Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Thomas Day, Jr., who was tragically killed during the massacre at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada on Sunday, October 1, 2017. Tom was born and raised in my hometown of Corona, California. He will be greatly missed.

After graduating from Corona High School, Tom attended Riverside Community College and later went to work for the home building company, Portrait Construction, that was founded by his father. Those who worked with Tom knew him as someone who was easy to talk to and get along with. Tom Sr., Tom Jr. and the entire Day family have been active members of the Corona community for many years and made a number of contributions to many organizations in and around the city.

Tom Jr. had many passions in life. He loved sports and rooting for the Los Angeles Angels and Pittsburgh Steelers. He especially loved playing and coaching baseball. Attending concerts and music festivals with his children was a win-win for Tom because it allowed him to do two things he loved at one time--listen to music and spend time with his family. Tom was attending the Route 91 Harvest country music festival with his children when he was senselessly taken from us, along with so many others. Our hearts ache for all of those whose lives were cut short and forever impacted by the evil acts of that evening.

I had the distinct privilege of knowing Tom and the Day family for many years, and there are simply no words that soften the heartbreaking loss of Tom's kind and caring soul. I extend my heartfelt condolences to his daughters Whitney, Candice and Kelsey, his son Nolan, the extended Day family, as well as his friends and colleagues. Although Tom may be gone, I know that the joy and happiness he brought to those around him will endure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the supplemental appropriations bill.

I want to commend Chairman Frelinghuysen and the committee staff for their quick and thorough work to put this supplemental package together, and I thank the leadership for its swift action in scheduling this for House consideration.

In fiscal year 2017, the Forest Service had a shortfall of nearly $577 million in firefighting funds. To cover its immediate firefighting costs, the Forest Service borrowed from its nonfire programs, as well as the Department of the Interior.

The bill will replace and repay those borrowed funds and close the books on fiscal year 2017. Specifically, it provides $526 million for the Forest Service and $50 million for the Department of the Interior.

The cost of fighting fires on our national forests and other public lands has increased dramatically over the last 15 years, yet these fires and costs remain highly unpredictable.

Right now the West is on fire. In my home State of California, firefighters are battling 22 large wildfires that have burned nearly 170,000 acres. The bill gives the government the tools it needs to assist local officials to get those fires under control as soon as possible.

We, the Congress, need to fix the way we budget for wildland fire so that the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior can focus on managing our Federal lands appropriately. We also need to give them the necessary legal authorities and tools to improve the condition and management of our national forests.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, September 11, 2017, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table (S. Con. Res. 24) providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 601, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I would be happy to engage the gentleman in a colloquy.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from California for his comments. This body is made better with his presence.

I appreciate the gentleman's hard work on the situation in Santa Clarita and the need to come to a resolution in a timely manner. After working with him on this issue, I have no doubt that it can be solved with his help. I pledge to assist him in finding a resolution that all parties can support.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Suing the government and settling has been a lucrative business which is supported by taxpayer dollars. The Endangered Species Act, for example, has become wrapped around the axle of the judicial system by excessive litigation.

Until then, I keep pushing on behalf of the States and the taxpayers.

Madam Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

EPA has been directed by the President to take a second look at the methane rule promulgated by the Obama administration. In conjunction with a review, EPA has attempted to provide the regulated community with some certainty by postponing some of the implementation dates; however, the courts have blocked that from happening.

In light of these challenges, the time may be right for a temporary pause on the enforcement of those requirements, so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Because the administration has already withdrawn the referenced social cost of carbon guidance in the March energy independence executive order, this is an amendment we can support. I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, as I noted in our full committee markup in July, there are no regional closures proposed in this legislation; therefore, it is an unnecessary amendment. This topic was discussed at our EPA hearing in June. Administrator Pruitt called rumors about regional closures ``pure legend.''

Further, it costs money to close regional offices and move staff, and funding has not been requested to do so.

In addition, the closure of regional offices is something the administration would need to propose and go through the deliberative process here in Congress. It would require a multiyear effort.

As a wise man within the administration once said, ``we can close any lab or Federal building that is not located in Washington, D.C., or in a congressional district.''

As the fiscal year 2018 process has already demonstrated, while the President may propose changes, Congress has the final say in funding decisions.

