Educational research. It is so very important as it relates to feed food anding can consult agriculture in particular to make an increase so that the 1890 institutions can again be at the forefront of research. One of my schools in my area, purview a m and Texas Southern university, prepare the leaders for the Agricultural Industry of the future. And so this legislation provides support for the many schools such as alabama a m, purview a m, fort valley state university, Kentucky State University and, of course, they enroll 40 of all africanamerican students. So i am grateful for this amendment and i ask my colleagues to support the underlying bill. Thank you so very much and i yield back. I yield back. Thank you. The chair the gentlewoman yields back. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from minnesota. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The en bloc amendments are agreed to. Ms. Mccollum mr. Chair, a recorded vote, please. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from minnesota will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 135 printed in art b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition . Mr. Duncan mr. Chair, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 135 printed in part b of house report 116119 offered by mr. Duncan of South Carolina. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman from South Carolina, mr. Duncan, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina for five minutes. Mr. Duncan i rise today with an amendment to ensure no funds go to the obamaera Clean Power Plan. In 2015, obamas Environmental Protection agency published a final rule for the Clean Power Plan with the intent to reduce co2 emissions from the exesting fossil fuel power plants by 22 by 2030. It set stringent limits on Greenhouse Gas emissions for each state based on the electricity mix. While it sounded well intended, we need to look at the cost of the socalled Clean Power Plan. Families and businesses would be hit the hardest with more Expensive Energy and utility bills and for what . According to a climb tolks, even if climatologist, the amount of Climate Change averted over the course of this ntury amounts to about. 02 centigrade. It is undetactable. Its evident that the Clean Power Plan is nothing more than a feelgood environmental regulation promulgated by the radical environmental left and is base on a trajectory thats negligible all while driving up the cost for average american families. Beyond the effects of the negligible Clean Power Plan, it may be unconstitutional. According to lawrence tribe, they have a trieffective usurping the prerogatives of the states, congress, and the federal courts all at once. This should not become part of my National Energy plan. Because of legal issues, more than half the states in the country petitioned the Supreme Court to pause the Clean Power Plan implementations. That was in 2016. I strongly commend the Trump Administration for taking action this week with the Affordable Energy rule. It paves the way for affordable and clean energy. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and support continued American Energy dominance. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. Does anyone claim time in opposition . Ms. Mccollum madam chair, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Mccollum thank you. Whether or not my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to admit it, Climate Change is real. Its caused by human activity. And it will i should say, even currently now, having devastating impacts. If we dont take bold action to reduce climate pollution, its only going to get worse. I believe we also have a moral obligation to future generations to leave this planet better than we found it. Limiting pollution from power plants is an important part of an overall strategy to limit Carbon Pollution and keep Global Temperatures from rising to levels that will bring unacceptable risks from extreme weather and other Climate Change impacts. Therefore, i was extremely disappointed that on wednesday e. P. A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced a rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan, replacing it with a rule that will lead to 1,400 more deaths each year and those, madam chair, are the e. P. A. s numbers. Just think of it. The administration, that is held with the responsibility of protecting marks air and water americas air and water so its fit for human consumption puts out a regulation to limit the pollution that actually increases the amount of pollution that we emit, causing more deaths, more asthma attacks, more trips to the energy room. Every year, we continue to see communities devastated by natural disasters related to our changing climate. We are spending billions of dollars each year helping these communities rebuild in the wake of those disasters. We need action to limit climate pollution, blocking action to limit Carbon Pollution from power plants is a step backwards. At the exact same moment we should be leaping forward towards cleaner forms of energy, so i yield i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. Duncan madam chairman, i yield one minute to one of the cosponsors of this amendment, the gentleman from arizona, mr. Gosar. The chair the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. Mr. Gosar thank you, madam chairwoman. Specifically the c. P. P. Aimed to reduce co2 from new and existing power plants. It called for an unrealistic 32 nationwide cut in co2 2032 from 2005 levels. Were grabbing Scientific Evidence and putting a moral cloud on it. Thats exactly the definition what they wanted to talk about and moving new processes. They placed incredible burdens on states. They would increase electrical rates and due to this unprecedented overreach, congress rejected these new regulations using the congressional review act. Specifically, the senate voted on november 17, 2015, to reject these rules and the house followed sues december 1, 2015 suit december 1, 2015. We shouldnt be picking winners and losers. Climate change has been going on for eons of time. Thats why you can have a fossil coming from green river, wyoming thats nowhere close to the ocean. I yield back. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Mccollum i believe i have the right to close. I reserve. The chair the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. Duncan i yield a minute and a half to another cosponsor of this amendment, the gentlelady from arizona, mrs. Lesko. The chair the gentlelady from arizona is recognized for 1 1 2 minutes. Mrs. Lesko thank you, madam chair. This amendment prohibits funds under this act to enforce two rules under obamas socalled Clean Power Plan. This plan was administrative overreach, plain and simple. It would have mandated the shutdown of power plants and increase energy costs for families across the country. The Clean Power Plan is just another example of obamaera regulations killing american jobs, strangling our economy, and destroying our Domestic Energy industry. The proposed Clean Power Plan would have required arizona, my state, to achieve a 52 reduction in the co2 emissions rate for affected power plants and to achieve about 90 of that reduction by next year, 2020. Hat was totally unrealistic. Arizona has Palo Verde Nuclear plant. It is the largest producing Nuclear Plant in the entire nation, and often arizona produces more energy than they consume, and so we sell our energy and our electricity throughout the southwest. So Arizona Energy is American Energy. E regulations that strangles generators harm American Consumers well beyond our borders. Applaud the Trump Administration for recognizing the harm of the Clean Power Plan and repealing and replacing it with an Affordable Clean Energy rule. The chair the gentleladys time has expired. Mrs. Lesko i yield back. The chair the gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. Duncan madam chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that i yield back. The chair the gentleman from South Carolina yields. Now, the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. Ms. Mccollum thank you, madam chair. To be clear, many states supported, supported the clear energy rules of the Obama Administration because they know air knows no boundary. So one state decides it wont have clean air rules, that drifts into the next state, affecting that States Health and quality of life. So it was prudent for the federal government to step in and set standards. And no one, no ones power plant was going to be forced to be closed. They were just being told to clean up the air so when it leaves your state to drift into the next state, youre not causing asthma attacks for children. I believe we have a moral obligation to future generations to leave this planet better than we found it. Limiting pollution from power plants is part of an overall strategy to protect fruss the worst impacts of Climate Change. We owe it to the next generation. They are watching our actions. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. With that, madam chair, i yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Duncan madam chair, i request the yeas and nays. The chair the gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. Duncan i request the yeas and nays. The chair does the gentleman request a recorded vote . Does the gentleman request a recorded vote . Mr. Duncan yes, maam. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina will be postponed. Its now in order to consider amendment number 136 printed in art b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition . Mr. Blumenauer madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 136 printed in part b of house report 116119 offered by mr. Blumenauer of oregon. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman from oregon, mr. Blumenauer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. Mr. Blumenauer thank you, madam chair. I yield myself two minutes. The chair without objection, the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Blumenauer this amendment is simple. It would restrict the subsidization of logging roads in the tongass wilderness. There are 5,000 miles of road that are used for logging. They are not eligible for the public, and these roads are subsidized simply because Timber Industry in the tongass cannot sustain itself. It could not exist other than the fact we build logging roads for them. It is a problem on several levels. First and foremost, there is a longterm liability associated with them. Currently, theres some 90 million worth of deferred maintenance. If you do not adequately maintain these logging roads, they become an environmental liability. But more fundamentally, it is undermining this great resource. The true value of the tongass that makes it unique, the true economic driver of the region is tourism and fishing, which is sustainable. Alaska has been damaged by Climate Change more than any other state. The temperature has risen twice what we see in the rest of the country. The tongass is part of the effort to be able to reduce Climate Change by providing a carbon sync. This amendment is carbon sink. This amendment is supported by many taxpayer groups. Alaska wilderness action, earth justice, the sierra club. Because its a prove will he ait waste of tax delash proflegat waste of tax dollars, we have those that have supported this amendment, which has passed congress in the past on a bipartisan basis. I urge my colleagues to look hard at this unnecessary subsidizization of the destruction of this precious resource, making Climate Change worse while undermining the values that make the tongass so valuable. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman reserves his time. Does anyone claim time in opposition . For what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise . Mr. Young i rise in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Young i thank you, madam. My good friend from oregon, im always amazed how many people in this body knows whats better for alaska. You know, four times in this last two weeks, some of you come out, i know whats best for alaska. This is owe bam wras decision and we appealed it and won in court. This is state land, a lot of it. We have access to and we are going to continue that. You say about Climate Change, old trees dont consume. New trees do. They clean the air out. Old trees do not. We are not talking about really timber here because you cant have timber sale unless its put up for sale. We are talking access across federal lands because state land and federal land in between. We are asking to have access. That is the law. Under the law there was to be no more. Obama changed by regulation. We are changing it again. I dont understand where hes got this information. How he got it. What hes seeing. Where hes gone. You talk about tourism, tourism is great for you people in oregon that want to come to skearks but doesnt support our chools, it doesnt support a growing society. It supports old growth which has no value at all. And look at for a short period of time when it dies. We had 3 forest fires last year because you dont allow roads in an area so we can manage them. Thats wrong. All we are asking is to have what the state was guaranteed by this body. You are taking it away from them saying you dont have access to your lands. Dont you have a right to build anything because you dont have ability to have a road. I stand here as one member represents the greatest state in the union. The largest district. I constantly see people incinerators, game, timber, mining. Why dont you mind your own damn business. This is not yours. Im disappointed the gentleman would do this. You are a friend of mine. Did you ever consult me about this . No. Thats disrespect yul. Maybe we ought to think about something toe make you more respectful to me. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. I just want to remind members to direct their comments to the a chair. Thank you so very much. The gentleman reserves. Mr. Blumenauer i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. Gallego. The chair gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Gallego i want to thank my friend mr. Blumenauer for choosing this bill. For nearly two decades the rules have been property tool for preserving pristine forest, clean water, and wildlife. It has protected taxpayers from subsidizing even costly more road building in national forests. Nowhere is this more needed than Tongass National forest in alaska. Its home to some of the most undisturbed, temperate, old growth rainforests in the world. They are critical sequestration tool and resource for Climate Change mitigation. Despite these facts and the opposition of many alaska native communities, as well as the concerns of the alaska tourism and sportsman industry, the state of alaska has proposed to strip this forest of the protections. Stripping the protection from Tongass National forest will add millions of taxpayer dollars be put into road building projects in one of the most remote wild parts of our country. This amendment does not end the discussion of how and where the roadless rules should be applied in alaska and other states. It is simpler than that. All this amendment does is prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to subsidize more old growth logging in alaskas Tongass National forest. Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill to construct virmely harmful roads for the logging industry in this pristine place. This is the exact fiscally responsible amendment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should support. Thats why i strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in protecting Tongass National forest and american taxpayers by supporting this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from alaska. Mr. Young i would suggest when they talk about the tax road. These roads were in place andcies maintenance costs were already there. The reason they are not being used is because there is no timber in thataire which has been cut already. A very small amount. Im talking about state land. Can i ask the gentleman that just briefly spoke, anybody like to say have you been to the tongass . Any one of you want to answer that . No. They are parroting whats been fed to them. When you interfere with a states rights, this is not the United States of the federal government, its United States of america. You are taking away the right of a state of access to their land. Because of this action. Thats wrong. I said we won it in court. You may not know that. Well win it again because the law is very clearer there was to be no more in alaska. But obama did apply it. Im a saying have at it. Its not going anywhere. I shouldnt get excited. Its the idea you are supposed to be representing form of government and you should have the right to represent your district. Thats your responsibility. Stay out of my district. You are not doing whats right for the state of alaska, thats my job. I say shame on you. I yield back. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from oregon is recognized. Mr. Blumenauer i would inquire as to the amount of time remaining. The gentleman from oregon has 1 1 2 minutes, and the gentleman from alaska has 3 4 minutes left. Mr. Blumenauer do i have the right to close, madam chair . The chair the gentleman does have the right to close. Mr. Blumenauer i reserve. The chair gentleman from oregon reserves. The gentleman from alaska is recognized. Mr. Young i yield my remaining time to the gentleman from arizona, mr. Gosar. The chair the gentleman is recognized for 3 4 of a minute. Mr. Gosar 32 fires in 2015. The average over the last 10 years has been 15 to 20 fires. We ought to know better. In arizona i have had witnessesred the most catastrophic fires in arizona history because of our mismanagement of fires. The largest fire in arizona history. Then the yarnel fire we lost 19 firefighters. Its incredible what we are doing is we are trying to have jurisdiction over fires. There is a reason we have had to subsidize that because we put the industry out of business by sue and settle. Folks, there is a cost to these fires. You have to start looking at mitigation in that aspect. If you want Climate Change mitigation, the best thing you can do is have a dynamic forest that actually produces more oxygen than carbon. That means medium and small growth tree, not old growth trees. A happy medium of all ask a dynamic forest. If you are preventing this, the gentleman from arizona ought to know better. Rear sitting on catastrophic results in arizona. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from oregon is recognized. Mr. Blumenauer thank u. Madam chair. First and foremost, my friend from alaska, who is my friend, and i respect and have enjoyed our give and take over the years, misses the point. What im talking about is federal subsidization of logging roads. I mentioned that there is a deferred backlog that is expensive, that the logging operations that we have do not recover enough money to fully fund the operations and the deferred maintenance. We erence the fact that have an opportunity to be able to focus our attention on things that really do make a difference. Vint spent time in the tongass. I have spent time in alaska. The principle in oregon and other states in terms of heavily subsidized logging roads. Logging roads dont make forests safer. They dont prevent forest fires. As a matter of fact when we look at logging operations, they are often more sustainable. Logging sometimes causes forest fires. And puts people in these areas. I would just respectfully suggest that what i said about alaska being threatened more by Climate Change than any other, im happy to provide my good friend from alaska the references to in terms of verifying the statistics and facts i have used, but the fact remains this is something we shouldnt do. We dont need. And i strongly urge the adoption of the amendment. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, he ayes have it. Well give you a recorded vote. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 139 printed in part b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Gosar i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. E clerk the clerk amendment number 139, printed in part b of house report 116119, offered by mr. Gosar of arizona. The chair pursuant to lution 445, the gentleman from arizona, mr. Gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. Mr. Gosar i thank the chairwoman. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Gosar my amendment is straightforward. It would prevent any funds in this bill from being used to carrier out of e. P. A. s disastrous 2009 endangerment finding. The e. P. A. s endangerment finding has served as legal justification for the federal government to attack American Energy under the guise of Climate Change since 2009. The information quality act provides a framework for 9 oversight of quality of information disseminated by the federal government. Unfortunately, bureaucrats and president obamas e. P. A. Evaded the requirements in the information quality act by refusing to admit that the document was a highly influential scientific assessment. If Climate Change is as dire as some of my colleagues consistently argue, then why then did president obamas e. P. A. Go to such lengths to prevent their assessment from rigorous peer review, interesting. In april of this year president Trumps Office of management and budget released a memo to reinforce, clarify, interpret Agency Responsibilities with regard to responsibilities under the information quality act. In april, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned the e. P. A. To stop using the 2009 endangerment finding until it subject itself to the high level scientific peer review that is legally required under the information quality act. C. E. I. s protection to the e. P. A. Found numerous instances where they failed to meet their own peer review standards. Some of the failures of the e. P. A. Noted by c. E. I. Including failing to allow public including scientific and professional societies to nominate potential reviewers,. Allowing an e. P. A. Employee to conduct peer review utilizing peer reviewers reviewing their own work and reliance on the United NationsClimate Change panel reports that do not meet federal peer review standards. Completely obnoxious. Even the staunchest advocates were taking aggressive action on our climate should be able to agree that the process the e. P. A. Used to adopt the endangerment finding failed to meet the required peer review process. Fortunately there is an alternative. Madam speaker madam chairwoman, i believe the best way to improve our environment and to ensure Economic Prosperity of this country is to rely on sound science, not on the opinions of unelected bureaucrats at the e. P. A. If Climate Science alarm aists are so confident the 2009 endangererment finding is sound science, then conduct proper peer review following the guidelines by the information quality act put forth by o. M. B. That will assure the outcome. Madam chairwoman, this is not a partisan issue. No matterer what side of the Climate Change debate you fall on, we can all agree that the e. P. A. Has evaded its responsibility to peer review and developing sound science when authorizing its endangerment findings. The process was broken and good process makes good policy makes good politics. This body should not fund the information of policies based on the 2009 endangerment findings. I urge all members on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment. With that i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves. Does anyone claim time in opposition . Madam chair, i do. The chair the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Mccollum i want to say something, madam chair, we have many fine employees at the e. P. A. Great employees. I would be hesitant to put them in the way that sometimes the term bureaucrat is use aed because sometimes that conceals a meaning. To the great scientists in the e. P. A. I want to know i respect their work. I rise in strong opposition as i said to this amendment which would prevent the e. P. A. From implementing its endangerment finding that Greenhouse Gases endanger human health and welfare. Its the e. P. A. s ebb dangererment findings that is simply a legal restating of something that the u. N. Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. Every single Scientific Academy in the world i want to stress that, madam chair. I heard the gentleman talk about some kind of peer review, but im going to go with a national Scientific Academy in the world. And that 97 of climate scientist vs. Been telling us for decades. Im going to go with 97 of the scientists, madam chair. Whether or not my colleague on the other side of the aisle will admit it, our climates changing, we know it in minnesota and i hear other people from around the country talk about it. We do know that its caused by human activity. We are already experiencing negative impacts from Climate Change, the severity of those impacts will only increase, only increase, if we dont reduce climate pollution. The endangerment finding does not regulate climate collusion but it does say we need to take action to address it, and i agree. Block the endangerment rule will not help future generations. With that i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. The gentleman from arizona. Mr. Gosar thank you. I thank the madam chair woman. I ask one simple question if members of this body are so confident of the 2009 endangerment findings, then highquality peer review will result in the same outcome, correct . What will the fallacy with that . Again, good process builds good policy builds good politics. We fail to do that. We want to use science when its convenient to us. Thats the problem. The other side calls themselves the party of science. Then you should be all for this peer review aspect. But, no, we dont want to do that because its not convenient. Once again, i agree, climate is always changing. Thats why you find fossilized fish up in western wyoming. Were the carbon footprints at that time similar to what it is today . Science has been peer reviewed. Thats why i give you one set of circumstances, i give that to you, you get the outcome. This country is i ask for everybody to vote for that and i yield back. The chair the gentleman from arizona yields back. The gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. Ms. Mccollum madam chair, id ask the gentleman from arizona if he has other speakers. The chair the gentleman has yielded back. Ms. Mccollum you yielded back. Sorry. I didnt hear. Thank you, sir. The chair the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Mccollum once again, what i see is delay by not going with scientists all around the world, 97 of the scientists leading the way on what we should be doing clearly stating that human activity has a direct impact on Climate Change. We cant ignore the dangers of it. We need urgent and bold action to address Climate Change. We dont need to be putting our heads in the sand. We dont need to be delaying. So i oppose the taxpayers of this country spending more money when we already have the sound science, and i oppose weighsing time to address Climate Change. So i oppose and i oppose wasting time to address Climate Change. So i oppose this amendment. I yield back. The chair the gentlewoman 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, he ayes the noes mr. Gosar madam chair, i ask for the yeas and nays. The chair the amendment is not agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman rise, the gentleman from arizona . Mr. Gosar i ask for the yeas and nays. The chair does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote . Mr. Gosar yes, i do. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. It is now time to consider the amendment under 140 printed in part b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Gosar i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 140 printed in part b of house report 116119 offered by mr. Gosar of arizona. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman from arizona, mr. Gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona for five minutes. Mr. Gosar madam chair woman, i yield to my chairwoman, i yield to my distinguished gentleman from louisiana two minutes. The chair the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Abraham thank you, madam speaker. I want to thank chairman gosar and the western caucus for bringing further attention to the scourge that is chronic wasting disease. At the beginning of this congress, i introduced h. R. 837, which would require the usda and the department of the interior to collaborate with the National Academy of sciences to study the predominantly pathways and the mechanisms for the transmission of chronic wasting disease. There is a lot of c. W. D. Research out there. Some good. Some not so good. Hat we need is authoritative Scientific Consensus on how chronic wasting disease will spread. This will allow us to find the most effective ways to fight c. W. D. But we cant do it without the proper resources. I want to thank the chair and Ranking Member for providing language that encourages great erskine tisk collaboration within are the federal government. This will set us on the right path to understanding how c. W. D. Ineffects and how it spreads and give the foundation of knowledge we need to build the right policy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Gosar i reserve. The chair the gentleman from arizona reserves. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise . Ms. Mccollum madam chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment in order to speak on it. The chair the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Mccollum i thank both gentlemen for their concern and dedication to this issue. In the 1990s when i served in the minnesota house and our environment agriculture committee, i first learned of chronic wasting disease and the way it was frightening hunters and it was frightening people who like to consume deer meat. We took some action at the time when i was in the state house to address this only to find out its a bigger flairup and its something that we need to address. And in my home state of minnesota under the leadership of governor wallace were putting more time, more energy, more resources into working on this issue. And thats why youll find in the house report accompanying the interior bill, it highlights the committees concern about chronic wasting disease and the need to continue to collaborate with partners to develop Early Detection tools and compound to disrupt the transmission of this deadly disease. As of june 7, 2019, chronic wasting disease has been reported in at least 24 states in the continental United States as well as in two providences in canada. Once this disease is established in an area, the risk can remain for a long time in the environment, and were finding out a long time is a long time. The lack of treatment or vaccines for this insidious disease highlights the need for more research, and we need to be working as a member of the agriculture committee, i have been talking to the usda about what we do about disposing of these car cusses of some of carcasses of some of these it not only appears in the wild, it appears in captive herd that is used for consumption as well. So i just want my colleagues to know, i look forward to working th them on this issue, and i wanted to use this as an opportunity to let both gentlemen know its in the report language and we look forward to the authorizers working more so we can do even more to address this disease. With that, madam chair, i thank the gentlemen once again for their amendment and i yield back the time. The chair the gentlelady yields back her time. The gentleman from arizona. Mr. Gosar i thank the chairwoman. I thank the gentlelady from minnesota. This chronic wasting disease is 100 fatal, and we have similar diseases like mad cow disease in cattle and in sheep. So one of the things were very concerned, as she alluded to, the gentlelady, we have no esting available for hunting populations. This is it communicateable to human beings and other aspects to agriculture . Those are some of the things we need to address. As the gentlelady said, weve ow seen it in 25 states, so it is spreading. Once again, being 100 fatal, we got to address this, because we have whole populations that are at stake. We can put our ingenuity to task here. We can solve this problem, but its on the forefront. I thank the gentleman from louisiana. As a veterinarian, as a physician, he understands the ramifications, dire ramifications of this, and i thank the gentlelady for accepting this and with that i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back. It is now in order to consider amendment number the question is on the amendment. It is now in order to 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. He amendment is agreed to. Its now in order to consider amendment number 143 printed in part b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition . Mr. Duncan madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 143 printed in part b of house report 116119 offered by mr. Duncan of South Carolina. The chair pursuant to the House Resolution 445, the gentleman from South Carolina, mr. Duncan, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. Duncan thank you, madam chair. I rise today with an amendment at the desk to ensure we develop Energy Resources located in a small part of the Arctic National wildlife refuge. This development is long overdue, and the decision of congress to authorize that development through the historic tax reform legislation should not be revisited. We should proceed as plan to further American Energy dominance. The opening of a small part of anwr for oil and gas drilling will increase access to our resources and will help decrease the price of oil and gas for the American People. Alaska contains 1. Excuse me 192 million acres of parks, refuges, Wilderness Acres and nature presembts and 19. 5 acres of this is in anwr. Before tax reform and opening 19. 5 , 92 of the million couldnt be opened for drilling. We shouldnt backtrack. This area was set aside to be opened in 1980 by a Democratic Controlled Congress and is limited to. 0001 of the anwr. We should move forward with the development of this region as it will create jobs, lower prices of oil and gas and continue to move us forward with American Energy dominance. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and our continued energy success in the United States, and i reserve the balance. The chair the gentleman from South Carolina reserves his time. Who claims time in opposition . Ms. Mccollum madam chair, i do. The chair the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Mccollum madam chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment that would strike section 118 from the bill, and i want to begin by setting the record straight on section 118 of the interior bill does and does not do. The opponents of this amendment have characterized the interior language as preventing Energy Leases in the arctic wildlife refuge, anwr. Thats an outright misstatement, madam chair. I will although, as i will explain, i can understand why those who champion the inflated revenue months 18 months ago might be a little worried. On the contrary, the language says that when the department of interior offers those leases up for sale, it simply makes sure the sale raises more than the 500 million that was promised. In 2017, the republicans were putting together their tax bill. The budget resolution directed the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy committee to come up with legislation that would raise 1 billion over 10 years. Ostensibly, that 1 billion was supposed to help offset the cost of a 5 trillion tax bill. In reality, i believe it was a scam to get around a pount of order. Once the anwr provision was included in the tax bill, the Congressional Budget Office said the provision would raise a little more than 2 billion over 10 years, and by law, half of those revenues go to the federal treasury and half go to the state of alaska. According to the c. B. O. , which got its information from the interior department, the first lease sale was going to raise 1 billion. With 500 million going to the federal government. Well, if that 500 million is what the interior department told c. B. O. They could raise from our public lands, then they should have no problem with the language in our bill. Because thats exactly what our language does. It tells the interior department, if you decide to go forward with the lease sale next year, then you need to raise the 500 million you promised the American People, and thats