[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 104 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4929-H4969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2020

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Dean). Pursuant to House Resolution 445 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 3055.
  Will the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1019


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3055) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, with Mr. Heck 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
June 19, 2019, amendment No. 58 printed in part B of House Report 116-
119 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham) had 
been disposed of.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, 
and I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, this is Maleah Davis. We mourn her loss in Houston, Texas. 
She was 4 years old.
  My amendment provides funding to support and engage adult men and 
young persons to reduce and prevent domestic violence against children. 
In recent reports, 1,600 children died because of abuse or neglect.
  This amendment will help ensure the safety of vulnerable children in 
at-risk households who are powerless to get the help and attention they 
need from our government.
  To illustrate this, this is the case of Maleah Davis, a 4-year-old 
girl who lived in Houston. In the past, Texas Child Protective Services 
removed Maleah and her two brothers from their home over reports of 
abuse but returned them again in February. They took them away from 
their relatives and, along with a court judge, returned them to this 
family.
  Maleah's mother dated her boyfriend for years, and they had a son. 
Maleah's mother had gone to a funeral out of town.
  When the boyfriend initially reported that his girlfriend's daughter 
was missing, he told detectives that he had been attacked, but 
surveillance video shows him carrying a black bag out of the home.
  The last time that Maleah was seen was going into that home.
  The real question is whether or not the Child Protective Services is 
really doing its job, whether or not it is dealing with educating these 
families or intervening in these families to make sure a loving little 
girl like Maleah Davis does not lose her life.
  In addition to this funding to intervene in men and boys' lives to 
prevent this kind of abuse and loss of life, and the tragedy of finding 
the remains of little Maleah in a plastic bag along the highway in 
Arkansas, I look forward to working with my colleagues on an overhaul 
of children's protective services throughout the Nation, because, in 
particular in Texas, 1,600 children die of abuse and neglect, many of 
them in children's protective services.
  I am delighted that my amendment passed.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Chairwoman Lowey's En Bloc Amendment 
No. 2, which includes Jackson Lee Amendment No. 19.
  I wish to thank Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole of the 
Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  I thank Chairman Serrano and Ranking Member Aderhold for their hard 
work in bringing Division A, the Commerce-Justice-Science portion of 
this omnibus appropriations legislative package, to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, 
which is simple and straightforward and ensures that our government 
works to protect our children.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 19, reprograms $2 million in the Office of 
Justice Programs grant funding to support programs to engage adult men 
and young persons to reduce and prevent domestic violence against 
children.
  This amendment will help ensure the safety of vulnerable children in 
at-risk households, who are powerless to getting the help and attention 
they need from our government.
  To illustrate the need for this amendment, let me share with you the 
tragic case of Maleah Davis, a 4-year old little girl who lived in 
Houston.
  In the past, Texas Child Protective Services removed Maleah and her 
two brothers from their home over reports of abuse, but returned them 
to the home in February.
  Maleah's mother dated her boyfriend for years and they shared a 
toddler son together.
  Maleah's mother had gone out of town when she left her daughter under 
her boyfriend's care.
  When the boyfriend initially reported that his girlfriend's daughter 
was missing, he told detectives he had been attacked by unknown men a 
day earlier and that they kidnapped Maleah.
  However, surveillance video outside of the home shows Maleah never 
left their apartment after she followed him in, and shows him carrying 
a laundry basket with a trash bag out of the building a day before he 
reported her missing.
  Maleah's remains were later discovered in a bag along Interstate 30 
in Arkansas.
  Although the case has not been completed yet, there are valuable 
lessons that we can learn from Maleah's and similar cases.
  There have been similar cases to Maleah where the caretaker initially 
reports a missing child but we later learn that the caretaker is 
actually the suspect and perpetrator of the crime.
  Similar cases include 5-year old AJ Freund from Illinois, whose 
father confessed to hiding his body in the basement, and 7-week old 
Shaylie Madden from North Carolina, whose mother has been charged with 
first-degree attempted murder.
  The nation has learned from Maleah and other similar stories that we 
must do everything in our power to protect at risk children.
  Maleah Davis should be alive today.
  Horrible cases such as this should not be happening in America; we 
need to make sure our checks and balances are keeping our children 
safe.

[[Page H4930]]

  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for supporting en bloc 
No. 2, which included two of my amendments.
  The first amendment directs NASA to work toward the development of a 
low-enriched uranium space power reactor. NASA has been developing a 
low-enriched uranium propulsion system, but some of the funding for 
this has been used on other projects, including a power reactor using 
weapons-grade uranium.
  The problem is that if all the spacefaring nations of the world start 
using large amounts of weapons-grade material in their space reactors, 
then it will be difficult to ensure that this material would not be 
diverted to weapons programs in space and on Earth.
  If the U.S. develops a low-enriched uranium space power reactor 
design, it is likely that this type of reactor design will be adopted 
as a de facto standard by other spacefaring nations, making Earth and 
space a safer place.
  The second amendment directs $6.5 million of the space technology 
account, which is currently funded at $1.29 billion, to be used by the 
NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts, or NIAC, program. That will put the 
total budget for NIAC at $15.2 million.
  The NIAC program nurtures visionary ideas that could transform future 
NASA missions with the creation of breakthroughs that could 
dramatically lower the cost of space travel while simultaneously 
engaging America's innovators and entrepreneurs as partners in the 
journey.
  The nation that first demonstrates such technologies will own the 
future of space travel.
  At $15.2 million, NIAC is still less than a tenth of a percent of 
NASA's overall $22 billion budget, but this is a small step in the 
right direction.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support of these 
amendments.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Crow

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 65 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chair, 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 division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Bureau of the Census to use information or 
     records received through data sharing agreements in 
     contravention of existing law, including sections 9 and 214 
     of title 13, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Crow) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that would 
defend the integrity of the U.S. Census.
  The U.S. Census is crucial to every community, and it is our duty as 
Members of Congress to ensure that every person is counted. Not only 
does the Census send a message that every person should be counted, but 
it determines how and where Federal dollars are spent.
  Simply put, it is crucial for our local cities and counties.
  The Census count helps us understand how to best provide healthcare, 
education, housing, and numerous other public services.
  As the chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Innovation and 
Workforce Development, I have seen how the Census determines how we 
spend Federal dollars for programs like the Small Business Development 
Center Program and Community Development Block Grants.
  It is clear that the purpose of the citizenship question, which we 
have already debated and will continue to debate, is not to ensure that 
resources go to the communities that need it most but rather to stoke 
fear and suppress the Census count.
  In communities like mine, this would have a huge impact. It would 
undermine our ability to gather an accurate count. That doesn't just 
hurt people in our community. It strains public resources and poses 
risks to our community's public health and safety.
  I am here to lift up the voices in my community and assure them that 
Congress will not replace good governance with fear.
  While the administration announced that it would continue the data-
sharing agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to provide 
quality statistics, my amendment reasserts that existing law prohibits 
the Census Bureau from sharing individualized Census data across 
agencies. Congress must stand firm in assuring the public that no 
disaggregated data may leave the Census.
  Furthermore, this amendment raises awareness of the law that 
penalizes any disclosure of information by Census employees who share 
personally identifiable information with agencies like Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Escobar).
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Crow for yielding and for 
his great work on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, the Census aims to count each person living in the United 
States every 10 years. It is important that we get this count right 
because the information helps determine a vast array of decisions, from 
the number of congressional seats to the allocation of Federal dollars.
  For example, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, my home 
State of Texas stands to gain three congressional seats. These gains 
will go a long way for Texans and help bring much-needed funds to every 
community in the State, but we must ensure an accurate count.
  With the administration's push to include a citizenship question on 
the upcoming Census and scare Latino communities like mine into not 
participating, this amendment underscores the fact that no personally 
identifiable information can be shared.
  This amendment will give all residents, regardless of their 
immigration status, the confidence they need to answer the survey 
questions freely and to know that their data will be kept safe and 
secure.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Alabama is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
and actually thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the 
floor.
  As I had said yesterday, I certainly understand the concerns and the 
potential misuse of Census data, but by law the Census Bureau cannot 
and it will not disclose anyone's response or share data from which an 
individual can be identified with ICE or any other agency.
  Thankfully the law is already on the books. Census data sharing is a 
felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. 
Census data is important, and it is confidential.
  Fortunately, the Census Bureau is deploying expert communicators and 
trusted messengers all across the United States to work in each 
community to motivate each and every person to respond to the Census, 
and it would also help to spread the word that a person's response that 
they are not a citizen of the United States does not provide the 
government with really any reliable information about whether they are 
lawfully present in the U.S.
  So, even if this information was sent to ICE, it would really have no 
use. It would be of no use to them. A successful 2020 Census will 
provide a full, accurate, secure account of every person living in the 
U.S. while gathering the data vital to both understanding our Nation's 
changing demographics and bolstering the enforcement of the Voting 
Rights Act.
  Therefore, I join my colleagues in opposing any funds that would be 
made available to violate the confidentiality laws governing our 
Census, and I thank the gentleman for raising this issue

[[Page H4931]]

and certainly support a ``yes'' vote on this important amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chair, just to be clear, we vehemently oppose the 
citizenship question because as the evidence has made it abundantly 
clear, the purpose of that question is to suppress the count and to 
stoke fears within our communities, which will have a huge detrimental 
impact to our ability to gain an accurate count and provide resources 
in an effective way and to govern throughout the country.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in strong support of this amendment.
  The Commerce Department has not answered basic questions related to 
the purpose behind its sharing agreement with the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Although I am not suggesting the Census Bureau will use the 
information for something other than statistical purposes, I think it 
is important to remind the Department we are mindful of how 
individuals' information will be handled.
  Ensuring the public trust in the Census is vital to getting an 
accurate count, and this amendment helps in that goal.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chair, in closing, I just want to reiterate the need 
that we send a very strong message as Members of Congress that we have 
to enforce existing law.
  We have to provide the confidence to people throughout the country 
that the Census will not be used to undermine the integrity of the 
process, that the citizenship question's purpose is to stoke fears and 
to suppress the count, and that we will not allow those fears to 
overcome the need for good governance to gain an accurate count and 
make sure that the government is working effectively and we are 
providing resources to people throughout our communities.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 66 Offered by Ms. Dean

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 66 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 49, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, public service is a high calling, and we should do 
everything we can to encourage our best and our brightest, really all, 
to pursue it. For me, the opportunity to serve in Congress is a 
privilege and the honor of a lifetime, and I know my fellow Members 
feel the same.
  Unfortunately, for too many young people, public service isn't always 
a realistic option. Nowhere is that surer than our broken criminal 
justice system. There is no question that if we are going to fix the 
problems that trouble our criminal justice system, we need prosecutors 
and public defenders of the highest caliber.
  Right now, students graduate law school with between $84,000 and 
$122,000 in debt, while jobs in prosecutor's or defender's offices pay 
just $56- to $58,000 a year. As a result, students who are eager to 
contribute their talents to work for justice to defend the rights of 
the vulnerable simply can't afford to. Well, we can't afford to lose 
them.
  The John R. Justice Act was designed to fix this problem by providing 
student loan repayment of $10,000 a year for law students who make a 
minimum 3-year commitment to public service. In theory, students can 
earn up to $60,000 in total loan repayments, making public service a 
far more realistic option.
  In reality, however, Congress has failed to properly fund the 
program. While the program is authorized up to $25 million a year, 
actual appropriations have fallen dramatically short and now sit at 
just under $2 million.
  Here are the consequences: In my home State of Pennsylvania, the 
Commission on Crime and Delinquency was able to fund only 38 of the 167 
applicants received since 2015. That is less than 25 percent. For those 
individuals who were fortunate enough to receive any funding at all, 
the grant amounts totaled only $4,100.
  That is better than nothing, but for most students it is not enough 
to help them pay down their debt and devote themselves to public 
service.
  It is time to act. This amendment doubles the funds provided under 
the John R. Justice Act, thereby delivering an immediate, substantial 
impact. This will mean concrete help for many more students who are 
eager to work on behalf of the public and build a better, smarter, more 
compassionate criminal justice system.
  It also sends a signal that we in Congress aren't satisfied with mere 
rhetoric and that we will do what it takes to give every student a 
chance to serve their communities and their country.
  Mr. Chair, in closing, I am very pleased to put this forward in hopes 
that we draw more talent not just in my home State but across this 
country to public service in prosecutor's and public defender's offices 
around the Nation.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 68 Offered by Ms. Escobar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Chair, 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 division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the ``Memorandum for Federal Prosecutors 
     Along the Southwest Border, Zero-tolerance for Offenses Under 
     8 U.S.C. 1325(a)'' issued by the Attorney General on April 6, 
     2018.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Escobar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  On April 6, 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions unveiled the 
zero-tolerance prosecution policy, a memo directing U.S. Attorneys 
along the southwest border to prosecute all improper entry cases 
impacting thousands of migrants since its implementation.
  My amendment would end this policy and restore prosecutorial 
discretion at the Department of Justice. This amendment is necessary 
because zero-tolerance is the center of the administration's cruel 
family separation policy.
  Under zero-tolerance, when an asylum-seeking family crosses the 
border between a port of entry, parents are placed in DOJ custody while 
they await their prosecution date. The child is then deemed 
unaccompanied and placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee 
Resettlement. At least 3,000 families that we know of have been 
separated. Some children were literally ripped from their parents' 
arms.
  At the height of the family separation crisis last summer, the 
President signed an executive order entitled: ``Affording Congress an 
Opportunity to Address Family Separation.'' That was on June 20, 2018, 
exactly 1 year ago today. However, this executive order does not end 
zero-tolerance. Instead, the executive order favored family detention--
possibly indefinitely--over release.
  I have seen the consequences of family separation firsthand in my 
community. Before zero-tolerance was implemented, the administration 
used El Paso as a testing ground for these horrific family separations 
in the fall of 2017. During this pilot program, 281 families were 
separated. The American Association of Pediatrics tells us that 
separating children from their parents

[[Page H4932]]

is highly damaging and can cause long-term health consequences from 
toxic stress.
  These children are suffering emotionally and physically as a result 
of this government. We must put an end to this cruelty and work on 
reuniting all of those who remain separated.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, a vote for this amendment is a vote to 
effectively decriminalize the action of crossing the border unlawfully.
  The passage of this amendment would directly undermine the 
sovereignty of the United States, and furthermore, if passed, the 
amendment would immediately be seized upon by every criminal human 
smuggling organization and used as a selling point to convince migrants 
to come to the United States in an unlawful manner.
  It would trigger a flood of illegal immigration unlike anything we 
have ever seen, which will cause most of the most vulnerable 
individuals to attempt to embark on a dangerous journey. Cartels and 
human smuggling organizations will profit. Our borders will be less 
secure. And the American people will pay the cost of open borders for 
years to come.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in very strong support of the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The zero-tolerance experiment has been a tragic mistake. It has 
swamped U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and district courts with low 
level nonviolent cases previously handled by DHS and, if necessary, 
immigration courts. It has also separated thousands of families and 
traumatized children and parents. Children may remain with parents in 
DHS custody, but they cannot follow them into jail, even for such 
misdemeanor charges.
  DOJ should focus on criminal gangs, human trafficking, and smuggling, 
most of which passes through, not between, the ports of entry.
  The zero-tolerance policy restricts seasoned prosecutors from 
pursuing serious crime and distorts priorities by requiring an 
unbalanced and inflexible approach. It is clearly not improving things 
at the border.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the House to adopt this very important amendment.
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers. I would just urge 
all of my colleagues to come to my community to see for themselves the 
impact of this horrific policy.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1045


