 of all moneys received during the prior fiscal year to remain available until expended. Gifts, donations and bequests for forest and range Land Research 45,000 to remain available until expended. Management of National Forest lands for subcystans uses, 2,441,000 wildlife Fire Management including transfer of funds 2,373,078,000. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition . The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition . Mr. Polis i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Polis of colorado. Page 79, line 17, after the dollar amount insert increased by 1 million, decreased by 1 million. The chair the gentleman from colorado pursuant to the rule the gentleman from colorado mr. Calvert madam chair, i reserve a point of order. The chair a point of order is reserved. The gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Polis madam speaker we still see approximately 3,000 deaths, 17,000 injuries and 3 billion spent annually as a result of wildfires across the country. In many ways wildfires lack parody and are largely underfunded when it comes to mitigation prevention and suppression. Despite the fact that fires often occur in Rural Communities with smaller populations, wildfires demand intensive resources, equipment and infrastructure. The volunteer Fire Assistance Grant Program is critical to moving the needle on wildFire Management and supporting the men and women who serve in our volunteer Fire Agencies including in my district in colorado. Though this Grant Program is small and or yented towards lesser trafficked communities, its impact is incredible. The volunteer Fire Assistance Program provides matching funds to volunteer Fire Departments, protecting communities with 10,000 or fewer residents to purchase equipment and training for use in wild land Fire Suppression. Volunteer Fire Departments provide nearly 80 of initial attack on wildfires across the United States, but frequently these volunteer Fire Departments lack Financial Resources and 1 million makes an enormous difference for our volunteer Fire Departments across our country. Unfortunately in recent years, federal funding for volunteer Fire Departments to prepare for wild land Fire Suppression has dwindled. They have seen funding reduced from 16 in f. Y. 2010 to 15. 6 million in f. Y. 2011 and approximately 13 million in f. Y. 2012 to 2015. Additionally, the rural firefighter assistant program provided matching grants to Fire Departments that agreed to assist in responding to wild land fires on federal lands hasnt been funded since 2010. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from colorado reserves. Mr. Calvert i withdraw my point of order. The chair the point of order is withdrawn. Does any member seek time in opposition . The gentleman from colorado is recognized. Mr. Polis federal support is critical to ensure volunteer Fire Departments are able to safely and effectively respond to wild land fires. The bipartisan amendment i offer today, along with my colleagues representatives ruiz and peter king, would help ensure that we have stronger support for our volunteer Fire Departments across our state. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that has been supported by the Congressional Fire Service institute, the International Association of fire chiefs and National Volunteer fire council, and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from colorado yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The clerk will read. The clerk page 82, line 22, wildFire Suppression reserve fund including transfers of funds 315 million. Administrative provisions, Forest Service, including transfers of funds promingses shall be available for purchase of appropriations shall be available for purchase of passenger vehicles. Appropriations available to the Forest Service may be transferred for forest firefighting. Funds shall be available for assistance with forest and range Land Research. Funds shall be available for removal and adoption of excess wild horses from National Forest system lands. None of the funds shall be subject to transfer under department of agriculture organic act of 1944. None of the funds may be reprogrammed without the advanced approval of the committees. Not more than 82 million shall be transferred. Up to 5 million shall be available for priority projects. 4,000 is available for official reception and representation expenses. 3 million may be advanced to the National Forest foundation to aid Conservation Partnership projects. Up to 3 million may be advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to aid cost share conservation projects. Funds shall be available for Technical Assistance to Rural Communities. Funds shall be available to counties within the Columbia River gorge National Scenic area. Funds may be used to meet the shared requirement of the Older Americans act of 1965. Not to exceed 55 million shall be assessed for the purpose of performing fire and other facilities maintenance. Not to exceed 500,000 may be used to reimburse the office of the general counsel for travel expenses. Ineligible individual employed under title 5 of the Older Americans act of 1965 shall be considered to be a federal employee. Department of health and human services, Indian Health service, Indian Health services 4,321,539,000. Indian health facilities, 466,329,000. Administrative provisions, Indian Health service, appropriations shall be available for services as authorized by 5 United States code 3109. National institutes of health, National Institute of Environmental Health sciences 77,349,000. Agency for toxic substances and disease registry toxic substances and environmental Public Health, 74,691,000. Other related agencies, executive office of the president counsel on Environmental Quality and office of Environmental Quality 3 million. Chemical safety and hazard Investigation Board salaries and expenses 11 million. Office of navajo and hopi relocation salaries and expenses, including transfer of funds, 7 million. Institute of american independentian and alaska native culture, payment to the institute 9,460,000 to remain available until september 30 2017. Smithsonian institution salaries and expenses 680 million to remain available until september 30 2017. Facilities capital, 139,119,000. National gallery of art, salaries and expenses 119,500 to remain available until september 30, 2017. Repair, restoration and renovation of buildings, 19 million. John f. Kennedy Center Performance of the arts, 21,660,000. Capital repair and restoration, 11 mill 440,000. Woodrow Wilson International center for scholars salaries and expenses, 10,420,000 to remain available until september 30, 2017. National foundation on the arts and the humanities, National Endowment for the arts grants and add administration 146,021,000. National endowment for the humanities grants and administration 146021,000. Administrative provisions none of the funds may be used to print contract documents which do not include the text of 18 United States code 1913. Commission of fine arts, salaries and expenses, 2524,000. National capital arts and cultural affairs, 2 million. Advisory council on historic preservation, salaries and expenses, 6,808,000. National Capital Planning commission, salaries and expenses, 7,948,000. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 52,385,000 of which 865,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2018. Title 4 general provisions including transfers of funds, restriction on use of funds, section 401 no part of any appropriation shall be available for publication of literature that tends to promote or opposition to any legislative proposal. Section 402, obligation of appropriations, no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation unless expressly so provided herein. Section 403 disclosure of administrative expenses, the amount and bases of estimated overhead charges from programs shall be presented in annual budget justifications and subject to approval by the committees. Section 404, mining applications, limitation of funds, none of the funds shall be obligated for a patent for any mining or site claim. Section 405, contract support costs prior year limitation, sections 405 and 406 of the consolidated and further continuing appropriations act of 2015, shall continue in effect in fiscal year 2016. Contract support costs, fiscal year 2016, limitation, section 406, amounts under the headings, department of health and human services, Indian Health service are the only amounts available for contract support costs. Section 407 Forest Management plans, the secretary shall not be considered to be in violation of the forest and range land renubble planning resources act of 1974. Section 408, prohibition with the nationalmon youments. No funds may be expended to conduct preleasing within the boundries of a National Monument. Limitation on takings, no funds may be expended for the filing of declarations of taking without the approval of the committees. Section 410, timber sale requirements, no timber sale in alaskas region 10 shall be advertised at the indicated rate is deficit when appraised. Section 411, prohibition on nobid contracts, none of the funds may be used to enter into any federal contract unless such contract is in accordance with title 41, United States code. Unless federal law authorizes a contract without regard for those re for these requirements. Section 412, posting of reports any agency receiving funds shall post on the public website any report required by congress. National endowment for the arts grant guidelines, section 413, of the funds provided to the National Endowment for the arts the chairperson should only award a grant if such grant is awarded for a literature fellowship. Section 414 National Endowment for the arts program priorities, the chairperson of the National Endowment for the arts shall ensure that priority is given to providing services where projects that serve underserved populations. Section 415, status of balances of appropriations, the department shall provide committees quarrel reports on the status of balances. Section 416, report on use of Climate Change funds, the President Shall submit a comprehensive report to the committees. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Grijalva of arizona, strike section 416. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from arizona, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Grijalva the overwhelming Scientific Consensus is that Climate Change is real. Leaders of community of faith are now urging us to take this issue very seriously. No matter how fossil fuel industry whispers that we have nothing to worry about, no matter how much manufactured science they get up, Climate Change is real. We should have begun assessing Climate Change decades ago, but we did not. It would require a report on Climate Change expenditures, but the purpose of this is not to assess the impacts of Climate Change. The purpose is to root out climate funding in the budget so nextiers interior bill can prohibit that spending. The report requirement as written is not only pointless but counterproductive. The Obama Administration is open about responding to Climate Change. Most of the expenditures are clearly labeled and can be discovered by reading their budget requests. For the remainder, i would be happy to write the president asking him to list these programs and i suspect he would be pleased to answer. As written, this reporting requirement is a waste of time. We should be instead asking the administration to report back to us on the cost of Climate Change to our health, our environment, and our economy. Earlier this week the white house issued a report its efforts to reduce pollution and Climate Change opposed by House Republicans i might add, would provide billions of dollars in Health Benefits and save hundreds of thousands of lives sm the report also from the National Park Service Showed that 90 billion of National Park resources are at risk caused by Global Warming and the drought in california and the lingering cost of recovery from Superstorm Sandy. A full assessment of the cost of inaction would inform congress and the American People about what steps we must take immediately to ensure that Climate Change does not bring our country to its knees. Unfortunately, this bill does not ask for an assessment. The section my amendment would strike would fight off the meager funding we have in place to respond to this challenge. To support this section is to deny Climate Change. I would tell my colleagues, all the constituent services you provide all the money you can raise, the votes you cast and the laws you pass will amount to nothing if you are on the wrong side of history youre the wrong side of history on Climate Change. Climate deniers will join a long list who failed to respond to the most serious challenge of their time. And so are abled will be labeled as failures of all time. Therefore, i urge a yes vote on this amendment to strike the reporting language in the bill and i yield back. The chair the gentleman from arizona yields back. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert the provision shouldnt be controversial. The language has been included in our enacted bills on a bipartisan basis since 2010. The language simply requires that programs and activities dedicated to Climate Change are reported in a transparent way so that the American People know what we are spending tax dollars on. With so many Climate Change programs being initiated, its important to know what is being done across the government to avoid redundancy and there is a significant amount in these chimet change studies. Its in the bill so the committee can have the information it needs to provide critical oversight. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve. The chair the gentleman from arizona has yielded back his time. So the the gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Calvert i yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. The clerk will read. The clerk page 121, line 1, prohibition on use of funds, section 417 funds made available may be used to promulgate any regulation requiring the issuance of permits under title 5 of the Clean Air Act. Section 418 Greenhouse Gas reporting restrictions. None of the funds may be used to implement any provision and a rule if that provision requires reporting of the missions from manure management systems. Section 419, recreation fee, the federal lands recreation enhancement act is amended. Section 420, modification of authorities, the department of defense appropriations act of 2000 is amended. Section 421, funding prohibition none of the funds may be used to regulate the lead content of ammunition. Section 422, waters of the United States. None of the funds may be used to develop or enforce any change to the regulations of the federal Water Pollution control act. The chair for what purpose does gentlelady from michigan seek recognition . Madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 12 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. Lawrence of michigan. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlelady from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from michigan. Mrs. Lawrence i rise today to offer an amendment that would strike section 422 from the underlying bill. In doing so this amendment would allow the e. P. A. And the army to implement the waters of the United States rule. This rule will ensure protection for the nations Public Health and Aquatic Resources and will clarify the scope of the waters of the United States protected under this law. Unfortunately, republicans continue to undermine efforts to protect the great lakes. As well as other critical water bodies around the nation. We cannot afford to delay years of work by the e. P. A. And the army corps of engineers that would enhance the protection of our nations Aquatic Resources and Public Health. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. And i yield back and i reserve my time. The chair the gentlelady from michigan reserves. The gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition. It comes to no surprise that i rise in opposition to this amendment. In 2006, the Supreme Court determined that the e. P. A. And the corps of engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters under the clean water act. Im certain e. P. A. s final rule violates that. From day one, e. P. A. Claimed they were not expanding the waters under their jurisdiction but we now know those permits will be required and the final rule is worse than proposed. 27 states have now filed lawsuits challenging the legality of the e. P. A. s rule. The agency finds itself on shaky legal ground both on process and substance. The language in the bill protects the authority of the states by preventing the e. P. A. From implementing its regulation and expanding its jurisdiction. The language needs to stay in. I urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield time to my friend from idaho mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson everyone assumes that the waters not covered under the Clean Air Act that meaning of the navigable waters, thats the definition they came up somehow, that theyre unregulated waters. They are not unregulated waters. They are regulated by the states. When the courts said, navigable waters is kind of a loose term, so you ought to redefine it, the e. P. A. Said, ok. Well just regulate all the waters. And thats what they did with this and theyve gone way beyond whatever the clean water the intent of the clean water act was and il ill tell you most resource group, most Agriculture Group disagrees what the e. P. A. Has done on this new rule that theyre writing. The fact that theyve expanded their authority into areas far beyond what was intended in clean water act i think goes beyond the pale and what congress originally intended under the clean water act. So were not talking about leaving waters unregulated theyre just being regulated by the states and they need to start over in writing this rule and i thank the gentleman for writing. Mr. Calvert i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from california reserves. The gentlelady from michigan is recognized. Mrs. Lawrence yes madam chair. Can you tell me how much time i have . The chair the gentlelady from michigan has four minutes remaining. Mrs. Lawrence madam chair i would like to yield two minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from minnesota. The chair the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. Ms. Mccollum thank you to my colleague, mrs. Lawrence. The federal your diction of the waters of the United States, a few weeks ago the Obama Administration issued a final rule that clarifies the limits of federal authority under the clean water act. It does this by reducing red tape and providing more alternative for the regulated community. Instead of confusion, in casebycase determinations about where waters are covered, the rule sets physical, measurable boundaries for the first time about where clean water coverage begins and ends. The rule does not expand the waters covered. In fact, it will actually reduce the waters protected under the clean water act. Initially, the rule does not create any permitting requirements for agriculture. It maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions. The rule ensures that the waters protected under the clean water act are more precisely defined and predictably measured, making permitting less costly, easier and faster for business and industry. Prohibiting the e. P. A. From implementing the rule will only perpetrate confusion in the jurisdiction of the water. This harelful rider should be struck and therefore i urge my colleagues to support the lawrence amendment. I yield back. The chair the gentlelady from michigan reserves. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Calvert i yield time to the gentleman from arizona. The chair the gentleman from arizona is recognized. Thank you, madam chair. I strongly oppose the gentlewomans amendment as it seeks to strip a commonsense provision included in the base bill that will protect the American People from the e. P. A. s new waters of the u. S. Regulation, commonly referred to as lodus. It will have disastrous effects for Property Owners, municipalities and other water users throughout the country. This jobkilling, overreaching water grab being imposed by washington bureaucrats is a dream killer for generations and local economies. They claim this was shaped by public input. Yet, which recently learned that e. P. A. Used taxpayer dollars to unleash a Propaganda Campaign in an attempt to rally comments in support for this regulation despite the antilobbying act which bans such actions. Furthermore, states and local governments have traditionally managed these waterways. The agency failed to comply with the regulatory flexibility act as required by federal law. Consider the new impact that the regulations will have on Small Businesses. The e. P. A. Claim this is grounded in law yet this contradicts four prior Supreme Court decisions by expanding Agency Control over 60 of our countrys streams and millions of acres of wetlands that were previously nonjurisdictional. Despite claiming the jurisdiction the final regulation imposes new regulations for navigable waters and their tributaries potholes and those next to rivers and lakes. It has been based on pseudoscience, and this is so extreme that 24 members of the president s own party joined members of the house in passing legislation in may claiming to withdraw the new regulation. For these reasons i urge defeat of this amendment and with that i yield back. The chair the gentleman from california yields. Mr. Calvert with no other speakers. With that i would urge on opposition to this amendment and yield back. The chair the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady from michigan is recognized. Mrs. Lawrence i would really urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The rule does not create any new permitting requirements for the agriculture and maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions. The rule ensures that waters protected under the clean water act are more precisely defined and particularly determine making permitting making permitting less costly, easier and faster for business and industry. And i yield back the rest of my time. The chair the gentlelady from michigan yields back the balance of her time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from michigan. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the noes have. The amendment is not agreed to. The clerk will read. The clerk page 122 line 23, stream buffer. Section 23, none of the funds may be used to develop or change the historic interpretation of 30 c. F. R. 1. 357. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise . Mr. Grijalva i rise to offer an amendment. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Grijalva of arizona. Beginning at page 122, line 23, strike section 423. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Grijalva thank you, madam chairman. Mayor madam chair, my amendment would let them to develop regulation designed to protect communities and the environment from the devastating effects of mountain top removal mining. If you have seen a picture of a mountain top removal mining site you get an idea how destructive this process is. Companies literally blasts tops off mountains, scoop out the coal and dump whats used what used to be the mountain top into the valley below. The scars on the landscape are run mistakable as are the piles of rock filling in what used to be mountain valleys and streams. What you dont see is the picture is the Health Impacts on the People Living nearby. Although these are just as real and just as terrible. People who live near mountain top mining sites have higher rates of lung cancer, Heart Disease, kidney disease, birth defects, hypertension and other healthrelated problems. And despite some confusion in the Natural Resources Committee Just last month, these results are statistically corrected for the rates of smoking, obesity and other factors. A paper in the Journal Journal of science a few years ago, one of the preimminent scientific journals in the world pointed out that mountain top removal mining with valley fills said, quote, revealed serious environmental impacts that mitigation practices cannot successfully address. That water emergence from the base of valley fills contain a variety of solvents toxics and is damaging and recoverable of biodiversity waste impacted streams has not been documented, unquote. Under our laws governing surface coal mining streams are supposed to be protected, but the existing regulations which are over 30 years old have done a poor job of doing just that. Over 2,000 miles of streams have been buried by mountain top removal mining and countless more have been polluted by toxic mine runoff, Wildlife Habitat is destroyed, fish are killed and the people in the area suffer. That is why the administration has been working for years on a new rule that would do a better job of protecting streams. It has taken longer than i would like for them to propose this rule and the process has certainly not gone as smoothly as it should have been. But the majority uses these snags in the process to argue that there shouldnt be a rule at all. Never mind that their own partisan investigation delayed this rule for years without uncovering any evidence of political misconduct. The majority also claims that this rule would cause huge job losses, but the draft rule hasnt even been published yet so we cant possibly know the impacts and the director of the office of Surface Mining says the job losses will be minor at best. Even if the majority has not does not believe them, and i suspect they might not, they should wait until the draft rule comes out and there can be independent analysis of the impact, not just wild exaggerations that the Mining Industry will produce but real independent analysis. If were still not happy with the rule at that moment, we can hold hearings, we can try to pass constructive laws that protect the and workers at all times. But a rider in this bill that completely stops the ability of the administration to work on this stream buffer rule to provide badly needed protections to Rural Communities it has nothing to do with managing spending. In fact it would just result in the waste of all the money that was required to get to this very point. The rider is bad policy its bad for the environment, its bad for Public Health and the health of the People Living near these mines. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment that would allow the stream protection rule to see the light of day, and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from arizona yields back the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert in 2008, the office of Surface Mining finalized revision of the stream zone buffer rule in an open and transparent manner. After taking office, the Obama Administration put a hold on the rule and is currently writing a new rule. At administrations approach the administrations policy has been inclusive and many feel have been put out of the process. And when an analysis was requested it was ignored. The American People deserve more from this government and thats why this needs to remain in the base bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no and reject this amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from california yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Mr. Grijalva madam chair. The chair the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Grijalva on that i ask for a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. The clerk will read. The clerk page 123 line 10, hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on federal land. Section 424, limitation on use of funds. None of the funds may be used to prohibit the use of federal land for hunting if such use was not prohibited as of january 1 2013. Limitation on use of funds for National Ocean policy. Section 425, none of the funds may be used to further implementation of the coastal and Marine Spatial planning developed under executive order 13547. The chair for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition . The clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by ms. Tsongas of massachusetts. Beginning at page 124, line 17 strike section 425. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlelady from massachusetts and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from massachusetts. Ms. Tsongas thank you, madam chairman. Nearly three years ago Superstorm Sandy caught millions of coastal residents by surprised and cost billions of dollars in economic damage. Unfortunately, the weather is not all that is not has become more extreme over the past several years. I am disappointed that this misguided and misinformed language to block implementation of the National Ocean policy keeps coming back. Just like the recurrent coastal flooding being caused by Sea Level Rise. My amendment would strike that language. It shows a lack of respect for science and a lack of appreciation for the magnitude and complexity of the governance challenges we face. It seems some members of congress do not want to see government succeed even when government failure to respond to disaster, predict a thought or properly manage a fishery can devastate the communities they represent. When you disavow words like precaution preparedness and planning you stop being conservative and start being reckless. Would you invest in a business with different departments not talking to each other would you invest in a business that isnt responsible to their Share Holders . That is what the National Ocean policy is, a Business Plan for the oceans that seeks to maximize the benefits for Share Holders and all the American People. The policy is a win win, win for Public Safety and Environmental Protection. I urge you to vote yes on my amendment to protect the National Ocean policy. I reserve. The chair the gentlelady from massachusetts reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to the gentleladys amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert i have run a business. The subcommittee has asked e. P. A. To provide an estimate of the impact on the policy on their budgets. We have yet to receive a substantial answer. The socalled report we were provided last year was less than three pages long. And clearly, this failed to outline expenditures supporting the administrations National Ocean policy. Our job here is to pay the bills. When we ask how much is the National Ocean policy costing, we expect to get an answer. We need an answer so proper congressional oversight can be conducted. I want to point out this language was included in the f. Y. 2016 energy and water appropriations bill. There are concerns about the costs and all the unknowns related to this policy in multiple jurisdictions. The bottom line if this administration wants to fund the National Ocean policy tell us how much its going to cost the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. And im happy to reserve my time for a speaker little later on. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentlelady from massachusetts. Stonston strong strong i yield i yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum congress has enacted numerous laws across 11 of the 15 cabinetlevel positions. And as my colleague pointed out why wouldnt we want these folks to be working together. What the president is trying to do is just have an action that lets the independent Bipartisan Commission including u. S. Commission on ocean policy appointed entirely by president george w. Bush move forward. The National Ocean policy is the means by which the federal agencies can sort through all the governance and bring some common sense to the chaos. Wouldnt we want that . If my colleague has a problem with what government can do on ocean management, then they have a problem with laws enacted by congress, then not what the National Ocean policy and with the president s executive order. What the president is doing through the National Ocean policy is following a well established president ial directive to supervise and guide agencies under the president s charge. Let us let this agency get to work. Let us find out how we can be more effective with our agencies working together. With that, i yield back. The chair the gentlelady from massachusetts reserves. The gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i yield time to the gentleman from texas. The chair the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Flores i thank the chairman for his work on this bill. I want to set the record straight. In 2000, the year 2000, congress did pass a bill during the 106th congress to create an Ocean Commission to review and make recommendations. Yes president bush did appoint a person to that commission. They did make those recommendations. Those recommendations were submitted to congress. But since then, those recommendations were reviewed by the 108th, 109th, 110th and 111th congresses and they decided no action should be taken. The president decided to go into the article 1 powers reserved to congress and do what congress does not intend to be done, and thats to have an ocean Zoning Commission built of zozzens of agencies. They never asked for an appropriations for this activity. And there is no lawful basis for the activity to exist. So the president s executive order is basically violating the statutes passed by congress and also is violating the constitution. We are just saying that the language thats in the appropriations bill should remain as it is. Congress has voted seven times on this language and has passed all seven times on a bipartisan basis. So the other side is basically trying to undo what congress has said it wants to do seven times on a bipartisan basis. I yield back to the chairman. The chair the gentleman from california reserves. The gentlelady from massachusetts. I wish to yield one minute to my colleague from virginia, mr. Beyer. The chair the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Beyer i rise in support of this amendment which would allow for implementation of the National Ocean policy. Plain and simple, coordinated ocean planning is common sense and good economic policies for our coastal communities and allows for mapping of the existing ocean to identify and resolve conflicts between stakeholders before they play out in specific permitting processes. In virginia, this process has been crucial to provide Public Resources and sustain Economic Growth address Marine Debris and corridors for Marine Mammals and wind power and marine al qaeda whatculture. Virginia is the first state in the nation to receive a lease in federal waters. This rider would eliminate language to undermine collaborative efforts. Lets not roll back the valuable work and resources that many states, industries and communities have already devoted to implementing this policy. I urge support of this amendment and i yield back. The chair the gentlelady from massachusetts reserves. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Calvert i yield time to the gentleman from texas. Mr. Flores again, i want to set the record straight, were not against ocean planning. That makes perfect sense, but only insofar as congress has authorized. Congress has not allowed the president to do what he is doing by executive fiat. There are 67 groups, agricultural fishing and farming that are concerned about the impact of this federal overreach and i would say its unconstitutional and i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the chair the gentleman from california reserves. The gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized. I appreciate that my colleague says it makes perfect sense to have an ocean policy and that is what the ocean policy is is a Business Plan that seeks to maximize the benefits. I know we in massachusetts have great appreciation for the complex task that seeks to undertake in order to protect that which we value most, the ocean off our coast. I yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts. 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 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts will be postponed. The clerk will read. The clerk page 125, line 1, section 426, lead test kit. None of the funds may be used to implement regulations under title 40 code of federal regulations. Section 427, financial assurance, none of the funds may be used to develop any regulation that would establish new financial responsibility requirements. Section 428, g. H. G. , none of the funds may be used to propose or enforce any standard under section 111b of the Clean Air Act for any new fossilfueled firedelectricity utility. Section 429 definition of fill material. None of the funds may be used to develop or enforce any change to the regulations pertaining to the definitions of the terms fill material or discharge of fill material. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Beyer of virginia, strike section 429. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from virginia, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. Mr. Beyer thank you madam chair. I rise in support of this amendment. The Amendment Strikes the rider that would prevent the Environmental Protection agency from updating regulations pertaining to the definitions of fill material or discharge of fill material for purposes of the clean water act. Presently, the army corps of engineers issues a section 404 permit if the fill material discharged into a water body raises the bottom elevation of that water body or converts the area to dry land. The current rule allows mining waste to be dumped into rivers and streams without an appropriate Environmental Review process. Given respeed instances resulting in lakes, streams devoid of aquatic life. Section 404 process fails to protect them from the discharge of Hazardous Substances. The clean water act guidelines are not well suited for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging Hazardous Waste such as mining receive use and similar materials into a water body or wetland. The rider that this Amendment Strikes would olympic e. P. A. Making necessary modifications to these guidelines. This rider is a strike against protecting our Drinking Water and allows mining interests to the protection of the health of our citizens. We shouldnt short circuit this. And not preclude the corps and e. P. A. From considering any regulatory changes to the current definition and permit process. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And i reserve. The chair the gentleman from virginia reserves. Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to this amendment. This language is simply maintains a status quo regarding the definition of fill material for purposes of the clean water act. The existing definition was put in place through a Rulemaking Initiative by the Clinton Administration and finalized by the Bush Administration. That rule harmonized the definition on the books of the corps and e. P. A. So both agencies were working with the same definition. Any attempts to redefine this important definition would negatively impact the ability of all earthmoving industries, road and highway construction and commercial enterprises to obtain section 404 permits. Changing the definition of fill material could result in the loss of up to 375,000 highpaying mining jobs and over one million jobs that are dependent on the economic output generated by these operations. For these reasons i support the underlying language and oppose this amendment. And i reserve. The chair the gentleman from california reserves. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Beyer i respect the chairmans objections to this. But i would like to point out that all this amendment does in striking the section is allow the e. P. A. To consider future changes to the fill definitions. Clearly the work begun in the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration was the best possible actions at the time. In the meantime, we have discovered that unfortunately much mining waste and receive use are ending up in streams and rivers that are severely affecting the health of those people. We have no attempt to eliminate mining jobs or impact earth moving. But only reasonable to make sure our Environmental Protection agency has the latitude and the freedom to evolve future definitions to best protect the health of our citizens. I yield back. The chair the gentleman from virginia yields back. The gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i oppose this amendment and 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 virginia. Those in favor say aye. Those opened say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The clerk will read. The clerk page 127, line 5, section 430. Contracting authorities public law 11274, is amended. Section 431 Chesapeake Bay initiative. The Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 is amended. Section 432, extension of grazing permits. Terms and conditions of public law 108108 shall remain in effect. Section 433, availability of vacant grazing allotments. The secretary shall make vacant grazing allotments available. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Grijalva thank you, madam chair. I offer an amendment to strike section 433. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Grijalva of arizona. Strike section 433. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Grijalva thank you very much. I offer my amendment to strike section 433 regarding the availability of vacant grazing allotments and waiving one of our key environmental laws. While grazing on our public lands is an important part of our nations culture and economy, this section of the appropriations bill is redundant and not necessary. The b. L. M. And Forest Service already have the authority to transfer permits when grazing lands are deemed unuseable. Furthermore, this section would have the effect of waiving section 102 of the National Environmental policy act or nepa. Nepa is one of our nations bedrock environmental law serving to establish policies, protect our air, water and our Natural Resources. Section 102 of nepa contains key provisions to make sure that federal agencies act according to the spirit and letter of the law. By stating that section 102 shall not apply to agency actions, this bill is in essence waiving nepa and putting our public lands at risk. Our federal agencies did not ask for a nepa waiver, and congress should not be in the business of dictating to professional land managers when they should or should not have the flexibility to use nepa in making Land Management decisions. Allowing section 433 to be included in the appropriations bill could have unintended consequences for our public lands and environment. Particularly when conditions on the ground change. In this time of Climate Change, drought and wildfire it is vital that agencies have the tools and the flexibility to conduct adequate Environmental Reviews. In the face of these challenges why should grazers get to jump to the front of the line for new land . What about land for species and recovery and habitat that are displaced by Climate Change or recreational demands and interest . Congress asks the b. L. M. Has tasked the b. L. M. With managing our public lands for multiple uses. I welcome the belated recognition by my republican colleagues and Climate Changes impacting these lands, but this provision would waive the balance processes found in nepa and mandate that grazing gets to trump other uses when lands are destroyed by fire or drought. Section 433 benefits one special interest above all others and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting to strike this amendment from the bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from arizona reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition . Mr. Simpson claim time in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Simpson i rise in opposition to the amendment. It would strike a commonsense provision, repeat, commonsense provision in this bill that allows the bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to make available vacant grazing allotments when a rancher is forced off his or her allotment due to drought or wildfire. Its not that they jump to the front of the line and have special provisions because of this. The fact is if you dont exclude the nepa process it can take three months, six months, and guess what cows and sheep dont go on a diet for three months or six months. They actually need to put these cows and sheep somewhere and its vacant allotments is what they look for. The gentleman says this is redundanthat they can already do that. If they can already do it, then what the heck . Why is he opposed to this . Unfortunately, drought and catastrophic wildfires are all too common in the west. Ranchers shouldnt be further penalized when they lose their allotments due to natural disaster. It provides some flicksibility to the bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to help in these circumstances. It doesnt say you will provide these vacant allotments. It says you may. So its not a must. Were trying to give the bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service the flexibility use vikeant allotments when circumstances are required. I urge my colleagues to rejec this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from idaho reserves. The gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Grijalva thank you, madam chair. And i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota. The chair the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. Ms. Mccollum thank you madam chairman. I rise in support of the grijalva amendment. As been pointed ou b. L. M. Already has the authity to make vacant grazing allotments available for permitees a discretionary basis wherehe permitee is adversely impacted by wildfire or drought. But unlike the discretiony basis on which the b. L. M. Currently makes these allotments, this ridewould exempt the nation eironment policy act aepa riew. And on page 127 line 25, it reads, with respect to the National Forest system lands shall not may hall make vacant. And so what the b. L. M. Currently can do is they can conduct a nepa balance in areas where they think they have concerns, and they can assure that Land Health Standards and resources are not going to be compromised because the b. L. M. Has a role to play in protecting these lands for grazing potential in the future so that theyre harmed. It makes common sense that the rider should not except the b. L. M. From a regulatory requirement to issue a decision and conduct an administrative review, which they currently can choose to do or choose not to do based on the information that they have. Any grazing that is mandated by this rider can likely also to find itself caught up by hearings and delays and appeals and judicial review. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, to strike the unnecessary rider, and to leave the discreon in place so it continues to be the National Forest system lands may be made vacant. The chair the gentleman from arizona reserves. The gentleman from idaho is recognid. Mr. Simpson madam chairman, i guess i would ask my colleagues just one thing. If youre a rancher and youve had one of these catastrophic wildfires come through, and they come through frequently, unfortunately, and theyve wiped out your grazing allotment, what do you tell your cows . What do you tell your sheep . What do they eat for the next several months as you go through the nepa process . This is giving some flexibility to the Forest Service and to the b. L. M. I know we can all say, oh gee they can make arangements and do toys and so forth. This is this just a commonsense provision, frankly, and we havent had any problem with it with the time it has been in existence. So i think it should stay in existence and thats why the chairman has included it in this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from idaho reserves. The gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Grijalva thank you very much. The redundancy comes from the fact that flexibility has existed in b. L. M. And Forest Service. Its exi had for years. The situations of wildfires have occurred, and theyve been handled its an unnecessary nepa waiver. Its a redundant piece of amendment. Addition to it. The nepa waiver in the rider says shall. With that i urge members to support my Amendment Strike section 433 and i yield back. The chair the gentleman from arizona yields back. The gentleman from idaho is recognized. Mr. Simpson this language has been in the bill since 2003. Hasnt caused any problems. Has fed a lot of cows. I think its a good amendment or a good provision in the bill and we should defeat this amendment. Its a bad amendment. Vote against it. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from idaho yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. Those in favor say aye. Those owes posed say no. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Grijalva madam chair, on that i would request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. The clerk will read. The clerk page 128, line 14. Protection of water rights. Section 434, none of the funds may be used to condition the issuance of any permit on the transfer of any water rights. Section 435, limitation on status changes. None of the funds shall be used to propose any regulation that changes the status of the significant new alternatives policy. Section 436, use of american iron and steel. None of the funds shall be used for a project for construction of a Public Water System unless all of the iron, Steel Products are produced in the United States. Section 437, social cost of carbon. None of the funds shall be used for the social cost of carbon to be incorporated into any rulemaking document until a new Interagency Working Group revises the estimates. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition . Mr. Polis i have an amendment at the desk to strike section 437. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Polis of colorado. Strike section 437. The chair pursuant to hution 333, the gentleman from House Resolution 333, the gentleman from colorado and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. Mr. Polis thank you, madam speaker. My amendment, which i offer along with mr. Lowenthal and mr. Peters, would simply remove one of the socalled policy riders from this bill and its a particularly dangerous policy rider. What my amendment would do is it would strip the bill of a harmful and unrelated restriction that actually would prohibit federal agencies from assessing the social cost of carbon. Meaning federal agencies would not be able to look at the monetized impact the actual costs of Climate Change. They would be forced to deliberately have a blindfold and not allow to consider Climate Change in their planning. Just like american businesses do like states do like municipalities do. But the federal government would be prohibited from even looking at the cost of Climate Change. According to a recent poll undertaken by Stanford University 81 of American People have looked at the science and agree that Climate Change is at least in part caused by humans. 74 of americans believe the federal government should be working hard to combat Climate Change, and 71 of the American People expect they will be hurt personally or impacted by Climate Change. Madam speaker, Climate Change is not some fall is i, its not fallacy its not some evil plot by left wing or right wing extremists. Its science. Cocacola and nike have called an economically Disruptive Force that needs to be addressed. Acting on Climate Change is what the most highprofile religious leader on the planet has called the moral imperative an economic imperative, a moral imperative. Its what the department of defense has called a quote, immediate risk to u. S. National security, end quote. Id ask my colleagues on the other side to adopt this amendment so we dont ignore the calls of business defense, religious leaders among thousands of others to ensure that the federal government operate with its eyes wide open and not with ideological blinders simply because we dont want to see the truth of whats occurring with regard to Climate Change. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from colorado reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert ive long been concerned with how e. P. A. Conducts its costbenefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is simply that the committee has discussed with e. P. A. On a number of occasions and the Supreme Court recently ruled that e. P. A. s approach to examining costs in their regulations was flawed. The administrations revised estimates for the social cost of carbon helped justify on paper larger benefits from reducing Carbon Emissions in any proposed rule. If the administration can inflate the price tag so that the benefits always exceed the costs, the administration can gold plate requirement, regulations from any department or any agency. Section 437 says that the administration should convene a working group to revise the estimates in a more transparent manner and to make that Information Available to the public. So i oppose the gentlemans amendment, and i urge my colleagues to vote no, and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from colorado reserves california reserves. The gentleman from colorado. Mr. Polis what this amendment addresses is not to create a commission or a nuanced look of how a costbenefit analysis is done it would actually ensure that the costs of Climate Change are able to be considered in decisionmaking. The answer is a to the concerns that my colleague raised from the other side would be a surgical approach, not to remove the authority to look at the cost of Climate Change which is what this language does and what my amendment would fix. This rider is really about the deep ideologically driven agenda of climate deinsiders and is a terrible deneyers and is a terrible waste to passage because it would lead to poor decisionmaking by the federal government. Companies are planning for Climate Change. Municipalities and states are planning for Climate Change. We need to look at the cost, the monetized cost with regard to Climate Change of new rules and regulations. To better understand Climate Change, we have this opportunity to ensure that that is a factor in future decision making, rather than prohibiting agencies from even considering it and the costs of Climate Change. Olympicing proposals and silencing discussion isnt indicative of leadership mr. Speaker. Its indicative of fear of the truth. I urge my colleagues to consider that and support my and my colleagues amendment and i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i would rise in opposition to this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. And i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The gentleman from colorado. Mr. Polis i request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. Are there further amendments to this section . If not, the clerk will read. The clerk page 132, line one, limitation on use of funds, section 438, none of the funds may be used to propose a National Primary or secondary ambient air quality standard. The chair the clerk will suspend. The chair fromme the gentleman from florida seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk yoho number 48. The chair the clerk will report. The clerk amendment amendment offered by mr. Yoho of fl. Strike 85 of the counties that were none attainment areas under the standard as of july 2 2014, achieve full compliance with that standard. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from florida, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. Yoho. Mr. Yoho i would like to thank chairman calvert. My amendment prevents any funds to change ozone regulations regardless of whether the counties meet 2008 standards. As of 2012 and based on the 2008 ozone standards are designated by the e. P. A. 24 mainland states were in attainment including my state. Some had marginal attainment. What i find most interesting is the areas of our nation that have been designated as nonattainment by the e. P. A. This includes most of california, parts of texas and midatlantic states. These counties have had two years to change their policies and abide by the ozone standards and under the new proposed standards some of the country would be designated as nonattainment standard. Parts of the country have yet to meet 2008 or even 19991 standards. Making this change will have serious implications on the states and counties who have worked to reduce their emissions at a time when the nation is recovering from the worst economic recessions of our lifetime. The recent Supreme Court decision michigan versus environmental versus the e. P. A. At the heart of the case was whether or not the e. P. A. Took care to include the potential costs to power plants when proposing new regulations. And that estimated cost is 9. 6 billion and a burden on the american taxpayers. The Supreme Court held that the e. P. A. Interpreted u. S. Code 7412 unreasonably when it deemed costs irrelevant to the decision. And i would like to say this is i would like to say this is the exception and not the rule when it comes to the e. P. A. But that simply is not the truth. The e. P. A. Has made a defacto policy to implement unreasonable regulations with no regard to the large every impact it will have the economy, taxpayers and the environment. The chair for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition . Ms. Mccollum this would block the e. P. A. From making critical updates to its ozone standards. It makes a bad policy rider in this bill even worse. This amendment, however, would prohibit the e. P. A. From updating the standards, short circuit the current law and the judicial process while putting millions of Americans Health at risk. Ozone is the main component in smog and has been scientifically proven to aggravate lung disease, increase severity asthma attacks and reduce lung function. We hear about those opportunities all the time. Young children shouldnt be out and people with Heart Disease and lung disease should stay indoors. The Clean Air Act requires the e. P. A. To review its ozone standards to reflect the most up to date science on ozone. Its impact on Public Health. The e. P. A. Is under a court order to issue its final rules by october of this year. The e. P. A. s update to its ozone standard is based on strong Scientific Evidence including studies that show the harmful effects of ozone on human health and the need for higher standards. The e. P. A. Estimates the benefit of updated standards of 70 parts per billion will yield to Health Benefits of 13 billion each year. On its merits, this amendment is shortsided reactionary and its a backdoor amendment to completely gut the Clean Air Act. Prohibiting the e. P. A. s ability to update ozone standards is reckless and out of touch of what americans want and that is clean air. The update is rooted in science and ensures protections for the American People. With that i reserve. The chair the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from florida. Mr. Yoho i appreciate the gentleladys comments. Ozone comes from many different sources and yes its true it comes from hydrocarbons and u. V. Light hits it, it does that. It comes from the oceans, swamps and from nature itself. And you know, ozone by itself is not always bad because it is used in industrial, and kills bacteria on food and contact surfaces, sanitizing swimming pools and the list goes on and on and on. There are reports that it causing respiratory problems and that is associated with spores mold and things like that. Ozone at this time, when you look at the rulings from 1997 and 2008 those standards i dont think to move forward at this time with our nation in the economic recovery, to put new standards on all of the nation when the large portion of the nation is still not under compliance. With that, i yield to the gentleman from i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentlelady fl minnesota. Ms. Mccollum i yield to the the gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i thank the gentlelady for yielding me time. I live in the most regulated area of the United States, Southern California. And Southern California, our population continues to grow, but yet, we have been able to make significant air Quality Improvements within the south coast air quality district. What the committee set a level of 85 of the communities so they could have the opportunity to achieve compliance with the 2008 standards before further updates are considered. This amendment would prevent e. P. A. From lowering the ozone standard below the 2008 levels. So this amendment would prevent further updates to the ozone standard for an indefinite time frame and thats not the committees intent. We need to make progress in clean air in areas that folks want to see cleaner air, but at the same time making sure that technology is there in order to do that. And this was, i think compromised language that the underlying bill has that works to move us forward at the same time, not stopping us from obtaining cleaner air in the future. I would recommend opposition to this amendment. And i thank the gentlelady. The chair the gentlelady from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum i reserve. Mr. Yoho ozone is incriminated a lot of times when we ought to look at particular ate matters in dusty environments or urban areas. And ozone is used as an alternative to chlorine, for bleaching wood, Paper Products and things like that. And many hospitals around the world use Ozone Generators to decontaminate operating rooms. I urge support for this amendment so we dont have more overreaching regulations from the e. P. A. And i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Ms. Mccollum the e. P. A. Is rooted in science and ensures protections for the American People. We have the responsibility to protect americans and for that reason, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And i yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. Yoho. 