In addition, this amendment would have unintended consequences as agencies review their footprints and propose ways to reduce their rent, security, utility costs, and operate more efficiently. All executive branch agencies are required to submit plans to the President on ways to operate more efficiently. We need to see these plans before jumping to any conclusions. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would say to my friend that we are

making a statement. There is no money to close offices in this budget, so I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

While I agree with the gentleman that current law regarding public lands must be followed, there is nothing in this bill that contradicts that. As such, there is no purpose relevant to this bill for this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I would like to remind the gentleman, with this bill, we have cut EPA almost 30 percent since 2010.

While we have expressed a number of frustrations with EPA's overreach over the last few years, and even here today, I cannot support an amendment with cuts of this magnitude which put important programs at risk. An across-the-board cut of this magnitude would reduce priorities like the geographic programs, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and others, State recovering loan funds, the 28 national estuary programs, several State grants like radon, lead, and beach protection, just to name a few.

These are programs proposed for elimination in the President's budget that Members on both sides of the aisle requested funding in this bill. In fact, I had 5,200 requests.

The amendment would also significantly reduce funding for the Superfund program. The proposed budget would propose to reduce the program by 31 percent, which would impact new cleanups and slow ongoing cleanups.

The President's budget also proposed to reduce the State categorical grants by 44 percent and cut the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants by 83 percent, which are essential to air quality in my home State of California.

States need resources to best serve our constituents back home; therefore, I think this amendment just goes too far. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

It is interesting that we are having a disagreement on how much we should cut the EPA. It is not the argument that we are cutting the EPA. Obviously, that is a fact. We have cut the EPA with this upcoming budget by 37 percent over the last few years.

I know that the Administrator is doing a lot to create efficiencies with the EPA and to operate that absolutely more effectively for our health and for the benefit of the United States.

Madam Chair, with that, I believe this amendment just simply goes too far. I oppose this amendment and would urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 504 and as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I offer amendments en bloc. A list of the included amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers. I rise in support of the amendments en bloc, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's support for robust funding of the Superfund program, particularly the cleanup program.

There is a need for Congress to make progress to address the backlog of 1,300 sites on the national priority list. The bill proposes to do so with a $47.6 million increase for cleanup work. However, the amendment proposes merely to increase EPA's enforcement budget by $12 million, with a stated objective of reducing BLM's oil and gas management program.

The committee wrote a balanced bill, and I support the wise use of Federal oil and gas resources. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I would be happy to engage the gentleman from Colorado in a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his amendment, and I fully agree with his concerns about the backlogs, but I have concerns with the proposed offset and appreciate the intention to withdraw it.

The committee has made a concerted effort in recent years to fix these problems and has increased the recovery account by almost $4 million over the last 2 years.

Under House Republican pressure over the past 7 years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has delisted more species than all other previous years combined, but, clearly, we still have a long way to go.

The Service has been directed and funded to complete all 5-year reviews within the period required by law, and the committee will continue to press the Service to see that they eliminate these backlogs.

I thank the gentleman again for raising this issue, and I pledge to work with him on this.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 504, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2. The list of the amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I move to strike the last word.

The Acting Chair. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I certainly urge Members to support it.

This bill maintains the increases provided last year for deferred maintenance and increases the construction account by $10 million. This amendment will further our efforts to address the longstanding deferred maintenance needs.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's overall goal is to continue funding for the AML pilot project, consistent with a fiscal year 2017 enacted level, and structure for the six Appalachian States.

Therefore, we can accept this package of amendments at this time, work toward maintaining funding for 6 States in a final fiscal year 2018 enacted bill. If we are able to achieve that goal, I hope we can count on the gentleman's support to pass both this House package and to enact the 2018 end-of-year spending bill.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at our full committee markup, I understood that my colleague, Dr. Harris, was offering his amendment to address local concerns from his residents with respect to the visibility of offshore turbines. With all of these offshore projects, many varying viewpoints need to be taken into account. I appreciate that we have been able to discuss many of these views and concerns here today.

It is my hope that we can work with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, the administration, and all interested stakeholders to identify some better solutions as we move forward through the fiscal year 2018 process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am certainly prepared to accept this amendment. I understand the importance of the program to the gentleman from Pennsylvania and other Members in the Appalachian region. I look forward to working with him and all of the interested Members.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, given our allocation, which was $824 million below the fiscal year 2017 level, we had to find areas to trim. It is also important to note that the bill does not support the elimination of the program, as has been proposed in the President's budget. It was the committee's effort to find some middle ground.

