8:32 PM EDT

Betty McCollum, D-MN 4th

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will be postponed.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.

NORCROSS

8:33 PM EDT

Ken Calvert, R-CA 42nd

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.

Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

8:33 PM EDT

Donald Norcross, D-NJ 1st

Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a very simple amendment that would increase funding for the Superfund with the intention the money go specifically to the cleanup program account. Superfund cleanup is right for the environment and certainly right for the U.S. economy, which is right for the U.S.

I come from New Jersey, the Garden State. We have great tomatoes, corn, and it is blueberry season. But what we also have, particularly in the southern half of the State, is a history of heavy industry.

New Jersey found out the hard way that you just can't take those resources after they are finished and dump them into the backyard. We have more than 200 sites in New Jersey listed as being in serious violation of at least one of four Federal environmental laws. The company offenders, they are gone, and left the constituents, my constituents, holding the bags.

My predecessor, Representative Jim Florio, back in the early eighties, was the author of the Superfund bill. He had the vision of what we have to do to protect our citizens.

I just want to tell a quick story, two of them.

The first one is one site, $1 billion, and it is about a quarter of a mile from where I live. It is the Welsbach & General Gas Mantle in Gloucester City, New Jersey. As part of that process of making gas mantles almost a half century ago, radium, the substance that was used to make it glow brighter, was dumped throughout the city. This material is now sitting there. Radium has a half-life of 1,600 years--1,600 years. The process started in 1996, and it is about two-thirds finished. There is no

company to go back to.

The second story is Sherwin Williams in Gibbsboro, which was a gorgeous spot. But as we all know, years ago, that lead paint is now in the water system and impacting that area horribly. The site includes Kirkwood Lake. The soil under the lake is contaminated. They can't use the lake.

These are two very simple stories. I have 15 Superfund sites in my district--15.

It is our responsibility to protect our citizens. There are no companies to go back to. That is why I offer this simple amendment. The damage is already done, and we must continue to protect our citizens by funding this amendment correctly.

I want to thank the chairman, with the understanding that this amendment will be ruled out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment with the hope that we continue to work on this important issue in a very bipartisan way to protect our citizens.

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.

JOLLY

8:37 PM EDT

Greg Walden, R-OR 2nd

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following new section:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to complete or implement the revision of the resource management plans for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, or Salem Districts of the Bureau of Land Management or the Klamath [Page: H4820]

Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District of the Bureau of Land Management proposed in the Bureau of Land Management Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan Revisions and Draft Environmental

Impact Statement for Western Oregon published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 23046).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

8:37 PM EDT

David W. Jolly, R-FL 13th

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As a nation, we continually strive to achieve both energy independence, as well as protect the environment, our critical habitats, and the quality of life [Page: H4826]

in communities like Pinellas County, Florida, that I have the opportunity to represent.

One way we strike that balance is represented in how we currently manage the Gulf of Mexico when it comes to oil drilling. Under a 2006 act, we allow for drilling exploration in the central and western Gulf off the coast of Texas and Louisiana and other States, but we have a ban that protects the State of Florida. That ban currently protects the State of Florida with a drilling ban of about 125 miles or, in some cases, 235 miles.

This ban has been in place for 32 years through the operations of the Appropriations Committee. And while the current statute allows for the ban through 2022, year after year, those on the other side of this debate, very respectfully, attempt to erode that ban.

The truth is we don't need any additional drilling in the eastern Gulf of Florida to achieve energy independence. There are nearly 1,000 active leaseholds in the central and western Gulf. There are probably nearly 3,000 more available. And to change the ban is just something that we don't need.

This amendment is very simple. It says none of the funds may be used to study, prepare for, research, investigate any increased offshore oil drilling in the eastern Gulf contemplating the expiration of a ban in 2022.

I am pleased to be joined in offering this amendment by my colleague from Bonita Springs, Mr. Clawson; my colleague from Tallahassee, Ms. Graham; and my colleague from Jupiter, Mr. Murphy.

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

8:39 PM EDT

Ken Calvert, R-CA 42nd

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as in the case of a number of offshore-related amendments that we will deal with today, the Interior Appropriations bill is not the appropriate venue, though I do understand it has been used in the past.

I understand this amendment dovetails with the current congressional moratorium, and the Department of the Interior has no intention of acting in a manner that is contrary to congressional intent. The Department is focused on the next 5-year oil and gas leasing plan, which is limited to 2017-2022, so many departmental activities in fiscal year 2016 are already limited in scope through 2022. If my colleagues wish to see the moratorium extended beyond 2022, then they should work with the appropriate

authorizing committees.

With that, I would oppose the amendment, and urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

8:40 PM EDT

David W. Jolly, R-FL 13th

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's understanding of the interest of those in the State of Florida and the current debate currently from those on the other side that wish to actually lift the ban. It is important that, as a delegation, we have the opportunity to have this debate.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson), my colleague from Bonita Springs.

8:40 PM EDT

David W. Jolly, R-FL 13th

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's understanding of the interest of those in the State of Florida and the current debate currently from those on the other side that wish to actually lift the ban. It is important that, as a delegation, we have the opportunity to have this debate.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson), my colleague from Bonita Springs.