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. Mr. Yoho i ask for a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. Further amendments to this section . For what purpose does gentlelady maryland seek recognition . Ms. Edwards i have an amendment. The clerk amendment offered by ms. Edwards of Maryland Strike section 438. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlelady from maryland, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland. Ms. Edwards i rise to offer an amendment to strike section 438 of this bill. Section 438 would prohibit any fund in the act from being used to even propose a National Ozone standard that is less than that currently in law until at least 85 of the counties across the country who do not currently meet that standard achieve full compliance. The current ozone standard is 75 parts per billion. Mr. Speaker, we had a series of hearings in our House Science Committee where we heard Strong Committee from scientists and state pollution control agencies and physicians at hospitals, all telling us that the current standard is not in line with the current science. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee declared as far back as 2008 that they believe that the current standard is 75 parts per billion is insufficient to protect Public Health. The ozone standard can mislead people to believe that it is safe to breathe when it is not. Studies conducted by the American Lung association have shown more than four out of 10 people many the United States live in places where ozone levels often make it dangerous to breathe. The current standard rate of what we now know to be dangerous, code yellow or moderate, this can lead to those at risk such as children and Senior Citizens to be exposed to harmful levels of ozone. This has the potential to impact millions of people. Just look at my home state of maryland. There are 145,000 children with pediatric asthma. Over 430,000 adults have asthma. 246,000 people in my state have chronic obstructtive pulmonary disease and 367,000 people in our state have cardiovascular disease that is related to ozone. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommends to protect the Public Health that it set the ozone standard between 60 and 70 parts per billion. And the e. P. A. Looked at the strong Scientific Evidence showing that the health risks of ozone and issued a proposed rule to lower the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to a standard within the range of 65 to 75 parts per billion. That begins a process to identify areas with too much ozone. Once those areas are identified state and local plans tailored to their areas using approaches. This standard based on the most current science will provide a framework for these plans which will help our states continue along the path to clean air. And yet here we are in this provision that im providing to strike would stop the e. P. A. From even proposing a standard of 70 parts per billion. This is the responsibility of the e. P. A. This new standard would protect Americans Health and our environment. In addition, an analysis conducted by the e. P. A. Shows that the annual cost of the proposed standard of 70 parts per billion might be around the Health Benefits are estimated to reach 6. 4 billion and 13 billion annually. Mr. Speaker, ground level ozone can increase risk of asthma attacks and even death. It is dangerous but particularly for children the elledlerly and people of all ages who have lung diseases. We need to empower the e. P. A. To follow the science and create minimum standards necessary to protect Public Health. I urge my colleagues to protect these vulnerable populations as well as clean air for every american and vote yes on this amendment and with that i reserve. The chair the gentlelady reserves. Who speaks who who seeks recognition . I claim time in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. I rise in opposition to this amendment. The language adopted in committee was carefully crafted. It a allows the majority of nonattainment counties to achieve attainment before the e. P. A. Moves the goal post. In nonattainment area the e. P. A. s standards would stifle Economic Growth and costs and revenue. Just last week, the Supreme Court admonished the e. P. A. For ignoring the cost of its regulations. The costs involved would be devastating to our economy. Even the e. P. A. J. A. T. Admitted it would cost 15 billion, with a b, dollars even the e. P. A. Admitted that it would cost 15 billion with a b dollars per year. In West Virginia, in my state, it would mean 2 billion in Compliance Costs 10,000 lost jobs and more fees for residents even to operate their vehicles. It would have significant impacts on agriculture manufacturing and the energy industry. Federal highway funds could be frozen and permits for infrastructure could be held up. I am hopeful that some of our colleagues across the aisle will recognize the impact that that will have on each of our districts. I reserve. The chair the gentleman from West Virginia reserves. The gentlelady from maryland ms. Edwards mr. Speaker, here weve heard again exaggerated clails about implementation. Lets get to the facts. First fact, the scientists tell us this is a standard we need to protect the Public Health. The second fact, the e. P. A. Estimates that the cost might be around 3. 9 billion. But lets look at the Health Benefits. Because those are costing us currently, the Health Benefits are estimated to reach between 6. 4 billion and 13 billion. That means that theres a Ripple Effect when we invest in making sure that we implement a standard that protects Public Health and it has a benefit on the Public Health. So mr. Speaker, theres an argument here for the e. P. A. To simply do its job. The job that it was charged to do by taxpayers. And that is to protect the Public Health, to give us clean air and to make sure that we have ozone standards that in fact meet our responsibility. The e. P. A. Is doing its job lets stop congress from keeping the e. P. A. From keeping our air clean. With that, i yield the balance of my time. The chair the gentleladys time has expired. The gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. Jenkins i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas. Mr. The the chair the gentleman from texas, mr. Olson, is recognized for one minute. Mr. Olson thank you, mr. Jenkins of West Virginia for the time and for including commonsense language in the bill that is now being debated. In 2008, e. P. A. Set a strict rule that was stuck in legal limbo for years. Big cities to small towns, over 200 counties are still in nonattainment. Yet before we finish that job, e. P. A. Wants to move the goal posts. Theyve issued new ozone rules that are so strict they cant be achieved with our current technology. All of america would be hit hard with job losses. This bill simply includes a pause button on new e. P. A. Rules. Until we can finish the job and reach our current mandates. I urge my colleagues to propose to oppose this amendment and strip this language from the bill. The chair the gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. Jenkins i yield one minute to mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert i live in one of the most maybe the most regulated air districts in the United States. Im a strong advocate for clean air my district has achieved some of the largest Emission Reductions in the country. However e. P. A. Continues to dig the hole deeper as my district continues to try to work its way out of nonattainment. 10 e. P. A. And the states need to use the resources we provided in the bill to play catch up on a statutory obligation to help communities implement the 2008 standard. Remember, just last april e. P. A. Finalized the rule in the 2008 standard and 85 of the communities, when 85 of the communities can achieve the late education standards then the e. P. A. Should consider whether or not the revisions are necessary. I remind my colleagues that the Clean Air Act only directs e. P. A. To review the standards every five years. It does not require that e. P. A. Revise the standard. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and thank the gentleman for yielding. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized. Mr. Jenkins once again this is a sincere effort to try to set a benchmark and not have the e. P. A. Moving the goal post that will have such economic devastation, billions of dollars of cost, and i encourage a no vote on this amendment. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from maryland. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The gentlelady from maryland. Ms. Edwards i ask for a recorded vote. The chair further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from maryland will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Lowenthal of california, page 132 line five, strike pry mare or. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control phi minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Lowenthal. Mr. Lowenthal thank you, mr. Chairman. According to the American Lung associations 2015 state of the air report for los angeles which includes my district and also the appropriation subcommittee che subcommittee chairs district that metropolitan area is the number one district for ozone pollution. But its not just a Southern California problem. Report shows that more than 40 of the United States of the United States population lives in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone. Large cities like houston, less Populated Areas like ohio also make the list. Power plants, motor vehicle, Chemical Solvents contribute to the majority of mite rouse oxides and of nitrous ox sides and vol oxides and volatile compounds nox and v. O. C. s which produce ground level ozone. The American Lung association pointed out that because hot, sunny days produce the most ozone, Climate Change is increasing the number of unhealthy ozone level days. Were all familiar with those highozone level warnings that happen on really hot sunny days. Unfortunately, theyre becoming more and more common due to Global Warming. Ground level ozone interacts with lung tissue, can cause major problems for children, the elderly and anyone with lung disease. Ozone is known to aggravate Health Problems such as asthma its also linked to low birth rates, cardiovascular problems and premature deaths. Given the grave consequences and the widespread problem of ozone pollution, im glad that e. P. A. Is moving forward with updates to its National Standards for ozone pollution. Members of the medical and Health Communities have been calling for a long time for updates of this standard in other words protect the Public Health. The current standard of 75 parts per billion is outdated. It does not adequately protect Public Health which is what the e. P. A. Is required to do under the Clean Air Act. Thousands of hospital visits and premany chaur deaths and up to a million missed school days can be prevented by just strengthening the standard. Instead of trusting health professional, some in congress have decided to protect the financial interests of the polluters. The reckless legislative ride for the section 438 of this appropriation bill locks the e. Blocks the e. P. A. From updating or even proposing scientifically based standard for ozone to the detriment of the health of at least 40 of the u. S. Population. I urge my colleagues to vote to remove this polluter protecting section from the bill, to support the edwards amendment and allow the e. P. A. To move forward with doing what they are required to do by law and that is protect the Public Health. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from california reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . I rise in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert as the gentleman is aware, many communities cannot reach the new standard thats being the old standard, the 2008 standard thats under that is now law and so this just gives the communities throughout the country that cannot get to attainment additional time to develop the technologies before we go to a new standard. I would remind the gentleman that just last april, we came to a determinationen the 2008 determination on the 2008 standard. And the administration is now talking about a new standard most of the nation cannot reach in the short term this gives a little bit of time to allow communities to improve their technologies and to be able to meet a new standard down the road. So i would oppose the gentlemans amendment and support the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman, mr. He when that will is recognized. Mr. Lo when that will lets mr. Loewen thatll lets talk about why we mr. Lowenthal lets talk about why we need to change the standard. I understand that reaching the standard is going to take some work. But remember, the air, by saying that we dont need to do this, because the air is cleaner than it was 30 years ago for example does nothing to put doesnt air quality in context. Just because the air is cleaner than it used to be doesnt mean that its completely healthy. My districts a great example of this l. A. County has reduced its ground ozone by five days since 2009 rks and im proud of that. But that doesnt mean the air is healthy. We still experienced 270 unhealthy ozone days last year. We need to take into account current pollution levels and use the best science to determine what standards are needed to get our ozone pollution below unhealthy levels. Thats why were doing this, to get the ozone below unhealthy levels. Thats what the e. P. A. Is doing and we shouldnt block their efforts because we think that the air is cleaner or its difficult to reach. Savings in Public Health will far outweigh the costs to polluting industries. If the e. P. A. Would implement a standard of just 70 parts per billion, the cost of implementation would be around . 9 billion. But the savings around 3. 9 billion but the savings in Public Health costs are estimated to be around 6. 4 billion to 13 billion a net savings of 2. 5 billion to 9 billion. If you reduce the standard lower the savings are even greater, from 4 billion to 23 billion in Public Health costs. Ground ozone pollution costs billions of dollars. We have a chance to save taxpayers money. Thank you and i yield back. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from california, mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert i appreciate the gentlemans efforts in trying to clean the ozone out of the area. We have to deal with the ozone being blown from l. A. Long beach. The port of l. A. Long beach emit a lot of ozone. As you know, we cant meet the 2008 standards at this time. Were doing everything we can to meet those standards. But until communities get the technology to meet the existing standard, we shouldnt impose a new standard that could cause grave economic harm to the communities system of with that i would say no to this amendment and move on. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. Lowenthal. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Who seeks recognition. Clerk will read. The clerk page 132, line 12, hydraulic fracturing. None of the funds may be used to implement hydraulic fracturing on indian land. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from gentleman seek recognition . I offer an amendment on behalf of myself and lowenthal. The chair report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Cartwright of pennsylvania. Strike in the other. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cartwright the bureau of Land Management is working toward implementation of a rule that would modernize oil and gas regulations on federal land. My amendment would strike a section of this bill that would halt this important work, and what we have to do is allow b. L. M. To proceed with implementing this rule to provide a National Baseline to protect our environment, our water and our federal land from hazardous contamination. Since the 1980s the scale and impacts associated with the oil and Gas Industries have grown dramatically. But b. L. M. s regulations have not kept pace. It finalized a modest, commonsense rule to update its 30yearold fracking regulations, but these updates, the b. L. M. Is taking responsible steps towards improving, reducing toxic wastewater and increasing transparency around chemicals used in the fracking process. Importantly, these new regulations will not impact states that already have robust fracking regulations and will offer a regulatory baseline for the states that do not have current fracking regulations. Notably in 2013, there were still 19 states with operating fracking wells have absolutely no hydraulic fracking regulations in place. Right now over 90 of the more than 2,500 oil and gas wells drilled every year on federally managed lands use hydraulic fracturing. Just this month, the e. P. A. Released a draft report that concludes that there are above and belowground mechanisms which a hazardous hydraulic chemicals have the potential to impact Drinking Water resources. Because of this, the federal government really has to take the necessary steps to ensure that toxic and cancercausing fracking chemicals do not contaminate americas water supply, americas streams, americas rivers and americas lakes. As many of you know, the fracking fluids injected into oil and gas wells contain thousands of chemicals which can harm humans and the environment. In fact, the e. P. A. Identified over 1,000 different chemicals that have been used during the hydraulic fracturing process with an estimated 9,100 gallons of chemicals used for each well. Due in large loopholes and outdated oil and gas regulations, spills and contaminations have occurred. In my home state of pennsylvania, for example, there were nearly 600 documented cases of waste water and chemical spills in 2013 alone. In fact, the e. P. A. Estimates that there are as many as 12 chemical spills for every 100 oil and gas wells in the state of pennsylvania and i need to remind the house that there are almost 8,000 active gas wells operating in pennsylvania right thousand. So its a lot of spills. Chemical and wastewater spills associated with fracking operations harm the environment and found to contaminate surface water. The e. P. A. s draft study 8 of spills pollute groundwater. The b. L. M. s rule will prevent fracking chemicals and wastewater from contaminating water bodies. It does so by validating the integrity of fracking wells and increasing the standards. This rule will require companies publicly to disclose the chemicals being pumped into public lands. While im concerned that the fracking rule does not go far enough in certain areas. Simply stopping the rule in its tracks is just irresponsible. Im not opposed to fracking and i believe we have to utilize our Natural Resources, but we need to do so in a careful and responsible manner. There are bad actors in the oil and gas business like there are some bad actors in every area, actors that cut corners and dont drill safely. The states unfortunately dont have all the expertise and resources properly to manage this exploding industry. The rule would set a relatively low bar but ensures the baseline across the country to protect our public lands. I urge you to support my amendment to allow the b. L. M. To implement a rule that would prevent fracking chemical contamination and keep our nations water supply pristine and something americans can be proud of. Thank you mr. Speaker, and i withdraw this amendment. And i yield the balance of my time. The chair without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. For what purpose does gentlelady from michigan seek recognition . Mrs. Lawrence i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 13 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. Lawrence of michigan. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlelady from michigan and a member opposed will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. Lawrence. Mrs. Lawrence i rise to offer an amendment to strike section 439 from the underlining bill. This would allow the bureau of Land Management to adopt standards to have safe and responsible fracking operations on native american lands. There was a transparent process to limit fracking. More than 100,000 oil and gas wells are situated on these lands. This amendment will ensure that the b. L. M. Rule is fully implemented so that fracking for oil and gas continues, but with full regard to Public Health and the environment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And i reserve my time. The chair the gentlelady reserves her time. Who seeks recognition . Mr. Calvert i reserve time in opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert i understand b. L. M. Needed to update its regulations. B. L. M. Regulations were 25, 30 years old. The states have been doing the same thing over the last number of years. Unfortunately b. L. M. s rule is duplicative of state regulations. It also costs more time and significantly length thens the time in which it takes to get a permit. None of which is necessary. Which is can why we adopted this in the committees markup of this bill and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And i recognize the gentleman from texas. Mr. Flores i thank the chairman for his hard work on this section. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. American consumers have benefited from low Energy Prices thanks to the American Energy revolution and technological advances and horizontal drilling. It has been successfully regulated by the states. In 2013, the house passed on a bipartisan basis legislation which i coauthored with my friend from the other side of the aisle and that legislation would stop the b. L. M. From pursuing burdensome regulations. The b. L. M. Didnt listen and continued down the path to impose additional red tape on American Energy development and drive down Energy Production on federal lands. While states experience a record growth in a safe and efficient manner. This has always been a solution in search of a problem particularly when the e. P. A. And department of energy says it is being conducted safely right now. The courts agree there are problems with the b. L. M. s rules as evidenced by the recent court in wyoming. This amendment is bad for jobs. It would increase energy costs and alimb would limit Economic Opportunity for hardworking families. And so, it hurts those that are struggling to get by today with Higher Energy costs. I thank mr. Cole on including this provision during markup as well as chairman calvert for his support in stopping this regulatory overreach. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And i yield my time to mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert i reserve. The chair the gentlelady from michigan. Mrs. Lawrence i yield time to the gentlelady from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum this amendment before us would strike the policy rider that prohibits the bureau of Land Management from implementing a uniform, National Standard for hydraulic fracking on public lands, on federal lands. Now such standards are necessary to ensure the operations on public and tribal lands are safe and that they are conducted in an environmentally responsible way. This only affects federal lands and tribal lands. Now of the 32 states with the potential for oil and Gas Development on federallymanaged Mineral Resources only slightly more than half of them have rules in place that even address hydraulic fracturing. And those that do have rules in place, they vary greatly in their requirements. As you can see there is no consistency in the rules and no guarantee no quality rules put in place and we are talking about making sure that federal leases on federal lands that we have a National Standard. So the b. L. M. Continues to offer millions of public lands up for renewable Energy Production. And thats why it is absolutely critical that they have the confidence and the transparency and the safety and Environmental Protections that are put on place on these federal lands. Prior to the issuance of a hydraulic fracturing rule, the rules on oil and gas operations were updated over 30 years ago. 30 years ago. They have not kept pace with the significant technology, advances in hydraulic fracturing and the tremendous increase of its use. As part of this implementation rule the b. L. M. Is in the process of meeting with state counterparts undertaking a statebystate comparison in order to establish memorandum of understanding between the states that will realize efficiencies and allow for successful implementation of the rule successful implementation of the rule. We should be allowing them to coordinate with the states and ensuring that hydraulic fracturing activities are being carried out efficiently and effectively. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and i yield back. The chair the gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i yield to the gentlelady from wyoming. Loom loom my state of womb is the largest onshore producer of oil and gas from federal land. The reason that our wyoming court stayed the federal b. L. M. s rules is because wyoming has been regulating fracking through its oil and Gas Commission from the beginning. There has never been one documented case of Drinking Water being contaminated. Furthermore, the way that b. L. M. Lays with private land and state land, is they are interspeakersed yet underground because of horizontal drilling, the drilling transcends from state land to private land to federal land and back and forth. Those wells are union advertised so the production can be between the owners of federal, state and federal land. You cant have two layers of surface to state ownership regulation when the drilling is occurring going back and forth among state, private and federal lands. Wyoming has handled its fracking regulations responsibly. It was the first in the nation to do so. I strongly urge you leave it in the hands of states who do it best. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. I yield the blaps of my time to mr. Flores. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Flores b. L. M. Doesnt have the Statutory Authority to deal with the actions that they tried to, the federal court was right, and in granting an injux. The e. P. A. And department of energy both said that hydraulic fracturing is safe and thats evidenced by the safe and efficient production of much more oil and gas on private and state lands while federal production is going down and again this is a solution in search of a problem. I urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from california yields back. The gentlelady from michigan is recognized, she has a minute and a half remaining. I want to say congratulations to the state of wyoming, we want these same regulations on a national level. 16 to 17 states have no regulations. Wyoming has gotten it right. This amendment will ensure that the b. L. M. Rule is fully implemented so fracking for oil and gas continues with full regard to the Public Health and the environment. Mrs. Lawrence mr. Chairman, i yield back my time. The chair the gentlelady yields back her time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from michigan. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Mrs. Lawrence i request the i request a recorded vote. The chair the gentlelady asks for a recorded vote . Mrs. Lawrence yes, sir. The chair further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from michigan will be postponed. Clerk will read. The clerk page 132, line 19 spend regular ducks account, section 440, the amount by which the applicable allocation of the Budget Authority made by the committee on appropriations of the house exceeds the amount of proposed new Budget Authority as 0. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition . Mr. Young i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. Amendment offered by mr. Young of alaska. At the end of the bill, before the short title insert the follow limitation on the use of funds the chair without objection, pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentleman from alaska and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska, mr. Young. Mr. Young i rise to offer an amendment. I want to thank mr. Calvert and the committee for the work theyve done on this legislation to support the underlying bill this amendment as the administration this spring they recommended the entirety of the Arctic National wildlife refuge be designated as wilderness, including the area set aside by congress for development in the future, an area that holds 10 billion barrels of oil at a minimum. The impact of this recommendation should not be overlooked as it requires management of the entire area as a wilderness undermining the role of congress through the de facto wilderness designation. It violates the state contract. This action also violates the Alaska National Lands Conservation act which established more than 100 million acres of a hundred million acres. And in recognition of that amount, the act dwarnefeeteed that no more land could be designated wilderness without an act of congress. Alaska holds 53 of federal wilderness agencies in the nation and thats not enough for this admgs. This administration. Think about that for a moment this betrayal of the alaska yoon people and i believe of this nation and the congress this plan of the administration handcuffs my state from providing for itself and pushes us to be more dement on federal funds. This is not just an insult oalaska. Its another example of executive overreach by this administration. This is our rule, not the administration. When the president oversteps his bounds we should take our responsibility and this is a law he cannot do but he says i cannot do it. By the way, this is an example of what i think of the whole department of interior. Between the e. P. A. And department of interior theyre trying to cripple this nation and cripple my state. Against the law. If you dont believe me, go back an read it. I reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition . I rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This amendment offered by many friend from alaska would prohibit any federal funds from being used to implement ea this administrations revised comprehensive conservation plan to better sustain and manage the intire Arctic National wildlife refuge. Attaching this rider to the appropriation bill would be a mistake. The coastal plain of the wildlife refuge is one of the few places in our nation that remains pristine and undisturbed. It provides critical protection for thousands of species, caribou, polar bear, gray wolves to name a few. And they desperately need this important habitat. Roughly 20 million acres managed by the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service are some of the best and last undisturbed wildlife areas in this nation. I understand the gentleman from alaska feels strongly about this issue and hes been a great advocate for his state for decades. On this important issue we deeply disagree. Earlier this year the interior Department Released an updated conservation plan to better manage the Arctic National wildlife refuge. The president took that opportunity to call on congress to pass legislation designating the coastal plain as a wilderness, an even greater level of protection for this area. The protected area encompasses a wide range of arctic and subarctic ecosystems unadulted land forms, their native flora and fauna. It has an incredible integrity and biological diversity. I understand theres differences of opinion as to how to manage the land that designation in this may not get far in this congress but i want to commend the president for his leadership on this issue and i would hope that the legislative process could play out and that we not adopt this rider onto this bill because this issue is just far too important. Lastly i would be remiss if i didnt point out one more obvious truth. The president will not sign a bill loaded up with antienvironmental riders just like this one, so we only make the path for the bill harder by included it. I hope my colleagues join me in opposing it and i yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back her time. The gentleman from alaska is recognized. Mr. Young i appreciate the comments from the gentlelady but we should follow the law. We have given up responsibility to the president. Not just this president , but any president. It is clear under the law that more land cannot be added to the protected area. Thats the law. We have a president that says up yours to the congress. We have a responsibility as congressmen to do our job. When it goes when he goes against the law through executive order, thats against the constitution of the United States. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. Calvert i urge adoption of the gentlemans amendment and support his amendment. Campaign the gentleman the chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Young i yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The chair will the gentleman from arizona specify which amendment . Mr. Grijalva its amendment the executive order amendment. The chair the clerk will report this amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Grijalva of arizona. At the end of the bill before the short title, add the following new section. Section none of the funds made available by this act may be use in contravention of executive order 13007 entitled indian sacred sites. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Grijalva again, thank you mr. Chairman. My amendment would ensure that cultural and sacred sites of indian and alaskan native tribes are protected by mandates that none of the funds in this bill can be used in contravention of executive order 13007. Executive order 13007 issued by president clinton in 1996, requires federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of indian sacred sites and more importantly, to avoid adversery affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Far too often indian sacred sites are an afterthought in the Land Management process when negotiating land swaps, when constructing other management decisions. The voice of Indian Country with regard to sacred sites is ignored. But this is not just land to the native people. These are cultural and spiritual areas part of the tribes history and living legacy. There are places where these are places where their ancestors lived and played and hunted and gathered and fought and died. They are part and parcel of tribal identity and it is our duty to ensure they are preserved and protected. Ill be glad to yield to the chairman. Mr. Calvert were happy to accept the gentlemans amendment. The department interior tells me they are in compliance with the executive order and theres no question that providing Indian Tribes access to their sacred sights sites is the right thing to do, im more than happy to accept the amendment. The chair the gentleman from arizona is recognize. Mr. Grijalva i yield i yield to the gentlelady. The chair the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Mccollum i rise in support of the gentlemans amendment. And the gentlemans amendment will ensure that this important commeck ty order is respected in such a way that it has my whole hearted support and protecting the liberty and religious rights of native american iians. Mr. Grijalva i thank the Ranking Member and the chairman. I yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. Those in favoray aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. For what purpose does the gentleman from maine seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendmt at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number four printed in the congressional record offered by mr. Of maine. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from maine and a member opposed ea will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from maine. Maine is home to the most skled papermakers in the world, who manufacture Paper Products we use every day. Our papermaks are also some of the best stewards of the environment. Ey know we need healthy forests to make high quality Wood Products sold around the globe. Wh trees are harvested to make paper, the branches and the and the bark can be left behind to decompose or they can be burned to generate energyo run the machiny to make papr. Mr. Poll quin either way, th ka mr. Poliquin eithe way, the carbon is rurned in a natural cycle. What a great idea. Instead of ending up in a land fill it fuels the economy and creates job. Our paper milburns biomass to make some of the finest quality paper in the world. In doing it it directly employees 800 hardworking mainers. In addition, loggers and truckers who produce and transport this biomass also earn paychecks for their families. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection agency is attacking this renewable method to power our businesses and to create jobs. All of us who sat around a campfire have seen that wet wood branches and grass emit a darker smoke. However, the however, the same carbon is being recycled through the environment. Its just a slightly different color. But the e. P. A. Wants to impose stricter emission standards on companies that burn wet wood branches and bark instead of dumping them into a landfill. That just doesnt make sense. Mr. Chair, the e. P. A. Is trying to force our skowhegan mill to spend millions of additional dollars on special smokestack equipment because wet biomass burns darker. The mill owners have worked diligently with the regional e. P. A. Office in boston and the maine Environmental Protection agency to put in place a commonsense emissions Monitoring System that reflects the burning of biomass. Sadly, the e. P. A. Headquarters right here in washington rejected their sensible solution. Mr. Chairman this is not fair, and this is not right. Those 800 hardworking papermakers at the sappy mill deserve an e. P. A. That works for them, not against them. Now, our paper mill in maine could very well be a different mill in michigan, minnesota or georgia that also uses green american biomass energy. America should keep her Energy Dollars and jobs here at home and not ship them to the middle east. Our businesses need that energy to keep our manufacturing jobs right here in america and not send them to china. This is a National Security issue as well as as a jobs issue, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair i ask my House Republicans and democrats today to support my simple commonsense bill. Passing it will stop the e. P. A. From unfairly penalizing employers who use green renewable american biomass energy. My amendment prohibits the e. P. A. From reaching beyond some of the biomass emission rules already being reinforced by the regional e. P. A. Offices in the state environment and the state environmental authorities. Lets show the American People today that Congress Supports a Domestic Energy source thats good for the environment, creates jobs and keeps us safer here at home. Does the gentleman yield . Mr. Poliquin yes i do. Mr. Calvert i suspect this issue is not limited to your state. I hope that everyone can find a path forward for this issue thats important to the country and certainly i have no objection to this amendment. In fact, i support it. Mr. Poliquin thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. The chair the gentleman from maine reserves, yields back . Mr. Poliquin i reserve my time, sir. The chair reserves. The gentlelady from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum mr. Chairman, i just want to rise because i do oppose this amendment because the way it is a blanket block for the e. P. A. For implementing air toxic standards for boilers and incinerators. Among other things, you know, i mean theres boilers that burn natural gas coal, wood, oil, other fuel to produce heat, electricity. Incinerators dispose of it. They have potential of releasing very toxic pollutants which is mercury lead, that are linked to health effects. So in 2011 after a robust public process including three public hearings and responding to thousands of Public Comments, the e. P. A. Finalized standards to, you know, reduce toxic emissions for existing new boilers solid waste incinerators and sewage incinerators. The rule requires emissions just to meet certain standards. Its a measurement of air pollution based on the degree of which light is blocked by the pollutant from the smokestack. The rule also allows the e. P. A. To approve alternative limits under certain circumstances. So theres flexibility within the rule. Now, the local paper mills in the representatives state are exceeding or theyre expected to exceed the standard in the e. P. A. s final rule. So to better fit their circumstances, they want an alternative alternate opinion, and thats the issue that the e. P. A. Is looking at right now. They heard the concerns. Theyre looking at it. Strangely, this amendment would not really address that issue. Instead, it would block the e. P. A. From ever approving an alternative limit or implementing or enforcing an alternative limit that had already been approved. So i rise because this amendment unfortunately just does not make any sense to me that we would not keep the dialogue moving forward. You know its the e. P. A. Has the responsibility making sure that standards of emissions with mercury and lead and other toxic pollutants are not dangerous to Public Health and especially to children. And we know from statistically now up to 8,100 premature deaths 5100 heart attacks and 52 asthma attacks, you know, are all worked into reducing this emission these emissions to lower those numbers. So we need to stand with the e. P. A. Air toxic standards and allow them to achieve their intended benefits and to work with to work with industry where it makes sense and we can have industry move forward but still protect the Public Health. Just not scrap the parts that industry dislikes. So i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it would keep the e. P. A. From doing what its doing right now and that is to work with industry oddly enough, to create a winwin for industry and a winwin for Public Health. With that i yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from maine. Mr. Poliquin i strongly disagree, mr. Chairman, with my colleague on the other side of the aisle. Those of us those who visited our great state know that we have a pristine natural environment. It is part of our brand, mr. Chair. It is something that we protect and well continue to protect at all costs. However, as a freshman legislator, ive been here for six months and what ive learned in those six months is that we have almost a Fourth Branch of government and thats these regulators that regulate every part of our life. Whether were trying to make paper or what have you in trying to provide work for our families. So i support this amendment. I express my concern that folks wouldnt and i yield my time. Thank you very much, sir. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maine. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition . Mr. Polis mr. Speaker, i have an amendment at the desk, number 27. The chair the clerk will report. The clerk an amendment offered by mr. Polis of colorado. At the end of the bill before the short title insert the following section 441. None of the funds made available by this act by the use in controvention of section 102a1 of public law 10443 u. S. C. 1701a1. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentleman from colorado and a member opposed will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. Polis. Mr. Polis mr. Chairman with this amendment this body has the opportunity to say loudly and clearly, lets keep our public lands public. Public lands are a massive economic generator and are important to our health and welfare as americans. Theyre beautiful, theyre healing. Recently got to hear from a veteran in eagle county and part of his Recovery Process is the time he spends outdoors in our public lands. And theyre also practical. They help ensure for Water Quality maintain critical aspects of rural life like farming ranching, grazing and logging. Public lands are where our hunters and fishermen go to enjoy the outdoors. They are where skiers hikers, bikers and motorists experience activities that are impossible in other places and are invaluable to their quality of life. Outdoor enthusiasts utilize these areas and has a vast economic driver as well. In fact 646 billion is generated economically through our public lands and visiting our public lands supports over six million jobs, including many in my district and many in our great state of colorado. When recently polled across six western states the American People said, with 96 support, unheard of level of support, the protecting public lands for future generations is one of their Top Priorities and above and apart from many other they see the maintenance of access for Outdoor Activities on our public lands is a critical focus of our federal government. States dont have the resources or expertise to suddenly take on the responsibilities for our federal lands. Nor do even state governments want that responsibility, mr. Chairman. Selling these lands outright to private owners would undoubtedly lead to loss of access to these majestic treasured spaces and at the same time would help would destroy jobs across the west and other areas that are blessed to have public lands. Yet, there has been attempt after attempt to transfer our most precious public spaces to the states or to private ownership or to sell them at wholesale. Mr. Chairman, the sportsmen dont want this. The hikers bikers, campers skiers and motorizeted activist that mortgagized activists dont want their motorized activists dont want their land taken away. Those concerned with Water Quality, Public Health that depends on stewardship of our public lands do not want our public lands taken away. So its loss to me, mr. Chairman, and perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle could speak to us, who does touch and relight on our public lands that does want to see them taken away. I oppose this inquiry and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. Who seeks recognition . The gentleman from colorado is rked. Recognized. Mr. Calvert i would rise in opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Calvert this would make it difficult and impossible for federal agencies to dispose or willingly or convey lands to states, local governments, public landowners and others. The federal government currently cant manage the existing land which is over 640 million acres or approximately three out of every 10 acres in the United States. So i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from colorado. Mr. Polis all my amendment does is ensure that none of the funds made available in this act can be used in controvention to the law of the land. My amendment wouldnt do anything to undermine Current Authority of connolly and administratively driven land exchanges. In fact, i have brought several before this body and seen severallined signed into law. My district is 62 federal land and we always have various exchanges purchases and sales and of course, those are consistent with the law which allows the funds to be used under this bill. Im a strong believer in the ability of our federal government and congress to make choices wisely in a thorough, public and transparent process which we do in this body. What my amendment would do instead is prohibit the use of funds in this bill to pursue any additional extra legal ways to turn our federal land over to private owners. It would prohibit federal dollars from being used to support, for instance, a commission around finding avenues to turn all federal lands over to private ownership. These kinds of ventures are fiscally wasteful and counterproductive and wholly unwanted by the American People who rely on and derive spiritual support, health and jobs from our public lands. I urge my colleagues to reflect upon who exactly we are working for and what our goal is with regard to our public lands. I strongly support ensuring that all the provisions of this appropriations bill are limited to the full pursuit of section 102a1 of the public law 94579 with regard to our public lands and that none of this money, which is what this amendment will do can be diverted to privatize our public lands. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from colorado yields back his time. The questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The gentleman from colorado. Mr. Polis on that i request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk, 118. The chair clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Gosar of arizona. At the end of the bill, before the short title insert the follow, limitation on use of funds to treat the desert portis as an endangered or threatened species. None of the funds made available by used to treat the tortoise as an endangered species or threatened species inched the endangered spees see act of 1973. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control phi minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Gosar i rise to offer a commonsense amendment to the interior and related agencies appropriations act. It will protect grazing and housing interests as well as blocking the fish and Wildlife Service from listing the Sonoran Desert tortoise as an endangered species. Of the potential 26. 8 million acres that will likely be designate for critical habitat 15 million acres are located in the United States and nearly 4. 5 million achers are state trust land. State trust land revenue is currently enjoyed by 13 ben fish yashes of which k through 12 education will be most affected. These lands become less valuable for investment. Without this amendment schools have already that have already undergone significant budget cuts will see even less money flowing into their educational coffers. The Sonoran Desert cor toys is also of concern to many different types of industry as its habitat falls in urban Development Corridors as well as rural landscape. It will negatively impact commercial housing as well as agriculture and grazing industry. Specifically enlisting would be detrimental for 263 different fwrazing allotments and jeopardize nearly 600 million acres. It will also suffer as a b. L. M. New listed mining claims from 1990 to 2002 36 of which fall within the tortoises habitat. Any vegetation disturbing activities including Fire Prevention actives activities wowls also be impact. Solar energy would also likely be harmed as large Solar Projects are considered a potential thereto to the tortoise. My amendment will also encourage significant voluntary efforts and financial contributions for the tortoise to continue many of which are under way at the local level. Important local conservation efforts began for the species in 2010 and a candidate agreement was signed by 15 different agencies in february. Should the so nor lan desert tortoise be listed, these moneys will dissipate as local Property Owners will no longer have insent toiv work with federal and state Wildlife Management agencies on conservation efforts for the species. My amendment is supported by the land council, americans for limited government, arizona cattlemens association, arizona mining association, Home Builders association of Central Arizona and numerous other oh,s. I thank the chairman and Ranking Member for their tireless efforts to produce this bill and i reserve. The chair for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota rise . Ms. Mccollum i claim time in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Mccollum this amendment would do two things. First, prohibit the fish and Wildlife Service from freeting the Sonoran Desert turtle as endangered or threatened under the endangered spees see act and secondly it would restrict the service from offering any critical protection to preserve the species. The desert tortoise is an iconic species. Its been part of the ecosystem for over 150,000 years. 150,000 years. In 2010 the fish and Wildlife Service found that the listing for the so nor ran dezer tore Sonoran Desert tortoise was warranted but was precluded because it was needed to address other priorties. Last november the service announced it was working on a prose pod listing determination expected to be published within a year. This amendment if it were to pass, would stop fishe and Wildlife Services efforts and block the service from meeting a cord ordered deadline to make this listing determination. In other words they would put u. S. Fish and wildlife at odds with what the court has requested for them to do. So this amendment has no place in the appropriations process. Nor does it have any place in this legislative process. So the endangered species act must, lest think about this for a minute, its been one of our most effective and important environmental laws. Its supported by over 85 of americans. There have been no law thats been more important for preventing the distinction extings extinction of wildlife. But sop members of this body seem determined to undermine he lawy placing harmful riders on this bill. By my count there are at least 10 species at risk of losing the endangered spees cease act protections in this bill system of what type of conservation legacy are we leaving for future generations . And thats why i oppose the amendment and i urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. I yelled back. The chair the gentlelady yields back her time. The gentleman from arizona. Mr. Gosar the Sonoran Desert tortoise is part of a growing problem with the Environmental Protection service. These multidistrict litigation settlements, sue and settle tact incompetent tactics, force them to make listing decisions on several hundred species often with little to no data on these species and without public input to the process. Its possible its a response to lawsuit filed by those wishing to stop development and has nothing to do with the tortoise. I yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition . Ms. Mccollum i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by ms. Tsongas of massachusetts. At the end of the bill before the short title, limitation on use of funds to implement or enforce specific sections. Section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement or enforce section 117 121, or 122 of this act. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlelady from massachusetts and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. Tsongas. Ms. Tsongas thank you mr. Chairman. My amendment which i offer with mr. Beyer of virginia would strike three policy riders related to the endangered spees cease act from the bill. The sage grouse, the long haired bat and the gray wolf. I want to focus my remarks on the greater sage grouse. The language in this bill that seeks to block an endangered species listing of this bird is unnecessary and inappropriate, putting both the species and the historically american Sage Brush Land scape in danger. Mark twain described the sage brush spe steppe as endearing. Settlers traveling west said that flocks of sage grouse blackened the sky unquote. Now theyve been reduced to as reduced to as few as 200,000 birds. There are partnerships throughout the west working to encourage sage brush habitat, encourage predictability for development and prevent listing of the sage grouse as endangered or threatened under the endangered species act. Federal and state groups hunters and others have come together. The plans released last month are based on plans developed by the state, individual plans to suit each states individual needs. All the reserve of concerted all the the result of concerted collaboration. The fish and Wildlife Service and states themselves agreed as long as these partnerships continue its likely that the greater sage grouse will not be listed as endangered or threatened under the act. Rather than helping community the rider in this bill creates uncertainty and undermines the immense progress already under way. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. With that, i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady reserves the gentlelady reserves her time. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . I rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to the amendment, let me first talk about sage grouse. Its meant to give fish and Wildlife Service time to make a determination of whether there ought to be a listing or not. The Court Ordered them to make a determination by, i think, september 30. Were trying to give them the time necessary, this is going to affect 11 western states. Not going to affect massachusetts, by the way. But it is going to affect 11 western states. Substantially. They have recently put out their Resource Management plans for the states. Mr. Simpson theres a period where states have a chance to interact with the federal agency, raise their complaints and so forth about what the problems are with their Resource Management plan. We are trying to give fish and Wildlife Service and the states the the 11 western states, by the way, not massachusetts, the time to come to a plan so that we dont list this bird. Everybody agrees, fish and Wildlife Service, the state, everybody essentially agrees we dont want sage grouse listed system of were trying and the states have made incredible progress and made incredible sacrifices, state of wyoming has taken i want to say millions of acres that have potential resources for the state of wyoming off the table to protect sage grouse. So weve made extraordinary efforts to make sure that we dont list this bird. As far as the wolves are concerned the fact is, the fish and Wildlife Service delisted the wolves. It wasnt us. We didnt want to go against science. Were not going against science, were not trying to make a species extinct. They was fish and Wildlife Service using science that delisted the wolves. Guess what, some people werent happy so they took them to court. Now were in a court case. Same thing happened in idaho and montana. While this language doesnt take a species off the endangered list as some people think we are trying to delist species were not. Were going back to the decision made by fish and Wildlife Service to delist the great the wolst in the great lakes and state of wyoming. I think if you want to talk about the cost, if you want to complain about whats going on here, you really ought to complain to the plaintiffs that are causing all this all of this hassle with wolves when the states have done exactly what they were supposed to do. And the wolf populations and the great lakes particularly have exploded. In idaho and montana theyve exploded. In wyoming theyve exploded. Thats why fish and wildlife delisted them. This amendment is contrary to every bit of science dealing with endangered species that there is. So i would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment even though it doesnt affect massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from idaho reserves. The gentlelady from massachusetts. Ms. Tsongas i would like to first comment that massachusetts was home to the hawaii pen cousin to the sage grouse. Because we didnt have the endangered species act at the time, that bird is extinct. So we have learned about the role this plays in protecting our pee cease. I yield two minute os to the gentleman, mr. Beyer. The chair the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Beyer despite what you may here from some mens of Congress Gray wolves have not recovered. Attempted to remove the wolves from the endangered species act have failed time and again. Why . Because scientific experts have shown that the best available science does not justify removing protections from gray wolves at this time. The only instance in which they have been delisted was through the unprecedented an unfortunate congressional action. These wolves are endlessly persecuted despite the positive effect they have on the ecosystem and the minimal toll they take on livestock. Wolf tourism creates millions of dollars for the economy. This amendment would prevent congress from directing the fish and Wildlife Service to reissue the delisting of wolves in the great lakes and wyoming. Now is not time to declare open season on one of americas most iconic wild animals. Science, not politics, should guide these delisting decisions. Wolves are not in massachusetts and not in virginia and never will be as long as we do not continue our efforts to protect wolves and allow them to occupy the old territories they did a few hundred years ago. This amendment would also allow us to move forward with steps to protect the northern long eared bat. Over the past decade, populations of the bat edeclined 9 , mostly because of the deadly effects of white nose syndrome. As a result they were recently listed as a threat nched species. While scientists and wild miff managers work to fight white nose syndrome, its important to make sure they are safe from other threats. The interim rule is incredibly flexible and was developed in close coordination with industry stake holders particularly the timber industry, to ensure that Economic Activity is not negatively impact. The final rule is expected to be similarly flexible they have language in this bill will only serbs as a delay tactic, causing additional uncertainty for businesses and Property Owners and this amendment would strike these unnecessary sections from the bill. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back his time. The gentlelady from massachusetts reserves. The gentleman from idaho. Simpson how much time do i have remaining mr. Simpson how much time do i have remaining . The chair the gentleman has two minutes remaining. Mr. Simpson we didnt have any in idaho until fish and wildlife decided to reintroduce them in idaho. When you say the minimum mall take it has on cattle, wildlife and other types of things, there was a gray wolf in idaho that one sheep rancher lost over 300 head of sheep one night to some wolves. That ends his business essentially. So its not a minimum mall take. If you take minimal take. The numbers have been down substantially particularly with elk because, guess what, they like elk even though they were told theyll go after deer and not elk. Wolves like elk better than deer. Congress never delisted a species. We didnt delist the gray wolves in idaho and montana. It was the fish and Wildlife Service using science, and when you say that gray wolves have not recovered wheres your science . Where do you get that, where does that statement come from . Fish and Wildlife Service thats under the investigation say yes they have. So do we not trust them . Its you people proposing this amendment that are going against science. Were just trying to make sure that science is protected and politics doesnt enter and we appreciate the people of virginia and the people of massachusetts trying to make sure that the wolves are healthy in idaho. I can guarantee you they are. Theyre not persecuted as you said. Yes, they are hunted but anybody that believes we were going to introduce wolves into idaho or montana where they hadnt been for a number of years and you werent going to have to maintain population controls of them was living in a fantasy land. Yes, we do have hunting seasons for wolves, as we do almost all species. But we have to maintain a certain population, and if that population isnt maintained, guess what . Fish and wildlife takes over and they go back on the endangered list. So its not congress thats making these decisions, it was fish and Wildlife Service. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. Ms. Mccollum i just want to reiterate that riders in the underlying bill will do nothing to help our native piece ms. Tsongas i just want to reiterate that riders in the underlying bill will do nothing to help our native species. Particularly with the sage grass, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the questions on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The gentlelady from massachusetts. Ms. Tsongas mr. Chair i request the yeas and nays. The chair does the gentlewoman request a recorded vote . Ms. Tsongas yes. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the gentlelady from massachusetts further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Gosar i have an amendment at the desk number 120. The chair the clerk will report. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Gosar of arizona. At the end of the bill before the short title insert the following section. None of the funds made available by this act may be used for the United Nations environmental program. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Gosar. Mr. Gosar thank you, mr. Chair. I rise to offer one final amendment. The amendment is simple. It prohibits the e. P. A. From providing funding to the United Nations environmental program. The United Nations environmental program, or unep has a history of taking unusual and extreme policy positions, including advocating for population control. The United Nations is typically funded in the state departments budget under contributions to International Organizations or c. I. O. The funds are appropriated appropriated by this act are meant to use domestically, not a slush fund to give to programs at the United Nations. Ill quickly name the programs. One is to promote sound worldwide. And climate benefits asia pacific. Theres one called Russian Federation support to the program of action for the protection of the arctic. This one is money that goes specifically to the russian cause. Ill read from the e. P. A. s own website the description of this program. This project centers on protection of the arctic environment in russia. This work will cover three broad areas. Number one, implementation of russias National Plan of action for protection of the arctic, Marine Environment from the anthropollution. Climate change mitigation, adaptation and awareness. So let me get this straight. In addition to the billions we contribute to the United Nations through the c. I. O. Account, the e. P. A. Is funneling millions of tax dollars to this United Nations program which then gives the money to russia who then uses to implement a russian National Plan and for Climate Change mitigation, adaptation and awareness. U. S. Taxpayers do i need to say anything further why we need to stop this . Lets keep the United States Environmental Protection agency focused on issues within the United States. Our favored outofcontrol agency need not be concerned with the Asia Pacific Region or with russia. I urge my colleagues to adapt this commonsense amendment that is supported by many. I thank the chairman and the Ranking Member for their tireless efforts in producing this bill and 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 rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Mccollum thank you. This amendment would prohibit any agency from using funds to the United Nations environmental program. Funds for the u. N. Are primarily provided through the state and foreign operations subcommittee. The e. P. A. Administrators about 500,000 of international grants, not the millions or the billions that was referred to in this particular bill. So i strongly oppose the amendment. I understand, as i said earlier, this small amount of money that is administered for the u. N. Environmental program in this bill. The primary source of funding for the International Programs i want to stress again this is in the state and foreign operations bill, not this bill. So this amendment seeks to solve a problem that really doesnt exist in this bill. But jurisdictionally questions aside, we must be an International Partner with respect to the environment. Engagement with the International Community allows us to share and learn best practices on how to manage toxic substances, International Engagement helps set interNational Standards to help our products compete globally and more importantly pollution knows no boundary. It does not respect international borders. In 1970s and 1980s, acid rain was a problem both in the United States and canada, and through Domestic Legislation and International Work with canada weve reduced the amount of acid rain that falls upon the United States and canada. Now right now in my home state of minnesota were under a high pollution warning. The culprit sadly is a series of forest fires that are raging to the north border of us in sess catch wan. Now, if sescatchawan. Now, we must be engaged both here at home and abroad. So as a proud minnesotan and a proud member of the United States congress, i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to Work Together in partnership, and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. The gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Gosar lets set the record straight. C. R. S. , hardly a partisan effort. The 2003 report says they spent over 6 million in foreign agencies in this fund. Imagine that. The facts are only convenient when they help us on our side. If were going to have a discussion about this, lets put it in the state Department Budget and lets talk about it. Lets not hide it in the e. P. A. Lets keep the e. P. A. s budget and dealings right here in the United States where they belong. They hardly have a track record of success here in the states. And i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentlelady from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum mr. Chairman, id like to stress again that in this bill there is 500,000. And i would like id also like to stress, you know, when it comes to regulating waters in the great lakes our tributaries rivers and basins on the northern border and i cant speak with eloquence whats happening in our southern border we need to have our international interlocketers. So i would appreciate the opportunity for my state and for the great lakes states to be able to continue with Strong Partnership with our canadian parters and with that partners and with that i yield back. Mr. Gosar with an 18 trillionplus debt when is enough enough . When we talk about foreign expenditures dollars, lets put it in the state Department Budget and make sure we have an open and honest conversation but it does not belong here. We have to start concentrating whats important to the United States, not what russia is. I guess thats putins kind of game is that we clean up his messes for him. With that i yield back and ask everybody to adopt this legislation. The chair the gentleman from arizona yields back his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Grijalva thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Grijalva of arizona. At the end of the bill before the short title insert the following limitation on use of funds with respect to ivory. Section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement or enforce section 120 of this act. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Grijalva thank you very much, again, mr. Chairman. At the inception of the debate and discussion regarding this appropriations bill i indicated i would offer an amendment to prevent language in the bill from driving the extinction of the African Elephants. I expect the administration to release its proposed ivory rule this month and it deserves the support of every member of this chamber. This rider that is currently in the language of the bill is another unfounded attack on an endangered species that our nations top scientific experts have concluded will go extinct without protection. Without protection of the endangered species act under which this rule is being promulgated. I mentioned in my previous statement the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently destroyed a one ton stocks pile of illegal elephant ivory from an antique dealer gordon. He violated the laws of the country where the ivory was poached. The ivory was doctored so it looked like it was old enough to pass through a loophole in the law. All of the ivory is illegal. It is hard to distinguish between antique ivory and anyone who bought it from gordon buys and resells it is contributing to the ongoing slaughter of elephants and the illegal trafficking of ivory that supports organized crime and terrorism. The only way to keep u. S. Citizens from being involved in this elephant poaching and trafficking crisis is to eliminate the commercial import, export and trade of African Elephant ivory in our country. Ending the commercial ivory trade will set an example for china and other countries to follow but they will not act until we do. Ending the trade will not take away personal possessions, nor will it bar the movement of Musical Instruments or few seesm pieces. But to save museum pieces. But to save elephants, we need to eliminate ivory. Sadly, this rider shows the House Republicans driving the extinction of wildlife one species at a time. A vote i would please join me on voting yes on this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to the gentlemans amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert i appreciate my colleagues thoughtful comments regarding crisis levels of poaching and wildlife trafficking and need to do something about it. This is a deadly serious matter with National Security implications. Thats why this bill has increased funding by 15 million since fiscal year 2013 in order to fight wildlife poachers and traffickers. Without question, republicans dont want to see elephants go extinct. But when the fish and Wildlife Service made the decision to ban the trade of products containing ivory that have been in the United States legally for years we heard from orchestra musicians museums, wildlife organizations collectors of fine antiques from chess pieces to pool cues to firearms, and nearly everyone and every organization in between. They are united in support for elephants but they are also united in their opposition to new federal restrictions on products that contain ivory legally obtained. Thalry reality is family eyre looms and the reality is that family heirlooms and rare Musical Instruments didnt cause the problems. This allows the trade this suspends this until the fish and Wildlife Service can write a rule that respects american citizens. They are rumored to be days away from addressing these concerns. If that rule if that is the case and that rule solves the problem then this will not be needed. I remain committed to working with my colleagues to find a reasonable solution moving forward. I must oppose this amendment. I reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Grijalva thank you mr. Chairman. Let me yield two minutes to the to mr. Beyer, the gentleman from virginia. The chair the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Beyer thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member grijalva. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for your comments. Im proud to speak in support of gr grijalvas amendment. The u. S. Is the worlds second largest market for ivory, only china has greater demand. In february of last year president obama announced a ban on the commercial trade of ivory, elephant ivory this ban is the best way to ensure that u. S. Markets do not contribute to the further decline of African Elephants in the wild. The African Elephant population has declined by an estimated 50 over the last 40 years, with approximately 35,000 elephants poached every year amounting to one every el one elnt poached every 15 minutes. The u. S. Fish and wildlife has been undertaking a series of actions to implement the ban. This would prevent them from implementing this rule and other policies necessary to crack down on the illegal ivory market. I dont understand why we dont do Everything Possible to stop the lauther slaughter of African Elephants. I urge my colleagues to support gr grijalvas amendment. We must allow f. W. S. To continue its efforts to prevent ivory trade. The chair the gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back. The chair the gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Grijalva i yield the remaining time to the gentlelady from minnesota. The chair the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Mccollum thank you, mr. Chairman. If were going to stop the slauth over African Elephants we need to stop the illegal trade in ivory. This rider does nothing to do with the proaching cry crisis and ignores the impact of the illegal ivory trade with the United States and the way its impacting the African Elephants survive. The rider also undermines the United States ability to push other countries with significant ivory markets like china, vote in a vietnam and others to take stronger actions to restrict ivory trade. In fact, according to a recent Washington Post article, china signaled its actions to further restrict ivory trade were contingent on what the United States does to regulate our domestic trade. It is in the National Interest of the United States to combat wildlife trafficking and to ensure that we dont contribute to the growing Global Demand for elephant ivory which is also spawning terrorism around finding terrorism around the world. We need to come up with a responsible set of recommendations to to accommodate actions that do not pose a threat to elephants. I urge my colleagues to support the grijalva amendment. I yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The gentleman from arizona. Mr. Grijalva thank you, mr. Chairman. On that i request a recorded vote. The chair purr student to clause 6 of rule further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the gentleman will specify which amendment. Mr. Smith this is smith amendment number one. 264. The chair clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Smith of texas. At the end of the bill before the short title insert the follow voirmental programs and management. Section of course the funds provided for Environmental Protection agency, Environmental Programs and management, not more than 1,715,500,000 may be available for the Immediate Office of the administration and not more than 3,581,500 may be available for the office of congressional and intergovernmental relations and the aggregate amount otherwise provided under such heading is reduced by 2,735,000. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Smith. Mr. Smith i offer this amendment together with my colleagues and fellow Committee Chairman mr. Conaway of texas and mr. Chaffetz of utah. The amendment addresses the Environmental Protection agencys continued pattern of destructioned on delay with congressional oversight. The e. P. A. Has proposed or finalized new farreaching rules that impact almost every aspect of the American Economy. These rules involve major expansions of federal Authority Massive costs to the economy and are based on secret science that the e. P. A. Keeps heading from external review or scrutiny. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to perform rigorous oversight of the executive branch. However, as chairman of the committee on science, space and technology nearly every request for information i make to e. P. A. Is greeted with repeated delays partial responses or outright refusals to cooperate. Earlier this year, the committee was forced to issue a subpoena to obtain information related to administrator mccarthys deletion of almost 6,000 Text Messages sent and received on her official agency mobile device. She claimed that all but one was personal. Most recently, the committee requested information and documents related to the e. P. A. S Development of the waters of the u. S. Rule and the agent agencys inappropriate lobbying of and collaboration with outside organization to have grass roots support. The e. P. A. Again failed to provide requested documents. Producing documents in bits and pieces after months or years of delays are not the action of an open and transparent administration. These are the asts of an agency and administration that has something to hide. It is clear that the e. P. A. Does not see its job as facilitating transparency and oversight. It seems to believe its mission is to delay, obstruct and otherwise attempt to stone wall any attempt by congress to fulfill its constitutional oversight obligation on behalf of the American People. Congress should not support such an agency. We are taking further action with this amendment to reduce funding for e. P. A. s offices. E6789 p. A. Must refocus its efforts on transparency and cooperation with congress and the American People. At that point we could consider restoring their funding. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from texas reserves his time. For what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition . Ms. Mccollum i claim time in opposition. The chair the gentlelady is recognize frds five minutes. Ms. Mccollum this is clearly a republican attempt to cut funding from the Environmental Protection agency. Its an agency that protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, the fish we eat. It means that the e. P. A. Works every day to protect the health of every american. This amendment is clearly an attack against the administration for work that theyve been doing to enforce those protections. Its entirely counterproductive to complain about lack of timery timely response from the e. P. A. A. And then turn around and slash the funding that allows the e. P. A. Administrator and Agency Response and agency staff to respond to our concerns. This will make it more difficult for members of congress to get our questions answered, and those of our constituents, by slashing the opposite Intergovernmental Agency affairs, this ealt would make it harder for state and local officials to fwather the information they need to protect their communities. I dont really believe we want to tell the e. P. A. They should cut back on meeting and getting recommendations from local government adrisery committees or tell our elected officials at a state level theyre going to have an even harder time getting hold of someone at the e. P. A. To help them form afwreems to address their priority needs. Now our states have a responsibility with the e. P. A. For protecting Public Health and environment and this amendment would undermine those partnerships. This amendment would make it more difficult for the peoples representatives at the federal, state and local level to get support and answers from the e. P. A. In order to protect the health of their constituents. So i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these cuts. I yield back. I reserve. The chair the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from texas, mr. Smith. Mr. Smith i have only one more speaker and ill reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum i yield back my time. I yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back her time. The gentleman from texas. Mr. Smith i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from utah, the chairman of the government oversight committee. The chair the gentleman from utah is recognized. Mr. Chaffetz thank you. I thank mr. Smith of texas, mr. Conaway of texas, for their good work on this. In the year 2015, five letters were sent to the e. P. A. From the oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding rule making. All went unanswered until the science subcommittee threatened a subpoena. Whats probably most egregious is even when we do bipartisan work new york a bipartisan letter we ask the e. P. A. To provide a response to a request concerning collections of use of fees and fines and even when we do do it in a bipartisan way, those go unresponded to. They fail to even provide a staff briefing on the collection and use of fines and penalties despite repeated requests. So we hear on the floor, well, you cant take away their money then they wont be able to respond. But with the money they dont respond system of they dont need the money if theyre going to if theyre not going to respond, even when woe we do so in a professional, bipartisan way asking legitimate questions about the use of the funds and how this department and agency work. In the year 2013 requests for filed for information regarding actions of a previous administrate orr. Responses were inadequate and a subpoena was filed. But the e. P. A. Only began searching for the documents six months after a subpoena was issued. Six months after this happened. This is just not tolerable. There needs to be consequences for this they obviously dont need these funds if theyre going to be so unresponsive even when we do so in a bipartisan way. So i would urge the passage of the smith amendment, i think its a good amendment that is a responsible way to move forward. I appreciate the good work the Appropriations Committee has done and their support and their work. Again, thank mr. Smith for his leadership on this issue. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. Smith. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Who seeks recognition . For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Chairman i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report. Will the gentleman from california specify which amendment . 066, mr. Chairman. The chair clerk will report. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Huffman of california, at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following section, none of the nunds funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a new contract or agreement or administer a portion of an existing contract or agrement with a cooperating association or any other entity that provides for the sale of facility within the unite of the National Park system of a noneducational item that depicts a Confederate Flag on it. Mr. Huff minnesota shaq thats not the re mr. Huffman thats not the revised amendment. The chair does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment . Mr. Huffman if it can be substituted with the proper amendment. I reserve a point of order on this amendment. The chair without objection the amendment is withdrawn. Mr. Huffman i believe you should have the proper amendment now. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from california now seek are recognition . Mr. Huffman i have an amendment at the desk, mr. Chair. The chair the clerk will report. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Had huffman of california. At the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a new contract or agreement or to administer a portion of an existing contract or agreement with a concessioner, a cooperating association or any other entity that provides for the sale of any facility within a unit of a National Park system, of any item with a Confederate Flag as a standalone feature. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Mr. Huffman thank you, mr. Chairman. The tragic shooting in charleston, South Carolina has forced a National Conversation about symbols like the confederate battle flag that represent racism slavery and division. Like you i applaud leaders in South Carolina and other southern states, both democrat and republican, who have called on their states to end the display of the Confederate Flag on government property, including state houses and license plates. With the consideration of the interior appropriations bill this house now has an opportunity to add its voice, by ending the promotion of the cruel, racist legacy of the confederacy. The National Park service has asked its gift shops book stores and other concessions to voluntarily end the sale of standalone items such as flags, pens and belt buckles that contain imagery of the Confederate Flag. And while many concessions have agreed to do this i am dismayed by reports that some will continue. To sell items with Confederate Flag imagery. This amendment to the interior appropriations bill would end these sales. It would prevent the National Park service from allowing the continued promotion of the confederacy through these symbols. Major american retailers like had walmart, amazon and ebay are already taking their own steps to ban sales of this type of merchandise and we now have an obligation to ensure that the federal agencies that we oversee act with the same moral clarity. This amendment, mr. Chairman, will end the practice im sorry, strike that mr. Chairman. With that i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . I rise actually, if the gentleman would i rise in support of this amendment but i want to say that, taking time in opposition, but i am not opposed to the amendment. Mr. Calvert the language now in this amendment is consistent with the National Park Service Policy and i would support this language as you presently have it. And i would urge its adoption. Thank you. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Calvert i yield back. The chair the gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Huffman i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota. The chair the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. Ms. Mccollum thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the gentlemans amendment. This amendment, as the chairman calvert pointed out, is consistent with the recent National Park Service Actions to further limit the display of the Confederate Flag in units of the National Park system. Previous National Park Service Policy had already provided that the Confederate Flag would not be flown alone from any flag park flagpoles. On june 25, the park director further requested that the Confederate Flag sale items be removed from the National Park book stores and shops. This also follows a decision by several Large National retailers, including walmart, amazon and sears, to stop selling items with con fed ral flags on them. I agree Confederate Flags on them. I agree with this decision. While in very limited instances it might be appropriate for National Parks to display a Confederate Flag in its historical content, a sale of Confederate Flags is inappropriate and devitesive divisive and support limiting their use. I yield back. The chair the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Huffman mr. Chairman, i respectfully request an aye vote and i yield the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Collins of georgia. At the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to reduce or terminate any of the propagation programs listed in the march 2013, strategic hatchry and Work Force Planning report. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise today to offer an amendment that recognize and supports the Important Role of fish hatchries nationwide. Before i get to the amendment, i want to thank you for the hard work, mr. Calvert, for the hard work of the committee and the recognition of the importance of fish hatchries already there. And i also want to thank my friend from arkansas, mr. Crawford, for cosponsoring this amendment. My amendment prohibblets funds from the bill from being used to reduce or terminate any of the existing propagation programs listed in the march 2013, National Fish hatchry system strategic hatchry and Work Force Planning report. This report raised southeastern concerns that the fish and Wildlife Services view hatchries as a low priority program. Personally i believe that stocking the tail water, streams, lakes and rivers of america should be a higher priority. Hatchries provide an important service, including providing our nations anglers with recreational enjoyment and opportunities to catch fish and they can be particularly vital for Economic Growth in rural areas, including northeast georgia. The importance of our nations hatchries is obvious when you look at the fish hatchry. This hatchry is located back home in the ninth Congressional District. It stocks the tail waters of multiple projects for army corps of engineers and t. V. A. With Rainbow Trout for the enjoyment of 160,000 anglers per year. Without this, the tail waters would be baron. The chat hoochie National Fish hatch i have an economic driver in the surrounding community. This rural town and the county doesnt have any major stores or banks but it does have the hashry. The hatchry is generated over 30 million in total economic input on just 740,000 in investment. It has a 40 return on investment for every 1 spent and provides enjoyment to many, many people. The National Fish hatchry plays an integral role in businesses commuents, providing education to Public Outreach, to visitors, School Groups and various other organizations. Facilitating recreationality opportunities. The work of the hatchry is such , its just one example of propagation programs at National Fish hatchries nationwide. These are job creators, Economic Growth engines. They provide Critical Services to Rural America and play an important educational role. They support anglers with Recreational Services and responsibly stock the rivers to keep the habitats in order. Despite this however the department of fish and wildlife propagation programs including those in the chat hoochie National Fish hatchry are among the lowest of their priorities. This ensures that finds to the fish and Wildlife Service are consistent with the agencys commission. Mr. Calvert i want you to know that the i that i support the gentlemans amendment and would urge its adoption adoption. Mr. Collins i appreciate that. With that i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. Does any member seek time in opposition . If not, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. Mr. Collins i yield back mr. Chairman. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Beyer of virginia. At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. Limitation on use of funds and contravention of executive orders regarding Climate Change. Section, none of the funds made available by this act may be expended in contravention of executive order 13514 of october 5, 2009, or executive order 13653 of november 1 2013. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. Mr. Beyer thank you mr. Chair. I yield myself such time as i may noo need. The sum of the harmful consequences of global Climate Change is the existential crisis of our nation and perhaps our century. Global temperature change are already causing prolonged droughts, extreme weather events and rising sea levels. Tens of millions of people especially the poorest and the most vulnerable among us, are at risk unless we act to reverse the disastrous effects of Climate Change. Our best scientists and our pope are warning us that, unless Carbon Emissions will dramatically cut well see everrising sea levels, evermore extreme weather and everworsening Public Health. Poor air quality, the spread of tropical diseases, illnesses and death. Several weeks ago the eduardo issued a the e. P. A. Issued a comprehensive report quantity fige the costs of a changing climate across 20 sectors of the American Economy. Among the findings the report found that by 2100 mitigating greenhouse global gas emissions could avoid 12,000 detects per year. That are associated with extreme temperatures in just 49 u. S. Cities. Compared to a future with no kindergarten reducing. The estimated damages to Coastal Property for Sea Level Rises to storm surge and the continuous u. S. Are 5 trillion through the year 2100 and a future without Carbon Emissions. The department of interior also recently released a report revealing that over 40 billion of National Park infrastructure and historic and resultcal resources could be at risk due to Sea Level Rise caused by Climate Change. Taking action to address Climate Change is particularly crucial in urban districts that border waterways like mine where were already seeing environmental effects. Now is the time when the u. S. Should be deepening its commitment to reduce Climate Change pollution. Federal agency actions, including those of the agencies named in this bill, have major impact its on our contributions and reactions to rctions to global warning. Its imperative that these agencies remain mindful of impacts and seek to avoid actions that cause significant amounts of Carbon Pollution to the atmosphere or actions that put people and property a vulnerable position with respect to Climate Change. For that reason, mr. Chair, im offering an amendment to ensure that no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with the president s 2009 executive order on Greenhouse Gas emissions and Energy Efficiency and the 2013 executive order on clima change adaptation. These orders require agencies to take global warning warming into account when making decisions. And will save taxpayer dollars while making our communities safer and ceaner. Our agencies need to be climatesmart, because making our federal vestments and actions Climate Smart reduces our fiscal exposure to the impacts of Climate Change. Its the ght thing to do to runnd efficient and effective government. Its the right thing to do to return the highest dollar to the american taxpayer and its simple smarter investments up front mean we can reduce future costs. Communities across the nation are thinking this way, we need to ensure that theame is true for the federal government. I urge a yes vote on this amendment, sure that federal agencies are are operatingn a manner that accounts for Climate Change. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chair, i reserve the balance of myime. The chair the gentleman resves the balance of his time. The chair recognizes for what purpose does e gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to the ntlemans amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert earlier we debated whether or not to continue a bipartisan reportin requirement on the bill in Climate Change ex penledstures. My colleague on the other side of the aisle wanted to remove the requirements which would have reduced transparency. Now we want to ensure that funds are being expended on climate and executive orders issued by the presint. Im left to wonder whether my colleagues will would prefer to know if funds are spent on these programs or not. Regardless this endment is simply unnecessary. The president did not consult congress on these executive orders so if anything we should defund the programs until congress can have an appropriate policy debate. I see no reason to include this languagand i urge my colleues to vote no. With that i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman serves the balance of his time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from virgia. Mr. Beyer how much time do i have remaining . Whoip two commins. Mr. Beyer id like towreeled two minutes to my colleague from calirnia. The chair the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. I thank the gentleman. I support this amendment, which will ensure the no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with the president s executive order on Greenhouse Gas emissions and Energy Efficiency and the 2013 executive order on Climate Change adaptation. Mr. Huffman these orders require agencies to simply takes Global Warming into account when making decisio. This will save taxpayers lots of money while making our communities safer and cleaner. Fighting Climate Change has to be regarded as the biggest imper teve of our time. My state of california has stepped up to this issue and taken important bol steps to confront it, including passing ab32, the worlds most aggressive Greenhouse Gas reduction policy. At the federal level, president obamas efforts through these orders are critical steps toward reducinGreenhouse Gas emissions and addressing Climate Change. Ensuring compliance with these measures is the least we can do on this critical issue. Frankly, we should be doing much more. So i urge my colleagues to support mr. Beyers amendment and continue this effort to combat Climate Change and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Beyer i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is mr. Beyer i request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition . Mrs. Blackburn i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. Blackburn of tennessee. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentlewoman from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. Mrs. Blackburn i thank the committee for the excellent job that they have done. Under chairman calverts leadership with bringing this appropriations bill under budget. It is 3 billion below the president s request. Still 30. 17 billion in proposed funding in this bill. And i come before you to offer an amendment that i regularly offer to these Appropriations Bills, which is a 1 across the board spending cut. Lets go in and take one more penny out of every dollar and use that to bolster the good work that our committee has done. You know, one of the things that i like about this bill is there a 9 reduction in the e. P. A. Budget compared to last year. We know we need to bring in the e. P. A. We are all for clean air, clean water and Clean Environment and we have different ways of getting there. And the burdensome regulations that are out there negatively impact our communities. But we know there is more work that we have to do on this 30 billion budget. My amendment would reduce the discretionary Budget Authority by 292 million and reduce outlays by 193 million. Now, i know that this is not a popular amendment with a lot of those who have cut cut, cut and we cant cut anymore, i disagree with that. I think that you can look at the g. A. O. Reports and the Inspector General reports and see there is plenty of room to cut. We just recently went into the last four years of Inspector General reports. Guess what . We found 165 million of identified waste in the department of interior. It is time to engage our rank and file employees in our federal government to make them a team and a partner with us as we work on this issue of getting our budget rightsized. With that, i reserve. The chair the gentlewoman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Calvert while i commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect tax pairs dollars, this isnt an approach i support. The increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that would never be enacted. This bill makes tough choices with an allocation that it add hears to current law. The bill in its current form balances our needs. These tradeoffs were carefully weighed. We prioritize funding for Fire Suppression and meeting our moral obligations in Indian Country. The gentleladys amendment proposes an acrosstheboard cut. This amendment makes no distinction where we need to be spending and invest or need to spend money on our deficit reduction goal. I may point out the spending problem is not within these discretionary appropriation bills which were debating at this present time. But exists in entitlement spending. I hope we can spend as much time on the flifmente side of the budget. So i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. And i would yield to my friend, ms. Mccollum. Ms. Mccollum thank you, chairman for yielding me time. This amendment, i strongly oppose. It institutes a 1 acrosstheboard cut. A few interesting things about the interior bill. This bill before us today is 2 billion, 2 billion below 2010 enacted levels. And when you adjust this bill for inflation its at 2005 levels. This indiscriminately cuts programs without any thought to the merit of the program that is contained in this bill. For instance, this would result in fewer patients being able to be seen, fewer inspectors ensuring accidents dont incur and our infrastructure is underfunded in this bill. More generally, investments in our Environmental Infrastructure and public lands will be halted and associated jobs will be lost. As i said earlier, this bill is already underfunded, underfunded when adjusted to inflation to 2005 levels. This would encourage agencies to do more with less and force them to do less with less. I urge opposition to this amendment and i yield back. Mr. Calvert reserve. The chair the alreserves. The gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. Mrs. Blackburn just a couple of quick comments. Underfunded . No. We are overspent in this town. We have 18 trillion worth of debt, and its time to get a handle on that. Moral obligations . How about the moral obligation to our children and grandchildren. Admiral mullen said the greatest threat to our nation is the nations debt. Keep our sovereignty and keeping our nation safe and secure, this is something we do for our children and something we can do for our National Security. A penny on a dollar to get this spending under control. Our approach . Guess what . State and local governments use this all the time. They cant go print money and run up debt. When i was in the state senate in tennessee, what did we do . We didnt go home until we balanced the budget because we had the obligation to get it done right the first time before we walked out the door. And i do hope that we will put attention on our entitlements, but that is no excuse for not addressing what is in front of us today. To not address it is to kick the can down the road. I have a lot of constituents who arent taking home as much as they were in 2005. They think we should reduce federal spending even more, reduce the federal workforce even more because government is getting too expensive to afford. Lets engage federal employees in this process. It has worked for the states. It will work for the federal government. Lets get our fiscal house in order. A good place to start is right here, with this amendment that would save another 193 million in outlays and 292 million in discretionary Budget Authority. With that, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the chair the gentlewoman yields back. The gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i appreciate the gentleladys concern about the deficit. When i came here 24 years ago 40 of our expenditures were on the entitlement side of the budget. Today its over 60 . Over 60 . We need to attack that side of the budget line. If we had as much energy on entitlement spending, not only would the budget be balanced but we would be moving toward paying off our national debt. I oppose the gentleladys amendment. I yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Mrs. Blackburn mr. Chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will be postponed. Mr. Calvert move that the committee do now rise. The chair the question is on the motion that the committee rise. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Accordingly, the committee rises. The speaker pro tempore mr. Chairman. The chair directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. The speaker pro tempore the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the Union Reports that the committee has had under consideration h. R. 2822 and has come to no resolution thereon. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise . Mr. Speaker pursuant to clause 12 of rule 22, i move that the meetings of the conference between the house and the senate on h. R. 1735 may be closed to the public at such times as classified National Security information may be broached, provided that any sitting member of Congress Shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the conference. The speaker pro tempore the question is on the motion. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule 22, the the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15minute vote on the vote to authorize to close the conference will be followed by fiveminute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate Amendment to h. R. 91. This is a 15minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 402 and the nays are 12. The motion is adopted. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Unfinished business is vote on the motion of the the gentleman from louisiana, to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate Amendment to h. R. 991 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk an act to amend title 38 United States code to direct the secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue ved ran Identification Cards. Senate amendment. The speaker pro tempore the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the Senate Amendment. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vet, the yeas are 411, the nays zero. 2 3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the Senate Amendment is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. For what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition . Mr. Speaker i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title. The clerk report to accompany House Resolution 347 resolution providing for further consideration of the bill h. R. 5 to support state and local accountability for public education, protect state and local authorities inform parents of the performance of their childrens schools and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill h. R. 2647 to expedite under the National Environmental policy act an improved Forest Management act sievity derived from the Public Domain on public lands under the jurisdiction of the bureau of Land Management and on tribal lands to return resilience to fireprone public lands and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. Pursuant to House Resolution 333 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h. R. 2822. Will the gentleman from minnesota, mr. Emmer kindly take the chair. The chair the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h. R. 2822 which the clerk will report by title. The clerk a bill making appropriations for the department of interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. The chair when the committee of the whole rose earlier today a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee mrs. Blackburn had been postponed and the bill had been read through page 132, line 24. The committee will be in order. The committee will be in order. Members are asked to please take their conversations off the floor. Members are asked to please take their conversations off the floor. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Gallego of arizona, at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the follow section 441, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to issue a grazing permit or lease in contravention of section 4110 pncht 1 or 4130. 1b of title 43 code of federal regulation. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Gosar mr. Chairman mr. Gallego mr. Chairman, i rise to offer an amendment about grazing on public lands. Grazing on public lands is a privileged, not a right. Its critical that individual ranchers that quse these lands abide by the law and pay their fair shir my commonsense amendment simply confirms that grazing permits or leases should not be issued to anyone that does not come ply with b. L. M. Legislation. It does not penalize people for forgetting to repair or fence or forgetting to make a payment once or twice, rather, it ensures that egregious violations of grazing recommendations are not going to be allowed to happen under the taxpayers watch. The american taxpayers work every kay to ensure that our regulations are met. Mr. Chairman reknews from grazing fees go forward the management, maintenance and improvements of public range land. The vast majority of ranchers understand how important these efforts are and pay their feese on time. But some ranchers are outright refusing to pay their grazing fees. One particular rancher who is well known to the media is more than 1 million arrears since 1993. He has ignored the executive and judicial branches of our government, expanding further onto our lands without permission. Unauthorized grazing such as this, in this case, has the potential to destroy habitat of protected species and damage public property. In addition he has instigated volatile situations that put lives of local and federal government officials at risk. Unbelievably, some in this body applauded this dangerous action. Thats simply irresponsible. Mr. Chairman, i strongly scht that if anyone in my Congressional District in phoenix forcibly resisted paying the federal government more than 1 million he or she would be in handcuffs instead of on television or meeting with potential president ial candidates. Ultimately, however, this amendment is about more than one man. Its about upholding the basic principles that our law should be applied fairly to everyone who lives in this country and uses its public lands. Mr. Chairman, we must ensure that egregious violations of regulations are not financed by the american taxpayer. To that end, i hope all mens will support this critical amendment and i reserve this and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserved. The chair any member wish to seek time in opposition . The gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Gallego i yield back the remainder of my time. The chair the gentleman from arizona yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Pierce of new mexico. Insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to increase the royalty required to be paid to the United States of oil and gas produced on federal land or to prepare or publish a proposed rule. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from new mexico and a member opposed each will control five minutes. Pierce pierce mr. Pearce there was an advanced rulemaking in which we were going to consider raising the royalty rates. Now there are several reasons that we would want to consider that before we implemented it. And our amendment says, lets stop the process. First of all, what it does, its going to drive the royalty rates on federal lands and one more impedement. Secondly, Small Businesses small independent producers are already under pressure to try to stay in business and would increase their operating costs. Rural states, the Small Businesses, these local producers are producers of prosperity that are missing from the rural parts of the country. If we are going to have an economy that is healthy, if we are going to have an economy that provides jobs for the future, we need energy that is affordable and present dibblingtable supply. Nothing is better than producing our oil than when we have to import oil. Some of those nations are unstable politically and some of them dont like us as a country and why not provide our own energy and jobs and receive news to the federal government. Any time you increase taxes on a given item, you are going to see less of that item and oil and gas is no exception. Lets let the government think about that a more, which will decrease energys sploy. With that, i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from new mexico reserves. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine seek recognition. Ms. Pingree i claim the time in opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentlewoman from is recognized. Ms. Pingree it would prohibit the bureau to modernize its rate structure which would result in less revenue to the treasury. The oil and gas royalties has been the subject of repeated studies and other entities for many years. In 2008, the g. A. O. Said the United States could be foregoing in revenue from the production of oil and Gas Resources due to royalty rates and the inability to change the terms on fiscal leases. In 2013, the g. A. O. Noted another report that the department of interior had not taken the steps to change the regulation. Modernizing the bureau rate structures can provide flexibility given the growth of Oil Development on public and tribal lands where production has increased and combined production was up 81 in 2004 versus 2008. It seems to me it is critical that the department of interior is ensuring that the public is receiving a fair return. This amendment would guarantee a sweetheart deal at the expense of the american taxpayer. I oppose this amendment. And i reserve. The chair the gentlelady reserves. The gentlewoman from new mexico. Mr. Pearce i would like to thank my cosponsors, mr. Tipton, mr. Cramer and mr. Zen key. We appreciate their presence here. The gentlelady raises a significant question whether or not revenues would increase or decrease. We have a couple of charts showing what is happening. First of all, the average number of leases that the b. L. M. Issued. We can see the highest level, decreases down to you see the opposition of the Obama Administration. If the administration were interested in revenues, it seems like they would be producing the permits at a little faster rate. And this chart shows the increase in Oil Production in blue is shown here on private lands while the decrease in Oil Production on public lands is being shown in the red. If the administration were interested, it seems like they would modernize not the royalty rate but the way they approve these wells. They arent being permitted where states can offer 0day processing of the permits. The same is happening with natural gas. We see the blue on private lands where the natural Gas Production is dramatic production is decreasing and if the agency were worried about the receive news, they would seek to up and modernize and update their procedures first. I would recognize the chairman of the committee. Mr. Calvert i thank the gentleman for this amendment. I think its a good amendment and i would urge my colleagues to support the gentlemans amendment. The chair the gentleman reserves. Ms. Pingree i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. Lowenthal. The chair the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Lowenthal i rise in opposition to the amendment. The burro has begun of examining whether royalty leases should be increased. That process should be allowed to continue. G. A. O. Recently found, and i quote, that based upon the results of a number of studies, the u. S. Government receives one of the lowest government takes as a percentage of the value of oil and natural gas produced in the entire world. For example, royalty rates on public land are at 12. 5 . Considerably less than on state lands which range from 16. 67 to 25 plus. These low royalty rates cheat the american taxpayers and keep them from receiving a fair return for the extraction of their oil and Gas Resources. However, rental rates are even worse, to secure very vabble mineral rates sometimes worth hundreds of mill yobs of dollars, companies have to bid a minimum of 2 an acre up front to win the lease and 1. 50 each year to keep the lease. The rental of 1. 50 per acre per year. This low price was last set by congress in the 1980s and has not been adjusted since. This can and should change. Oil companies, some which generate billions of dollars in profits should pay their fair share to the American People. Imagine if your rent had not increased since Ronald Reagan was president. If the local Grocery Store had not raised their prices since 1987 the chair the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. Mr. Lowenthal thats exactly the sweetheart deal we are currently giving oil and Gas Industries. I is a sweetheart deal that must end. Why shouldnt oil and Gas Companies and blm for the public to receive their fair share. A giveaway to the oil and Gas Companies. Thank you. And i reserve. The chair the gentleman from californias time has expired. Ms. Pingree i reserve. The chair the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. Mr. Pearce how much time . The chair one minute both sides. Mr. Pearce the assumption that the royalty rates are and normally low in the u. S. Ignores the fact that we have lease sales on top of the royalties. The United States has the most extreme environmental regulations so the Regulatory Burden gladly borne by the Oil Companies is an additional cost that many nations do not have. We have income taxes paid by the companies which tell us that in many countries dont charge that on top of the royalty. So what we are hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle about the sweetheart deals, look and see how much the oil and Gas Companies are paying. They have contributed to two of the largest permanent funds in the world held by our state. Oil and Gas Companies are paying their fair share. They are paying 100,000 to pay a truck for a contractor. I think those sorts of complications are ignored by the g. A. O. And i urge people to support this amendment. I yield back. The chair the gentlelady from maine is recognized. Ms. Pingree in spite of the arguments that my colleague has made this amendment doesnt pass the straightfaced test. I cant imagine my constituents thinking we should make it easier for the oil and Gas Companies or should be giving away the opportunity to earn taxpayer revenue on our federal lands. The rate has not been increased since 1920. That is 95 years. The offshore royalty rate is 18. 