                 Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Golden

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 70 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. GOLDEN. 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 division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to utilize a right whale status and risk reduction 
     decision support tool.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Golden) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and 
I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 3055.
  Mr. Chair, it is frequently said that working men and women feel left 
out by their government's decisionmaking process. Too often in 
Washington, those with the greatest financial means can get the closest 
to the political, governmental, and regulatory process and, therefore, 
be better able to influence it.
  Just as bad is that, in this gridlock political machine, what little 
action that does take place often takes the path of least resistance.
  So when a species of whale is at risk of extinction for a whole slew 
of complex reasons--whether it be the overfishing that took place more 
than a century ago, climate change and warming waters that wreak havoc 
upon a whale's habitat, seismic air gun testing for oil and natural 
gas, deadly ship strikes by a large shipping industry, or the risk of 
entanglement in a lobsterman's fishing gear--who, and to what degree, 
does Washington regulate each? And who has a seat at the table to 
ensure that the process behind such decisions is fair and equitable?
  Do we believe that a small group of fishermen in Maine have as strong 
a place at the table as does the fossil fuel or shipping industry, or 
the governmental affairs director with a K Street office in Washington?
  I don't think so.
  So NOAA, facing the threat of lawsuits, has rushed ahead using a 
decision support tool that was developed for the purpose of reducing 
ship strikes by the Navy and fed that tool with old data and hasty 
assumptions and have come forward to require Maine lobstermen to 
achieve a 60 percent risk reduction in their fishery.
  What assumptions you might ask?
  Maine's own Department of Marine Resources argues the tool is flawed 
because areas with a lot of fishing gear but few whales are labeled 
``high risk,'' and areas with a lot of whales and less fishing gear are 
considered ``low risk.''
  This scientific tool uses outdated habitat data from the mid-
Atlantic, which is far away and different than the gulf of Maine. When 
attributing responsibility for injury or death of whale to fishing gear 
of an unknown origin, NOAA assumes an equal distribution between U.S. 
and Canadian gear, despite strong, recent scientific and empirical 
evidence to the contrary. And the data used do not accurately reflect 
the distribution shift of right whales since the year 2010.
  Recent studies have established firm links between warming waters in 
the gulf of Maine and a 90 percent reduction of the plankton that right 
whales eat, calling into question whether the whales have stopped 
visiting the warming, plankton-depleted waters of eastern Maine 
entirely, which would greatly reduce the likelihood that any whale be 
entangled in Maine lobstermen's gear.
  It is reasonable to ask NOAA to allow its decision support tool to 
undergo a peer-review process before enforcing punitive regulations 
upon Maine fisherman. Maine's Commissioner of the Department of Marine 
Resources has said that ``peer-reviewed science is the cornerstone of 
the decisionmaking process.'' Apparently, not in this case.
  This amendment would require NOAA to use relevant data and an 
effective tool to ensure that its regulations target areas of high risk 
and yield the most effective conservation benefits possible to protect 
the right whale without unfairly burdening Maine lobstermen.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit NOAA from 
utilizing a science-based stakeholder decision support tool to save the 
North Atlantic right whale from imminent extinction.
  The decision support tool was developed based on the best-available 
scientific information and models about the population dynamics of the 
whales. Defunding it undermines the consensus-based conservation 
decisionmaking process under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and would 
set a dangerous precedent for implementation of that law. It would also 
have lasting impacts for other species, fisheries, and industries.
  Again, this whale, the North Atlantic right whale, is critically 
endangered. There are less than 420 left. That is fewer than we have 
Members of this House of Representatives.

[[Page H4933]]

  With this amendment, while it may be well-intended to protect Maine 
lobstermen, it could have broadly undermining effects on right whale 
conservation and on NOAA's responsibilities under the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
  I fully understand my colleague's concerns and efforts to support 
constituencies. I, too, represent a coastal district with commercial 
fishermen; so does our colleague, Seth Moulton in Massachusetts. And we 
are committed to working together to find a solution to the crisis 
facing the North Atlantic right whale, including holding a hearing on 
Mr. Moulton's bill, the bipartisan SAVE Right Whales Act, in the Water, 
Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee that I chair.
  I am also fully supportive of his amendment to increase funding for 
right whale conservation. We should be devoting more resources to 
develop innovative solutions for the recovery of right whales to meet 
both fisheries and conservation goals, not choosing one goal over the 
other which, unfortunately, this amendment does.
  I would also point out that the Committee on Natural Resources worked 
with Mr. Golden on several other possible amendments. We continue to 
stand ready to work on other ways and other solutions, but 
unfortunately, this amendment is not it.
  Mr. Chair, I urge opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that the person who 
runs this program for NOAA has actually recently said that they intend 
to move forward with regulations, then do a peer review, and then, 
perhaps, come back with a different conclusion.
  I think that they have got this backwards. They should be doing it 
the other way around, and that is what is at the heart of this 
amendment. I would urge support at this time for the amendment, as well 
as for the Moulton amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. 
Pingree), and I thank her for joining me on this amendment and for her 
leadership on behalf of Maine fisheries.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding me time, 
and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) for raising 
concerns that I think many of us have. But in this case, I am 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I have long fought to protect the health of our oceans and 
the sea life that inhabit them. That is why I have opposed the Trump 
administration's plan to drill in the gulf of Maine since day one. And 
I am proud that this Chamber recently passed our ocean acidification 
bill.
  Along with my colleague from Maine's Second District, we represent 90 
percent of all the lobster landings in the United States. Lobster is an 
iconic symbol of our State, especially this time of year when Mainers 
and visitors from across the country enjoy our coastline and our food.
  I am proud of our very well-managed and highly restrictive lobster 
fishery of responsible operators. We need to work together on a new 
peer-reviewed tool to address this problem.
  Our State also is the home of a vibrant conservation movement that 
supports marine conservation and protecting the right whale. We have 
been successful over the past several years in creating tools with 
NOAA, our lobster industry, and conservationists. Indeed, the State of 
Maine has been actively involved in right whale conservation and worked 
with NOAA in the past to ensure that our State is doing all we can to 
keep whales safe in our very active fisheries.
  Unfortunately, in April, NOAA's Large Whale Take Reduction Team 
announced a plan to reduce right whale deaths that forced lobstermen to 
reduce their vertical lines by 50 percent. This risk-reduction tool, as 
my colleague mentioned, has not gone through a peer-review process 
despite significant concerns from the stakeholders that should be 
addressed. It does not account for many of the issues specific to the 
gulf of Maine.
  Mr. Chair, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to stand for a fair 
process, and I support this amendment.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I recognize what my friends from Maine are attempting to 
do to help an important industry in their State, but I must oppose them 
in favor of supporting the critically endangered Atlantic right whale.
  The decision support tool that this amendment would block is used by 
States to determine how they can ensure they are taking steps to 
protect these whales. Preventing its use would, therefore, remove the 
ability of the States to make their own determination.
  Consequently, NOAA would be forced to set a national standard. 
Additionally, given the way it is drafted, this amendment would block 
NOAA's conservation work on right whales, not just in the Atlantic, but 
also in the Pacific.
  Other agencies that rely on this tool include the Coast Guard and 
Navy, who rely on it to ensure that they are in compliance with the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  As I said earlier, I understand my friend's concern, and I would 
support funding to help develop new and more whale-friendly fishing 
gear and other mitigation options. I cannot, however, support an 
amendment that removes a scientific tool to make informed natural 
resource management decisions. It would only further endanger these 
majestic animals.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the tool that we are talking about was 
developed by a consensus-based take reduction team that included the 
consensus support of all representatives of the fishing industry who 
sat on that team, the entire Maine delegation, that the team 
unanimously supported the decision.
  Mr. Chair, an end-run around that congressionally mandated process at 
this critical moment, taking away the lifeline that the North Atlantic 
right whale needs as it teeters on the brink of extinction, is the 
wrong way to protect Maine lobstermen. We can work together on other 
threats, other ways to help the lobstermen.
  We need to start that conversation with climate change. Certainly, 
the trade impacts to the lobstermen and other fishing communities 
should be something we do to help them, the threat of offshore drilling 
in the Atlantic. And let's get them some more financial support if 
there is too much burden to implement the technologies and strategies 
that have been represented here.
  But the North Atlantic right whale is running out of time, and we 
should not move the goalpost on these critically endangered species in 
this way.
  Mr. Chair, I request a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, 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 Maine will 
be postponed.


       Amendment No. 71 Offered by Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 71 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 49, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,500,000)(increased by $2,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Oklahoma (Ms. Kendra S. Horn) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.

[[Page H4934]]

  

  Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to address the critical need to support both 
our law enforcement and individuals in our communities who are 
experiencing mental health crisis.
  Across this country, one in every ten calls for police response 
involves a person experiencing a mental health crisis; one in four 
people killed by police are suffering from a mental illness; one in 
three people transported to hospital emergency rooms for psychiatric 
reasons are taken by the police.
  Simply put, our police officers are on the front lines in our Nation 
where far too few people have access to the mental healthcare they need 
and deserve. But far too few have the training and the skills they need 
to understand, identify, and deescalate these situations.
  We need to provide our officers with the skills and understanding of 
mental illness and how to appropriately respond to both the safety of 
the officer and the individual. The right training makes everyone 
safer. We must equip officers for encounters with people experiencing 
mental health crises, and my amendment helps to accomplish this goal.
  With this amendment, we can help save lives and turn these encounters 
into effective responses that help both the individual and our 
communities. My amendment funds grants for crisis training for law 
enforcement through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
Program. This program is giving State, local, and Tribal governments 
the critical support they need to provide individuals with important 
training and education, and equipment to operate at their best.
  Byrne JAG is the leading source of funding for local law enforcement 
to help prevent and control crime, improve the justice system, and 
funds everything from education and intervention programs to reentry 
services to target the roots of crime. Some of its most well-known 
programs include the bulletproof vests program, Smart Policing 
Initiative, and the Juvenile Indigent Defense, the National Missing 
Unidentified Person System, and numerous other programs.
  Byrne JAG is a critical funding source that makes our community safer 
by attacking the problem of crime from multiple angles, from community 
education to improving interactions with police and the neighborhoods 
they protect and, thus, is an excellent way to provide mental health 
crisis response training for our police officers.
  Mr. Chair, in my State of Oklahoma, officers in 2018 alone 
transferred 17,860 individuals experiencing a mental health crisis to 
the emergency room.
  Behavorial and psychological science has progressed leaps and bounds 
in the last 50 years, but access to that training is expensive, and we 
must break down cost barriers for law enforcement agencies to save 
lives and address mental illness.
  Mr. Chair, I look forward to, and urge, support on this amendment 
that will make our communities safer and address mental illness.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Kendra S. Horn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Golden

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 72 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Kim, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 48, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 55, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Golden) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to H.R. 3055 on behalf of 
my colleague, Representative   Andy Kim.
  Over the past decade, more than 400 Veteran Treatment Courts have 
been established across our country. These courts address a serious 
problem to those who served. For veterans with post-traumatic stress, 
substance abuse simply compounds the issues that they face on a daily 
basis.
  More than 2 out of 10 veterans with post-traumatic stress also 
experience substance abuse problems. These are service men and women 
who gave much to our country, only to come back and struggle long after 
their time in uniform has come to an end.
  As representatives of a grateful Nation, we owe them solutions to the 
problems they face. Veteran Treatment Courts have been that solution 
for thousands of veterans and they continue to be so.
  That is why this amendment would increase funding for this lifesaving 
program by $1 million. That is funding to help provide an alternative 
to incarceration for those in need. That is funding to help improve 
access to mental health services and rehabilitative care. That is 
funding to improve the functionality of our local VA services and 
better serve those who served us.
  This is a proven program that addresses a critical need in a 
community that has given much to this country. Let's join together 
today to give something back to them.
  With that, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment. I have seen 
these courts at work in such positive ways amongst my brothers and 
sisters who served in the military.
  I want to thank Representative   Andy Kim for offering this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Malinowski

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 73 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, when I visit a synagogue or Jewish community center in my 
congressional district these days, I usually pass by an armed security 
guard. Inside, there is talk about safe exit routes and the cost of 
adding bulletproof glass and other security enhancements.
  When I visit mosques during Friday prayers, I have noticed that State 
Police officers generally, these days, are standing watch outside. My 
friends at Hindu and Sikh temples are worried as well.
  There is a lot of angry, intolerant rhetoric in the United States and 
other countries like ours these days, and we know it comes from all 
sides of the political spectrum, but the guards at the gates of places 
of worship are not there because of a general fear of intolerance. They 
are there because of a specific threat from a specific group of people.
  Domestic terrorists, white supremacists, or neo-Nazi terrorists, like 
those responsible for the attacks at the Tree of Life Congregation 
synagogue in Pittsburgh, the synagogue in Poway, California, and the 
mosque attack in Christchurch, New Zealand.
  According to the Anti-Defamation League, 73 percent of terrorist 
killings in the United States since 2009 have been committed by 
domestic terrorists who spouted white supremacist ideology, as compared 
to 23 percent committed by Islamic extremists.
  In 2018, there were 50 extremist murders in the United States. All 50 
were

[[Page H4935]]

committed by adherents of far right-wing extremist groups. Anti-Semitic 
incidents rose by 60 percent from 2016 to 2017.
  If this threat came from outside the United States, we would be 
consumed by it here in Congress, as we were when we awoke to the 
urgency of reorienting our national and homeland security strategy to 
fight al-Qaida after 9/11. That it is coming from within, from our 
fellow Americans, makes it more sensitive but no less urgent, and there 
is more work to be done.
  Though the FBI acknowledges that domestic terrorists claim more lives 
in the United States than international terrorists, it has told us that 
its counterterrorism case numbers line up around 20 percent for 
domestic terrorism, 80 percent for international terrorism.
  The Department of Justice's senior official for dealing with its 
Domestic Terrorism Counsel runs what is basically a one-man operation. 
And in the last 2 years we have actually cut funding at the Department 
of Homeland Security to counter domestic violent extremism.
  This amendment begins to correct the imbalance. It would add $1 
million to the budget of DOJ's National Security Division to be 
directed to the Domestic Terrorism Counsel. In the underlying bill, we 
already recommend that the Counsel be elevated to have a Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General with adequate staff and resources.
  The goal is to give a senior official at the Justice Department the 
stature and the tools needed to lead this effort so that we can focus 
as much attention on the rising threat of domestic terrorism as we have 
rightly devoted to the threat from groups like al-Qaida and ISIS.
  So let us do more than just condemn anti-Semitism and other forms of 
hateful intolerance in this body. Let us actually do something 
practical to protect people from violence.
  Mr. Chair, I urge bipartisan support for this amendment, and look 
forward to working with my colleagues on all sides to advance this goal 
in the year ahead.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Neguse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 75 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 76, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 76, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Neguse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that would 
provide an additional $1 million increase to the NASA Office of 
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Engagement for the 
purpose of supporting the National Space Grant College and Fellowship 
Program also known as Space Grant.
  I first want to thank Chairman Serrano and the House Appropriations 
Committee for providing $48 million for the Space Grant Program, 
especially given that the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request 
proposed an entire elimination of not only the Space Grant Program, but 
also the entire Office of STEM Engagement.
  Founded in 1989, the NASA Space Grant Program is made up of a 
national network of colleges and universities. It is a program that 
inspires, educates, and develops America's future technological 
workforce with hands-on projects, courses, and research, ensuring that 
our next generation is excited and equipped to thrive in our Nation's 
aeronautics and space programs.
  I would be remiss if I didn't say that my district, Colorado's Second 
District, which I am proud to represent, is home to three Space Grant 
consortium members: Colorado State University in Fort Collins; the 
University of Colorado in Boulder; and Front Range Community College.
  These institutions support almost 300 students, preparing them for 
successful STEM careers. In April, I was proud to lead a bipartisan 
letter with the entire Colorado delegation in support of this program.
  The program doesn't just provide benefits to my home State, but to 
the entire country, Space Grants consist of over 850 affiliates and 52 
total consortia across the country. There is one in every State, as 
well as the District of Columbia.
  From reaching Mars, to exploring the depths of the galaxy, if we want 
to ensure that our Nation remains on a path of discovery and 
innovation, we must invest in our students and education.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment before them, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection the gentleman from Alabama is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. I have seen firsthand the positive impacts of NASA's Space 
Grant College and Fellowship Program in my home State of Alabama, and 
because of the good work that has come out of that, I urge adoption of 
the amendment, to further our students' STEM education opportunities. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama, 
and as he articulated, I think there is incredible work happening with 
respect to the Space Grant Program in his State, in my State, and in 
States across the country.
  With that, I appreciate the ability to offer the amendment, and I 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Neguse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 76 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 51, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of funding for a 
critical, lifesaving program, the National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System, or NICS. We know that background checks save lives.
  Since the NICS background check system was put into effect, over 38 
million background checks have been conducted, preventing over 3 
million firearm purchases from ending up in the wrong hands.
  In 2018, Colorado conducted 340,816 checks against the NICS system 
with 6,279 denials. Making sure that guns are not sold to people who 
should not have them is one of the most important things we can do to 
prevent gun violence. But we can, and we must do more to strengthen the 
background check system.
  The dangers of an incomplete system are clear. Just about 2 years ago 
in November of 2017, a gunman walked into a church in Sutherland 
Springs, Texas, and fatally shot more than two dozen people.
  The shooter was prohibited from owning a firearm due to a domestic 
violence conviction he received while serving in the military, but the 
Air Force failed to upload the proper record to NICS, and the gunman 
was able to pass a background check and purchase the firearm that he 
used in that massacre.
  In response to that incident, this body authorized additional funds 
to

