Bill Flores

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. I thank Chairman Calvert. Madam Chair, again, I want to set the record straight. We are not against ocean planning, as it makes perfect sense, but only insofar as Congress has explicitly authorized those activities. Congress has not allowed the President to do what he is trying to do by executive fiat. There are 67 groups, which include fishing, agricultural, farming, energy, and other industries, that are concerned about the impact of this Federal overreach. Again, it is an unconstitutional Federal overreach, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. FLORES. I thank Chairman Calvert for his hard work on this section of the appropriations bill. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. American consumers have benefited from low energy prices, thanks to the American energy revolution and technological advancements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. For decades, hydraulic fracturing has been successfully regulated by the States. In 2013, the House passed on a bipartisan basis legislation which I coauthored with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) from the other side of the aisle, and that legislation would stop the BLM from pursuing duplicative and burdensome hydraulic fracturing regulations. Unfortunately, the BLM didn't listen to what Congress said, and it continued down a path to impose additional red tape on American energy development and to further drive down energy production on energy lands while State and private production continues to experience record growth in a safe and efficient manner. This has always been a solution in search of a problem, particularly when the EPA and the Department of Energy have each agreed that hydraulic fracturing is being conducted safely right now. Even the courts agree that there are problems with the BLM's rules, as evidenced by the recent stay granted by the U.S. District Court of Wyoming to stop the BLM from moving forward with their overreaching regulatory activity. This amendment is bad for jobs. It would increase energy costs and would limit economic opportunity for hard-working families, particularly those at the bottom end of the income tables. So it hurts those that are struggling to get by today with higher energy costs. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his work on including this provision during markup, as well as Chairman Calvert for his support on stopping this regulatory overreach. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, in response to some of the comments that were never made, I would like to offer five points. Number one is BLM doesn't have the statutory authority to do the actions that they tried to. The Federal Court was right in granting an injunction. The EPA and the Department of Energy have both said that hydraulic fracturing is safe, and that is evidenced by the safe and efficient production of much more oil and gas on private and State lands while Federal production is going down. Again, this is a solution in search of a problem. So I would urge all my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that everybody knows that this cuts one-half of 1 percent from the EPA to hopefully help stop them from pursuing a regulatory scheme where the industry is already working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and then it takes that money and puts it into accounts where we actually achieve greenhouse gas reductions and we bring taxpayer-owned resources to market in a clean, safe, and efficient way. My amendment accomplishes all of those things: reduces greenhouse gas emissions, better jobs, and better infrastructure for hard-working Americans. Again, I ask all Members to support my amendment and to support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment, along with my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and my friend from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer). This amendment will address an energy infrastructure issue that faces our Nation today, as well as continuing regulatory overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency. We all know that the American shale revolution has dramatically improved our energy security at home and our economic opportunity for hard-working Americans. The United States is now the number one producer of oil and gas in the world, yet we are in the midst of new challenges due to a lack of appropriate infrastructure to bring those resources to our consumers. Also, the EPA has recently reported that methane emissions from oil and gas wells are down 79 percent since 2005, and total methane emissions from natural gas systems are down 11 percent since that same year. However, the administration intends to propose another regulation that only results in more bureaucratic red tape and higher energy costs. This does nothing to address the underlying issue. There is a better solution, which not only achieves lower greenhouse gas emissions, but also improves the outcomes for the American taxpayer. My amendment would increase the amount of funds made available to both the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service by $5 million each to help expedite the approval of additional pipeline infrastructure that would more efficiently and more cleanly deliver our taxpayer-owned resources to consumers. This will ensure that the BLM and the Forest Service have the appropriate resources to permit rights- of-way for gathering lines on Federal lands. This increase would be offset by a very modest reduction of less than one-half of 1 percent to the EPA environmental programs and management accounts. It is important that we safely bring these natural resources to market using the latest low-emissions, cutting-edge technology. Permitting and constructing this critical infrastructure is beneficial to the environment since natural gas could be transported, processed, and sold to consumers instead of being vented or flared, which creates the greenhouse gas problems. Finally, constructing more pipelines furthers our country's ongoing energy renaissance, while creating more jobs and growing our economy. A recent API study shows over 1.1 million jobs on average per year and over $1.1 trillion in capital investments will be generated by updating our domestic midstream infrastructure. So, in a nutshell, my amendment provides three great outcomes: first, it reduces greenhouse gas emissions; second, it provides critical infrastructure to safely transport taxpayer-owned resources to consumer markets; and third, it promotes good-paying American jobs for these hard-working American families. I also want to take a second to compliment and thank my friend from California (Mr. Calvert) and all of the subcommittee members and all of the subcommittee staff for such a great job on this Interior Appropriations bill. I urge our Members to support my amendment and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. FLORES. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FLORES. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, this amendment does not change existing law. It just removes the funding for an unconstitutional, unstatutory action by the President. Madam Chair, it seems like I have caused some excitement with the Parliamentarian this afternoon, so why don't I do this. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and go to the second Flores amendment.