75 . Yet the onshore rates have been stuck. Where is the equity in that. I think its time for the american taxpayers to get a fair return on the use of Public Resources especially from the most Profitable Companies in the world. I yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. Ms. Pingree i ask for a recorded vote. Exirment pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from california rise. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk the chair the clerk will report the amendment. Will the gentleman specify. Mr. Huffman amendment 064. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Huffman of california. At the end of the bill before the short title insert the following. Section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement National Park Service Directors order 61 as it pertains to allowing a grave in any federal cemetery to be decorated with a Confederate Flag. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Mr. Huffman thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as it may consume. I appreciate very much the bipartisan support and passage of my earlier amendment which would end the practice of concessionaries at our National Parks selling Confederate Flags and memorabilia of the confederacy. We now with this interior appropriations bill, have a Second Opportunity to speak in this very Important National debate that were having regarding symbols of the confederacy. This additional amendment will end the practice of allowing groups to display con federal flags on federally managed cemeteries. The American Civil War was fought new york Abraham Lincolns words, to save the last, best hope of earth. We can honor that history without celebrating the Confederate Flag and all the dreadful things it symbolizes. I request an aye vote and reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. Does any member seek time in opposition . The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Huffman i respectfully request an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. Wallburg of michigan. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Mr. Walberg thank you mr. Chairman. My amendment tells the Environmental Protection agency to follow the law. And clearly establishes the view of congress that the e. P. A. Cannot lobby on behalf of the waters of the u. S. Rule in violation of antilobbying act. Over the past few years, the e. P. A. Has been pushing the limits of its Statutory Authority to issue the watts of the u. S. Rule. Now weve learned that as part of their efforts to regulate every pond stream, and ditch in america, the e. P. A. May have violated the antilobbying act to garner Public Comments in support of the proposed rule even though the department of justice has consistently stated that the act prohibits federal agencies from engaging in substantial grass roots lobbying. In fact, the New York Times recently reported, and i quote, in a campaign that tests the limits of federal lobbying law, the agency orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from republicans and enlist public support in concert with liberal environmental groups, and a Grass Roots Organization aligned with president obama, end quote. The New York Times went on to say as well, the most contentious part of the e. P. A. s campaign was deploying thunder clap, a social media tool that spread the agencys message to hundreds of thousands of people, and i quote a virtual flash mob end quote, in the words of travels loop, head of communications for e. P. A. s water division. Mr. Speaker, this is unseemly. The e. P. A. Administrator later used the skewed results as evidence of public support before congress. For this reason, my amendment is needed to make clear that the e. P. A. Shall not violate the antilobbying act while pursuing the completion of the watts of the u. S. I respectfully urge all my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve. I yield. I appreciate the gentleman yieldsing and i agree with the gentleman and the New York Times that this is why the bill reduces funding for offices in the e. P. A. That were responsible for these questionable actions. Mr. Calvert this is complementary to the approach taken in the bill and i urge an aye vote on the amendment. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. Walberg i reserve. The chair does any member seek time in opposition . I claim time in opposition to this amendment. The clerk the gentlelady from maine is recognized the chair the gentlelady from maine is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Pin fwree the gentlemans amendment would prohibit funds from being used to lobby on the watts of the United States. There is an existing prohibition on lobbying that applies to all federal employees in place since 1919, so this is an unnecessary an redundant amendment. Employees are not prohibited from providing information to congress on legislative policies and programs. There must be open dialogue to ensure that laws are being implemented appropriately and programs achieve their intended goals. We should not and cannot operate in an information vacuum. We dont need to add extraneous redundant provisions to a bill already overburdened with harmful legislative riders. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Walberg i thank the gentlelady for her comments. It is the law but ive read to you from, not an organ of conservative Republican Party side but from the New York Times. They also went on to say the architect of the e. P. A. s new Public Outreach strategy a former Obama Campaign aide appointed in 2013, has been associate administrator and he said this, in relationship to flash mob tactics and the lobbying effort, he said we are just borrowing new methods that have proven themselves to be effective. Mr. Chairman, it may be effective but its unseemly that e. P. A. An agency of this federal government, would violate the law. In lobbying and trying then to Show Congress through trumped up evidence that they have produced through lobbying the private sector that they have support for waters of the u. S. Rule. Mr. Chairman, thats why i think we need to establish it here very clearly in this appropriations bill. I reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves this egentlelady from maine is recognized. Ms. Pin glee i oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from michigan. Mr. Walberg i urge support of the amendment and yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from michigan. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair there are two amendments. Would the gentleman specify which amendment . The amendment that refers to section 435. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Peters of california. At the end of the bill before the short title insert the following. Limitation on use of funds. Section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enforce section 435 of this act. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Mr. Peters thank you mr. Chairman. My amendment would not allow any funds to enforce section 435 of this bill. This is another harmful policy rider that limits the ability of our environmental agencies to take action to improve Public Health and fight the root causes of Climate Change. This section blocks the e. P. A. s ongoing effort to regulate hydroflour ro carbons or h. F. C. s, which is the wrong approach. H. F. C. s are factory made gases ewed in refrigeration that are 10,000 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide this po tency has been used to refer to them as a super pollutant. Unless we act now, United States h. F. C. Emissions are expected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030. While not as abundant as Carbon Dioxide, super pollutants, including f. H. H. F. C. s, methane and others have contributed to Global Warming. By eliminating the e. P. A. s authority under the clean water act to impose any regulations or giteance regarding h. F. C. s we undercut its ability to protect Public Health. The e. P. A. s significant new alternatives policy program, or snap requires taos evaluate substitutes for super pollutants that are harming Public Health and our environment. Through snap we can ensure a more smooth transition to safer alternatives for the countrys industrial sector. Within the last week, they finalized the rule on h. F. C. s that will avoid super pollutant emissions equal to thianule ash annual Greenhouse Gas emotions of 21 million gares 2030. It will allow heavy users of h. F. C. s, including supermarkets, which are the largest source of them, to continue developing cleaner alternatives. As we continue International Negotiations to phase out h. F. C. s, the United States should be a leader in reducing the use of h. F. C. s and other super pollutants. The standard set by e. P. A. Will drive u. S. And International Innovation and Market Development of low emission and Energy Efficient refrigeration, foam bloge ages and err scholl extechnologies. It will get at one of the root causes of cloy mat change before were forced to react to increasingly extreme weather and sea level rides. American industry has already begun creating alternatives that have her emissions profile and are more Energy Efficient than h. F. C. s and we saw major cheans including cocacola, dupont, honeywell and pepsico commit to voluntarily reducing harmful h. F. C. s emissions. My amendment bars funding to enforce section 435 of this bill so we can inset instead continue with existing rules and move our countrys Global Leadership in finding Innovative Solutions and moving emissions forward. We should not be handcuffing the important work being done at e. P. A. To reduce super pollutants. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and reserve my time. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman rise . I rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Calvert the Committee Still has questions about the cost and compliance issues in the final rule. Its not clear why e. P. A. Divided some category into some categories and provided different deadlines for similar products. E. P. A. Clearly chose winners and losers. For the losers, the timetables remain unworkable. Manufacturers need time to implement engineering and Technology Changes and address new risk and safety challenges. Historic experience with the montreal protocol indicates that manufacturers need approximately sixplus years to successfully transition between new materials. This new rule will particularly be hard on Small Businesses. Large businesses, as the gentleman mentioned, have the resources and technologies available to them to comply quicker than the smaller businesses who will find it very difficult to comply with d. O. E. s Energy Conservation standards. E. P. A. s proposal is not being driven by a statutory mandate so the committee believes additional time is warranted. E. P. A. Left critical decisions regarding Energy Efficiency and system performance up to the manufacturers and they need time to get this right. With that, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from california sec rizz is recognized. Mr. Peters i appreciate the comments of the gentleman which suggest that this is not the way to deal with those issues, but rather to deal with them via policy approach. Section 435 of this bill will take away alm work we do on h. F. C. s and super pollutants and is too broad a president bush to paint with. I urge a yes vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Calvert from california. I urge opposition to theament and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 30 amendment number 30. The clerk amendment number 30 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. Walden of oregon. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentleman from oregon and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. Mr. Walden the past several decades have been hard on oregons forest communities, timber harvests dropped more than 90 because of in in part litigation, government regulation. Across the state we lost more than 300 Forest Product mills that closed, we lost more than 30000 forest related jobs. Its left our communities in really bad shape, nearing bankruptcy in some cases in our counties, high poverty rates in our communities, unemployment rates are high in these forested areas and of course we face, without active management these enormous forest fires that contribute massively to the carbon buildup. A 20yearold plan in western oregon, the vast majority of these plans are o. E. C. Lands are from the act. That law calls for a sustainable timber production revenue to counties. Despite that clear mandate in federal law, it would allow for harvesting on 22 of the lapped base that would lock up the remapeder in reserves. Some of the counties have more than 70 of their land controlled by the federal government to fund basic needs like Law Enforcement schools and other essential services. Under the proposal, these counties would receive 27 of their historical average. 27 . And the b. L. M. s plans fall far short, the agency is determined to push forward any way with these plans in a bipartisan effort the oregon delegation requested 120day extension so the counties and other interested parties have tame to review the 1500 pages of analysis and provide useful input. The b. L. M. Isnt interested and will be rejecting our request and moving forward with their time line. It is disappointing. The most affected and the b. L. M. Would care more about their input. This amendment would delay the b. L. M. s implementation of these proposed plans and give more times for interested parties to review the 1,500 pages of analysis and give the agency to consider additional alternatives that have the act. I want to quote, this is the statewide newspaper that is leans more to the left and minimally b. L. M. Needs to develop morality niffs. But unlikely to develop a an alternative. Congress, not a Government Agency needs to solve this problem. Mr. Chairman, orings wildfire season well off to a terrible start we need to get active management on these forest plans and we will give the taxpayers, a better opportunity to weigh in. I urge support. Mr. Calvert i thank the gentleman. And i appreciate the concerns. It is troubling that the bureau has proposed land use plans that contradict land use mandate. I accept his amendment. Mr. Walden i yield back. Ms. Pingree mr. Chair, i claim the time in opposition. The chair the chair recognizes the combol from maine. Ms. Pingree i appreciate the concerns raised by the gentleman from oregon but this amendment would prohibit the bureau of Land Management from implementing Resource Management plans. These updated plans cover 2. 7 million acres of land that play into western oregon. The plans determined how determineed to further the recovery of threatened provide for clean water and adopt ecosystems and a sustained yield of products and frible lands. The amendment would suspend the plan as a result, the bl mmp would be forced to rely on an outdated plan that doesnt incorporate information. It does not include plans. The amendment would block the landscape plans and would ignore significant public input. The public has the right to engage in their lands. I reserve. Mr. Walden i would suggest that spotted outline is owl is covered because it contributed to the downfall of our communities, absent this plan. All we are asking for is for time for people to have a better chance to review what this federal agency has come up with, 1,500 pages and have a better chance including representative schrader and so its an oregon approach that we need to do better. Turn on the tv. They are going up in flames and i dont like that for the habitat or the communities or what the firefighters have to face. We can can do better. And i would encourage my colleagues og both size of the aisle to support this amendment. Ms. Pingree i appreciate the concerns that the gentleman from oregon has raised. We share those concerns. I thought it was important to address some of the considerations and concerns we have with this amendment and i yield back. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Lowenthal i rise to offer an amendment to require companies to follow the law if they want to export crude oil from the United States. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk the chair will the gentleman from california please send his amendment to the desk. The chair the clerk will report. The clerk at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, limitation on funds to oil and gas leases. Section, none of the funds made available made by this act may be issue to issue a permit to any person that does president commit regarding the requirement of obtaining a license regarding crude oil. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from california wish to be recognized. Mr. Calvert i reserve a point of order. Pursuant to House Resolution 3 3, the gentleman from california, and a member oppose odd, each will control five minutes. Mr. Lowenthal i offer this amendment to require companies to follow the law if they want to support crude oil from the United States. I want to make it clear, this amendment is not about whether we should lift the crude Oil Export Ban all together. That is a debate for a different time and different bill. This is about those narrow cases where they are exporting crude oil in limited quantities but also choosing not to follow the rules. Two companies could export very Light Crude Oil after it had been lightly processed. That decision meant that those companies would not need to obtain a license to export crude oil even though licenses are required. Because of that you ruling which i believe was inappropriate, another company decided they would begin exporting their own Light Crude Oil without asking the Commerce Department for a decision let alone trying to get a license. Since then exports have skyrocketed. From january 2010 until june, 2014 when the Commerce Department made that ruling we exported 97,000 barrels of crude oil a day to canada. Since that day in june of 2014, our oil exports have quadrupled to an average of over 400,000 barrels a day with more and more of that crude oil going to europe and to asia. I dont think we should be exporting so much of our domestic oil while we are still exporting seven Million Barrels a day. We may be the number one one, but we are the worlds Number One Oil importer. We want to change that and shouldnt let companies shift American Crude Oil any wri in the world they want to. We shouldnt let them ignore existing laws and regulations in order to do so. First and foremost, oil produced in america, particularly oil from americas public land that belong to the American People should remain in this country. But if we are going to allow these companies to export american oil, they must follow the law. They cant decide whether they need or do not need this oil. My amendment is a simple commonsense solution to this problem. If you are going to drill on public land, you must follow the Legal Process for getting an export license if you want to ship that elsewhere. It only supplies to public land and requires companies to commit to following the license. That way the Commerce Department can evaluate these options on a casebyby case basis. The concept of exporting American Crude Oil is too important to let the companies to make that call on their own. And mr. Chair, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. The chair without objection. The amendment is withdrawn. For what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on my amendment, yoho 48 be withdrawn and that amendment stands disposed of by the vote thereon. The chair the clerk will redesignate the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Yoho of florida. The chair without objection, the vote is withdrawn. The amendment is not agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition. I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Hardy of nevada. Insert the following, section 441, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to make a president ial declaration of a nationalmonment of title 54, United States code and the counties of coconino and counties in the state of california and the counties in the state of cole and counties in nevada and county of ontario in the state of new mexico and counties of Jackson Josephine in the state of oregon or in the counties of Wayne Garfield and cane in the state of you ta. The chair the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. Mr. Hardy i offer an amendment with my friends to prohibit public Land Management agencies in this bill from making declarations under the Antiquities Act in counties where there is significant local opposition. Mr. Chairman, id like to begin by stating my strong support for our National Nations public lands. As an active hunter and outdoorsman, i marvel at the beauty of our landscapes, our ewe neek floora and the by our unique floora. I also come from nevada, a state where roughly 85 of the land is controlled by the federal government. Addressing this concentration of Land Use Decision making power in the hands of washington bureaucrats has been one of the strong motivating factors during my time in this body. As i am sure that it has been for many of my colleagues in the western states. While this concentration is certainly a topic that should and be addressed by the authorizing committee, i believe that we can and should take an important step here today. A recent prominent example demonstrating the need for this amendment is the administrations draft proclamation to establish the basin and range National Monument. On more than 700,000 acres of land in counties in my district. Not only is this sheer size of the proposed monument staggering, being nearly as large as many of the eastern states, but it also poses some significant risks, both local and national in scope. Nevadas economy was one of the hardest hit by the Great Recession and far too many of our in our state are still struggling to get by. Nevadas Rural Counties and economies are particularly sensitive. As any decision that restricts ranching, recreation and types of land use activities should have much of the local input as possible. Earlier this year, i spoke on the floor of the house about the National Security implication of this designation. The basin and range, given that it is the most important acreage in the proposed monument, falls directly under the air space of the nevada test and training range. One of the most heavily used military operation areas or m. O. A. s in the United States. Establishing this monument could drastically impair vital groundbased training activities tied to the nttr. Mr. Chairman, id like to yield one minute to my colleague from arizona. I thank the gentleman from nevada. The chair the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. I thank the gentleman from nevada. In my home state of arizona, a few special Interest Groups have been pushing the president to unilaterally designate a massive new 1. 7 million acre 1. 7 million acre monument in the grand canyon watershed. 26 members of congress have joined me in opposing this misguided effort. And heres a significant there is significant local opposition. Heres a sample of those resolutions. Id like to share a few of their comments here. The creation i quote the creation of a National Monument by president ial declaration does not allow for input from local commublets and could result in negative impacts for grazing hunting, Water Development and forest restoration. Which could result in the negative economic Public Health impacts for the city of williams. The arizona game and Fish Commission is concerned that the potential monument will impede proactive and effective management of wildlife populations and habitats and may result in reduced Hunting Opportunities and loss of revenue and directly support that directly support local communities. Mr. Gosar i could provide several more examples but ill stop there. I urge the adoption of the amendment and i yield back. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from nevada. Mr. Hardy i ask how much time i have remaining. The chair 1 1 2 minutes. Mr. Hardy id like to yield one minute of my time to my distinguished colleague from utah. The chair the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. Mr. Bishop i thank you. This act was passed over a century ago when four states werent even in the union at that time. They were still territories. There are absolutely no environmental laws that we had at that particular time protecting anything. And yet this act, this act was not used by every president. In fact, most president s never used it. Ronald reagan never used it. Most president s only used it one time. It was changed starting with the jimmy carter administration. So that no longer is this act that was supposed to protect antiquities, thus the name, used to protect antiquities, it was used as a political weapon and abused as a political weapon. And the saddest part is, there is absolutely no input that has to be guaranteed by this act. In fact, the vast majority of monuments that were created through this Antiquities Act, there is no there was no public input whatsoever. Any public input that took place was purely by accident purely by coincidence. The people in the counties that are designated in this amendment need to have the right to have some input in how land decisions are used in that area. This is what this amendment does. Give them the chance to be heard because under the act they are not heard. I yield back. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from nevada is recognized. Mr. Hardy mr. Chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Grijalva i rise to claim opposition to the amendment. The chair the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona for five minutes. Mr. Grijalva thank you, mr. Chairman. This amendment would place uncalled for restrictions, cund out undercut any president from using their authority under the ann Antiquities Act to establish under the Antiquities Act to establish a National Monument. An authority, i should add, thats been available to president s for a hundred years. The Antiquities Act is an important tool that enables the president to protect and strengthen americas heritage. Since theodore roosevelt, first roosevelt first designated devils tower in wyoming, 16 president s from both parties have used the Antiquities Act to protect more than 160 of americas best known and loved landscapes. Only three president s have not. National monuments tell the story of the American People. Out of 460 National Monuments and parks 113 reflect the Diverse Communities that make up our nation. 19 recognize the achievements of the latino community, 26 of the africanamerican community, and eight for women. It should be noted that an important factor in designation process is the First Americans the native americans, their legacy their heritage, and their cultural Historic Resources on the land. But with the Antiquities Act the lack of diversity reflected in our public units whether its parks or National Monuments, is changing. President obama has been using the Antiquities Act to diversify the story of public lands with new designations such as the cesar chavez National Mountain in california which he recently designated, and since the beginning of his administration the president used this authority to create National Monuments that recognize the contributions of africanamericans and other derse people in this country. There was a report that found that 13 of president ial designations are inclusive of the American People compared to only 20 of the designations done by congress. Americas Public Places are becoming more inclusive, more representative of all americans, because of the Antiquities Act. This amendment would jeopardize that progress. I urge its deefet its defeat. With that i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from nevada voiced. Mr. Hardy how much time do i have is recognized. Mr. Hardy how much time do i have . The chair 30 seconds. Mr. Hardy reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Grijalva thank you very much. May i inquire as to how much time is available . The chair three minutes. Mr. Grijalva thank you. Let me point out some obvious points and then ill yield back. This amendment, as i said earlier would undermine conservation of public lands and stall efforts to ensure tt our Public Places tell the very important diverse story of america and be representative of all americans. The development and conservation that development and conservation is really to say that this would deny jobs and opportunity to particular regions is not true. Over nine million acres are available right now under Energy Leases from the Obama Administration compared to those were added to it only 4. 