[[Page H4936]]

support the efforts of States and Federal agencies to submit critical 
criminal history and mental health records to NICS. The need for these 
funds was underscored just 2 months ago in April in my home State of 
Colorado.
  A Florida woman who should not have been able to buy a gun and could 
not have bought one in her home State, traveled to Colorado, passed a 
background check, and purchased a shotgun. Schools around the region 
were forced to close as authorities searched for the woman following 
credible threats made to schools across the Front Range.
  These episodes underscore why it is so critically important that we 
increase funding for the NICS program so that we can continue to 
enhance it and improve it, and ultimately save lives.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to try to 
prevent gun violence in our country. And with that, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1115


             Amendment No. 78 Offered by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 78 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 35, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 48, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 55, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment 
moving $5 million from the Drug Enforcement Administration into the 
Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program, which is part of the Department of 
Justice funding of initiatives to combat the opioid epidemic.
  I offer this amendment because ending the war on drugs has to mean 
changing our priorities in order to keep all communities safe and 
healthy. The best way we do that is by offering people the help and 
support they need before arrest and criminalization should be 
considered in the first place.
  The amendment is a relatively commonsense one. As of now, the DEA 
will be funded at $2.36 billion, which is nearly a $90 million 1-year 
increase and $77.7 million above even the President's request.
  The Bronx has an unprecedented opioid crisis with deadly overdoses 
nearly doubling in just a few years. As families across our Nation 
know, the opioid crisis is not limited just to the Bronx. Just 
yesterday in the Oversight and Reform Committee, we heard testimony 
from medical experts and providers, and the testimony from Nurse Gray 
from West Virginia struck me. She said that we cannot arrest ourselves 
out of this. We have to make sure that we are caring for people in 
order to prevent this crisis from exploding.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my colleague from 
the Bronx's amendment.
  Opioids are a serious threat to the health and well-being of our 
communities, and we must do everything we can to combat this epidemic.
  Within the Department of Justice grant programs, the bill provides 
$501 million in funding, an increase of $33 million for grants to 
combat the crisis. This funding includes drug and veterans courts, 
residential treatment, and for the first time, a grant program for Law 
Enforcement Assistance Diversion, or LEAD, which seeks to get 
individuals into treatment and out of the criminal justice system.
  The addition of this amendment further strengthens a bill that 
increases grants for treatment and prevention.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Alabama is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, it should be noted here that the 
comprehensive opioid addiction grants in this bill have been increased 
by 360 percent since they were created in 2017. Of course, opioid abuse 
and addiction is a very big problem in this country, and, certainly, we 
need to work on that, so I do not oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  But please know, it should be noted that we have increased this by 
360 percent, but we want to work with both sides to make sure that we 
have the appropriate funds necessary to make sure we fight this opioid 
addiction that has taken over so many parts of the country.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I think in that common spirit and our 
desire to make sure that we address the opioid epidemic, just as the 
epidemic is exploding, so should our commitment to address this 
problem.
  This amendment is supported by the NAACP, the ACLU, the Drug Policy 
Alliance, and dozens of other organizations. Again, this is a 
relatively commonsense amendment. We have overfunded one agency, and we 
should move that to make sure we are getting people the care that they 
need.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 79 Offered by Ms. Omar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 79 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. OMAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 37, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. Omar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. OMAR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 
3055.
  My amendment addresses the misguided use of solitary confinement 
within our Nation's prison systems and the harmful impact it has on 
incarcerated populations.
  Solitary confinement is torture. For people with mental health 
issues, landing in solitary not only produces behaviors that yield more 
time in solitary, but it can also extend prison sentences, sometimes 
drastically. For these already vulnerable people, solitary confinement 
generates a cycle of punishment that for some can literally be endless.
  In many prisons in this country, the de facto penalty for even minor 
prison rules violations, including those obviously caused by 
psychological distress or disability, has become solitary confinement. 
The isolation of solitary almost inevitably causes a measurable 
deterioration in mental health, which in turn leads to more behavioral 
issues punished with more solitary confinement.
  Oftentimes, someone who was only supposed to spend a couple of years 
in prison ends up spending the rest of their life there, or they end up 
returning because they have been so damaged by solitary confinement 
that they can't adjust to life outside of prison.
  This vicious cycle of violence must end. Individuals with underlying 
psychological disabilities are already overrepresented in prisons and 
jails, and this inhumane, inexcusable punishment is only perpetuating 
those problems. That is why we must put an end to solitary confinement 
once and for all.
  I believe that, together, we can reform this cycle.

[[Page H4937]]

  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment. My colleague 
sends an important message by calling attention to the misuse and 
overuse of solitary confinement in Federal correction and detention.
  In 2016, the National Institute of Justice issued a detailed study of 
the use of restrictive housing in U.S. detention. In addition, the 
Office of Inspector General in 2017 reported on the use of restrictive 
housing for mentally ill persons in the custody of BOP and included 15 
recommendations to improve how BOP treats such inmates.
  While solitary confinement represents a small percentage of 
restrictive housing, it is particularly concerning because of evidence 
that its use can be harmful and even counterproductive to correctional 
objectives.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage the Department to take note of the concerns 
expressed here, and I ask that the amendment be adopted.
  Ms. OMAR. Mr. Chair, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, the goal of the Department of Justice is to 
house inmates in the least restrictive environment that is possible and 
at the same time provide safety and security for the staff, for the 
inmate population, and to the public in general.
  Just as in the community, disruptive individuals occasionally need to 
be placed in a jail or a holding facility to maintain the safety of its 
residents. The Bureau of Prisons has to place disruptive inmates in 
restrictive housing in order to maintain safety and security for the 
overall well-being of all the inmates.
  The appropriate and reasonable use of restrictive housing is critical 
to the safety of the staff and to the Bureau's policies and procedures, 
and they try to strike an appropriate balance between the safety of 
those individuals who are on the staff there working at the Bureau of 
Prisons but also for the inmates themselves.
  Restrictive housing involves two inmates per cell, in the vast 
majority of cases, and the inmates have daily access to staff and to 
programming. It is only in very rare cases that inmates are in a single 
cell in restrictive housing--for example, an inmate who has killed a 
cellmate or an inmate who has made repetitive or credible threats to 
kill anyone who is housed with him.
  Every year, we mourn the loss of dedicated corrections professionals 
who lose their lives while they are working to ensure our Nation's 
inmates can no longer harm members of the community and harm each 
other.
  We must not attempt to substitute our judgment here on this House 
floor for that of the highly trained corrections professionals at the 
Bureau of Prisons and the United States Marshals Service. I think to do 
so would be a disservice and would make their jobs even more dangerous.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 81 Offered by Ms. Porter.

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000)''.
       Page 48, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 53, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Porter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill that would increase funding for 
the court-appointed special advocate, or CASA, and guardian ad litem 
programs.
  In 2017, nine out of every 1,000 American children were victims of 
abuse or neglect. These experiences have a lasting effect, impacting a 
child's future in ways that are often not apparent in the days, weeks, 
or months after the trauma of abuse or neglect occurs. Providing 
support and advocacy for these children can make an enormous difference 
in their lives, and that is where the CASA program comes in.
  CASA serves abused, neglected, and abandoned children through the 
recruitment and training of volunteers who advocate on behalf of 
children in courtrooms and other settings.
  Mr. Chair, imagine being a 6-year-old child suffering from parental 
abuse. Home is not a safe place, and the secret that you, at only 6 
years old, carry with you every day prevents you from speaking to your 
friends and your teachers and keeps you from making friends and 
building relationships.
  Now, Mr. Chair, imagine that a neighbor calls the police after 
overhearing abuse. You are finally removed from a home that is filled 
with traumatic memories, but you are now looking at a scary and 
uncertain future in the foster system, and you will have to face your 
abuser in court.
  That is where the CASA program comes in. They step in to provide a 
lifeline, a guide, a friend, and an advocate for the child. Every year, 
more than 85,000 volunteers advocate on behalf of the 260,000 children 
who experience abuse and neglect. CASA advocates help these children 
find their voices or even speak for them as they navigate the child 
welfare system.
  CASA of Orange County has worked with more than 7,050 children in the 
34 years that the program has served our community, and they have 
trained nearly 3,500 volunteers.
  CASA of Orange County used essential funding to support Malena, an 
11-year-old Orange County resident diagnosed with autism. In the 2\1/2\ 
years that she was in foster care, Malena lived in a group home, a 
foster home, a nurturing relative placement, and then a group home 
again. Throughout all of those changes, Malena had one consistent 
person in her life that she knew she could count on, her court-
appointed special advocate.
  That CASA was a steady force in attending countless meetings with her 
team to support and advocate for her needs. But her relationship with 
her CASA was so much more, teaching her things that she missed in 
childhood, such as how to tie her shoes, how to count money, how to 
write her name, and when her birthday was.
  At CASA of Orange County and other CASAs across the country, their 
mantra is ``I am for the child.''
  As a mother of three children, I am proud to stand here as an 
advocate for children in Orange County and across the country who 
experience abuse and neglect.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 82 Offered by Ms. Porter

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 82 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 48, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Porter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill that would increase funding for 
sexual assault kit backlogs, helping us to test the hundreds of 
thousands of untested rape kits across the country.

[[Page H4938]]

  I have 5 minutes to speak about my amendment today, and during this 
time, three people in this country will suffer sexual assault.

                              {time}  1130

  That works out to every 92 seconds someone is sexually assaulted in 
our country. Let me repeat that: every 92 seconds. And, in most cases, 
the perpetrators of these sexual assaults will never be held 
accountable. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, 
only 5 out of every 1,000 rapists will end up in prison.
  We have an opportunity today to support victims of sexual assault by 
increasing funding to process the backlog of sexual assault kits that 
are waiting to be tested across the country. Having the data and 
information that a sexual assault kit can provide is essential to 
solving sexual assaults and preventing future assaults.
  In my home State of California, there are 13,615 kits untested. We 
are failing every single one of those 13,615 victims whose rape kit is 
sitting and waiting for our attention, and we are failing tens of 
thousands more across the country, including those who will be sexually 
assaulted by a perpetrator whose DNA will sit untested for a crime 
already committed.
  It costs an average of $1,000 and $1,500 to test a single rape kit. 
The lack of critical funding needed for these testing kits is the 
primary factor in the ever-growing backlog of untested kits. In 2016, 
the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance gave Orange 
County a nearly $2 million grant to process more than 3,500 unprocessed 
kits, to investigate and prosecute cases, and to reengage survivors.
  My amendment, which increases the funding in this legislation by $1 
million, could help test approximately another 1,000 rape kits in 
California and across the country. The amendment would bring the total 
funding up to $50 million, which will only provide enough Federal 
funding for the testing of up to 50,000 kits. While that is enough to 
give answers to the 13,000 sexual assault victims waiting for analysis 
and help in California, because of a lack of data nationwide, we don't 
know exactly how many sexual assault kits are waiting in this country.
  This funding likely isn't enough, and we know that. But Congress must 
do more to ensure that we are supporting the victims of sexual assault 
in this country. Increasing funding can play an important role, while 
it is not alone enough.
  We need to support our State and local partners in addressing the 
backlog of rape kits through increased funding, through new policies 
for kit testing, and through improved training for those in the field.
  I hope that this increase in funding helps us continue the 
conversation and raise more awareness about sexual assault and about 
the kit backlog.
  I hope that survivors of sexual assault know that Members of Congress 
are fighting for them, and I hope they hear me and believe that this 
fight for justice won't end with this amendment. We need to support the 
victims of sexual assault across this country who deserve to have their 
kits tested, who deserve justice. We can and must do more.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't 
oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cleaver). Without objection, the gentleman from 
Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't 
oppose the amendment.
  I think that this is a very important issue, and I think this needs 
to be dealt with. Increased funding to reduce the sexual assault kit 
backlog is very important, so we support the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 83 Offered by Ms. Pressley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 83 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 53, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, during a recent Oversight and Reform 
Committee hearing, of which I am a member, on Ban the Box, an advocate 
and formerly incarcerated mother testified that ``People do not go to 
prison; families do.''
  From personal experience and a career spent in community and 
advocating on behalf of families destabilized by mass incarceration, I 
know firsthand the trauma that comes from having a parent involved in 
the criminal justice system.
  We must break the chains that keep families ensnarled by the mass 
incarceration system generation after generation. We must end the 
prison industrial complex that has brought so much devastation and 
trauma to many families and communities.
  As many as 2.7 million children have at least one parent in prison or 
jail. That is 1 in 9 Black children, 1 in 28 Latino children, and 1 in 
57 White children. Too many children are bearing the trauma, the shame, 
and the stigma that often comes along with having a parent or caregiver 
incarcerated.
  In the Massachusetts Seventh, which I am fortunate to represent, a 
Boston reentry study that tracked formerly incarcerated men and women 
found that over half of respondents had less than $400 in their pockets 
upon release from prison; about a third went to unstable or temporary 
housing in shelters and transitional housing programs, motels, or on 
the street; and fewer than half were in paid employment after 2 months.
  Mass incarceration and the lingering effects of a criminal record 
have a profound impact on families. From unemployment and financial 
instability to eviction and hunger for families involved in our 
criminal injustice system, incarceration is, quite literally, a shared 
sentence.
  As lawmakers, as mothers, as fathers, as brothers, as sisters, we can 
and must do better.
  My amendment would increase funds to support the Children of 
Incarcerated Parents Program and help reduce the harms of parental 
incarceration and alleviate generational trauma. In the wealthiest 
Nation on Earth, we must ensure that all families can truly have a 
second chance. Funding for these programs will help provide that.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 84 Offered by Ms. Pressley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 50, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which would provide increased funding to support the DOJ's Community-
Based Violence Prevention program. This program provides crucial 
funding to tackle the epidemic of violence ravaging our communities.
  In my district, the Massachusetts Seventh, this program supports the 
Boston Public Health Commission's Violence Intervention and Prevention 
Initiative. The VIP Initiative specifically operates in neighborhoods 
severely impacted by gun violence but

[[Page H4939]]

maintains strong community infrastructure. Each neighborhood has its 
own resident coalition that is coordinated by a local organization with 
deep ties to the community.
  VIP, like other similar programs, empowers communities by providing 
the knowledge and resources necessary to create long-term solutions to 
the persistent socioeconomic and systemic issues sustaining the public 
health epidemic of gun violence.
  Violence begets violence. Whether it is domestic violence, sexual 
violence, gun violence, or gang and street violence, we must stop 
treating it as an issue of law and order but, rather, invest in the 
public and social needs of our most vulnerable people and communities.
  My amendment will support initiatives that are led and informed by 
the community to help stem the violence devastating our communities. It 
centers those closest to the pain closest to the power and the 
solutions.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 85 Offered by Ms. Stevens