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a simple amendment to address an ongoing overreach by the executive branch of our government. My amendment bans the use of Federal funds for the implementation of Executive Order 13547. That executive order, which was signed in 2010, requires that 60-plus bureaucracies, as shown on this chart, essentially zone the oceans and the sources thereof. This amendment addresses a critical executive branch encroachment into the powers of Congress as set forth in our Constitution. The activities being conducted by Executive Order 13547 have not been authorized by Congress, nor have appropriations been made by Congress to fund those activities. Madam Chair, since 2010, this body has voted six times in support of this amendment in a bipartisan manner. This language was also included in the base text of the fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Today, I am offering my amendment again because concerns have been raised that the effects of the National Ocean Policy extend well beyond restricting ocean activities and encroach into inland activities. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I again reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, first of all, I think it is important to set the record straight. The issue here is not whether or not we want to take care of our oceans. All of us want to take care of our oceans. All of us believe in managing the ocean economy, the ocean ecology. We also believe in trying to make sure that we have a government that adheres to this Constitution. Under article I of that Constitution, all legislative powers are reserved to this body, to this Congress, not to the President. That is the issue at stake here. The President has overstepped his constitutional statutory bounds. Now, in the year 2000, Congress did pass something during the 106th Congress to create an ocean commission to review and make recommendations. Since then, the 108th, 109th, 110th, and 111th Congresses each looked at those recommendations and decided to take no legislative action. That is what caused the President to move forward with his executive order to try to go around Congress. There are no appropriations. We have asked the Department for this function specifically. We have asked the Department of Interior specifically to provide their statutory support for the President's actions. They have provided none. So the President has gone around Congress by signing these executive orders. There are 67 groups that include fishing, agricultural, farming, energy, and other industries that are concerned about the impact of this Federal overreach--and again, I would say an unconstitutional Federal overreach. Again, this is a simple amendment that just stands up for the constitutional rights of this Congress to create the statutes under which this activity can be conducted and to transparently appropriate the funds for this activity should it so choose. We are not against ocean planning, as I said at the outset of this. What we are for, though, is for the Constitution and to stand up for our congressional rights to enact the statutes related to this activity and for the appropriators to be able to transparently appropriate the money. Again, this amendment has been adopted with bipartisan support six times over the last 4\1/2\ years and is already included in the base text of the fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I want to thank Chairman Culberson for considering this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES

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

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Florida made a great case for putting this book in the same stack of dinosaurs that she was talking about when it comes to eliminating all other waste in terms of government printing. I have an app that cost me $1.99 that gives me current pictures of Members of Congress. I don't have to carry any paper around. I don't have to carry this book around. I don't have to carry this book around. I just have to have an app. Look, we are a 21st century Congress. Why don't we act like a 21st century Congress and get rid of the dinosaurs like this?