1 million acres that are now land that is protected. Since its enactment in 1906, 16 president s have used it, 160 of americas best known landscapes have been preserved. National monuments designated under the Antiquities Act are comprised of existing, existing federal lands only. No new land is added to the federal estate by these designations. National monument designations have better reflected the complexity and president s have used that, of our nation, ensuring that the voices of a changing and diverse community, which is this country, is told as we change and as we go forward. I would urge a no vote. Undercutting an authority that existed for 100 years, that has brought benefit to the nation enhanced the cultural historic and conservation ethic of this nation had should be preserved. With that i urge a no vote on the amendment unneeded restrictive and going against a tradition that and an authority thats existed in this country for 100 years. I hope this effort is not about who is president at this time, but an authority thats been with us for 100 years. With that i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from nevada is recognized. Mr. Hardy thank you, mr. Chairman. Im prepared to close. In closing id just like to reiterate to my colleagues that voting for this amendment is a vote for empowering the communities and the local stakeholders, most affected by the monument designations, doing so will increase transparency, allow a local input and provide improved management and over public lands. It will full full the responsibility to ensure it will fulfill the responsibility to ensure these communities have a legitimate voice in the process. I urge a yes vote and with that 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 nevada. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Ms. Mccollum mr. Chair i was trying to seek recognition. The chair for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition . Ms. Mccollum i was trying to request a recorded vote mr. Chair. The chair thank you. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada will be postponed. For what purpe does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Engel of new york. At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of the interior the Environmental Protection agency or any other federal agency to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet or for an agencys fleet inventory, except in accordance with president ial memorandum, federal fleet performance, dated may 24, 2011. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. Mr. Engel thank you mr. Chairman. On may 24 2011, president obama issued a memorandum of federal fleet performance that required that all new light duty vehicles in the federal fleet to be alternative fuel vehicles, such as hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel, by december 31, 2015. My amendment echo the president s memorandum by prohibiting funds in this act from being used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles unless that purchase is made in acrd with the president s memorandum. I have submitted identical amendments to 18 different Appropriations Bills over the past few years and every time they have been accepted by both the majority and the minority. I hope my amendment will receive similar support today. Global oil prices are down, we no longer pay 147 per barrel, but despite increased production here in the United States, the global price of oil is still largely determined by opec. Spikes in oil prices have profoundly have profound repercussions fo our economy. The primary reason is that our cars and trucks run only on petroleum. We can change that with alternative technologies that exist today. The federal government operates thlargest fleet of light duty vehicles in america, over 633,000 vehicles. Almost 35,000 of these vehicles are within the jurisdiction of this bill. When i was in brazil a few years ago i saw how they diversified their fuel use. People there can drive to a gas station and choose whether to fill their vehicle with gasoline or with ethanol. They make their choice based on cost or whatever critera they deem important. I want the same choice for american consumers. That is why i am also proposing a bill this congress, bipartisan bill, as i have done many times in the past, which will provide for cars built in america to be able to run on a fuel of or in addition to gasoline. Its virtually a very inexpensive, under 100 per car, if they can do it in brazil, we can do it here. So in conclusion expanding the role these alternative technologies play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage that foreign governmentcontrolled Oil Companies hold over americans. It will increase our nations domestic security and protect consumers. I ask that my colleagues support the engel amendment. The chai the gentleman reserves. Any member seek time in opposition . The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Engel i ge my colleagues to support this amendment. The chair the question is on the amendment offed by the gentleman om new york. Those in favoray aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the amendment is agreedo. For wh purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognion. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Byrne of alaba. Section nonof the funds made available by this act to propose or death funds allocated of the gulf of Mexico Energy security act of twikes, 4 United States code 1331 thought. The chair the gentleman from alabama and member opposed will each control five minutes. Mr. Byrne my freight forward amendment would reallocate funds go mesa. Was passed in 2006 and created an agreement between the federal government and four statesn the gulf of mexico, texas, louiana, mississippi and my home state of alabama. 37. 5 of the receive news sected from oil and gas sales is returned to these gulf states. There is a reason the law was structuredhis way. These gulf states provide the infrastructure and work force in the gulf of mexico. We also have inhent environmental and economic risks. The bp oil spill should tell us what that means. In his Budget Proposal president obama has rommended under the department of interior, redirect the redistributioof revenue payments for 201away from the gulf coast and instead be spent all around the country. This not only contrict the current federal statute. To keep receive news from these sales and have the inherentisk of economic daster my amendment is simple. To protect the statute and prevent theresident from using these agreements as a slushund for environmental projects. Regardless of whether you are from a gulf state or not, i ask you to protect our Coastal Community and i yield to the chairman. Mr. Calvert and i wouldrge a doppings of the gentlans amendment. Mr. Byr i rerve. The chair nyone seek time in oppostion. Ms. Mccollum i claim the time in opposition to express a few concerns. The chair the gentlelady recognized. Ms. Mccolm mr. Chairman, this amendment is an overreaction to a policy proposal in the administration, 2016get request. The president s budt request to direct funds currently allocated to states. This ia proposal tt the esident suggested in his budget and it wantncluded in this bill because the appropriions committee rejected it. What it is is a process. The adnistrati smitted a proposal and the committee had to rec it or accept it. And the committee rquected it. This amendment would unnecessarily and congress would need tonact legislation before any changes could be made. The department of interior doesnt have the authority. Basically thi amendment would prohibit the department from even suggesting an idea for congress to consider. Wanted to claim the time in opposition. I think this amendment, although it appears the majorityis going take it, its just rilly in my opinion politica overrea and i yld back. The chair the gentlelady ylds ba. Mr. Byrne but the way thi administration plays st and loose particularly through these administrative agencies,t is necessary to protect the law passed in 2006 of inherent risk and produced and we wl have a an agency even disappropriions bill and this amendment makes it vey car they cant do it these four coastal states will reta monies as it was enacted in 2006. I respect your point of view. But give i yield bacthe behaviorm raid it is ecessary and i ask for the membrs to supporthe amenent. E chairthe question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In t opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The mend is agreed to. For what pure does the gentleman from florida seek recogniton. Mr. Grayson i have an amement at the desk. Lerk the clerk ofered by mr. Grayson of florida. The chair each wilcontrol ve minus. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida mr. Grayso this amendment is identical to other amenents. My amendment extendshe parties within from contracti due to kerr youse contracting. I reserve. The chair does any member seek time in opposition . The gentleman from florida is recognize dollars. The question is on the andment offered by the gentleman from florida. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The opinion of the opinion of the chair the amendment is aged to. For what rpose does the gentleman from montana sook recognition. I have amendment at the desk. The c amendment number 39 printed the congress atal record presented by. Zen key. The chair the chair recnizes the gentleman from montana. Zen zen the cw nation and despite having over billion dollars in coal reserv and theplay out across america. This administrion has waged a war against coal. A war on coal is a war on t crow people. Well wt clean air d water. Thanully technologi have made it possible to have both. And vast human manufacturers and put americans back to work. It takes innovation and vofmente in areas likclean coal. This administration is figing a more aggressi war. We know of aempts to kl coal with relations. The coal on federal lands and reservations, creating an unablearket at threatens with oil and gas and coil reserveslocal communities receive to help funfrom education andnfrastructure. This one size fits all places heavier burdenens on states and stifleles innovation. Theowest it has been in the past 0 yes. The cost of lifbling of living is going up. Our counies cantfford another federl assault on our community. And hese jbs areeal. Union jobs earn their paycommecks to provi for their milies. Thousands more li them in kentucky, you ta and beyond. To build arizona in michigan. Again, im reminded of the s, forhe crowe people there are no jobs. They exceed anything elshat is available. Join me in frightin more American Workers in supporng my amendment toe bloofunding forhe Obama Administration to block funding on the war on al. Its a good amement. I yield back. Ms. Mccollum i clm thee in opposition to this amendment. The chair he gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Mccoll i rise in rong opposition which would dey nativeamerans for fair return for their coal resources. They have been in effe since 1989, lott has happenedince the regations have been updated and three years t coal compani we skirting yalty payments while selling al in ord to export coaat low exported prices. Ey have foreone millions millions of dollarshat a rightly due. This evaluations especially hurt nati american who depend on the e proposed relations were responsto such as wyoming pleadingith e intior partment t reduce the royalties paid. This amendment fers membea stark contrast do theyant to side with them or do they stand with the americaubc and seeing that coal is fairly priced and western states are paid. I for one will staith the amen peope and native american brothers a sisters to make sure are treated. I yieldo the gentlan from colorado. T chair for how much time . 1 45. The oad new authorities come without clear transpartguidelesor regulars and regated pties alikeetting the efor incont valuation and protracted ligation. Furthermore, therbitrary rulatory environment creed by ts rule could jeopardize affordabl and Reliable Energy productn, american bs and cruciarevenue f state, federal and tribal government forhese reasons i urge can you i encourage m colleagues to support this amendment and stop funding for this new rule until the department of interior can demonstrate the need, if there is any, and i am skeptical, to radically alter the way royalties are assessed on federal coal. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield back to the gentleman from montana. The chair the gentleman from montana is recognized. Mr. Zinke thank you. Im proud to represent the crows, the northern chyian, the sioux, and our american Indian Tribes and great nations and understand the value of having a prosperous economy. With that, mr. Chairman, i would like to support the support of all members who understand. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentlelady from minnesota voiced. Ms. Mccollum thank you, mr. Chairman is recognized. Ms. Mccollum thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to repeat, its now been nearly three years since it was first reported. Coal companies were skirting federal royalty payments. By selling coal to Sister Companies. In order to value exported coal at low domestic prices. Rather than the much higher prices these Sister Companies were selling the exported coal for in overseas markets. Its our job its our job to see that coal is fairly priced and that the royalties due to western states, tribes and the federal government are paid. 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 montana. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Ms. Mccollum mr. Chair, i request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Norcross of new jersey. At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. Revision of dollar amounts section, the amounts otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the amount made available for a department of the interior, office of the secretary, departmental operations, for payments in lieu of taxes under chapter 69 of title 31 United States code. And increasing the aggregate amount made available for Environmental Protection agency Hazardous Substance superfund by 22,884,840. The chair pursuant to House Resolution the gentleman from new jersey and a member opposed for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise . Mr. Calvert i rev a point of ort on the gentlemans amendment a point of order on the gentlemans amendment. The chair a point of order is reserved. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from new jersey and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. Mr. Norcross thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as i may consume. This is a very simple amendment that would increase funding for the superfund with the intentional money that was thank goes specifically to the Cleanup Program account that goes specifically to the Cleanup Program account. Superfund cleanup is right for the environment and certainly right for the u. S. Economy, which is right for the u. S. I come from new jersey. The garden state. We have great tomatoes, corn, and its blueberry season. What we also have particularly in the southern half of the state is a heavy industry. New jersey found out the hard way that you just cant take those resources after theyre finished and dump them into the backyard. We have more than 200 sites in new jersey listed as being in serious violation of at least one of four federal environmental laws. The Company Vendors are gone. And left the constituents, my constituents, holding the bags. My predecessor back in the early 19 0s was the author of the superfund bill. He had the vision of what we have to do to protect our citizens. One site is about a quarter mile from where i live. The wells back. As part of that process of making gas panels almost a half century ago the substance was used to make it glow brighter, and it was dumped throughout the city. This material is now sitting there. Radium has a half life of 1,600 years. 1,600 years. The process started in 1996. And its about 2 3 finished. Theres no company to go back to. The second story is scherr win williams, which was a gorgeous spot. As we all know years ago, that lead paint is now into the water system. And impacting that area horribly. The site includes Kirkwood Lake , soil under the lake was contaminated, they cant use the lake. These are two very simple stories. I have 15 superfund sites in my district. 15. It is our responsibility to protect our citizens. There are no companies to go back to. And thats why i offer this simple amendment. The damage is already done. And we must continue to protect our citizens by funding this amendment correctly. I want to thank the chairman with the understanding that this amendment will be ruled out of order and withdraw my amendment with the hope that well continue to work on this important issue in a very bipartisan way to protect our citizens. Thank you. The chair without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. For what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Jolly of florida. At the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following. Section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to research, investigate or study offshore drilling in the eastern gulf of mexico planning area. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333 the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. Mr. Jolly thank you mr. Chairman. I yield myself as much time as i may consume. As a nation, we continually strive to achieve both Energy Independence as well as protect the environment. Our critical habitats and the quality of life in communities that i have the opportunity to represent. One way we strike that balance is represented in how we currently manage the gulf of mexico when it comes to oil drilling. Under a 2006 act we allow for drilling exploration in the central and western gulf, off the coast of texas and louisiana and other states. But we have a ban that protects the state of florida. That ban currently protects the state of florida with a drilling ban of about 125 miles, or in some cases 235 miles. This ban has been in place for 32 years. Through the operations of the Appropriations Committee. And while the current statute allows for the ban through 2022 year after year those on the other side of this debate very respectfully attempt to erode that ban. The truth is, we dont need any additional drilling in the eastern gulf of florida to achieve Energy Independence. There are nearly 1,000 active lease holds in the central and western gulf, there are probably nearly 3,000 more available. And to change the ban is just something that we dont need. This amendment is very simple it. Says none of the funds may be used to to increase offshore oil drilling in the eastern gulf, contemplating a ban. Im pleased to be joined in offering this amendment by my colleague from bonita springs, mr. Clawson ms. Graham and mr. Murphy. With that, mr. Speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from florida wish to be im sorry, i did it again. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Calvert i rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. The chair the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. Mr. Calvert as in the case of a number of offshorerelated amendments that we will deal with today the interior bill appropriation bill is not the appropriate venue. Though i do understand it has been used in the past. I understand this amendment dovetails with the current congressional moratorium and the department of the interior has no intention of acting in a manner that is contrary to congressional intent. The department is focused on the next fiveyear oil and gas leasing plan which is limited to 2017 to 2022. So many departmental activities in fiscal year 2016 are already limited in scope to 2022. If my colleagues wish to see the moratorium extended beyond 2022 then she should work with the appropriate authorizing then they then they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees. I urge i would urge a no vote. Thank you. The chair the gentleman from california reserves. Mr. Calvert i reserve the balance of my time. The chair reserves. The gentleman from florida is recognized. Mr. Jolly thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chairmans understanding of the interests of those in the state of florida and the current debate currently from those on the other side that wish to actually lift this ban. Its important that as a delegation we have the opportunity to have this debate. With that i would like to recognize and yield two minutes to my colleague from bonita springs, mr. Clawson. The chair the gentleman from florida voiced for two minutes. Is recognized for two minutes. Clause clause i start by thanking mr. Clawson i start by thanking representative jolly for his leadership and persistence on this issue. It is so important to my district and to the chairman for allowing disagreement, disagreement allows learning and we appreciate your leadership in this regard. I speak in full support of representative jollys amendment. I base my support on the enormous alltime high proven reserves elsewhere in our country and a conviction that we can focus in areas other than the gulf. The private sector definitely needs cheap oil. And our businesses our Manufacturing Companies cannot be successful without low Energy Prices. I know it because i lived it. But lets drill where drilling makes sense. And to us it doesnt make sense to drill in eastern gulf of mexico. The recent b. P. Settlement, the highest such settlement ever, is evidence that the economic and environmental risk of drilling in the gulf greatly offset any potential returns. For those of us who live work, have business in the gulf, we were told that an oil disaster could never happen. And then it happened. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I say its not worth the risk. I say, lets do everything we can to never have more crilling drilling in the eastern gulf. I yield back with full appreciation. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Calvert i would say, again, im in reluctant opposition to this amendment. This should be dealt with in the authorizing committees and with that i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from california yields back. The gentleman from florida voiced. Mr. Jolly thank you. I would close is recognized. Mr. Jolly thank you. I would close. There is authorizing legislation that would extend the ban beyond the year 2022. This language simply says a ban is a ban is a ban and while there is a ban on activities on drilling and the like, this simply says that no planning may occur for post2022 drilling. With that i would urge a yea vote and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the question is on the amendment the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . The clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Garamendi of california. At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. None of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of executive order 13693. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Mr. Garamendi thank you mr. Chairman. I think ill start this discussion with the words of a rather influential individual, pope frances. In his recent he recently wrote, if present trends continue this century may well witness extraordinary Climate Change and on an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems with serious querns for all of us. Pope francis. There are numerous, efforts to deny the reality of Climate Change. And specifically, what i want to deal with with this amendment is the executive order, 13693, planning for sustainable environment. It is to reduce greenhouse emissions. This bill will save money. And increase the share of the electricity the federal government consumes by up to 30 . 36 metric tons of greenhouse grasses would be eliminated. Why in the face of all of the Scientific Evidence, so why in the face of the reality that the climate is indeed changing, when we have throughout the state of california and around the nation, local governments planning for the eventuality, not the reality, of higher sea lofle, why would we put forth a bill that would prohibit the federal government from planning Climate Change. Let me cite some of the ways the this will proposal deals with it. It prohibits federal funds for rulemaking or guidance. Prohibits the e. P. A. From new or power plants. Prohibits the funding to update and update the appears ozone standing. These are lower cash bons and prohibits the reporting for domestic and international Climate Change programs. Denial dem, denial of what is happening. My amendment would say all of these provisions in the current bill, there is no money to carry out these provisions. It is time to recognize there is a serious challenges. And with that, i reserve my remaining time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i rise in opposition to the amendment. Clamente change is winning the amendment contest tonight and have had a number of amendments on that subject. We debated whether or not to debate. My colleagues wanted to removery quirmentse which would reduce transparency and he wants to ensure that fund issued which the president. Mr. Garamendi basically says that the National Government shall reduce Greenhouse Gases and using the Administrative Agent of our government to find ways to do that and certain goals are set. Reducing Greenhouse Gases. What could be wrong with that if you save 18 billion in the process and create renewable nrs energies. Why would we pass a bill that would create greater Greenhouse Gases and lead more directly and more imminently to the Climate Crisis . I fail to understand why we would want to take up a legislation that has so many provisions in it that deny the reality of Climate Change and this government spend more money on programs that would be more expensive. I ask for an aye vote on this amendment and maintain america on a path that all the world should carry out and Pay Attention to what pope francis said. This will witness Climate Change and destruction of ecosystems with serious consequences for all of us. This isnt something we should denny but something we should Pay Attention to and maintain the president s executive order. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Calvert the president did make a decision. We have urging a no vote. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Pursuant to clause , rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk at the end of the bill before the short title insert the title insert the administrator of the Environmental Agency to part 112 of title 0 with respect to any farm as that term is designed of such title. Chirment the gentleman from arkansas and a member opposed well each control five minutes. Mr. Crawford it is costly Infrastructure Improvements to reduce the possibility of a oil spill. The relative risk of oil spills on farms and valley farms. Mr. Crawford no one has more at stake. U. S. G. A. Discovered little evidence and determined in a recent study 9 of farmers never experienced a spill. They make a significant investment seems out of touch and is my amendment would restrict the ability to enforcing ability for farmers and ranchers to produce food without having to worry. On three separate occasions, the house unanimously passioned my legislation which rolled back these regular layings on farms. I urge my school etion to support our farmers and ranchers and with that, i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Calvert i would urge adoption of the gentlemans amendment. Ms. Mccollum if a facility has large amounts of oil, it should say how they will prevent an environmental disaster because the holder, even if it is an agriculture business, why shouldnt they have a plan . Well, they should have a plan. And whose criteria to make sure that a facility truly should be subject to the prevention control. It has to meet three criteria. None transported and must have an aggregate of greater than 3,120 gallons or completely buried storage capacity. We are talking about a lot of oil. A lot of oil. And the third point is it must be a reasonable expectation that if something went wrong and there was a discharge, it would go into navigable waters. If there is an zpwent, you need to have a plan in place so oil does president seep in, but doesnt flow into waters that go down and does strop at the waters. So the preparation of the plan is the responsibility of a facility owneroptor. But it must be certified by a registered profferingsal engineer. You have ,000 gal objectons of oil stored underground and all this does is day you need to have an emergency plan if when that accident would occur and it can occur, it woo have the possibility of having the oil going into navigable waters and spreading into Property Owners land or state land or federal land. So i think these sound like reasonable requirements and a small step to prevent an environmental disaster that would be cleaned up with taxpayers funds. So that you should plan for the best, hope for the best and you always need to have a plan in case something goes wrong. Thats what this rule requires it does. And have a plan in place and mr. Chair, i reserve the rest of my time. I reserve my time. The chair the gentleman from arkansas yielded back. The gentlelady from minnesota has the remaineding im. 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 and the Agreement Amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clrk will report the amendment. The clerk insert the following limitation on use of funds section, none of the funds made available to the National Park service by this act may be used for the display of Confederate Flag and as described as the park Service Immediate action required. And date june 24, 2015. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 33 , the gentleman from new york and member opposed each will control five minutes. Mr. Jeffries this amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the purchase of display of a con if i had rate flag where such flags provide historical contextses as set for the by the National Park service and in their memo dated john 24, 2015. The National Park service has jurisdiction over operation of the National Park System Associated sites such as National Heritage areas and various state grant accounts. In light of recent events rgs the display of the Confederate Flag has been the discussion of discussion. This amendment is consistent with the bipartisan effort across the country to promote harmony and no division in this great nation. We were all shocked by the heinous massacre that took the lives of nine godfaring, africanamerican church goers in South Carolina. This act of domestic terror was carried out by an individual who idolized the Confederate Flag and harbored racist beliefs calling for the run of