While I can certainly appreciate the gentleman's interest to maintain fiscal year 2017 enacted level, the allocation of the committee doesn't support those levels. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate my friend's support for the research conducted at the EPA, and particularly the Research Triangle Park. I am a supporter of the world class research that occurs at RTP with respect to the computational toxicology program. That research has helped to identify alternative high throughput testing methodologies that have reduced the number of animals used in laboratories.

Given the current allocation, however, which is $824 million below the

fiscal year 2017 level, we had to find areas to trim. We certainly don't have a funding level that can support the fiscal year 2017 enacted levels, but we tried to do the best we could to find common ground.

I certainly look forward to working with the gentleman in the future, if we happily come to some kind of budget agreement, where we can reallocate funds to something as important as this. But, again, because of our allocation, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

While the amendment itself is drafted in order as a general increase to EPA geographic programs, the gentleman proposes to fund a program that was not requested in the budget and is not authorized.

Further, he proposes to reduce grants from DERA, the DERA program, which is a key program for improving air quality in areas like mine that are in a nonattainment area with existing standards.

For those reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am sorry. I didn't hear the gentleman, and I happily accept his offer to withdraw the amendment. I will happily work with him to see if we can't work some time in the future to find room for this program that the gentleman is obviously supportive of.

Mr. Chair, I won't take the 2 minutes. I just want to let the gentleman know I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I encourage adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment because water infrastructure remains a top priority of this committee. I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, reluctant opposition.

Mr. Chair, I think it is important that EPA right the wrong that was caused by the Gold King Mine spill and ensure that the affected States, and the Tribal areas, have the resources they need following the spill.

The FY17 bill included $4 million to work with the States and Tribes on an independent water monitoring plan as authorized by the WIIN Act. Therefore, the proposed level in this amendment would exceed the authorized level. And for that reason, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

In 1977, Congress made a deliberate policy choice to exempt ordinary farming, silviculture, ranching, mining, related activities, from the requirements to obtain Clean Water Act permits when undertaken as normal activities: prepare and maintain land, roads, ponds, and ditches.

Unfortunately, we heard concern for several years that, under the Obama administration, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers changed implementation of these provisions to significantly reduce the application of the statutory exemptions.

Section 430 of the bill makes clear that Congress has always intended that statutory exemptions are to have meaning, that the agencies cannot simply ignore the will of Congress as set out by law.

For these reasons and a number of others, I oppose the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge a strong ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Since day one, everything about EPA's waters of the U.S. rule has been flawed. The Obama administration claimed that it was not expanding the waters under their jurisdiction, but we know that more permits will be required.

The Obama administration claimed that the rule was based on sound science but only released to science after publishing the rule. The previous administration changed the name to call this the clean water rule and took to social media to lobby the public, which led to questions about whether the EPA violated law, which the GAO later confirmed.

It was clear the previous administration had an agenda to implement a rule, and they weren't going to be told otherwise. Thankfully, the Sixth Circuit Court put a stay on that rule.

The language of the FY18 bill authorizes the withdrawal of the Waters of the U.S. rule and seeks to bring resolution to the issue. The language in this bill is consistent with the steps the new administration has already taken.

For that and many other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, where I come from, Midland Empire, which is where I have lived my whole life, is part of the South Coast Air Quality Basin, which has been a nonattainment ozone area for about as long as the Federal standard for ozone has existed. But it is not for a lack of trying, as the south coast has a long history--actually the longest history--of implementing some of the most stringent Air Pollution Control measures in the entire United States.

We have done about all we can to reduce emissions from stationary sources. Our issue is the amount of cars and trucks traveling through the region. So you will find no stronger advocate for clean air than myself, which is why this bill funds targeted Air Shed Grant Programs and DERA grants. States and communities need resources to help meet the overlapping 2008 and 2015 air quality standards.

To be clear, the language in the bill does not change ozone standards. It gives communities some administrative relief to allocate more resources to meeting the 2015 standard of 70 parts per billion.

Similar language, by the way, passed the House in July. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to strike, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate that California has done more to clean air than virtually any other State in the Union based upon its regulatory structure that we created and I continue to support.

But technologies do not exist to meet standards that have been set out by the Obama administration. So this gives us time to do what we need to do, and that is to clean up ozone, and that is exactly what we are going to do. But this is not the amendment that is going to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose that amendment strongly and urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the importance of agencies working together to protect our coastal resources for future generations. We must also ensure that such coordination is done carefully with congressional input to ensure that it does not lead to Federal overreach.