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 85 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 26, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Stevens) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 3055.
  This bipartisan amendment removes and adds $2 million from the Legal 
Activities account at the Department of Justice.
  I would like to make the intent of this amendment clear, that 
Congress is directing the DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources 
Division to allocate $2 million to enforce our Nation's animal welfare 
laws.
  Congress has taken meaningful steps over the past several decades, 
and especially in the past few years, to improve animal welfare and rid 
this country of heartless cruelty toward animals. These improvements 
include the passage of legislation like the Horse Protection Act, the 
crush video law, the Animal Welfare Act and animal fighting laws, which 
received overwhelming bipartisan support.
  While our animal rights laws have improved, there are currently 
insufficient resources to ensure that these laws are being adequately 
enforced.
  The Environment and Natural Resources Division, or ENRD, oversees 
many important functions, including pollution cleanup and wildlife 
protection. This division also has the unique responsibility to 
prosecute animal welfare crimes. ENRD lawyers at the Department of 
Justice are doing the best they can to defend the humane treatment of 
captive, farmed, and companion animals across the country, but there 
are currently not enough resources being allocated for them to go after 
animal welfare crimes.
  Failure to adequately enforce these laws harms communities and 
animals--the truly voiceless. Failure to enforce these laws leaves 
animals to suffer tremendously at the hands of people who force animals 
to fight to the death for pure entertainment and/or other cruel 
actions.
  Mr. Chair, I use this opportunity to urge DOJ to coordinate with USDA 
and continue working with the U.S. Attorney's offices to prosecute and 
investigate animal welfare crimes. Specifically, DOJ should create a 
dedicated animal cruelty crimes unit and allow for robust enforcement 
of animal welfare crimes. There should be dedicated personnel, 
including prosecutors, focused solely on these offenses.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. CRIST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Stevens) for her incredible leadership on an issue we should all be 
able to agree upon: protecting all of God's creatures, great and small.
  When Congress creates laws, we intend for them to be enforced. That 
is pretty simple. The Stevens amendment would help the Department of 
Justice do exactly that.
  This issue is bigger than senseless animal abuse. There is an 
established link between animal fighting and abuse and drug trafficking 
and gang activity. This means that laws protecting animals also protect 
our communities.
  This amendment is common sense, and I urge support.
  Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 89 Offered by Ms. Underwood

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 89 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, 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 Division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Justice to argue, in the conduct 
     of any litigation to which the United States, or an agency or 
     officer thereof is a party, that any provision of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 124 
     Stat. 119) or of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation 
     Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), is unconstitutional or is 
     invalid or unenforceable on any ground, including that 
     certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act are not severable from section 5000A of that Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Underwood) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which will prevent Federal funds from being used by the Department of 
Justice to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
  The people of the Illinois 14th elected me to protect coverage for 
preexisting conditions and to make healthcare and prescription drugs 
more affordable. Under this administration, the Department of Justice 
is refusing to defend the law of the land, risking access to affordable 
care for 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions, including 
5.4 million Illinoisans.
  If this administration succeeds in overturning the Affordable Care 
Act through the courts, it would destroy protections for people with 
preexisting conditions, the ban on lifetime and annual limits on health 
coverage, the Medicaid expansion covering 15 million Americans, health 
insurance affordability tax credits assisting 9 million Americans, bans 
on discriminatory insurance practices that force women to pay more for 
coverage, young adults' ability to remain on their parents' insurance 
until 26, and more.
  This is unacceptable, and to do it on the dime of the taxpayer is 
unconscionable.
  130 million Americans depend on it, and one of those Americans is 
Mike DeBow, of Shorewood, Illinois. Mike has type 1 diabetes and wrote 
to me because he is ``deathly afraid'' of losing his insurance. He is 
thankful for the protections of the Affordable Care Act that allow him 
to stay on his parents' plan and ensure insurance companies can't 
discriminate against him because of his preexisting condition.

[[Page H4940]]

  We cannot go back, back to the days before the Affordable Care Act 
when insurers were in the driver's seat, allowed to sell substandard 
plans that didn't cover the care people needed, and left patients 
holding the bag. We cannot go back to the days when 50 million people 
in this country were uninsured, locked out because of preexisting 
conditions.
  The American people sent a resounding message last November: They 
want their healthcare protected. They want their healthcare to be 
affordable. We should be working toward that aim, not using taxpayer 
dollars to try to sabotage it for political gain.
  For example, we passed legislation in this House that would protect 
people with preexisting conditions, H.R. 1010, and another bill, the 
Health Care Affordability Act, that I proposed, which would reduce 
premium costs for approximately 20 million Americans and offer at least 
9 million people who are currently uninsured lower cost coverage.
  That is what we should be doing for the American people: using our 
offices to make their lives better, healthier, safer, and more 
affordable. For some, like Mike DeBow, this is literally life and 
death.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  This administration remains committed to providing more affordable 
healthcare options to all Americans, and debating the prospects of 
future judicial action will not help us, as a Congress, deliver on our 
promise to bring better healthcare to our constituents. The 
administration has promised to ensure that, regardless of the outcome, 
they will support the legislation to address any legal determination.
  In addition, let me say, it is not appropriate for Congress to tell 
the executive branch what positions it should take in court. Litigation 
strategy is the responsibility and the prerogative of the Department of 
Justice.
  As the Attorney General recently testified during one of our 
committee hearings here on Capitol Hill, he said that they should be 
able to advance what he believes are defensible and reasonable legal 
positions, and I believe that certainly to be the case.
  The Attorney General has concluded that the position of the States 
that challenge the ACA and the district courts is a defensible and 
reasonable legal position for the Department to take.
  Questions of constitutionality should be determined by the courts and 
not through a partisan debate on funding limitation to an 
appropriations bill. So, therefore, Mr. Chair, I would urge a ``no'' 
vote on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment.
  When, in March, the Justice Department broke with the principle that 
its core mission should be to defend, not sabotage, the law of the 
land, it went too far.
  The White House is entitled to push its own policy position on 
healthcare--it has made no secret of its hostility to the Affordable 
Care Act, despite never offering an alternative of any kind--but it 
cannot pick and choose which laws to support.
  My friends across the aisle criticized the Obama administration for 
its use of prosecutorial discretion. In this case, the Department is 
not just neglecting to defend the law, it is using appropriated funds 
to directly attack it.
  This amendment will, hopefully, stop that, and that is why I strongly 
support it.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask all my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred) for his 
leadership in introducing legislation at the beginning of this Congress 
that allowed this body, the U.S. House of Representatives, to defend 
the Affordable Care Act in the existing litigation.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. 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 gentlewoman from Illinois 
will be postponed.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman 
from Texas, and I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Spano).
  Mr. SPANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank Ranking Member 
Aderholt and Chairman Serrano for working together on the bipartisan en 
bloc package that passed the House yesterday. That package included my 
amendment to increase funding for the International Trade 
Administration by $2 million to provide additional funding for 
enforcement and compliance activities.
  Unfair trade practices directly harm our domestic manufacturing and 
agricultural sectors. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports 
that there are nearly 55,000 unpaid antidumping and countervailing duty 
bills covering fiscal years 2011 through 2016, totaling $2.8 billion in 
uncollected duties. This is a critical issue for my district.
  Americans who eat U.S.-grown strawberries in the colder winter months 
are probably eating a strawberry grown and harvested by the hardworking 
farmers in Plant City, Florida. We are proud of our role in providing 
Americans access to U.S.-grown produce year-round.
  However, the strawberry growers in my district are under attack. They 
are under attack from illegal ``dumping'' practices, and this must be 
stopped. The additional funding provided by my amendment is a step in 
the right direction to combat unfair trade practices so that U.S. 
producers can compete.
  Again, I want to express my gratitude to Ranking Member Aderholt and 
Chairman Serrano for including this amendment in the en bloc package 
that passed the House yesterday.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Georgia

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, 
I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Velazquez). The Clerk will designate the 
amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 3 consisting of amendment Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 
95, 96, 98, 100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, and 125 printed in part B of 
House Report 116-119, offered by Mr. Bishop of Georgia:

          amendment no. 91 offered by Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

       Page 111, line 17, after the first dollar amount, inset 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000.00)''.
       Page 118, line 8, after the first dollar amount, inset 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000.00)''.


            amendment no. 92 offered by Mr. YOHO of Florida

       Page 115, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 93 offered by Mr. McNERNEY of California

       Page 168, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $100,000) (reduced by $100,000)''.


        amendment no. 94 offered by Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

       Page 118, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.


            amendment no. 95 offered by Mr. WELCH of Vermont

       Page 111, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 125 line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.


            amendment no. 96 offered by Mr. WELCH of Vermont

       Page 125, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 125, line 15, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''

[[Page H4941]]

  



   amendment no. 98 offered by Mr. SABLAN of Northern Mariana Islands

       Page 162, line 4, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 100 offered by Ms. SEWELL of Alabama

       Page 154, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1) (reduced by $1)''.


          amendment no. 102 offered by Mr. BERA of California

       Page 159, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000) (reduced by $2,000,000)''.


    amendment no. 103 offered by Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico

       At the end of division B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  There is appropriated, for salaries and expenses 
     of the Farm Service Agency to carry out section 1621 of the 
     Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8792), 
     $1,996,000, to be derived from a reduction of $2,000,000 in 
     the amount provided in this Act for the item for ``Office of 
     the Secretary'' and ``Office of the Secretary--Office of 
     Communications''.


   amendment no. 104 offered by Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York

       Page 118, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 118, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


            amendment no. 106 offered by Mr. VEASEY of Texas

       Page 121, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,000,000) (increased by $12,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 107 offered by Mr. STEIL of Wisconsin

       Page 125, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000) (reduced by $1,500,000)''.


      amendment no. 108 offered by Ms. PLASKETT of Virgin Islands

       Page 109, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,600,000)''.
       Page 109, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 109, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 110, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $600,000)''.
       Page 111, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,400,000)''.
       Page 214, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


      amendment no. 109 offered by Ms. PLASKETT of Virgin Islands

       Page 204, line 16, insert ``, or any territory or 
     possession of the United States'' after ``average''.


         amendment no. 110 offered by Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania

       Page 121, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000) (increased by $15,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 111 offered by Mr. LAMB of Pennsylvania

       Page 111, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $200,000)''.
       Page 159, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $200,000)''.


         amendment no. 112 offered by Mr. PANETTA of California

       Page 114, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1)(increased by $1)''.


           amendment no. 113 offered by Mr. COX of California

       Page 204, line 14, strike ``1980, 1990,'' and insert 
     ``1990''.


          amendment no. 116 offered by Mr. NEGUSE of Colorado

       Page 112, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 113, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $$1,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 117 offered by Mrs. CRAIG of Minnesota

       Page 111, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $353,000)''.
       Page 153, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $353,000)''.


          amendment no. 118 offered by Mrs. CRAIG of Minnesota

       Page 157, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 119 offered by Mr. TRONE of Maryland

       Page 109, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 109, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 109, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 158, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 120 offered by Mr. TRONE of Maryland

       Page 109, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 110, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 119, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


             amendment no. 122 offered by Mrs. AXNE of Iowa

       Page 114, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduce by $1) (increased by $1)''.


            amendment no. 123 offered by Mrs. LEE of Nevada

       Page 109, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 109, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 109, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 159, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.


       amendment no. 124 offered by Ms. PRESSLEY of Massachusetts

       Page 109, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 109, line 7, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 206, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 125 offered by Ms. SLOTKIN of Michigan

       Page 119, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)(increased by $10,000,000)''.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the 
rule, and they have been agreed to by both sides. They improve the 
bill. I support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc 
amendment as well.
  I want to thank the Agriculture Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop, 
for working with our side to include many amendments that are important 
to our Members. The chairman has been a great partner and has been very 
fair throughout this process.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, as it reflects the 
will of many Members and also makes appropriate changes to the bill.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Madam Chair, I would like to thank so much the 
subcommittee chairperson, Mr. Bishop, for allowing me this time.
  My amendment is part of the en bloc, and it deals with wastewater 
treatment.
  No person in America and living in this country should be allowed to 
not have adequate plumbing. This is why I have introduced an amendment 
asking the USDA to prioritize our ongoing efforts to address failing 
septic systems in rural communities.
  Approximately 20 percent of Americans are responsible for the 
installation and maintenance of their own sewage disposal systems, 
which isn't provided by their municipalities or their county 
government. At least 200,000 families live in homes that lack a sewage 
system altogether.
  We offer little assistance to people who live in unincorporated areas 
to have basic water and sewer. Rural communities across this country 
struggle with this issue.
  Just this week, I read lots and lots of articles that dealt with the 
failure of those folks in rural communities to have adequate sewage 
systems.
  This amendment is part of a multiyear effort to address this once and 
for all for all Americans.
  Last year, my bill, the Rural Septic Tank Access Act, was included in 
the farm bill.
  Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Bishop and his staff for allowing me to 
speak on this underlying en bloc bill today.
  In fiscal year 2018, we secured an additional $1.8 billion in rural 
wastewater funding with the help of Congressman Aderholt.
  Madam Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this en 
bloc amendment.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague and 
ranking member, Mr. Fortenberry, for yielding, and I thank Chairman 
Bishop for including my amendment in the en bloc amendments.
  Agriculture research plays a critical role in the future of our food 
supply. In our last spending bill, we helped secure

[[Page H4942]]