8:40 PM EDT

David W. Jolly, R-FL 13th

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's understanding of the interest of those in the State of Florida and the current debate currently from those on the other side that wish to actually lift the ban. It is important that, as a delegation, we have the opportunity to have this debate.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson), my colleague from Bonita Springs.

8:41 PM EDT

Curt Clawson, R-FL 19th

Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I start by thanking Representative Jolly for his leadership and persistence on this issue--it is so important to my district--and to the chairman for allowing disagreement. Disagreement allows learning, and we appreciate your leadership in this regard.

I speak in full support of Representative Jolly's amendment. I base my support on the enormous all-time high, proven reserves elsewhere in our country and a conviction that we can focus in areas other than the Gulf.

The private sector definitely needs cheap oil, and our businesses, our manufacturing companies, cannot be successful without low energy prices. I know it, because I lived it.

But let's drill where drilling makes sense. And to us, it doesn't make sense to drill in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The recent BP settlement, the highest such settlement ever, is evidence that the economic and environmental risk of drilling in the Gulf greatly offset any potential returns.

For those of us who live, work, or have business in the Gulf, we were told that an oil disaster could never happen, and then it happened. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I say it is not worth the risk. I say let's do everything we can to never have more drilling in the eastern Gulf.

8:41 PM EDT

Curt Clawson, R-FL 19th

Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I start by thanking Representative Jolly for his leadership and persistence on this issue--it is so important to my district--and to the chairman for allowing disagreement. Disagreement allows learning, and we appreciate your leadership in this regard.

I speak in full support of Representative Jolly's amendment. I base my support on the enormous all-time high, proven reserves elsewhere in our country and a conviction that we can focus in areas other than the Gulf.

The private sector definitely needs cheap oil, and our businesses, our manufacturing companies, cannot be successful without low energy prices. I know it, because I lived it.

But let's drill where drilling makes sense. And to us, it doesn't make sense to drill in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The recent BP settlement, the highest such settlement ever, is evidence that the economic and environmental risk of drilling in the Gulf greatly offset any potential returns.

For those of us who live, work, or have business in the Gulf, we were told that an oil disaster could never happen, and then it happened. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I say it is not worth the risk. I say let's do everything we can to never have more drilling in the eastern Gulf.

8:43 PM EDT

David W. Jolly, R-FL 13th

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I would close by offering my colleagues there is authorizing legislation that would extend the ban past the year 2022.

This language simply says a ban is a ban is a ban. And while there is a ban on activities on drilling and the like, this simply says that no planning may occur for post-2022 drilling.

With that, I would urge a ``yea'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly).

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.

GARAMENDI

8:43 PM EDT

David W. Jolly, R-FL 13th

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I would close by offering my colleagues there is authorizing legislation that would extend the ban past the year 2022.

This language simply says a ban is a ban is a ban. And while there is a ban on activities on drilling and the like, this simply says that no planning may occur for post-2022 drilling.

With that, I would urge a ``yea'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly).

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.

GARAMENDI

8:43 PM EDT

David W. Jolly, R-FL 13th

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I would close by offering my colleagues there is authorizing legislation that would extend the ban past the year 2022.

This language simply says a ban is a ban is a ban. And while there is a ban on activities on drilling and the like, this simply says that no planning may occur for post-2022 drilling.

With that, I would urge a ``yea'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly).

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.

GARAMENDI

8:44 PM EDT

John Garamendi, D-CA 3rd

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I think I will start this discussion with the words of a rather influential individual: Pope Francis. In his recent encyclical, he wrote: ``If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.'' That is Pope Francis.

In this legislation, the appropriation bill, there are numerous efforts to deny the reality of climate change. And, specifically, what I want to deal with on this amendment is Executive Order No. 13693: Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.

The intention of this amendment is to support the Federal Government's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over the next decade relative to 2008.

This bill will save taxpayers money--about $18 billion--in avoided energy costs, and it will increase the share of electricity the Federal Government consumes from renewable resources by up to 30 percent. Twenty-six million metric tons of greenhouse gases would be eliminated.

So why in the face of all of the scientific evidence and why in the face of the reality that the climate is, indeed, changing, when we have throughout the State of California and around the Nation local governments planning for the eventually, not the reality, of higher sea levels, would we put forth a bill that would prohibit the Federal Government from planning for climate change?

Let me just cite some of the ways in which the current legislation, this proposal, deals with it:

It prohibits Federal funds for any rulemaking or guidance with regard to the social cost of climate change.

It prohibits the EPA from limiting carbon pollution from new and renovated power plants, and there has been much discussion about that on the floor today.

It prohibits the funding to update and revise the EPA's ozone standards.

It prohibits the funding for any change to the status of HFCs. These are fluorocarbons.

It also prohibits the reporting detailing the Federal funding for domestic and international climate change programs. This is denial, denial, denial about what is really happening.

My amendment would simply say that there is no money to carry out these provisions in the current bill. It is really time for all of us here to recognize that there is a serious challenge, and it is one that Pope Francis points out so clearly.

I reserve the balance of my time. [Page: H4827]