When the previous administration created the National Ocean Policy through executive order, the impacts were so broad, so sweeping, that it would have allowed the Federal Government to evaluate everything from agricultural practices, mining, energy production, fishing, and anything else with activities impacting our oceans.

This subcommittee asked the CEQ, DOI, and EPA on a number of occasions to provide estimates of the impact of the policy on their budgets, but the administration failed to work with Congress and provide such information.

How can Congress adequately budget for something without knowing the expected expenditures and implication of the policy?

The bottom line is, if the administration wants to fund the National Ocean Policy with such sweeping implications, it must work with Congress to provide relevant information and allow Congress to provide the necessary oversight to prevent that Federal overreach.

I support the language of the underlying bill, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just because legislation isn't passed in the House and the Senate and made into law doesn't mean that the President can then go out and create an executive order. We have a Constitution, and we have a process we must abide by. For that and other reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support this amendment.

The recent court decision earlier this year overturned, really, a longstanding EPA exemption for reporting from farms. These family farms and ranchers across the Nation shouldn't be burdened with just more and more paperwork to do an activity they have been doing for many, many years in this country. It is not what Congress intended. Congress, last I looked, still makes the laws around here.

I would support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I was happy to accept the amendment in the last year and will be happy to support it again this year.

With that, I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the specific rule is now being reconsidered by the Department of Interior, which is a good thing, and I encourage my colleagues to support the Young amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I won't take nearly 1\1/2\ minutes. I just want to support the amendment.

I understand there are portions of the order that are widely accepted and some parts that need to be reworked. I hope the Bureau gets the message and works with all of the interested parties to improve onshore order No. 3.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I won't take 1 minute. I just want to support the gentleman's amendment.

It is my hope that the gentlemen from Virginia and Pennsylvania may be able to work with the new administration, find common ground on approaches that will improve water quality in a flexible manner which works for everybody.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and urge an ``aye'' vote.

Will the gentleman from South Carolina yield?

Mr. Chair, I just want to let the gentleman know that I oppose this amendment. I don't think we should stand in the way of exploration research that could inform potential future decisions, whether it is for or against drilling, but we need to know information so once we know the potential, we can allow the agencies to weigh those pros and cons.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayer dollars, and I certainly support her in all of the endeavors that she has done over the years to do that. But this is not the type of approach that I can support. I certainly like the idea of challenging the agencies, and I believe that the agencies are going to meet that challenge to cut spending in a responsible way.

This bill has made some very tough choices, within a subcommittee allocation, that adheres to the current law. The Budget Committee asked us to meet certain budget caps, and we have done so in this bill, while asking that we increase spending for our national security, which is in woeful shape.

So we had to make some very difficult tradeoffs. This bill, in its current form, balances our needs, those tradeoffs carefully weighed for their respectful impacts. We prioritize funding for fire suppression, PILT, national parks--maybe the most popular agency in the United States Government--and meeting our legal and moral obligations in Indian Country.

Unfortunately, the process that the gentlewoman proposes--an across- the-board cut--would cut all those programs, including Indian health, national park programs, and other programs, which already are taking significant cuts.

This amendment makes no distinction between where we need to be spending to invest in, say, energy independence, or to limit spending to meet our deficit controls.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, but I certainly support the fact that we are trying to get our budgets in line.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand, and I have taken a lot of criticism over the last few years for cutting EPA's budget by 27 percent over the last number of years. However, I believe this amendment is just going too far.

We have a new administration. We have a new Administrator. I think there is a new day over at EPA. None of us want to see our rivers polluted, toxic waste either on the ground or in the air, and I think this administration will administer the law properly.

We may not always agree on where it is appropriate to draw the line on environmental laws and regulations. Some think some standards are too stringent, some think they are not tough enough, and that is a fair policy debate to have. However, we know that no matter where the line is ultimately drawn, there are individuals out there who are willingly and knowingly trying to find ways around those laws. As such, EPA needs the ability to look into criminal activity, whether it is illegal dumping of waste, negligent dumping of toxics or oil, or the illegal importation of products from other countries by those who would choose to ignore United States law.