a 5 percent increase in funding for the USDA's National Institute of 
Food and Agriculture. That program had seen increased funding because 
of bipartisan support on the House Agriculture Committee from many of 
the members, including my good friend and fellow cochair of the Ag 
Research Caucus,   Jimmy Panetta of California, who fondly likes to 
remind us all that he represents the Salad Bowl of America.
  This year, I led a bipartisan letter signed by 111 of my colleagues 
advocating for robust funding for USDA NIFA's Agriculture and Food 
Research Initiative in the 2020 appropriations and I am extremely 
excited that the House appropriators increased funding by $45 million 
over fiscal year 2019 levels to $460 million for NIFA and AFRI.
  I am proud to see such bipartisan support for ag research, because 
ensuring research is necessary and vital.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Trone).
  Mr. TRONE. Madam Chair, I am pleased that the four amendments I 
proposed to this bill will be made in order. These amendments reflect 
some of the most important priorities in my district.
  First, they offer an amendment to increase funding for mental health 
courts, which lower the recidivism rate for justice-impacted 
individuals with mental illness.
  My second amendment underlines the importance of modernizing the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology's infrastructure. This 
funding will help NIST remain a leader in driving economic growth in 
Maryland's Sixth District and across the country.
  The last two amendments put additional funding toward expanding rural 
broadband deployment and combatting the opioid crisis in rural 
communities, two critical priorities of western Maryland.
  Madam Chair, I thank Representatives Riggleman of Virginia and Neguse 
of Colorado for working with me on these amendments.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Nebraska and my 
colleague, Mr. Bishop, for including this amendment in the en bloc.
  I rise to support my amendment to support our dairy industry. I have 
visited farms across southeast Wisconsin, and time and time again, 
farmers have explained to me the challenges they have with consistently 
low milk prices.
  That is why we need this amendment, so we can continue to invest in 
business development within the dairy industry and encourage new 
markets for our farmers.
  This amendment provides $1.5 million to support our Nation's dairy 
industry in a budget neutral way.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support our dairy industry, to 
support our farmers, and to support this amendment.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Riggleman).
  Mr. RIGGLEMAN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, 
Representative Trone, with whom I have developed a bipartisan 
partnership that has resulted in these two amendments.
  The first amendment increases funding for Community Connect Grants to 
connect broadband deployment into rural communities that are 
underserved by private sector investment.
  Our rural communities, including some in my district, need access to 
broadband to keep up with the demands of the modern economy.
  This amendment will help communities close the digital divide, which 
is critical to enhancing economic opportunity, job creation, access to 
healthcare, and education in rural America.
  The next amendment, dear to my heart, increases funding for the Rural 
Health and Safety Education Program to combat the opioid epidemic in 
rural communities.
  Representative Trone and I and too many others in this body and in 
our country at large have seen friends and family members suffer and 
even pass away from the opioid crisis that has ravaged our country. 
Just last week, I lost my cousin to a heroin overdose.
  This funding is an essential step to turn the crisis around.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support these two amendments.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam Chair, I thank Ranking 
Member Fortenberry and Chairman Bishop for including in this en bloc 
group amendment my bipartisan amendment No. 103 to provide funding for 
the Reimbursement Transportation Cost Payment Program for 
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.
  This program in USDA will reimburse farmers and ranchers in Puerto 
Rico, as well as in other U.S. foreign territories, Hawaii and Alaska, 
a portion of the costs that they may incur when transporting their 
agricultural products or equipment.
  Our farmers and ranchers outside the continental U.S. operate at a 
competitive disadvantage relative to producers in the 48 contiguous 
States, partly due to geographic barriers and high transportation 
costs.
  This program will help us address this reality by providing payments 
to help ranchers and farmers in the noncontiguous States or territories 
offset some of these costs.
  This program has been funded at $1.9 million over the last couple of 
fiscal years, and my amendment will seek to provide the same amount of 
funding for fiscal year 2020, with a corresponding offset.
  Madam Chair, I want to thank Representatives Gabbard of Hawaii, 
Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Radewagen of American Samoa 
for cosponsoring my amendment, and I urge my colleagues to endorse it.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, there are no further speakers, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, at this time, I ask my colleagues 
to join me in support of this amendment.
  Madam Chair, we have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SABLAN. Madam Chair, my amendment is intended to ensure that the 
Northern Mariana Islands Nutritional Assistance Program has enough 
funding, so that household income eligibility standards and benefit 
levels currently in place for FY19 are kept in place throughout FY20.
  We do not want anyone removed from eligibility or barred from the 
program because there is not enough money next year.
  We do not want anyone to have their benefits cut. We have worked hard 
and long to raise benefits in the Marianas to match neighboring Guam 
and to meet the true costs of food in our islands. We do not want that 
progress lost.
  I do not expect cuts to happen. We provided generously for the 
Marianas in the disaster supplemental appropriation enacted earlier 
this month, Public Law 116-20. We appropriated $25.2 million for 
disaster nutrition assistance in response to the Presidentially 
declared major disasters--we had two last year: Typhoon Mangkut and 
Super Typhoon Yutu--and for emergencies. And we made the funds 
available for all fiscal year 2020.
  The Marianas had already used $10.6 million of our annual block grant 
and other monies to pay for disaster nutrition assistance in response 
to these two typhoons. It is the intent of Congress that the new 
disaster funding in Public Law 116-20 be applied retroactively to make 
whole those other funding sources.
  Going forward, we are concerned about the economic emergency that has 
developed in the aftermath of the typhoons. Tourism, the primary driver 
of the economy, is down significantly; and Commonwealth government 
revenues have fallen. As a result, local government employees have had 
their hours reduced from 40 to 32 per week. Public school teachers are 
being forced to agree to a salary cut. The reduced consumer purchasing 
power will accelerate the economic downturn.
  During the period of recession and government austerity that occurred 
from 2008 through 2012, the demand on the nutritional assistance 
program increased by 44 percent. This scenario may well now repeat. 
Congress recognizes that, because of the nexus between the typhoon 
disasters and the subsequent economic emergency, any new demand on the 
nutritional assistance program in fiscal year 2020 should be addressed 
with disaster funding provided in Public Law 116-20.
  It is not certain, however, that the disaster supplemental 
appropriation will cover all contingencies.
  To prepare for any eventuality, the amendment I offer makes clear 
that SNAP contingency funds are a permissible source should

[[Page H4943]]

the Marianas nutritional assistance program face a shortfall in fiscal 
2020.
  It is a ``belt and suspenders'' proposition. Only needed if, for some 
reason, disaster funds prove insufficient. This use of the contingency 
funds is statutorily authorized under the broad discretion given to the 
Secretary in 48 U.S.C. 1469d(c) to extend to the Marianas any program 
administered by the Department of Agriculture. The Secretary is also 
authorized to waive or modify any statutory requirements relating to 
the provision of assistance under such programs when he deems it 
necessary in order to adapt the programs to the Marianas needs.
  My amendment makes clear Congress' intent: that no household eligible 
for food assistance under the income standards in effect for FY19 will 
be denied benefits in FY20 and that the benefit amounts being provided 
in FY19 will not be reduced in FY20.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 97 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.


                 Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. Banks

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 99 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Chair, 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 division B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this division 
     (other than an amount required to be made available by a 
     provision of law) is hereby reduced by 14 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Banks) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Chair, my amendment is simple. It would reduce 
spending in this division by 14 percent, the amount that is needed to 
avoid busting the budget caps and preventing sequestration, which would 
compromise our national security.
  This division would spend $1.3 billion more than the 2019 enacted 
level.
  In their quest to spend every taxpayer dollar from this generation 
and our future generations, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have proposed spending packages that in total will bust the budget caps 
by nearly $90 billion.
  While my colleagues may be willing to put national security at risk 
to fulfill budget-busting policy promises, I will not.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I understand the gentleman's 
intention, but I could not disagree more.
  The agriculture bill funds a variety of national priorities from food 
safety, to agriculture research, to drug approval, to rural 
development, to nutrition programs for our children.
  Reducing spending by 14 percent would hurt our farmers, who are 
already suffering terribly from retaliatory tariffs, and it would hurt 
small communities who are still in need of adequate broadband. It would 
hurt those who are waiting for cures to rare cancers. It would 
jeopardize America's status as a leader of global agricultural science. 
It would slow our response to foodborne illness outbreaks. It would 
harm children and families who rely on these programs to put food on 
their tables.
  The bill already rejected the administration's draconian cuts to 
programs that assist our rural communities and vulnerable populations.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Chair, we have got to think about the audacity of 
these claims.
  I am not talking in my amendment about cutting any specific program. 
I am proposing an amendment to cut 14 percent across the board to 
prevent the excessive spending that we are seeing being proposed from 
across the aisle that would spend substantially more than what the 
Federal Government spent in the year before.
  Madam Chair, we simply cannot afford this reckless proposal from my 
friends on the other side of the aisle.
  My amendment offers Members a clear choice. If a Member votes ``no,'' 
that Member supports busting the budget caps and putting our national 
security at risk due to entering into sequestration, which is 
inevitable if we pass the spending measures being proposed from across 
the aisle.
  However, by supporting my amendment, Members can show that they 
support fiscal sanity by honoring the budget caps and protecting our 
national security.
  Madam Chair, I will continue to come back to this microphone over and 
over and over again and propose this same amendment to each nondefense 
spending division, because I promised my constituents in northeast 
Indiana that that is exactly what I would do if they elected me to 
Congress, that I would fight to reduce spending to rebuild our military 
and to support fiscal sanity in our Nation, once again, by fighting for 
balanced budgets and fiscally conservative spending measures.

                              {time}  1215

  This amendment fulfills all those promises to my constituents and 
families in northeast Indiana, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I urge that this amendment be 
rejected.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Chair, 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 Indiana will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 101 Offered by Mr. Biggs

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 101 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Chair, 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 division B (before the short title) insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the draft guidance 
     issued by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2017 
     titled ``Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic: Guidance for 
     FDA Staff and Industry''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment that prevents funds 
from being used to finalize, implement, or enforce the draft guidance 
issued by the Food and Drug Administration in December of 2017, titled, 
``Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic Guidance for FDA Staff and 
Industry.''
  The 2017 draft guidance actually upends three decades of settled 
enforcement practice in homeopathy without a compelling reason or with 
no directive from Congress. My amendment would prevent that overreach 
and maintain the safe and effective guidance that has been in place 
since 1987.
  For decades, homeopathy has thrived as the fastest growing 
alternative to pharmaceuticals, and FDA estimates more than 3 million 
Americans use it. The products can be a natural alternative to 
addictive opioids in the management of pain and other conditions.
  The current guidance provides a precise definition of a homeopathic 
product and clear manufacturing standards. Violations of these 
standards are already subject to FDA enforcement. The

[[Page H4944]]

proposed change in guidance goes too far by restricting access to safe 
homeopathic medicines, while also being less effective at regulating 
the safety and quality of homeopathic products.
  The new guidance replaces clear definitions with a vague, risk-based 
approach. By its own admission, the FDA failed to consult with 
consumers and those in the homeopathic community before they drafted 
this guidance. The result is a poorly worded document that does not do 
what it purports to do.
  Instead, this guidance covers all products labeled as homeopathic 
rather than distinguishing between those falsely labeled as homeopathic 
and those that are actually homeopathic medicines which have already 
been proven to be safe and effective. As written, the guidance 
threatens to limit access to safe and effective homeopathic medicines 
by subjecting them to new enforcement actions inconsistent with past 
practice and existing law.
  The draft guidance purports to address improperly manufactured 
homeopathic products, and I support that, but the draft guidance drops 
the explicit manufacturing guidelines already contained in the existing 
guidance. Under the draft guidance, Americans would have fewer 
assurances that their homeopathic medicines are pure and properly 
manufactured.
  The problems that FDA cites as reasons for introducing the draft 
guidance, falsely labeled products and improperly manufactured 
products, are actually better addressed under the current guidance, and 
the FDA has been effectively addressing these issues for the last 30 
years.
  This draft guidance is an unnecessary regulatory overreach, and I 
urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
primarily to engage in a discussion with the gentleman from Arizona.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, first let me say, I do understand the 
concerns of the gentleman from Arizona.
  Here is the issue: The Food and Drug Administration is charged with 
the responsibility of ensuring that persons seeking to be healed have 
both the right to try innovative products as well as the right to be 
protected from harm or any false claims.
  So let me say to my friend, Mr. Biggs, we would like to offer this: 
Chairman Bishop and I would seek the opportunity to have the FDA, the 
Food and Drug Administration, meet with us to dialogue on the very 
important issues that you are raising and to relay your concerns. I 
will commit to you that your objections will be conveyed to their 
leadership before they move forward on this guidance.
  So, in light of that consideration, I kindly, respectfully request 
that the gentleman consider withdrawing the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments and 
Ranking Member Fortenberry's assurances that we can get together with 
the FDA and see what we can do to resolve this very difficult issue. I 
look forward to working with him on this issue going forward.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time and withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 105 Offered by Mr. Pence

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 105 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 111, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 158, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to increase 
funding for the Distance Learning and Telemedicine broadband grant 
program.
  Currently, over 14 million Americans living in rural communities 
still lack access to basic broadband service. Specifically, the rural 
broadband grant programs at USDA help Americans tap into telehealth 
technology, distant learning education, and internet-based agribusiness 
that our farmers desperately rely on to remain competitive.
  In my district, the DLT grant program has been successful at linking 
teachers in one area to students in another. Last year, almost half of 
the funds from the DLT program were used to combat opioid and substance 
abuse.
  The ongoing opioid crisis is still wreaking havoc on communities 
across America, and this is not the time to cut corners on programs 
that address this problem. We must support efforts to help people 
seeking treatment for and prevention of opioid use.
  My amendment, which is fully offset, will increase funding for the 
DLT program by $25 million so that more communities have access to 
healthcare, education, government services, and business opportunities. 
Without broadband access, entire communities are being left behind.
  Madam Chair, I am thankful this issue has remained a bipartisan 
priority, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  The Distance Learning and Telemedicine program offers grants to rural 
areas to provide access to education, to training, and to healthcare. 
These resources are critical in providing funding to acquire audio, 
video, and other advanced technology equipment to extend educational 
and medical services, including those seeking opioid treatment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Bishop for yielding 
the time and for his eloquent remarks.
  I just want to rise, even though we are under the guise of 
opposition, to actually thank the gentleman for offering this 
amendment. We have had substantive, thoughtful, lengthy discussions 
about broadband and its importance to rural revitalization, as the 
gentleman well put, and it is more than just wires laid. It is about 
creating an ecosystem of livability.
  In his words, the gentleman touched on those very points. I think the 
gentleman would be proud to see the underlying work here in that 
regard, but he has made it better.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, the amendment would bring the 
total funding for the program to $75 million in our bill. This program 
provides grants to encourage and improve telemedicine and distance 
learning services in rural areas through telecommunications and other 
technologies, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I 
thank the gentleman for offering it. It enhances the bill.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Baird), my esteemed colleague.
  Mr. BAIRD. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my esteemed 
colleague's amendment to increase the funding for the Distance Learning 
and Telemedicine grant program at the USDA.
  In Indiana, many of our rural areas do not have access to adequate 
broadband coverage, putting them at a disadvantage in our global 
economy. In Indiana, many of our rural areas do not have the access 
that is necessary to be current.

[[Page H4945]]

  Broadband is important to education and healthcare, as well as 
economic development and agriculture. By responsibly increasing the 
funding for this program, we are providing educational opportunities 
and improved healthcare without any additional cost to the taxpayer.
  We must equip our students with our 21st century tools to further 
their education and ensure that all of our citizens have access to 
quality healthcare, regardless of their ZIP Code. I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment on behalf of rural 
communities across the Nation.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment to close the digital divide in rural America.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chair, 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 Indiana will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1230


              Amendment No. 114 Offered by Ms. Spanberger

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 114 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 109, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,500,000)''.
       Page 109, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,500,000)''.
       Page 109, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,500,000)''.
       Page 111, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,500,000)''.
       Page 114, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 207, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $55,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3055.
  Across the country, insufficient rural broadband access is creating a 
divide between those who are connected and those who are not. That is 
why my amendment increases funding for the USDA's ReConnect Program by 
$55 million, representing a 10 percent increase over last year's 
funding.
  According to the FCC's 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, one in four 
rural Virginians lacks access to high-speed internet. This digital 
divide can lead to consequences that impact educational and economic 
opportunities across our rural communities. This figure is even more 
stark when you hear from those affected.
  Earlier this year, I sent out a survey to learn more about how the 
lack of reliable broadband internet is directly impacting the people I 
serve here in the House of Representatives. I received more than 100 
responses in a short amount of time from families, students, and 
business owners across our district. Take, for example:
  Regina from Louisa, who says that the lack of consistent, reliable 
internet services hinders everything her family does, from receiving 
reliable emergency notifications to paying their bills in a timely 
fashion;
  Jasmine from Spotsylvania takes online classes at home, but the lack 
of access to broadband internet has barred her from accessing 
assignments that she needs to complete in order to obtain her degree; 
and
  Robyn from Amelia County, who works on her family's beef and cattle 
farm, says: ``When the internet is down, I can't do simple things like 
process payments, send liability payments, or check the radar for our 
guys out in the fields.''
  For every Regina, Jasmine, and Robyn, there are hundreds of thousands 
of Americans with similar stories. To level the playing field for our 
rural residents, we need to make sure broadband internet is a component 
of our national conversation about infrastructure. That is why I 
believe we need to expand existing programs such as USDA's ReConnect 
Program.
  This program allows communities to apply for Federal funding to 
strengthen and expand their regional broadband infrastructure, but the 
current scope of these programs is insufficient to meet the scale of 
the challenge and the demand. In the first round of ReConnect Program 
grant applications this year, USDA saw a nearly 3-to-1 ratio in 
application funding requested versus the actual amount of funding 
available.
  My amendment would increase the funding for the USDA ReConnect 
Program from $550 to $605 million, and I am proud to lead this 
bipartisan effort to provide greater connectivity to rural America.
  This extra $55 million is not the magic solution, but it demonstrates 
that one of our priorities here in Congress is to keep our rural 
communities strong; and when rural America is strong, it makes our 
country as a whole even stronger.
  By helping our rural neighbors close the broadband gap, we are 
allowing the rural communities to attract new businesses, spur economic 
growth, and give their kids an equal opportunity to succeed in a 
global, hyperconnected economy.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  There is wide support and recognition as to the need for investing in 
broadband infrastructure. As a necessity for modern life, we must 
continue our efforts to bridge the broadband divide to ensure that as 
many rural Americans as possible receive fast and reliable broadband 
service and the multitude of benefits that are associated with it.
  Madam Chair, the gentlewoman's amendment, if adopted, would bring 
broadband funding to the highest level since 2009, with the Recovery 
Act. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will certainly 
enhance this bill.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 115 Offered by Ms. Underwood