Mr. FLORES. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. FLORES. That was my personal money. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, this has been a fascinating discussion. The gentlewoman from Florida claims that the savings are between $9,000 and $29,000 while the numbers that we have are $200,000. If you ask your typical hard-working family if $9,000 is a lot of money, they will say, yes, it is. Is $29,000 a lot of money? They will say yes. Is $200,000 a lot of money? They will say yes. If you say, ``You are paying for that. Would you like the government to stop wasting that money?'' then they would say, absolutely, yes. If the gentlewoman does not want to waste any time on this and vote ``aye,'' then let's stop. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple amendment to prohibit funds for delivering printed copies of the Congressional Pictorial Directory in the House of Representatives. The pictorial directory is a book with pictures of Members of Congress printed by the Government Publishing Office. The most recent edition cost over $200,000 to print and distribute. While I realize this is not much money, I think with an $18 trillion debt, that we need to be looking for the pennies, as well as the $100 bills. The most important thing is this book is no longer necessary to print in hard copy. We are almost 6 months into the 114th Congress, and the GPO has still not published the book. During the 113th Congress, it took the GPO 9 months, until September, to release the pictorial directory. Here is what one of them looks like. Private groups make similar directories that are actually more useful and include contact information and biographies of Members, in addition to their pictures. I have a copy of the directory that was dropped off at my office by a trade association in the last few days, and unlike the GPO directory, it is up to date, and they keep it up to date. Of course, pictures of Members of Congress are readily available for free online. If needed, the Clerk could ensure that appropriate photographs of current Members are available to create an online pictorial directory. The language of this amendment mirrors several riders already in the bill that prohibit funds for the delivery of printed copies of bills and resolutions, printed copies of the Congressional Record, printed copies of the statements of disbursements, and printed copies of the daily calendar. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an important amendment that ensures that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is appropriately funded to meet its core mission. The NRC's work is vital to the energy picture of our Nation, and safety remains and always will be the number one priority. The NRC is funded in two ways: 10 percent of its budget comes from appropriated funds from the taxpayers; and, secondly, 90 percent of the fees are collected from the nuclear industry. While I am a strong supporter of nuclear power and safety, the NRC budget has grown dramatically in the last decade from $669 million per year in 2005 to the current level of over $1 billion this year. Herein lies the problem. This chart lays out the picture that we face today with the NRC. Under the NRC's 2005 budget, there were 3,108 employees responsible for oversight on 104 reactors and the review of 1,500 licensing actions. In their fiscal year 2016 budget request of $1.032 billion, the NRC called for 3,754 employees to oversee 100 reactors and review 900 licensing actions. In summary, the number of reactors has gone down by 4 percent; the number of licensing actions has gone down by 40 percent; the number of employees has gone up by 21 percent, and the budget has grown by 54 percent. Madam Chair, only in Washington does the staff and the cost grow while the workload goes down. The historical increases in both funding and staff resources occurred in anticipation of new reactors being built under a nuclear renaissance for our country. Unfortunately, due to increasing bureaucratic red tape and other market conditions, the work never materialized; thus, a shrinking nuclear industry has faced an ever-growing regulator over the past 10 years. Only in Washington, as I said before, does the bureaucracy grow while the workload shrinks. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission even admits that it needs to downsize. In its February 2015 report entitled, ``Project Aim 2020,'' they said the same thing. Additionally, the NRC has 60 rulemakings underway, and they are collecting additional fees from existing reactors to make up for lost licensing revenue. These fees are ultimately paid by hard-working American families in their electricity bills. My amendment is simple. It reduces funding by $25 million, or about 2.5 percent, and would right-size the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to meet its core mission and safely regulate our existing nuclear fleet. The industry share of support, or 90 percent of that, would be reduced by $22.5 million, and the Federal share of $2.5 would be redirected to basic research in DOE's Office of Science in order to develop future American energy solutions. Madam Chair, in the last few minutes, I have had the opportunity to have great discussions with Chairman Simpson, and I am confident that he is aware of this issue and has taken steps to do this. He said he would work with me in the future to continue addressing this issue. I am raising this today, but I will be withdrawing my amendment. I would like to thank Chairman Simpson for his efforts to address this issue and for agreeing to work with me on the issue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.