So we can debate the law and what is appropriate, but we can't give criminals a free pass or ignore the laws that are on the books. Mr. Chair, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I encourage a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I understand the gentleman's concerns. I would suggest that he go down to the Administrator's office, our new Administrator, Mr. Pruitt, and meet with

him. I don't think that there is any desire on his part to militarize the Environmental Protection Agency, and I think that he will see this new Administrator wanting to do the right thing.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, last year, May of 2016, in the previous administration, the Department of the Interior issued a finding of no significant impact with respect to these operations; thus followed a review of 23 oil and gas platforms currently operating offshore in the State of California. The review drew upon the best available science and reaffirms that these operations are operating safely, as they should.

This amendment is nothing more than another attempt to restrict offshore development, and I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment was adopted on the floor last year. I believe it is a good amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. I appreciate my colleague for bringing the Bureau of Land Management's Onshore Order No. 3 to the House's attention. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the House has spoken several times on the Bureau of Land Management's methane regulation in the past 2 years. I understand the administration is reviewing the regulation and that litigation is ongoing.

In the meantime, I think action is needed, and so I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prevent the Department of the Interior from performing a necessary and thorough review of the existing 5-year plan. Meanwhile, the committee encouraged a review of the 5-year plan in the 2017 omnibus, which we just enacted just a few months ago. For these reasons and others, I certainly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while I understand the gentleman's intent, I share his concern with the 2015 ozone standards, the bill's language in the amendment goes a little too far. It ties this new administration's hands with respect to reconsideration or flexibility efforts that they are trying to build in at the present time.

Meanwhile, the ozone language in the underlying bill provides the necessary administrative relief for communities to comply with the overlapping 2008 and 2015 requirements. I think that this administration understands the complexities that are being imposed by this 2015 requirement. They are trying to deal with it. Mr. Pruitt has indicated that publicly.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.

If we get additional resources in the future, I would love to make sure that Fish and Wildlife has the resources to make sure they meet their mandates, and they should meet them now.

One of the mandates they have is review the status of every listed species every 5 years and a corresponding change in the status if it is called for by those reviews. Instead of doing those reviews, in many cases, the Service chooses to spend the money to list more species.

If the government isn't willing to shoulder the responsibilities that come with listing species under the ESA, perhaps it shouldn't be listing those species in the first place. So I think they need to meet their obligations under the law.

I certainly support this amendment, and I encourage Members to support the amendment and vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to jump up and support this amendment. Obviously, the agency has not leaped fast enough and problems persist. So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I know it will squeak by with a large margin.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 37 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, September 8, 2017, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct honor to bring to the House floor the fiscal year 2018 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Before I go into the details of the bill, I would like to commend Chairman Frelinghuysen for his commitment to the appropriations process. Under Chairman Frelinghuysen's leadership, the committee has moved its bills through the full committee and is now bringing all 12 fiscal year 2018 bills to the House floor.

As reported by the Appropriations Committee, the fiscal year 2018 Interior and Environment bill is funded at $31.456 billion, which is $824 million below the fiscal year 2017 enacted level and $4.3 billion above the budget request.

This legislation makes a concerted effort to prioritize critical needs within our allocation while also addressing specific interests and concerns brought to our attention through more than 5,000 individual Member requests.

In the interest of time, I won't outline all of the programs and activities funded in this bill, but I would like to point out a few highlights. The committee has provided robust wildland fire funding in this bill. Fire suppression accounts are again fully funded at the 10- year average level, and the bill increases funding for hazardous fuels reduction.

The bill funds the Payments in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, program at the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. Rural counties in 49 of the 50 States rely on these funds to make up for lost tax revenue.

Overall, funding for the EPA is reduced by $534 million, or 6.5 percent, from last year. This legislation provides $5 billion worth of investment in water infrastructure through funding in the WIFIA program and the Clean Water and Drinking Water revolving loan funds. This bill also provides increases to accelerate the cleanup of contaminated Superfund and Brownfield sites. These programs help create jobs and spur economic development in communities across the country.

The bill provides $2.9 billion for the National Park Service. It increases the construction account by $10 million and maintains increases provided last year to address longstanding park operations and deferred maintenance needs.

We have also addressed a number of concerns within the Fish and Wildlife Service accounts. The bill restores core programs and popular grant programs to fiscal year 2017 enacted levels. It also restores funds to combat international wildlife trafficking, protects fish hatcheries from cuts and closures, continues funding to fight invasive mussels and Asian carp, and reduces the backlog of species that are recovered but not yet delisted.