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 115 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, 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 division B (before the short title) insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to remove the term ``climate change'' from any 
     publication of any entity for which such funds are made 
     available.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Underwood) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which will 
prevent Federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 
removing existing public information about long-term weather variation 
in our climate. This information gives farmers the tools they need to 
succeed, and it is important that we don't subject it to politics.
  I am proud to represent a community rich in agriculture in the 
Illinois 14th

[[Page H4946]]

District. We have the best farmers in the world, but right now they are 
facing real challenges to their businesses and their way of life caused 
by long-term patterns in weather variation, leading to worse seasonal 
extremes.
  The science is clear: Extreme weather has links to human-induced 
climate change.
  Climate change has broad impacts on virtually all aspects of the 
agriculture industry. Ignoring the link between climate change and 
extreme weather is a direct threat to our national security, to food 
security, and to the livelihoods of farmers in northern Illinois and 
throughout America.
  This year, catastrophic flooding and rain in Illinois have prevented 
many farmers from planting their crops. As of this week, only 88 
percent of farmers in Illinois were able to plant their corn, compared 
with a 4-year average of 100 percent between 2014 and 2018. Meanwhile, 
only 70 percent of soybeans are planted, compared to a 4-year average 
of 95 percent.
  Nationwide, farmers are expected to harvest the smallest corn crop in 
4 years, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And I have 
spoken to farmers who are concerned that an early frost could threaten 
entire farm operations this year because of late planting and more 
unpredictable weather patterns.
  This is an immediate threat. We are already suffering the 
consequences, and it will only get worse with time.
  The very existence of multigenerational farms and an entire way of 
life for some families in our community are at risk. And once these 
farms are gone, they aren't coming back.
  Make no mistake. Due to drought, severe storms, an early spring, and 
flooding, our farmers are on the front line when it comes to climate 
change.
  Unfortunately, over the past 2 years, references to climate change, 
long-term weather variation, and the effect of human activity on our 
climate has been scrubbed from many Federal websites and publications.
  Farmers are veterinarians, entrepreneurs, accountants, 
meteorologists, and scientists--all in one day. By deleting information 
and references to climate change in official communication, we 
hamstring their ability to rely on accurate and precise information to 
make important business decisions and adapt their farming practices to 
face future challenges.
  Information on climate change and its impact on agriculture is also 
valuable to researchers and innovators working on technology to support 
farming communities throughout the country and to policymakers as we 
work to make informed choices that address these issues.
  We have the capacity and a responsibility to address the challenges 
of climate change head-on as a country. American farmers are some of 
the most hardworking, resilient, and optimistic people in the country. 
Their hard work nourishes our families and literally feeds the world.
  We can and must ensure that they are equipped to be successful, 
because their success not only affects our community's economy, but a 
secure food supply depends on it. This amendment will ensure that USDA 
and other Federal agencies will continue to make important information 
available to farmers at a time when they need it most.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, trying to control what words USDA 
officials use to describe changing weather conditions should not really 
be our focus.
  For one, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem. USDA 
has plenty of materials on their website or elsewhere with the term 
``climate change'' embedded in them. If the USDA were going to 
completely wipe away this terminology for political purposes, which was 
implied, they would have done so over the past 2\1/2\ years.
  Secondly, the amendment attempts to politicize an issue that does not 
need further politicization. For example, Chairman Bishop and I were 
able to have a civil discussion on changing climate in a subcommittee 
hearing this year without dragging controversy into it. In addition to 
outside witnesses, USDA actually sent up a subject matter expert on the 
very topic. We had a hearing where we talked about how to deal with 
changing weather and how our farmers and ranchers could adjust to such 
changes.
  Instead of spending time on this type of messaging, let's spend our 
time on actually helping our farmers and ranchers and building a more 
secure and sustainable energy future that benefits all of America.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. As I have said 
before, Congress' oversight role is one of the most important 
functions. That function extends to preserving the integrity of 
science.

  The academics, economists, and researchers at USDA produce top-notch 
scientific reports characterizing the state of the farm economy, the 
agricultural industry at large, and analyzing future impacts. It is 
clear that one of the most important stressors on agriculture today and 
in the coming years will be the effects of climate change.
  We cannot prevent the effects of climate change by simply removing 
any reference to it in the Department's scientific publications. We 
must allow the science community to do its work, free from political 
influence.
  Madam Chair, I have no objection to the proposed amendment, and I 
urge its adoption.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that the amendment No. 121 
will not be offered.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of 
Chairwoman Lowey, and I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield to my colleague from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop), a superb chair of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and I rise to 
discuss an issue very important to America's livestock and poultry 
farmers, the Packers and Stockyards Act.
  For decades, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, familiarly known as GIPSA, was a stand-alone agency 
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  Until recently, GIPSA was a parallel agency to the Agricultural 
Marketing Service itself. But under Secretary Sonny Perdue's 
reorganization of the Department of Agriculture and consolidation plan, 
GIPSA was moved deep within the Agricultural Marketing Service--some 
fear, buried.
  Now, the Packers and Stockyards Division of the Fair Trade Practices 
Branch within the Agricultural Marketing Service administers the 
Packers and Stockyards Act.
  Do you see the layers?
  This consolidation will increase difficulty for farmers who seek 
relief from unfair and abusive practices common--unfortunately--in the 
livestock and poultry sectors.
  The administration recently announced a rulemaking process to define 
criteria the Secretary will consider to determine violations of the 
Packers and Stockyards Act on whether an undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage occurred.
  I welcome this action.

                              {time}  1245

  These terms were never adequately defined or explained. However, I am 
very concerned this administration is

[[Page H4947]]

utilizing delays and stalling tactics through this rulemaking process.
  For several years, the previous administration's rulemaking process 
was blocked through appropriations riders. Year after year, I fought 
those riders.
  Finally, Congress reacted to the public backlash over the riders and 
backed off efforts to block the rule. This enabled the last 
administration to move forward and to comply with the 2008 farm bill 
requirements. However, the rulemaking was not complete. With the 
turnover in administrations, Secretary Perdue quickly stopped all work 
on these rules and demoted the agency in charge of the effort.
  It seems a positive step that the Secretary decided to advance new 
rules to clarify criteria used to enforce the undue and unreasonable 
preference or advantage authorities. However, given the 
administration's previous actions, I am quite concerned that this 
rulemaking will fall far short of addressing the worst abuses that 
America's livestock and poultry farmers experience.
  There are gross examples of abusive contracting practices, 
particularly in the poultry sector. Companies greatly disadvantage 
certain growers at the expense of others. The thumb of justice surely 
seems obsolete. Protection against retaliation, pay transparency, and a 
right to a fair and just legal system are essential to protect our 
hardworking farmers from abuse.
  Each of these concerns must be addressed in the rulemaking process. 
The alarming realities of the poultry industry and similar ones in the 
hog and beef industries highlight the imbalance within today's 
corporate meat production hierarchy. This must be addressed through 
USDA's planned Packers and Stockyards Act rulemaking process.
  I hope the administration will better protect small farmers who work 
very hard every day to help feed our Nation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague's 
longtime support for fair trade practices for our livestock and for our 
poultry farmers.
  I have worked on this issue over the years with the gentlewoman, and 
I, too, share her concerns regarding the GIPSA rules and the 
administration's past history in such rulemakings.
  I look forward to working with my colleague from Ohio as the 
administration takes steps toward complying with the farm bill 
requirements from 2008.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, as the designee of Chair Lowey, I 
move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I want to continue to work with the gentleman and the Appropriations 
Committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies to fight the administration's 
reprehensible attempts to increase hunger in our country, including 
through USDA's proposed and harmful able-bodied adults without 
dependents rule.
  As the gentleman well knows, SNAP is a critical antihunger program 
that helps many families struggling with food insecurity. What I find 
so counterintuitive about this rule is that the most common reason for 
seeking SNAP is because someone is losing a job, which is even more 
critical for those who have barriers to employment or who are already 
at the margins of the workforce.
  As many experts have testified to Congress, the labor market 
experience of SNAP participants, as it is for so many low-paid workers, 
is highly unstable, and participants tend to cycle in and out of full-
time employment.
  This rule would cut food aid for between 755,000 and 821,000 
individuals from red States, blue States, and purple States, and from 
rural, urban, and suburban communities, without any regard to the 
barriers they may face or the fact that they may live in areas or ZIP 
Codes or Census tracts that lack jobs, or that companies are moving, or 
other unanticipated egresses from the workforce.
  No matter what people say, there are still pockets of high 
unemployment rates well above the national average. This body must make 
crystal clear that we support the vulnerable population of able-bodied 
adults who are being targeted here and that increasing hunger does not 
increase employability. It does not create new jobs in rural or other 
areas with high unemployment. It doesn't remove barriers to employment. 
It just simply increases hunger.
  While there are so many good things in this package that will help to 
attack hunger and food insecurity, I am deeply disappointed that we are 
missing the opportunity to use Congress' title I power to block this 
rule. Let's not go down as the did-nothing Congress when it comes to 
something so common sense as providing food for the most vulnerable.
  I am so concerned about this rule's impact on truly vulnerable 
individuals. Let's not be fooled because we are calling them ``able-
bodied.'' These folks have challenges that make finding work difficult. 
This includes veterans, homeless people, children who have aged out of 
foster care, and college students.
  The vast majority of SNAP participants affected by this proposal live 
in deep poverty, with 88 percent of households at or below 50 percent 
of the poverty level.
  Madam Chair, 1 in 10 are working, although less than an average of 20 
hours a week. One study found that 75 percent participate in the 
workforce. Of those who do work but sometimes do not, the majority 
don't work due to their having lost a job or they couldn't get enough 
hours. This rule would do nothing to address those issues.

  Of those who are not in the labor force, 80 percent of them said that 
it was due to health and disability. This rule would do nothing to 
address those issues.
  I am also concerned about the impact on States. Despite all the 
wonderful claims of a strong economy, we continue to hear that all 
boats are not lifted, which is why the existing flexibility to protect 
people from hunger when jobs are simply not available in some areas is 
so critical.
  Almost every State has used this flexibility under the existing 
waiver at some point, including some of the most conservative States. 
If someone claims to support States' rights, that Governors and local 
elected officials know best about what is going on in their States, 
especially where we know economic conditions can vary from county to 
county, city to city, even ZIP Code to ZIP Code, then you should be 
opposed to this rule.
  Punishing poor people will not help them get jobs.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, I move 
to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Courtney). The gentlewoman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak about the fiscal year 2020 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
  I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member of the full committee 
and also my ranking member, Mr. Joyce, for all of his collaboration.
  I want people to know that this bill is the proud work, hard work, 
and collaboration of our subcommittee, which held 16 hearings. We 
received over 6,000 requests from Members of Congress, and we worked 
hard to make a bill that reflected the priorities of the entire House.
  I also want to note that this bill makes critical investments for the 
American people and for our planet. It does that because the 
subcommittee had a recommended total of $37.3 billion in discretionary 
funding. That is an increase of $1.7 billion over last year.
  We also were able to include this year, because of hard work by the 
subcommittee led by Mr. Simpson last year, an additional $2.25 billion 
in fire cap adjusted funds for suppression operations. That is really 
important for the Forest Service in order to fight wildland fires 
without borrowing from nonfire programs.
  Some of the biggest increases in this bill, however, honor our 
Federal and treaty trust responsibilities to provide for the health, 
safety, and education of our Native American brothers and sisters.

[[Page H4948]]

  Mr. Joyce and I, Mr. Chair, worked on this in a very nonpartisan 
fashion with the entire subcommittee. We can be proud that this bill 
continues to move us in the right direction in honoring our treaty and 
trust obligations.
  In fact, this bill invests over $10 billion to support and strengthen 
Tribal self-determination, including $1 billion, the highest ever 
recommended, for the operation of Native American education programs. 
As I said, Mr. Chair, we did that together in the subcommittee in a 
nonpartisan way.
  For many other agencies in this bill, however, the Trump 
administration had devastating cuts.
  The President's request was a 31 percent cut to the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and that cut would have prevented the EPA from its 
mission to keep our communities safe and healthy.
  In fact, under President Trump's watch, yesterday, the administration 
rolled out what many of us call its dirty power plan. We have evidence 
from the scientific community to say that it could contribute up to 
1,400 premature deaths annually.
  Democrats are fighting back on this bill with important investments 
to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. We boost support 
for the EPA's Clean Air Markets programs by $25.6 million, and we 
increase congressional oversight to make sure that there aren't any 
rollbacks attempted to put the public health at risk.
  We also fund the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund at the 
authorized level, and we target resources needed to address drinking 
and wastewater needs.
  This bill also takes a huge step forward in building on what was 
started in the Defense bill that we voted on earlier this week to 
address the crisis of PFOS, which is contaminating our water.
  I am very proud that, after the President signed a bipartisan bill to 
permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund even 
though the President zeroed it out in his budget, we chose to invest 
$524 million in LWCF.
  I would like to conclude by talking about climate change for a 
second. As we know, the administration has cut everywhere it can to 
decimate Federal funding to do research and combat and adapt to climate 
change. Our bill does the opposite. It boosts funding for climate 
change research, tracking and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, 
and energy and water efficiency programs in the EPA. The U.S. 
Geological Survey has its role to play on climate, and we support that. 
It also restores very important programs on this that were eliminated 
in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  This bill recognizes the importance of science to understand the 
impacts of climate change in our natural and cultural resources, in our 
ecosystems, and in human health.
  It is a good bill, and I think as we go through it, Mr. Chair, and 
listen to the amendments we can make a good bill even better.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300


     Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, as the 
designee of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 4 consisting of amendment Nos. 126, 138, 141, 
142, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 164, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 177, 178, 
180, 181, 182, 192, and 193 printed in part B of House Report 116-119, 
offered by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota:

        amendment no. 126 offered by ms. scanlon of pennsylvania

       Page 288, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 288, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 138 offered by ms. degette of colorado

       Page 288, line 24, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000) (increased by $3,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 141 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the transfer of jurisdiction over border lands 
     pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9844 (Feb. 15, 2019).


          amendment no. 142 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement Executive Order 13817 (82 Fed. Reg. 
     60835) with respect to uranium.


          amendment no. 152 offered by mr. lujan of new mexico

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to accept a nomination for oil and gas leasing under 
     43 CFR 3120.3 et seq, or to offer for oil and gas leasing, 
     any federal lands within the withdrawal area identified on 
     the map of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park 
     prepared by the Bureau of Land Management and dated April 2, 
     2019.


          amendment no. 153 offered by mr. lujan of new mexico

       Page 217, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000) (reduced by $1,500,000)''.


          amendment no. 155 offered by ms. bonamici of oregon

       Page 288, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 288, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.


         amendment no. 159 offered by mr. jeffries of new york

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available to the National 
     Park Service by this Act may be used to increase the 
     generation of water bottle waste.


         amendment no. 160 offered by mr. jeffries of new york

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available to the National 
     Park Service by this Act may be used for the purchase or 
     display of a Confederate flag with the exception of specific 
     circumstances where the flags provide historical context as 
     described in the National Park Service memorandum entitled 
     ``Immediate Action Required, No Reply Needed: Confederate 
     Flags'' and dated June 24, 2015.


        amendment no. 164 offered by mr. lowenthal of california

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to issue a proposed or final rule to replace the 
     Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal 
     Valuation Reform final rule, published in the Federal 
     Register on July 1, 2016 (81 FR 43338).


         amendment no. 169 offered by mr. vargas of california

       Page 299, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000) (reduced by $10,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 170 offered by mr. beyer of virginia

       At the end of division C (before the short title) insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  No funds made available by this Act may be used 
     to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule entitled 
     ``Review of Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas 
     Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary 
     Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units'' published in the 
     Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency on 
     December 20, 2018 (83 Fed. Reg. 65424).