called accountability. And the taxpayers have a right to expect it. Now, since we dont know exactly how many acres interior intends to offer up for lease and we cant know the exact per acre dollar amount, but if the department leases a minimum of 400,000 acres, required by law, then all it needs to do is put out a lease sale requirement to an ompanies to bid 2,500 acre for these public lands. Apparently, the administration and the congressional opponents are having second thoughts about those promises and want a little amnesty. On may 21, the office of management and budget sent the appropriations a letter making it clear that the administration opposes section 118 language. O. M. B. Says the 500 million figure was arbitrary and unrealistic. Now, how could the administration claim that that number was arbitrary and unrealistic when c. B. O. Estimates was based on the administrations data . Where was omb in december of 2017 when c. B. O. First came out. Where were the congressional opponents of drilling anwr back then . Why didnt they sound a little alarmed 18 months ago . Why not speak up and say wait a minute, i think this numbers too high . Maybe unrealistic. I suspect they thought they would never be held responsible for the projection that is they were touting back then. And maybe that explains why the language in the interior bill as characterized is preventing lease sales. Supporters know that the department is required to live up to the promises everyone made and they may be unattainable to achieve. Let me be clear. I oppose opening up anwr for drilling. But now that its in the tax bill, we have an obligation to make sure that the american taxpayers protected and the language currently in the interior bill does exactly that, madam chair. It ensures the public property is not given away to the oil and a gas industry for a song. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. Duncan i yield two minutes to one of the cosponsors of this amendment antidean of the house, the gentleman from alaska, mr. Young. The chair the gentleman from alaska is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Young i thank you for yielding. We passed the same open anwr 14 times in this house, including when the democrats controlled it. Because this was set up by mo uedal, senator jackson, ted stevens, and myself for an area that has poe tngs great value to this nation and the state of alaska. Thats been decided because they said at that time, i said at that time, that the congress was to say we should open anwr, drilling can take place. As far as the figures go, one thing that bothers me because the statement says 50 of the c. B. O. Score, one score the first sale may not make that. But who is to say what the second sale will make . Or the third sale . Total amount. For the treasury of the United States of america. This areas not pristine, i have to say that. I wish some people would see it. It has been developed before by a defense system. But people that live there, the native people, they support it. The state of alaska supports it. Its the right thing to do for america. This is the backdoor approach by certain people within this party the other party that want to not open anwr. You lost that battle, we won. For the good of the country. The good of the state, the good of the people. We won. This is a back way to stop it. I believe we are going to raise that money, thats how confident i am. I think the sales will produce what we say. Im not going to get excited about this because its not going to go anywhere. Thank god we got two senators for every state. Its the right thing to do. Thats why the constitution forefathers made it that way. I got two senators to make sure this doesnt go anywhere. I appreciate those that oppose. Thank you, madam chair, to say you do oppose opening anwr, i respect that. I happen to support it. I think ail be proven right. I believe this amendments the right way to go. We ought to eliminate the question. I want to urge a yes vote on this slayings. The right thing to do. And go forward and really govern for the future. Thats important. We are missing it. With that i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. Duncan reserves. The chair the gentlewoman from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum reserve. The chair the gentlewoman reserves. The gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. Duncan yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. Gosar. The chair the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona for one minute. Mr. Gosar i thank the gentlewoman. This amendment attempts to change the requirements for oil and gas leases. I will say very entrepreneurial in its disguise. But i want to remind people in regards to how big this aspect is. This is a small little area. To give you an example anwr is the size of massachusetts, rhode island, vermont, and New Hampshire combined. Energy development with anwr is 1 5 the size of the dulles airport, amazing. If you have ever been there, it is something to be seen. As congressional western caucus we actually took that liberty of coming up there and a being hosted by the gentleman from alaska. What you are being told and what is being aspect isnt the same. I actually join the gentleman from South Carolina and ask for a yes vote. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. Duncan reserves. The chair the gentleman has 30 seconds. Mr. Tun can i yield as much time as he wants to the chairman. The chair the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for 30 seconds. Ohio. I rise in strong support of this amendment. When it comes to anwr there is no such thing as noncontroversial policy provision this. One found its way into the interior bill at a time when longstanding bipartisan provisions have fallen out. As i mentioned during general debate on this package, we need to remove these poison pill riders before we can reach a bipartisan agreement. Thats why i support the amendment to strike this and urge a yes vote. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Duncan i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlewoman from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum how much time i have in closing . The chair the gentlewoman from minnesota has 30 seconds. Ms. Mccollum facts speak for themselves. This sale was used to offset the tax bill, to keep the American People confident that we were going to have our house in order when the tax bill passed. Well, the first sale was supposed to guarantee 500 million. If they get less than that on the first sale as the gentleman said, how much lower does it go on the second . I just remind people that we need to protect the american taxpayer on this one and make sure that we dont get taken to the cleaners. I oppose this amendment. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Duncan i request the yeas and nays. The chair for what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina rise. Request the yeas and nays. Do you request a recorded vote . Mr. Duncan yes. The chair recorded you recorded vote is requested. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 144 printsed in part b of house report 116119. It is now in order to consider amendment number 147 printed in art b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition . Mr. Mullin i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 147, printed in part b of house report number 116119, offered by mr. Mullin of oklahoma. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. Mullin, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. Mr. Mullin thank you, madam chair. This amendment would prohibit funds for enforcing the Obama Administration e. P. A. Methane rule. The rule is currently facing litigation and uncertainty and Congress Must act to block this job killing regulation estimating that it will cost the economy roughly 530 million annually. While the oil and Gas Production has increased over 25 since 2005, related methane gas emissions have actually decreased, decreased over 40 during the same period. Meaning the industry is doing a good job at regulating themselves. It is counterproductive for the federal government to enact harmful regulation that is cause inefficiencies and recklessly spending taxpayer dollars enforcing hardships on true job creators. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. Does anyone claim time in opposition . Ms. Mccollum madam chair. The chair the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Mccollum i rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment would prevent the Environmental Protection agency from enforcing commonsense rules. Requiring oil and gas industry to prevent natural gas leaks from their drilling operations. The rules been effect for three years now and the oil and gas industry is complying with those regulation as. Preventing methane leaks has an important Public Health benefit. Leaks from natural gas operations are a significant source of ozone pollution which trigger asthma attacks and send thousands of children to mergency rooms every year. This rule savings r saves money because natural it was that is the not wasted can be sold. The proponents of this amendment argue that the rule isnt necessary because oil and Gas Companies have a incentive to prevent leaks. Its a simple fact leaks continue to happen unless companies are required to prevent them. People might not like eating their vegetables, but we are all better off for doing it. Madam chair, with that i yield back. The chair does the gentlelady reserve or yield back . Ms. Mccollum i reserve. The chair the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. Mr. Mullin i yield a minute and a half to my colleague from arizona. The chair the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 1 1 2 minutes. Mr. Gosar my colleague, mr. Mullin, is correct. When former president obama directed the b. L. M. And other agencies to target industries for Greenhouse Gas emissions they went for the oil and natural gas first. This rule targeted methane is unnecessary. It is produced as a byproduct of oil and natural Gas Production but in itself is a valuable product in itself that can be sold and is sold into something that oil and gas routinely capture and sell. They were doing a great job of this even before this rule. It was unnecessary. Even e. P. A. Estimates show that the methane emissions have decreased while production of natural gas and oil increased over the same period. The free market has provided an incentive to reduce methane release on its own. There is no further aspects from the e. P. A. To impose this hurdle. Its expensive expensive. Its estimated to cost 530 annually 530 million annually. As Ronald Reagan used to say government is not the solution, governments the problem. This is a regulation in search of a problem. And with that i support the gentlemans amendment and i yield back. The chair the gentleman from oklahoma. Mr. Mullin 00 reserves. The chair the gentlewoman from minnesota. The gentlewoman from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from oklahoma. Mr. Mullin ill be real quick herer in closing. During the conversation that was taking place a second ago, a comment was made that said it actually saves the industry money. I got to sit back and think how is that possible . If it was saving the industry money they wouldnt oppose it. I havent met a regulation ever from a Small Business owner, which is the only reason why im here because of the job killing regulation that is come out of this place constantly, that has ever saved me any money. What we are talking about is real jobs that affect real peoples lives. This congress always talks about job creation and creating job packages. We want to brag about how many obs we have created. This body doesnt create jobs. We are supposed to create an environment to which job creators can create this job and we are saying this one will kill jobs. So why would we support this . Doesnt make any sense to me. With with that i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. The gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. Ms. Mccollum thank u. Madam chair. We know for a thank you, madam chair. We know for fact that methane leaks contribute to ground pollution. We know reducing leaks reduce the bottom line for Gas Companies. I oppose this amendment and stand with common sense to do Everything Possible to keep these leaks from happening in the future. The chair the gentlewoman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, he ayes have it. Ms. Mccollum recorded vote. The chair the gentlewoman is requesting a recorded vote. The amendment a recorded vote, pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 148 printed in art b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition . Mr. Mullin i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 148 printed in part b of house report 116119 offered by mr. Mullin of oklahoma. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. Mullin, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. Mr. Mullin thank you, madam chair. My amendment would prohibit funds for implementing the social cost of carbon rule. The Obama Administration continually used social costs of carbon models which would be easily manipulated in order to justify, once again, new job killing regulations. I offered this same amendment yesterday and unfortunately it failed. Until then, the house had a clear, strong record of opposition to the social cost of carbon, voting at least 12 times to block, defund, or oppose the proposal. We want clean air and clean water and we take care of the land we live on. Using subjective standards to create jobkilling regulations is not the way to accomplish this goal. Social cost of carbon rule is nothing more than some burdensome red tape for the American People. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentlewoman for what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition, from maine . Ms. Pingree madam chair, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Pingree i am sorry to say i have to oppose the amendment by the gentleman from oklahoma and appreciate his thoughts but hes completely wrong. The amendment is a harmful rider that would prohibit the e. P. A. From considering the social cost of carbon as part of the rulemaking. The social cost of carbon may sound a little confusing to people but frankly its an estimate of the economic damages associated with the small increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions in a given year. It represents currently our best scientific Information Available for incorporating the impacts from Carbon Pollution into regulatory analysis. Weakening or eliminating the use as a tool for federal agencies would ignore the sobering cost of health, environmental, and Economic Impacts of extreme weather, rising temperature, intensifying smog, and other impacts. We just cannot afford to abandon science at this critical moment in time. Our country needs to face the challenges ahead of us with Climate Change, have the best scientific tools available, and this is one. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. The gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. Mr. Mullin i yield a minute and a half to my colleague from arizona. The chair the gentleman from arizona is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Gosar i thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam chairwoman, i rise today in support of this commonsense amendment that will protect american jobs and the economy. They are prohibiting funds from implementing the Obama Administration flawed social cost of carbon. This jobkilling and unlawful guidance paves the way for cap and trade like mandates. Congress and the American People have rejected cap and trade proposals knowing he have a carbon tax. The social cost of carbon is not based on science and the models can be oozely manipulated to arrive in whatever conclusion it desires. Once again, when we look at carbon, its a nutrient for plants. To say any otherwise is disrespectful. Nce again, we played this with sound science. With regards to this, the house has decisively voted to block or defund and oppose the social cost of carbon. With that i support the gentlemans amendment and i yield back. The chair the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. The gentlewoman from maine. The gentlewoman from maine is recognized. Ms. Pingree i continue to reserve. The chair the gentlewoman from maine reserves. The gentleman from oklahoma. Mr. Mullin while i respect the gentleladys opinion and this is one of the things we agree to disagree. She said the science and measuring the carbon the social cost of carbon is proven true. Factual, its not true. The science isnt there. We actually dont have a good method to measure the social cost of carbon. Thats why the whole issue is it can easily be manipulated to fit whatever model they choose which means they can pick and choose what type of energy were able to produce and how we produce it. Meaning, they can choose, not the consumer, can choose to say we no longer want to have fossil fuels as a choice. We only want renewables. If were going to be alloftheabove country, we are going to embrace industry and entrepreneurs, then we have to embrace all of the above. If consumers dont want that, if certain states dont want to buy fossil fuel energy, then they can do so. In oklahoma, were all of the above. Not only are we a leader in producing fossil fuels, but were also the Third Largest in producing renewables also. We believe all of the above, and our neighbor in texas, while they are a leader in producing oil, theyre the number one in renewables. Isnt it ironic that both are red states . All were saying here, lets not manipulate and allow the government to pick and choose. Let the consumer choose. With that i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from maine is recognized. Ms. Pingree thank you, mr. Chair. I do appreciate my colleague from oklahoma clarifying its a big state for renewables and texas is as well, and i encourage them to continue on that further down the path because thats certainly an important an important challenge that we have to overcome is having more renewables in our country. I do say Climate Change is the greatest environmental threat that mankind has ever faced. We need to deploy every tool available at our disposal and address this crisis, including the best scientists which i believe is represented in the social cost of carbon analysis. I strongly oppose the mullin amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady yields back. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Mullin mr. Speaker. The chair the gentleman from oklahoma. Mr. Mullin did you hear that . There was one that said no over there. The chair do you request a recorded vote . Mr. Mullin yes. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 151 printed in part b of the house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition . Mr. Smith i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 151 printed in part b of house report 116119 offered by mr. Smith of missouri. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman from missouri, mr. Smith, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Speaker. Today i rise in support of my amendment, which would demonstrate the environmental benefits of the u. S. Mexicocanada trade agreement, as well as show the cost of delaying passage of this agreement. Usmca is a ground is groundbreaking in more ways than one. It will create thousands of u. S. Jobs, improve our economy, increase u. S. Agriculture exports, and reduce our trade deficits with mexico. Thanks to president trump, this trade agreement is also a great achievement for the environment. Usmca brings all environmental provisions into the core of the agreement, which means that they can be fully enforced. The agreement contains the first of its kind language on improving air quality as well as appropriate procedures for Environmental Impact assessments. The agreement takes a commonsense approach by creating a partnership between the u. S. And two of its most important trade allies towards a unified goal of improving the environment. Importantly, the agreement also maintains each countrys sovereignty over their own laws. This will create more environmental benefits than anything offered by my friends across the aisle who so far have only come up with eradicating u. S. Agriculture, eliminating could you say cows, eliminating air travel. My amendment would direct the e. P. A. To use these funds to produce reports that would demonstrate the environmental improvements that we are not benefiting from every day this agreement is not in effect. This way, the American People can see firsthand what the cost of delay truly is. Just yesterday, mexico voted overwhelmingly to ratify this agreement. Canada is moving forward as well. Its time for democrats to decide what is worse for them, giving trump a win or allowing the u. S. To remain in an outdated trade agreement that is not up to the standards we hold today . Usmca is a great agreement for the American People and its time to vote. I urge a yes vote on my amendment. Thank you. I reserve. The chair the gentleman from missouri reserves. Does any member claim time in opposition . Seeing known, the gentleman from missouri is recognized. Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Speaker. I close. The chair the gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. He amendment is agreed to. It is now in order to consider amendment number 156 printed in part b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition . Mr. Newhouse mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 156 printed in part b of house report 116119 offered by mr. Newhouse of washington. The chair pursuant to house rule 445, the gentleman from washington, mr. Newhouse, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. Mr. Newhouse thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise to speak on my bipartisan amendment to prevent any funding in this interior appropriations bill from being used to close or transfer the operation of u. S. Forest ervice c. C. C. Program will be withdrawn. The value they provide in supporting Rural Communities and maintaining our public lands actively managing our nations forests and helping restore communities harmed by catastrophic wildfires. I would like to thank secretary perdue for listening to the concerns of Central Washington communities and for preserving the unique and Important Role these centers play in Rural Communities. I look forward to working in partnership with the c. C. C. s, the u. S. Forest service, and our many local, regional, and federal partners in strengthening these programs so they can continue to efficiently and effectively support the u. S. Forest Service Motto of caring for the land and serving people. With that, mr. Chairman, i intend to withdraw my amendment, but i will continue to reserve my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise . Ms. Pingree mr. Chair, i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. The chair without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Pingree thank you, mr. Chair. I yield a minute to the gentleman from Washington State, mr. Schrader. The chair the gentleman from oregon is recognized. Mr. Schrader thank you, mr. Chairman. Id just like to echo mr. Newhouses comments at large. The Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers are critical aspect of rural americas ability to fight fires, do good work in rural america. I want to applaud secretary perdue for reversing his decision. Its one thing to be here in washington, d. C. And think youre counting, you know, the taxpayers money very carefully and doing the right thing. Its another thing to be out in the real world and live the life that we have out there in timber country and knowing what valuable lessons they provide these atrisk youth that would have no other options going forward. At this point, fight our devastating wildfires. Theyre adjunct to the professional people we have out there. I want to thank representative newhouse, defazio, gianforte. And you have nice bipartisan, bicameral support. Its an area where good to see Congress Come together and the executive branch understand the realities of the world, so i really appreciate everyones effort. Its been fun to work on that and i yield back, mr. Chairman. The chair the gentleman from oregon yields. The gentlewoman from maine reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Newhouse im ready to close if the gentlewoman from maine is. The chair the gentlewoman from maine. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to rise in support of this amendment and thank my colleague from the Appropriations Committee for doing this. This is an important amendment that would prohibit any changes to the job Source Centers or closure. I also appreciate that secretary perdue announced a change of heart but i want to make sure the administration doesnt change the plan again. Ms. Pin fwree i think everyone else said it very articulately, these are important operation they teach our young people a tremendous number of things, they provide full and temporary jobs in new england like im sure on the west coast, we need a lot of these people to help us with some of the challenges going on today. The department of labor had announced a pr posal previously to close nine of the facilities that would have impacted 356 fulltime and 107 temporary and contract employees and more than 3,000 students were at risk of losing the opportunity develop the skills and Work Experience they need to get jobs. That would include the 966 students at centers that have been propoed for closure. Our nation would lose out as well and we have heard some of the ways that woult happen on the west coast and it would certainly on the east coast as well. These are countless hours for young people in conservation work, restoration work and wildland fire fighting. Id like to quote a usda webpage when i say, there has never been a time when civilian Conservation Centers were more necessary or more worthwhile investment in our natures futureful i concur with the gentleman and yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Newhouse thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to thank my good friend and colleague from maine, ms. Pin fwree, as well as my good friend and colleague from oregon, mr. Schrader, for their comments. In the weeks since this proposal had been eanounsed, to close the Forest Service job corps c. C. C. s, i know my colleagues have but i also have received dozens of personal accounts and testimonials from men and women across my district whose lives were profoundly impacted for the better by the c. C. C. Program. If i could quote a couple of those comments, mr. Chairman, the first one, the job core smaved life, quote. The 10 months i spent at fort simko were the most beneficial of my life. Another person said, and i quote, the c. C. C. Didnt just change my life but saved my life. Im so grateful for the columbian basin job corps center. If they hadnt accepted me id be in a such different, much worse phase in my life. I would like to thank the secretary of agriculture, mr. Perdue, for hearing the strong support expressed by my colleagues and myself on behalf of the u. S. Forezest service job corps c. C. C. Program and i respectfully withdraw the amendment. The chair the amendment is withdrawn. The gentleman yields back his ime. It is now in order to consider amendment number 158 printed in part a of house report 1161109. For what purpose does the gentleman rise . Mr. Graves i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. Clip amendment number 15 , printed in part in house report 1161109, offered by mr. Graves of louisiana. The chair the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. Mr. Fwraves this amendment is pretty simple. Section 117, division c of the base text of the bill prevents the department of interior from rry ought a National Environmental policy review for planning of offshore energy production. We just heard a few amendments back, mr. Chairman, we heard debate about the importance of science, the importance of data. Lets be clear what this provision does. This provision prevents the federal government from opening up the plan for an environmental review. From subjecting it to public feedback, it prevents data and information to make informed decisions. Mr. Chairman, theres a process under the lands act to where you go do an offshore plan. Its pretty clear process. If folks have a problem with that, amend the law. Dont use the appropriations process to prevent the public from getting access to information, access to data, so the federal government can make an informed decision. This is flawed text in the amendment. Our amendment simply helps to address it to allow for an open, public process so we can make the right informed decision with the right science, the right data, as my friends were recently speaking about. With that, i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise . Ms. Pingree i rise in opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Pingree thank you very much. I yield myself such time as i may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment which would strike section 117 from the bill. I have been a strong opponent of the Current Administrations offshore drilling proposals and im proud to have the chance to manage this time to in opposition to this amendment which would be so devastating to states like my home state of maine. I want to start by correcting a mixed characterization which has been made. The description of this amendment says its removing language which, quote, prohibits funds for the administrations fiveyear offshore Drilling Plan. Thats not correct. The language in the bill does not prohibit the administration from working on its plan. What the language in section 117 does is to tell the interior department that if it moves forward with oil and gas activities in 2020, it must do so only with respect to lease sales that have been through the entire approval and review process spelled out in the law. Our language recognizes the fact that the 2017 offshore Drilling Plan, under the previous president ial administration, is the only plan that has completed all the steps required by the outer Continental Shelfs lands act and because of that we agree that the interior department is free to continue to implement the previous 2017 narrow plan. But in the meantime, it is true that the Current Administration is working on a new oil and gas Drilling Plan that would cover the 2019 to 2024 time frame. And this new plan if esm if implemented, would open up the entire east and west coast to drilling. To dating the Current Administration has put out one iteration of its plan with two more to go. But despite not having completed the process, the administration has acknowledged it is already conducting prelease work in the mid atlantic, south atlantic and the Southern California planning areas. The budget for the bureau of Ocean Energy Management states that it is prepare, quote, four new Environmental Impact statements for the lease sales that are planned in early 2020 or early 2021. Which is where the problem comes up. The new fiveyear plan which is nothing more than a work in progress is under siege both from the courts and a complete lack of political support. In late march, a federal court reinstated the moratorium in the north atlantic planning area and that decision has essentially frozen work on the plan. In fact, the secretary told me under questioning at an interior subcommittee hearing last month that he did not know the outcome of the proposed plan he said the new plan wasnt, quote, imminent. He was also quick to point out that no previous fiveyear plan has ever included drilling in a state that was opposed to such activity. Well, if thats his bottom line he may as well throw in the towel right now. Theres not a single state along the atlantic or Pacific Coast in favor of drilling. My home state of maine has a 5. 6 billion tourism industry, 71 of which comes directly from tremaine coast. 30,000 mariners make their living in marine industries. Our world famous lobster alone brings in 500 million annually. Our governoring our senators, our congressional delegation and many of our cities and towns oppose the o. C. S. Drilling proposal. As nearly one third of the United States population lives in the coastal areas impacted by this proposal and theres broad, bipartisan opposition to this issue, moving forward makes no sense. Either fiscally or practically. So the language in our interior bill simply supports that position. It says follow the law, complete all procedural steps, including responding to the concerns of the american public, the concerns of their govepbors and the concerns of their members of congress, before moving forward on individual drilling projects. It says to the department, save your money until you complete the process and find out if you can drill for oil off the coast of South Carolina or off the coast of florida or off the coast of california. Following a well thought out process, especially one contained in law, shouldnt be controversial and i dont think it is. As such, i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana and protect our coastlines from maine to florida, from Washington State to california, and support the process contained in the o. C. S. Lands act. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from louisiana is recognized. Mr. Grace i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. Abraham. The chair the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Habe ham thank you, mr. Speaker. Section 117 is another example of the antiAmerican Energy agenda being pushed by this democrat majority. The draft outer Continental ShelfLeasing Program proposed by the Trump Administration is actually a forwardlooking Energy Policy that takes full advantage of our vast offshore oil and gas resources. This includes expanding lease sales in the eastern gulf of mexico in a manner that does not interfere with our critical defense mission. In fact, fully utilizing our offshore resources in the gulf is vital to our National Defense because it will make the u. S. More Energy Independent and let us continue to be the whole the worldwide leader in energy production. The draft proposal in this program would also create thousands of jobs and boost economies of Energy Producing states like louisiana. We should not delay offshore mineral leasing. Any attempt by the democrats to stop an american and louisiana first Energy Policy should be fought tooth and nail. I thank my good friend garrett for offering this amendment to strike section 117 and urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back his time they feel gentleman from louisiana. Mr. Graves mr. Chairman, thank you for the recognition. Let me run through a few points here to help see if i can clarify a number of the remarks. The base text of the bill actually prevents the department of interior from carry ought the steps that are required, think about the concept of what was said, mr. Chairman. It was said that that they want the department of interior to follow the law. What would they be doing otherwise . The amendment actually prevents them, or the provision in the law, in the bill, excuse me, the provision in the bail, section 117, prevents them from carrying out the preleasing activity. This text prevents them from actually being able to follow the law. Im baffled by this and im happy to have a much longer discussion on how an offshore plan and Leasing Program is put together. What the base text of the bill does is tries to force the obama era plan from ever being changed. The base text prevents the process that is in the continent outer Continental Shelf lands act from going forward. Whats important to talk about here, when you go back and look at what Energy Policies have done in different administrative policies, back during the Obama Administration in 2011, one half of this nations trade receive did was attributable to us bringing in energy from other sources. Bringing them in for from foreign countries. Empowering their economies. Creating jobs in their country. Im an american. I represent people here. And im trying too help make sure we have a healthy economy. We have a Affordable Energy. Mr. Chairman, folks are going to try to say this affects emissions and Climate Change, our gas which is replacing the dirtier russian natural gas, is reducing Global Climate emission which is is part of our strategy that has resulted in the United States having greater emissions reduction than any other country in the world. Its really fun to go out and go talk about these things but weve got to keep this based in facts and statistics and this amendment makes sense, it simply does a elou the department of interior to follow the law in making sure we maximize our resources, i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman maine. Ms. Pingree thank you, mr. Chairman. Im sorry to disagree but i hope my colleague wont be fooled by the comments coming from the po opponents of this amendment. This is not about Energy Security or Energy Imports and exports and its not about jobs. Instead this is about whether the interior department is going to be held to the same procedural standard we expect every other department and agency to adhere to. If you think interior should follow the law and complete the process, then i urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlemans amendment and i yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed. For what purpose does the gentleman from rise . I ask a recorded vote, please. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. The chair will now informally rise to receive a message. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The chair will receive a message. The messenger mr. Speaker, a message from the senate. The secretary mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore madam secretary. The secretary i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to Senate Joint Resolution 29, providing for congressional disapproval of propose through the kingdom of saudi arabia, certain defense articles and services in which the concurrence of the house is requested. The speaker pro tempore the committee will resume its sitting. The chair the committee will be in order. It is now in order to consider amendment number 161 printed in part b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition . Mr. Hice i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 161 printed in part b of house report 116119 offered by mr. Heist of georgia. Mr. Hice of georgia. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Hice, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Hice thank you, mr. Chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hice i rise today because of my deep concerns over our national debt. At a time when our federal debt exceeds 22 trillion, i believe its time that we make every effort possible to rein in spending so were not shackling future generations with this burden. Division c of h. R. 3055 funds the e. P. A. , interior department, and other Land Management agencies at 37. 4 billion and increases spending by 1. 6 billion over fiscal year 2019 levels. The spending level in this division is 23. 6 over the president s budget request. Thats almost 7 billion over the request, mr. Chairman. Were not even close. Without question, there are areas within these federal agencies that need improvement. For example, we need desperately to fix the National ParkService Maintenance backlog, and i commend Ranking Member bishop for his diligent work on that effort and would urge passage and at least bring to the floor his thoughtful and costeffective bill to address that issue. But at the end of the day, the bottom line is our constituents back home are required week after week, month after month to make tough choices when it comes to planning their own household budgets, and we need to do the same right here in congress. My proposed amendment will reduce spending levels to the president s original budget request so that just like our constituents back home, we go back to the table, we go back to the drawing board and we make those same tough decisions. So, mr. Chairman, i urge adoption of my amendment to rein in spending, and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back. For what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise . Ms. Pingree to claim time in opposition. The chair the gentlelady from maine is recognized. Ms. Pingree mr. Chair, i strongly oppose this amendment and appreciate the thoughts of the gentleman, but this is the wrong place to go about it. This amendment indiscriminantly cuts programs in this bill without merit to the programs contained in the bill. For instance, this cut will result in fewer patients seen at the Indian Health service, fewer safety inspectors ensuring accidents do not occur, deferred maintenance on our nations water and sanitation infrastructure. More generally, investments in our Environmental Infrastructure and our public lands will be halted, and the associated jobs will be lost. This amendment would not encourage the agencies to do more with less. Simply put, it would force the agencies and our constituents to do less with less. Yes, it is true the interior budget does not meet the same numbers that the president sent over to us, but the president cut the Environmental Protection agency by a third. He cut the National Endowment for the arts, National Endowment for the humanities. I can make a very long list that the president cut that this congress would never stand for. So this does not stand. We cannot go back to the president s original budget. I strongly urge members to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of the time. The chair the gentlelady has the only time remaining. Ms. Pingree then, ill say once again, we must stand together to oppose this amendment which if passed will harm the American People. I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing it. Now i yield back. The chair does the gentlelady yield back . Ms. Pingree yes, i do. The chair the gentlelady from maine yields back the balance of her time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Hice mr. Chairman, 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 georgia will be postponed. Its now in order to consider amendment number 163 printed in house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition . Mr. Banks i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 163 printed in part b of house report 116119 offered by mr. Banks of indiana. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman from indiana, mr. Banks, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. Mr. Banks thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment is simple. It reduces spending in this division by 14 . The amount that is needed to avoid busting the budget caps and preventing sequestration. With these spending packages, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making it clear that they have no interest in reducing our national debt. If they did, they would not be proposing bills that would bust the budget caps by nearly 90 billion of which they are fully aware would trigger sequestration and lead to devastating and severe cuts to our National Defense. In this division alone, they are proposing to spend 37. 2 billion, which is 1. 73 billion above the previous years enacted amount, and 7. 2 billion over the president s 2020 request. This does not even include the 2. 2 billion in additional funding thats not subject to the caps. Again, my amendment would bring spending in this division to the level needed to avoid sequestration through a 14 acrosstheboard cut. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that, mr. Chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota rise . Ms. Mccollum mr. Speaker, i rise excuse me mr. Chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment. The chair the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Mccollum this amendment once again indiscriminately cuts programs in this bill without merit. And to just reiterate again, fewer patients would be seen at Indian Health services. Fewer safety inspector would be ensuring we dont have oil and as accidents on public lands or the other areas which they oversee. Deferred maintenance on our nations Drinking Water, we dont want another flint. Deferred maintenance on sanitation infrastructure. One of the things members came up and asked me for, by and large, to make sure we took a hard look to see what we could do was to make sure we protected our nations Drinking Water and we moved on what we could do where our sanitation infrastructure. The National Estuary program by the president was zeroed out. Usgs, science was cut. School construction for native american children, the future of their communities, the future of our shared nation, zeroed out. The arts, the humanities zourd out. And the e. P. A. Zeroed out. And the e. P. A. Cut by 31 . The agency thats in charge of making sure we have clean air and clean water. More generally, investments in our Environmental Infrastructure in our public lands will be halted, and the associated jobs will be lost. This legislation in front of us today that were talking about creates lots of good jobs, lots of goodpaying construction jobs that are important to the health of our communities. This amendment would not encourage agencies to do more with less. They will simply force the agencies and our constituents to do less with less, and theyve been doing that for too long. I urge members to oppose this amendment. The chair does the gentlewoman reserve . Ms. Pingree i reserve. Ms. Mccollum i reserve. The chair the gentleman from indiana is recognized. Mr. Banks frankly, the arguments by my colleagues that oppose this dont add up. The programs they are so passionately defending would face 55 billion in automatic cuts. So it seems my colleagues are willing to allow reductions in nondefense spending if they can also force reckless defense cuts that endanger national security. While that may be acceptable to those on the other side of the aisle, it is not acceptable to me. My amendment will bring spending in this division to the level needed to avoid sequestration and to protect our national security. Mr. Chairman, when i ran for this position, i promised my constituents that i would do my part to rein in washingtons spending addiction and safeguard the strength of the american military. I am proud that this amendment accomplishes both of those goals. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. With that, thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. Ms. Mccollum at this time, i would like to yield 1 1 2 minutes to the gentleman from ohio, the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, mr. Joyce. The chair the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 1 1 2 minutes. Mr. Joyce thank you. I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentlemans amendment. Under article 1, section 9, clause 7 of the constitution, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequences by appropriations made by law. That function resides within the appropriately named Appropriations Committee, and i ke great pride in having serve on this committee. We craft bills to fulfill this constitutional responsibility and to keep the federal government operating. We spend countless hours hearing from agency officials, outside advocates and our fellow members of congress about our budgetary needs. We make tough choices regarding prioritization. Thats why i must oppose this amendment and i oppose the previous amendment. Rather than evaluating the worthiness of each program, the amendment would cut funding across the board. Such drastic cuts could harm bipartisan efforts to improve health care for American Indians and alaskan natives, combat Invasive Species like asian carp and zebra muscles, address the mussels, address sh, wildlife sites and the pilt program. Therefore, even though i share some of the gentlemans concerns about the excessive spending in these bills, i must oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields. The gentlelady from minnesota. Ms. Mccollum may i inquire as to how much time is remaining . The chair the gentlelady has 1 1 2 minutes remaining. Ms. Mccollum thank you. Its my understanding that the author of the amendment has yielded back all time . He chair that is correct. Ms. Mccollum first, mr. Chair, id like to address some of the comments the gentleman made. I had the honor and privilege serving on the appropriations Defense Committee with mr. Visclosky as vice chair with take n visclosky, and i great pride in the bipartisan work, the nonpartisan work we do to make sure our military is strong, that our intelligence agencies have the tools that they need to keep america safe. And so, mr. Chair, i just wanted that for the record because there was, i think, some confusion as to where i and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle when it came to defense what our positions were and our positions are making sure our men and women have the things they need and come home safely. Going back to the comments about this amendment, we need to stand together. We need to stand together to oppose this amendment because it will harm the American People. There will be no clean water to drink. Our air will not be as well protected. People will go without health care, and our communities will suffer. I oppose this amendment and i encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing it. With that i will yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back her time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Banks mr. Chairman, 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 indiana will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 165. For what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Mr. Biggs i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 165, printed in parts b of house report 1161109, offered by mr. Biggs of arizona. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 45, the gentleman from arizona, mr. Biggs and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The gentleman from arizona is recognized. Mr. Biggs i yield myself such time as i may consume. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Biggs if i heard right, the previous amendments were attack were being overly broad in the ways they attacked spending in this underlying legislation. I amylaser focused. I amylaser focused with my amendment. My amendment would restrict funds from going to the e. P. A. s integrated risk Information System or iris. That program is supposed to be developing impaarable, sciencebased toxicity assessments on chemicals for uniform use within e. P. A. If thats what they were doing i would not be standing before you today. But as i came to know all too well, aze worked with former chairman lamar smith and while serving as chairman of the science, space and Technology Subcommittee on environment in the last congressing there eretail is different. Over the last decade, iris has been cree petedly criticized by the National Academy of sciences for its lack of transparency and improper use of scientific meths which have led to significant hi now flaued Risk Assessment thovers eyears. G. A. Ofment first added iris to its list of Government Programs that are highly vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in 2009. In the decades since, iris has made few steps toward significant improvement. I strongly believe instead of allowing a flawed and poorly managed agency like iris to continue to operate, we should return chemical assessments to rerelevant offices of the e. P. A. Within the e. P. A. Itself. I introduced legislation to achieve the reforms i have outlined. That bill was reported out of the science, space, and Technology Committee last fall reintroduced that bill in this session but its rain in the Science Committee without first action. I believe that until theres a root and Branch Reform of the chemical assessments process at the e. P. A. We cant allow iris to spread misinformation to the public as its doing now. I urge all members to support my amendment and i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the entlelady from minnesota rise . Ms. Pin fwree i claim time in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentlelady is recognized. Pingree id like id like to claim time in opposition. The chair the gentlelady is recognized. Iris re was a time when was asked to clean up their process, it needed adjustment. The they react and now got the aplus rating. Mr. Mccollum what this amendment dwowled is prohibit the e. P. A. From funding integrated risk Information System. Now the integrated risk Information System or iris is an electronic base containing information on Human Health Effects that may result from exposure for various chemicals in the environment. This was developped by the e. P. A. Staff with consistent information to uniform Risk Assessment and regulatory Decision Making with respect to Health Effects from exposures to chemicals in the environment there ast chemical right now that has captured the attention of people all across the United States. N fact across the world. We need now more than ever to be laser focused working with iris to do everything we can to get the data and the information, so we know what the Health Effects from being exposed to these chemicals both military and civilian people all across the United States. Very serious problem. And iris Program Review process is widely considered to be a Gold Standard when it comes to assessing chemical toxicity. Its based on scientific literature, its peerreviewed and iris toxicity assessments are relied upon by programs a the e. P. A. , across the frft and by states because of the high quality assessments. Because these assessments risk across varying exposures of past can inform regulatory Decision Making across all media offices in the e. P. A. So they can welcome at it holistcally and be make very informed decisions. But its no surprise, mr. Chairman that the Chemical Industry has long sought to undermine the iris program from their point of view, the less the public knows about the risk from tox exchemical the more money the Chemical Industry can make. We ought to be looking out for the safety and welfare of the American People, not the bottom line of polluters who profit from pollution. With that, i yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Biggs i want to clarify for those, iris is an information collecting entity, not a regulator. If iris were eliminated, e. P. A. Would still maintain an office to perform assessments. What will compromise Public Safety is a poorly run Government Office spreading misinformation. Oth the nonpartisan n. A. S. And g. A. O. Have repeat think criticized over the past 10 years. Even the recommendations of improvements have been strongly tempered by caveryats that far more work needs to be done. For instance, the 2018 n. A. S. Report which the which has been cited suggests that iris still has not produced a basic handbook to guide its operations even though that recommendation was made more than four years ago and this agency has been in existence since 1986 without a handbook, a basic handbook. Just to add more color to the debate, heres an x. Of how absurd the risk can be, it sets the risk value of ethylene oxide at 100 part per qua drillon that value is 19,000 times less than the naturally occurring ethylene in the human body. For perspective or shah sets the risk level for ethylene ox side at one part per million, vastly higher than iris itself. I could speak about iris Risk Assessments forer if maled hide or even chemicals found in breast milk. It creates public panic or cynical disregard. If iris is overly focused on evaluating the safety of lowrisk or effectively norisk chemicals, it is likely to be distracted from assessing truly dangerous substances. Again, i invite everyone to support this very important laserfocused amendment, were not overly broad here, were focusing on one program that is that has been completely not repudiate bud certainly highly criticized by the National Academy of science and g. A. O. I urge all my fellow members to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. 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 visit. He amendment is not agreed to. The gentleman from arizona. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 167 printed in part b of house report 116119. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 167 printed in house report 116119 offered by mr. Cunningham of South Carolina. The chair the gentleman from South Carolina, mr. Cunningham and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. Cunningham thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of my straightforward, commonsense amendment to the interior environment appropriations bill that would prevent boeing from issuing permits for seismic exploration in the atlantic ocean. South carolinians have made explicitly clear where we stand on this issue. Far too much is at stake in our state, South Carolina tourism economy is worth 22. 6 billion a year and 2 3 of that comes from the coast. While folks may disagree about the amount of oil deposits that exist in the atlantic ocean, most would agree that the amount of oil off the coast of South Carolina is minimal and far less than the amount of revenue that the state brings in from tourism, recreation and commercial fishing. Put simply, the people of the low country understand that the risk isnt worth the reward. Or as my grandmother said, the juice aint worth the squeeze. Our beaches, our economy, are not for sale. And its not just South Carolina that feel this is way. Its florida. Its virginia. Its New Hampshire. Its north carolina. Its pennsylvania. Its new jersey. Oregon and washington. From coast to coast, communities made it clear they do not want to put the marine ecosystems in their and their coastal livelihoods at risk which is why so many of my colleagues from all over the country have joined me in sponsoring this amendment. Seismic exploration is incredibly dangerous in its own right. Seismic air guns create under water blast louder than all but military grid explosive. Companies fire air guns as often as every 10 seconds for days, weeks, months on end. This can impact the across the entire ecosystem from Marine Mammals to fish to plankton. Beyond that, seismic exploration is a major step toward this administrations ultimate goal of seeing drilling rigs up and down the Atlantic Coast. High ranking officials have said clear as day, the only reason theyre working so hard on these seismic permits is so they can open up the atlanta toik drilling by the highest bidder. Drilling in the atlantic would put the health of our ocean and coastal economy at risk and its a massive investment in a future of dirty and dangerous offshore drilling that an overwhelming majority of people from both parties all along the Atlantic Coast oppose. I stand with them in opposition to both seismic testing and oil drilling. Far too much is at stake. Thank you, mr. Speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise . Mr. Chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five mins. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. Gosar. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Gosar mr. Chairman, first we had the same discussion yesterday. Once again these are offshore leases that are part of the american publics domain. Not the state of South Carolina. Or california. Or massachusetts. Or florida. I understand that application. But once again, we also have heard that we want to have responsible renewable energy. So were actually predisposing seismic aspect. How do you look for moorings in regards to subservice anchors if you cant do seismic activity . That is contradicting all the way around the aspects here. So once again, this shows that we want nothing of the sort no seismic no wind no solar, no oil and gas. Thats unbelievable. You know, if this is the kind of attitude that they want to go forward, those in arizona and the western states that have public lands ought to be getting more say in the applications. From that standpoint, will the gentleman yield me 30 more seconds . The chair the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. Mr. Gosar we start looking at it, maybe we what we ought to do if were talking about oil spills, one of the worst ways to import oil is through boats. Maybe we ought to disallow ships because a ship that has an accident is one oil spill away from anywhere. Its looking at our assets, we have a Due Diligence to the American People to look at the assets for public assets. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from louisiana reserves. The gentleman from south arolina is recognized. I disagree with the gentleman. Voters have made it clear on this issue and mr. Cunningham this is not a democrat or republican issue. That is a issue thats been supported by republican governor mcmaster who opposes offshore drilling. I would ask my conservative members of this body that that conservative ideology also translates to conserving our natural resources. And for that idea of