The bill provides $275 million for Land and Water Conservation Fund programs that enjoy bipartisan support.

The West Coast, and my home State of California in particular, is counting on the expertise of the USGS to make earthquake early warning systems operational. This bill provides $10.2 million for this public safety program that will protect millions of lives and critical infrastructure.

The bill also makes critical investments in Indian Country--a top priority of the committee. It honors our commitment to Native Americans with particular emphasis on Indian health, law enforcement, education, and water settlements.

In closing, I would like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked long hours on this legislation. On the minority side, I would like to thank Rita Culp, Jocelyn Hunn, and Rebecca Taylor. On the majority side, I would like to thank Darren Benjamin, Betsy Bina, Jason Gray, Jackie Kilroy, Kristin Richmond, and Dave LesStrang, our chief clerk from the committee staff; as well as on my personal staff, Ian Foley, Rebecca Keightley, Tricia Evans, and Dave Kennett for a job well done.

Lastly, I would like to thank my good friend and ranking member, Betty McCollum, for working with me to address a number of critical needs throughout the bill. While we may disagree on some issues, we are never disagreeable with each other and we continue to work well together.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for drawing the House's attention to the road construction and maintenance needs of the Forest Service. I would be pleased to work with him and anyone else interested in our national forests as we move through the FY 2018 spending process.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for drawing attention to the issue. It is my hope that we can move forward with the fiscal year 2018 process, and my colleague and I can continue to work together with the relevant agencies to address this issue so that his constituents and others around the Nation can continue to enjoy all that the Park Service and other Interior lands have to offer without compromising military readiness.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support competition, and these competitions, as a whole, have been beneficial to the Department of Defense.

The OMB has reported that, regardless of whether the Federal Government or the private contractor win the competition, the act of competition alone has saved or generated a cost savings up to 10 to 40 percent--10 to 40 percent, just having the competition.

This amendment would block opportunities for the defense industrial base, protect the status quo within the DOD civilian workforce, prevent cost savings at the DOD, and negate the natural innovation that comes from competition.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would say we have a duty to taxpayers to perform the best we can, to give the best product to our warfighters at the best price. I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act.

First, I would like to commend Chairman Frelinghuysen for his tireless work to report out all 12 appropriations bills in the Appropriations Committee. He did it in record time and deserves a great deal of credit for getting us to this point today. The four bills included in H.R. 3219 reflect hours of hearings, staff work, Member input, and bipartisan cooperation.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the chairs and ranking members of the Defense; Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies; and Legislative Branch Subcommittees.

In particular, the Energy and Water division provides robust funding for water infrastructure--over $67 million--to create needed water storage in the West. I want to thank Chairman Simpson and his staff for their hard work.

As a member of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, I thank Chairwoman Kay Granger for her leadership and her unwavering support of our men and women in uniform.

I also would be remiss if I did not mention the professional staff of the subcommittee, who dedicated countless hours to craft a bill that meets the needs of the Department of Defense and reflects the will of Congress.

Our greatest responsibility as Members of Congress is to provide for the resources necessary to the men and women of our Armed Forces. This bill includes $584.2 billion in base defense funding and $73.9 billion for overseas contingency operations. It provides for a 2.4 percent military pay raise and additional funding to increase end strength.

The bill provides robust funding for shipbuilding, aviation, combat vehicles, and more. It invests in our greatest assets, the men and women who wear the uniform, through increased funds through training, equipment, and the best healthcare.

We are at a crossroads. Right now, our military continues to operate at high tempo to carry out the national security interests of the United States. However, in order to meet the next challenge, whatever that may be, we must invest now. We know the situation we are in.

National Security Advisor McMaster has stated that the U.S. is outranged and outgunned by potential adversaries. Out of the 58 brigade combat teams, the Army only has 3 that are combat ready.

We have the lowest number of ships since World War I. And while capability is important, the vast oceans of the world desperately need our presence.

Only 7 out of 10 aircraft in the Air Force are ready to fly, and the average age of aircraft across the service is 27 years. Airmen are flying the same planes as their grandfathers.

Only 43 percent of the Marine Corps total aircraft inventory is considered flyable. Our marines deserve better.

Today we have a chance to correct the course we have been on for the last 8 years. The U.S. Constitution creates a government of the people to ``establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense.'' This bill fulfills the promise enshrined in our Constitution to secure the blessings of liberty by providing for the defense of our Nation.