           amendment no. 171 offered by mr. beyer of virginia

       Page 258, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 172 offered by mrs. dingell of michigan

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to close or relocate any office of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency that houses emergency responders or a 
     criminal investigation unit.


         amendment no. 175 offered by mr. schneider of illinois

       Page 288, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000) (reduced by $25,000)''.


          amendment no. 177 offered by mr. horsford of nevada

       Page 234, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 234, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 178 offered by mr. mceachin of virginia

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for a Department of the Interior Executive Resources 
     Board whose voting members are comprised of less than 50 
     percent career Senior Executive Service members.


         amendment no. 180 offered by mr. o'halleran of arizona

       Page 310, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

[[Page H4949]]

       Page 310, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 181 offered by mr. o'halleran of arizona

       Page 291, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 182 offered by mr. casten of illinois

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act to 
     the United States Geological Survey may be used to limit the 
     use of climate modeling tools.


          amendment no. 192 offered by ms. stevens of michigan

       Page 288, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by $2,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 193 offered by ms. tlaib of michigan

       At the end of division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to close or relocate any EPA offices in regions that 
     contain one or more designated Sulfur Dioxide (2010) 
     Nonattainment Areas.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were 
made in order under the rule. I support the amendment, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment in the 
en bloc.
  Mr. Chairman, my district is home to Chester, an economically 
distressed, majority Black city that has struggled for generations. As 
a result, major polluting industries have set up shop in Chester next 
to schools, hospitals, homes, and businesses. One of these polluters, a 
large municipal waste incinerator, was featured on a CNN report that 
aired just this week.
  All day every day my constituents are breathing in carcinogens 
released by the incinerator like mercury, cadmium, and particulate 
matter that prevent them from working, learning, and leading healthy 
lives. At the same time, the Trump administration has failed to enforce 
Clean Air Act standards that could protect these citizens.
  Fortunately, our Interior appropriations bill ensures that Clean Air 
Act enforcement is a priority, but this amendment makes clear that the 
administration cannot take these underserved communities like Chester 
for granted.
  This Congress will not allow environmental injustice to go unchecked. 
We will fight for our constituents, and we will take meaningful steps 
to address the public health and environmental justice crises that lack 
of EPA enforcement has fostered.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Democratic 
en bloc amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment includes language which would take a 
major step back in unleashing our domestic potential to procure 
critical minerals and reduce our reliance on foreign competitors like 
China and Russia. The amendment also includes language which would 
limit access to the healthiest beverage option in our national parks--
water.
  Should we limit drinking water options available to park visitors 
especially in parks where the temperatures can easily reach triple 
digits?
  The answer is no.
  Finally, I offer a few observations that I believe we should keep in 
mind as we discuss ethylene oxide. Ethylene oxide is a critical tool to 
ensure that medical devices are sterile and safe for patients. For many 
materials, that is certain plastics, ethylene oxide is the only safe 
option for sterilization. Other sterilization methods--radiation and 
steam heat--will degrade the materials and cause the device to lose its 
integrity.
  We all share the goal of patient access to safe medical devices, 
clean air, and clean workspaces. I am committed to working with my 
colleague and others to encourage more sustainable and efficient use of 
EO.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the en bloc 
amendment which includes an amendment I offered to increase funding for 
the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board to review 
the strengthening transparency in regulatory science--or so-called 
secret science--proposed rule and decrease funding for the EPA 
Administrator's executive management account.
  I thank Chair McCollum for her leadership in increasing funding for 
the EPA's Science Advisory Board in the underlying bill.
  As a cornerstone of its regulatory process, the EPA relies on peer-
reviewed science. Unfortunately, the proposed strengthening 
transparency in regulatory science rule would preclude the use of the 
best available science. The rule undermines scientific integrity, 
jeopardizes bedrock public health and environmental standards, and 
endangers the EPA's ability to fulfill its mission. It would impede, if 
not eradicate, the agency's work to protect Americans from significant 
risks to human health and the environment.
  Not surprisingly, the EPA ignored science when developing this 
proposed rule. The EPA failed to consult with their own Office of the 
Science Advisor, and they limited the Science Advisory Board in the 
scope of the board's review.
  The proposed rule would have chilling consequences for the EPA and 
for every person who benefits from clean air and clean water. This 
amendment will direct the Science Advisory Board to provide a 
comprehensive review of the entire proposed rule before it is 
finalized. We must defend science.
  I, again, thank Chair McCollum and also Representatives Tonko, 
Sherrill, and Fletcher for their support, and I urge the Congress to 
support the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the en bloc 
amendment which contains an amendment I have offered.
  In order to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency is able to 
effectively carry out its responsibility to protect human health and 
the environment for future generations, we need to ensure emergency 
responders and investigators are there when we need them.
  Closing EPA's facilities or relocating personnel tasked with the 
ultimate responsibility to answer the call during an environmental 
emergency or investigate the cost and whom to hold accountable in the 
aftermath is the wrong approach. Future generations will be less safe, 
and the health of our environment will be at increased risk.

  This amendment would simply prevent the EPA from closing or 
relocating any office or facility that houses either emergency 
responders or a criminal investigation unit responsible for carrying 
out the agency's mission.
  EPA emergency response personnel serve in offices--some large and 
some small--across this Nation. These brave and dedicated public 
servants respond to oil spills; chemical, biological, and radiological 
releases; and large-scale national emergencies. They also provide 
additional response assistance when State and local first responder 
capabilities have been exhausted or need additional support.
  Located in my district is the Large Lakes Research Station on Grosse 
Ile, an island in the Detroit River. This facility serves the Great 
Lakes region.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the en bloc 
amendment and to offer my environmental justice amendment to H.R. 3055.
  This amendment would require that the EPA identify 100 communities 
across the country that are suffering from especially egregious 
violations of environmental law and clean them up. It would require the 
EPA to study what

[[Page H4950]]

happens when communities experience multiple sources of pollution and 
then come up with better ways to protect them going forward. The 
amendment has one simple goal, to ensure that every American has clean 
air to breath, safe water to drink, and access to food that is free of 
toxins.
  While the goal may sound simple, the harsh reality is that we as a 
nation have been failing to provide these staples of life to too many 
communities for far too long. When we fail to protect our environment, 
it is often the poorest among us who suffer the most. When we allow 
pipes to become contaminated or when we allow companies to spew more 
toxins into the air, it is usually lower income communities and 
communities of color that get hurt the most. This amendment is for 
them.
  These communities include communities like Elyria Swansea and 
neighboring Globeville which are neighborhoods in the northern part of 
my district.
  The people in these communities experience a wide range of health 
problems on a daily basis, like throat irritation and watery eyes, 
which are likely linked to their constant exposure to a long list of 
toxins in the air. Whether it is hydrogen cyanide, whether it is other 
kinds of waste or smog-causing pollutants, these people suffer every 
day.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support my amendment and let 
these communities be remedied.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, apparently there is an individual 
who is en route who would like to speak on this amendment, but at this 
point in time I do not have a witness right here, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
3055. Ethylene oxide--also known as ETO--is an industrial chemical used 
to sterilize medical equipment and manufacture products like anti-
freeze.
  We have known for decades that ETO is dangerous, and in 2016, EPA 
listed it as a known carcinogen.
  Dozens of facilities around the country--including two in my district 
in--use and emit ETO into the surrounding communities. My constituents 
in Waukegan and Gurnee are rightly concerned about the local levels of 
ETO and any possible health consequences.
  When our neighbors in Willowbrook, Illinois faced similar questions 
about ETO, the EPA's community engagement provided vital data to inform 
residents about the public health risk they face, and the steps they 
were taking to mitigate the threat.
  But the EPA has left dozens of communities around the country, 
including my constituents, in the dark. These are localities that we 
know face high ETO levels, yet the EPA refuses to hold public forums to 
answer our community's urgent questions.
  Every American should have confidence in the safety of the air that 
they and their families breathe. The EPA needs to do its job and engage 
with communities where that assurance is under threat.
  This amendment would set aside $25,000 for EPA public engagement on 
ethylene oxide to communities identified in the National Air Toxic 
Assessment to face dangerous emissions levels of this known carcinogen. 
This is a small sum, but one that would have a big effect on the 
families living in these communities.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, my amendment would limit the 
Administration's ability to co-opt important public lands for an 
unnecessary, hateful, and expensive wall at our Southern border--my 
home region.
  This amendment would defund Section 2 of the President's National 
Emergency Declaration by barring agencies from using the funds 
appropriated in this bill to turn parks, wildlife refuges, and other 
public lands into a militarized border zone administered by agencies 
lacking the expertise to take good care of them.
  Our border lands are comprised of a diverse array of ecosystems that 
support over 100 different endangered or threatened species, per a 2016 
Fish and Wildlife Service report.
  The border wall would fragment important habitats, limiting the 
ability of animals to find food, water, and potential mates across 
their range.
  We always need to be conscientious of the ways that any major federal 
project affects our natural world. But when the project is so hateful 
and useless, and when it impacts such vulnerable ecological 
communities, we must do something.
  I refuse to stand by while our President abuses his powers to remove 
jurisdiction over our public lands from the agencies best able to take 
care of them. They are our heritage, not an expendable construction 
zone.
  Trump's border wall is unnecessary, harmful and ineffective. Border 
communities remain some of the safest cities in the country, yet the 
continued militarization of our borderlands continues hurting border 
communities, commerce, and wildlife.
  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently exempt from 
all local, state and federal laws that exist to protect the 
environment, wildlife, historic and archaeological sites, Native 
American sacred sites, and religious practices-all of which negatively 
impact the borderlands.
  More walls will not affect the flow of drugs into the country; 
instead we must modernize and invest in our crumbling infrastructure 
and ensure adequate staffing at our ports of entry.
  I would like to thank the Chair and the committee for their work on 
this bill. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment, and 
I would urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  We must stop the false narrative of a violent and insecure border to 
justify border wall construction.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prevent uranium from 
being considered as a critical mineral under the Trump Administration's 
critical mineral strategy.
  Last year, the Interior Department included uranium on a list of 
critical minerals required under Executive Order 13817.
  However, uranium does not meet the definition of a ``critical 
mineral'' in that executive order.
  Under the order, the first criteria for a critical mineral is that it 
must be a ``non-fuel mineral'' or a ``mineral material.''
  Uranium is neither.
  Even the Department of the Interior understands that.
  Earlier this month at a Natural Resources Committee hearing on my 
Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, a senior official from the 
Department testified that, ``Uranium, like oil and gas, solar, wind, 
geothermal, and other energy sources, remains a vital component of a 
responsible and comprehensive energy strategy.''
  Clearly, uranium is a fuel mineral, so it fails to meet that part of 
the critical mineral definition.
  And a ``mineral material'' is defined by the Minerals Act of 1947 as 
common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, and other similar 
items.
  The Bureau of Land Management also clearly tells people on their 
website that mineral materials are sold and not subject to the Mining 
Law of 1872.
  Uranium, on the other hand, is subject to the Mining Law of 1872, and 
it is not a ``common variety'' of anything by any stretch of the 
imagination.
  So uranium fails that test as well.
  We don't even have to get into the fact that our supply chain for 
uranium comes mainly from friendly countries like Canada and Australia, 
and is not at risk.
  Uranium very clearly does not meet the definition of a ``critical 
mineral'' under the executive order.
  Yet it is on the list of critical minerals published by the Interior 
Department last year, and subject to all the production enhancements 
and incentives recommended by the Department of Commerce in its 
Critical Mineral Strategy.
  We do not need to make it any easier to mine uranium in this country.
  Already mining companies in the United States have a sweetheart deal 
in the form of the Mining Law of 1872, where they pay no royalties and 
have virtually unfettered access to public lands.
  The administration has already taken unprecedented steps that help 
out the uranium industry, such as cutting Bears Ears National Monument 
by 85 percent at their request.
  Now the new critical mineral strategy recommends reviewing existing 
mineral withdrawals with an eye towards eliminating or shrinking them, 
particularly in areas where they may be critical minerals.
  Because uranium is incorrectly defined as a critical mineral, this 
puts the Grand Canyon right in the crosshairs.
  The Obama administration put a 20-year withdrawal on the sensitive 
lands around the Grand Canyon so it could study the impacts of uranium 
mining in the region.
  We are less than half of the way into that withdrawal, but the 
uranium companies are salivating at the possibility of ending those 
protections early and descending on uranium deposits around the Grand 
Canyon.
  My Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act would protect this 
landscape and the residents who have called it home for centuries. 
Unfortunately, we may never get the chance to do this if President 
Trump continues to do the bidding of the uranium mining companies.
  Given the legacy of uranium mining in the West, particularly the 
terrible health impacts experienced on the Navajo Nation from abandoned 
uranium mines, we should be holding

[[Page H4951]]

mining companies accountable, not handing them a blank check to more of 
our most special public lands.
  That's why this amendment is so important.
  It prohibits the administration from treating uranium as a critical 
mineral and using the actions identified in the Commerce Department's 
Critical Mineral Strategy in order to grease the skids for new uranium 
mines.
  It doesn't affect any of the other minerals on the critical minerals 
list, and it doesn't prevent companies from staking new uranium claims 
or opening new uranium mines.
  It just keeps the government from giving those companies any 
additional benefits beyond the too many that they already have.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 127 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.


           Amendment No. 128 Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 128 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 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 division C (before the short title) insert 
     the following:

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore 
     oil and gas leasing, preleasing, or related activities in the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas for the South 
     Atlantic, the Straits of Florida, and the areas of the 
     Central and Eastern Gulf of Mexico described by section 
     104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 
     (Public Law 109-432).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to protect the coastlines of Florida from the scourge of 
offshore oil drilling.
  I am proud to say that this amendment, as we will see this morning 
from my colleagues' comments, has strong bipartisan support from our 
colleagues in the Florida delegation.
  When it comes to the idea of turning our beaches into a fossil fuel 
industrial zone, there is no divergence between Democrats and 
Republicans in Florida. We stand united to prevent drilling off of our 
cherished coasts. Florida's famous beaches are central to our $65 
billion a year tourism industry. Our hotels, fishermen, and recreation 
industries depend on clean coastal waters, and the still recovering 
Florida Bay cannot afford an oil spill.
  Every time I speak about this issue, I make sure to mention the 
Deepwater Horizon disaster. Apparently, the current administration has 
already forgotten what happened to us 9 years ago. At its worst, the 
spill leaked more than 60,000 barrels of oil a day. Eighty-seven days 
went by while crude gushed into the ocean nearly unchecked. By its end, 
millions of barrels of crude oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico.
  This devastated the entire Gulf ecosystem. Thousands of protected 
species were harmed by oil slicks and dead zones. Coral reefs between 
Alabama and Florida were decimated and suffocated by oil, and 
hydrocarbons were found on hundreds of miles of beaches around the 
Gulf.
  This environmental impact also left a human toll. The accident caused 
the deaths of 11 rig workers. The spill left 12,000 people unemployed 
and decimated local economies which rely on fishing and marine 
recreation.

                              {time}  1315

  Now is not the time to expand more areas to fossil fuel extraction. 
We must be doing everything possible to transition to a clean energy 
economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Crist), my friend and the former Governor of our great State.
  Mr. CRIST. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Florida, 
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for her leadership on this 
important issue and for working with me and the Florida delegation to 
include banning drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico in this 
amendment.
  I represent most of Pinellas County, Florida, on the Gulf Coast. My 
district is surrounded by water on three sides. It is virtually a 
peninsula. As you can imagine, this issue is deeply important to me, my 
constituents, and all Floridians.
  I was Governor of Florida when the Deepwater Horizon exploded in 
2010. I saw the tar balls wash up along Florida beaches. I saw the harm 
done to Florida's economy and our way of life. I have seen firsthand 
the consequences of offshore oil drilling. I hope to never see it 
again.
  We must protect the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the environmental, 
economic, and national security benefits it provides to the region and 
to the United States of America. I could not be more proud that the 
Florida delegation stands united to do exactly that.
  I urge passage of this amendment and the underlying legislation.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire how much time 
I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from southwest Florida (Mr. Rooney), who represents the great 
counties of Collier and Lee.
  Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from the east 
coast of Florida, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, for her courageous 
leadership on this issue and join and echo what the Governor said as we 
continue to work together to fight the scourge of offshore drilling.
  Offshore drilling anywhere near Florida represents an existential 
threat to our tourist and recreation economy that we cannot risk 
taking.
  We also have the important military bases all along the Gulf Coast 
that the Governor referred to that are equally important that use the 
Gulf as offshore testing grounds. This is the only place in the world 
where our United States Navy and Air Force can conduct these tests.
  I want to thank Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz for her leadership 
and to urge adoption of this amendment and protect Florida. Twenty-one 
million people are being protected by Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, before I yield the remaining time 
to Mr. Rutherford from Jacksonville, I include in the Record this 
letter from the Florida delegation opposing offshore oil drilling that 
was sent to Secretary Bernhardt.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 28, 2019.
     Re Protect Florida's Coasts from Oil and Gas Drilling.

     David Bernhardt,
     Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Acting Interior Secretary Bernhardt: We write to urge 
     you to protect the coasts of Florida from oil and gas 
     development. As you know, last year, former Interior 
     Secretary Zinke announced that Florida would be exempt from 
     any offshore drilling plans. However, we remain concerned 
     that no formal action has been taken to prohibit drilling off 
     Florida's coasts. Florida's natural resources and economy, as 
     well as the military mission as expressed by the Department 
     of Defense, cannot bear the risk and devastating impacts of 
     offshore drilling. We urge you to take formal action to 
     exempt drilling off Florida's coast from the five year plan 
     for oil and gas lease sales.
       Florida's economic well-being is dependent upon our state's 
     fragile and treasured coasts. Clean coasts and healthy oceans 
     are the fundamental underpinning of jobs and revenue in our 
     communities. Florida's coastal communities thrive in concert 
     with a healthy marine environment. Views littered with 
     drilling platforms, industrialization of coastline and oil on 
     our beaches spell disaster for Florida's economy and our 
     neighbors who rely on tourism, fishing and related business.
       We saw, firsthand, the destruction offshore drilling can 
     have on ocean health, coastlines, and tourism in 2010 during 
     the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Tourism dropped across the 
     state, including areas that were unaffected by the rig 
     explosion. Even without a blowout, offshore oil rigs dump 
     tons of drilling muds, fluids, and metal cuttings--including 
     toxic metals and carcinogens--into the ocean, and pose a 
     threat to human health, marine ecosystems, and wildlife.
       While there are ample environmental and economic reasons to 
     prohibit drilling off Florida's coasts, our national security 
     and military readiness also require keeping the rigs away 
     from Florida. The eastern Gulf of Mexico is a critical 
     training area for our military and the Department of Defense 
     has

[[Page H4952]]

     stated clearly that the area is an ``irreplaceable national 
     asset'' for combat force readiness. Any oil and gas 
     development would be an obstacle to military preparedness and 
     national security.
       Finally, the people of Florida are also clearly opposed to 
     oil and gas development off our coast. A constitutional 
     amendment on Florida's November 2018 ballot to ban offshore 
     drilling in state waters passed overwhelmingly. Here is 
     objective proof that Floridians recognize that the state's 
     economy depends on a pristine environment, and that offshore 
     drilling threatens Florida's future.
       Florida relies on coastlines unencumbered by oil and gas 
     drilling to sustain its economy, preserve its natural 
     resources, and protect our nation's military. We urge you to 
     exempt Florida's coasts from any offshore drilling plans. We 
     must preserve and protect Florida's future.
           Sincerely,
         Kathy Castor, Member of Congress; Frederica S. Wilson, 
           Member of Congress; Donna E. Shalala, Member of 
           Congress; Bill Posey, Member of Congress; Francis 
           Rooney, Member of Congress; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, 
           Member of Congress; Charlie Crist, Member of Congress; 
           Matt Gaetz, Member of Congress; Ted S. Yoho, D.V.M., 
           Member of Congress; Alcee L. Hastings, Member of 
           Congress; Gus M. Bilirakis, Member of Congress; Brian 
           J. Mast, Member of Congress; Stephanie Murphy, Member 
           of Congress; Theodore E. Deutch, Member of Congress; 
           Daniel Webster, Member of Congress; Mario Diaz-Balart, 
           Member of Congress; Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Member of 
           Congress; Al Lawson, Jr, Member of Congress; Lois 
           Frankel, Member of Congress; Darren Soto, Member of 
           Congress; Val Butler Demings, Member of Congress; John 
           H. Rutherford, Member of Congress; Vern Buchanan, 
           Member of Congress; W. Gregery Steube, Member of 
           Congress; Neal P. Dunn, M.D., Member of Congress; 
           Michael Waltz, Member of Congress; Ross Spano, Member 
           of Congress.

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Jacksonville, Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from south Florida 
for, as was mentioned earlier, having the courage to stand up for our 
State and protect it from the scourge of drilling.
  I have to tell you, just last November, Mr. Chair, 69 percent of 
Florida voters supported banning drilling in the State waters off of 
Florida's coast.
  It is no secret that our Florida beaches and our oceans drive our 
economy. Drilling could affect not only our beautiful beaches and 
thriving tourism but, also, our national security.
  I have met with Department of Defense officials multiple times, and 
they have continued to share serious concerns about how offshore 
drilling activities could impact their operations.
  The eastern Gulf is a vital training ground for our military, and on 
Florida's Atlantic Coast that I share with my colleague, we are home to 
Mayport, NAS Jax, and Kings Bay, just to name a few.
  Mr. Chair, this important amendment will protect our coast, our 
economies, and our national defense. For all these reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this because I want to 
remind everybody this is continental offshore; this is not State-owned 
property. This is the property of the American public.
  So, if we are going to extend that aspect, I want the same type of 
application to lands out in western Arizona and the Western United 
States. So we have to start looking at this.
  We have seen opposition, basically, state that they can't coexist: 
fundamental energy development, exploration, and tourism. But we see 
that very vibrantly in the Gulf State of Louisiana. We see one of the 
most vibrant fishing areas. The argument doesn't hold muster in that 
regard.
  In regards to that, we need to explore and find out exactly what kind 
of resources are actually there. It makes a big difference in regards 
to energy independence because those who spend money for tourism have 
to have a job, and plentiful energy at affordable prices help American 
businesses and the American worker.
  So the same aspects we are trying to extend here for Florida should 
be extended all the way across the board.
  But, once again, this is the public's property. It needs to be well 
invested, and the government has the due diligence in which to do that.
  We can take into consideration the concerns of the military. We do it 
time and time again in southwestern Arizona. We have the Goldwater 
Range, the Yuma Proving Ground, yet we still coexist with the natural 
resources and environmental protections.
  I think, within that aspect, I rise in opposition, and I would ask 
everybody to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 129 Offered by Mr. Young

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 129 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, 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 division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the regulation issued on 
     March 21, 2011 at 40 CFR part 60 subparts CCCC and DDDD with 
     respect to ``small, remote incinerators'' in the State of 
     Alaska.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, in 2013, the EPA issued new standards on air 
pollutant emissions for commercial and industrial solid waste 
incineration, which include the small, remote incinerators used in 
remote Alaska.
  My amendment would prohibit the EPA from enforcing these rules on 
small, remote incinerators in Alaska. My amendment would not affect 
anyone but Alaskans.
  I know this Chamber has shown great interest in my State recently, 
but I sincerely hope you would agree that enforcing these rules in 
remote locations that are not even connected with the highway system is 
unjustified.
  While I appreciate the focus on clean air, these standards are 
unattainable for rural Alaska. If the 2013 criteria are enforced in my 
State, residents and industry alike would be forced to be noncompliant 
or would not be able to use waste incinerators at all.
  In many locations, there are very limited options for the handling 
and disposal of waste. The ground is frozen or the water table is too 
high. The locations that would be impacted by this rule are hundreds of 
miles away from waste facilities in Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks.
  While garbage trucks are critical to the infrastructure of the lower 
48, transporting waste from these remote sites would generate more 
emissions than burning near the sites.
  When EPA wrote this rule, they used bad science and statistical 
methods to select the new standards. They didn't use enough samples to 
have statistical confidence in the values, and two of the incinerator 
units they used in the emission data do not even qualify as ``small'' 
or ``remote'' areas. They were both located within 20 miles of a 
regional landfill.
  Incineration is the cleanest, most environmentally sustainable way to 
deal with waste in small villages. One thousand pounds of waste can be 
reduced to 50 pounds of ash that can be safely transported.
  Keep this in mind: We have a lot of small villages that can only have 
incinerators; they cannot have landfills without shipping it. I am 
talking about 400 or 500 people.

[[Page H4953]]

  This is not a good idea. It is the wrong thing to do.
  I will say again, Alaska is a little unique. We are just about half 
as big as the United States, with 750,000 people. To put this standard 
in place, making these people, frankly, break the law is wrong. This 
amendment would keep them from applying that to the standards.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would exempt certain small 
incinerators in Alaska from being regulated under the Clean Air Act.
  My good friend knows that this amendment is fundamentally different 
from what was done in the 2019 bill. That language barred incinerator 
rules adopted in 2011 from being enforced but left in place the pre-
2011 rules governing those facilities.
  This amendment would bar enforcement of any Clean Air Act rule, and, 
for me, that is unacceptable.
  These incinerators, as the gentleman pointed out, are currently 
burning, but what they are releasing is some of the most noxious air 
emissions in the country, some of the most grievous.
  It is critical that we ensure that we are complying with clean air 
regulations. There have to be some rules to this.
  We have an obligation to protect the health and safety of all 
Americans, and exempting incinerators in the way that this language is 
currently written, for even small and remote ones, from the Clean Air 
Act regulations is just something I can't accept at this time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, 
but, again, what do you do with a town that has 500 people and the only 
way to dispose of waste is by burning it or letting it go on the turf, 
letting it blow around, letting it pollute the other parts of the 
Earth? This is the only sensible way to do it.
  I am not talking about great big cities. I am talking about small 
communities that cannot have landfills. And that does occur.
  We don't have that many in Alaska, but where they do have these 
incinerators, there ought to be some compliance in the sense that: 
Okay, guys, you are not really polluting the air. It is a better way. 
There is more environmental damage by not being able to bury it, 
letting it run around on the top of the surface of the Earth, than 
there is burning it.
  I know I just came out of Denmark. They have one of the largest 
incinerators in the world. It handles 2 million people. They burn 35 
tons an hour.
  Now, I am saying, okay, let's have those kind of incinerators, but 
you can't afford it for a small village.
  Mr. Chair, I know where the gentlewoman is coming from, but you can't 
apply all rules to every place at one time when it doesn't work. You 
have to look at the total environmental damage.
  I think, if you don't burn it, you have a lot harder problem than you 
do if you do burn it, so I urge my colleagues to support this small, 
innocuous amendment to try to make people live a better way than having 
them forced by a government agency to a standard that can't be met 
unless they just let it run around on the top of the ground.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said, I understand the gentleman's 
concerns, but the fact is that this is fundamentally different from 
what we did in the FY20 bill in working with the lead Senator from 
Alaska, who is the counterpart on the Interior appropriations.

  This just goes too far. So, I oppose this as it is currently written, 
and I can't go just supporting this, because it completely, completely 
eliminates the Clean Air Act rules.
  I offer the gentleman an opportunity to go in front of the 
authorizing committee, and, at that point, if he wants to talk some 
more and we can figure out a way to create a win-win, I would be happy 
to help him in the authorizing committee; but I cannot support this 
amendment as it stands, eliminating the rules for clean air, at this 
time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendments No. 130 and 
131 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 132 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 132 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, 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 division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:

       Sec. __  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and 
     gas leasing, preleasing, or related activities in the North 
     Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, or the South Atlantic Outer 
     Continental Shelf Planning Areas.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to block 
oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. My amendment is steeped in 
bipartisan tradition. For 27 years, starting in 1982, Congress 
continuously supported an Atlantic oil and gas drilling moratorium.
  We cannot take the greatest resource of our coastal communities and 
economies for granted, which is why, today, we must act to restore the 
bipartisan language that would protect the Atlantic Coast from 
drilling.
  The Trump administration's misguided effort to drill in the Atlantic 
is reckless, in my opinion. Simply put, the vitality of our coastal 
economies is tied to healthy ocean ecosystems. Healthy oceans along the 
East Coast support billions in gross domestic product and more than a 
million jobs through fishing, recreation, and tourism alone.
  In my home State of New Jersey, the tourism industry generates $44 
billion a year and supports over half a million jobs. This will no 
longer be the case if the beautiful beaches of the Jersey shore are 
slicked with oil.
  The bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment and the communities we 
represent are unwilling to accept the tremendous risks that come with 
oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic. Hundreds of local governments 
have passed formal resolutions opposing oil and gas exploration and 
drilling in the Atlantic, as have numerous local chambers of commerce, 
tourism and restaurant associations, and commercial and recreational 
fishing associations.
  More than 43,000 businesses and 500,000 commercial fishing families 
have joined together to strongly oppose offshore oil and gas 
exploration and drilling.
  Mr. Chair, ocean health is already strained by too much trash, rising 
sea temperatures, and acidification due to climate change. Our oceans 
and our economies can't afford the risks of dangerous oil and gas 
development.
  More than 4 million gallons of oil have been spilled or leaked in the 
Pacific Ocean since 1969. Again, the unimaginable risk to our shores is 
not worth making wealthy oil and gas companies richer.
  In 2010, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster caused a 10-year projected 
economic loss of $8.7 billion in fisheries from Texas to Florida, 
including 22,000 lost jobs.
  There is no hiding behind State lines from oil spills. The only way 
to protect ourselves is a full Atlantic moratorium and a commonsense 
return to historic bipartisan precedent.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. This amendment I am speaking in opposition to is actually 
shortsighted.
  We have been producing oil and gas offshore all over the country on 
the Outer Continental Shelf for a very long time. We can do it safely.

[[Page H4954]]

  I believe the ones who don't want to see the areas mentioned in this 
amendment opened up for offshore leasing really just don't want fossil 
fuel development.
  We are in an energy renaissance in this country where we are finding 
more oil and gas, to the point that we are now a net exporter of oil 
and a net exporter of gas. That means we are producing more in this 
country than we are using in this country, so we have a surplus. We are 
able to help our friends and allies around the world, in Europe, to 
lessen their dependence on Russian gas.
  Shutting down the opportunity to explore on the Outer Continental 
Shelf in these areas is really not wanting to find out what is out 
there. What harm does it do to look, to begin the seismic work, to find 
out what may be off the coast of the great State of South Carolina?
  Recently, they just found, off the coast of Suriname and Guyana, 32 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas by using 21st-century, 3D seismic 
technology. If we allowed the seismic work to happen in these areas 
that y'all are wanting to exclude from energy exploration, we might 
find 32 trillion, 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Then the 
Southeast is playing in the energy renaissance in this country.
  I think this is shortsighted. What harm does it do to look, to allow 
these areas to be opened for exploration and then, ultimately, 
production to help meet the energy needs of this Nation and others 
around the world going forward?
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have left.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments that the gentleman from South Carolina 
made. I don't mean to speak for his State, but I have to say, I was in 
Savannah and then went for a couple of days over to Saint Helena 
island, Hilton Head, and some of the areas where the Gullah people are. 
On another occasion, in May, I was in Charleston, and I went to James 
Island and a few other places.
  I find it very hard to believe that the people who live in those 
coastal areas don't share the same concerns that we have in New Jersey 
about the impact of an oil spill on our tourism and recreational 
fishing industry.
  Again, I am not going to speak for the gentleman's State because that 
wouldn't be proper.
  But let me say this: When my colleague on the other side says that we 
can drill safely, I have to disagree.
  When we had the BP spill 9 years ago, there was a bipartisan 
commission that was set up, and they made certain recommendations about 
drilling. Those recommendations were not followed by the Republican 
leadership in Congress.
  The fact of the matter is that the BP spill was in relatively shallow 
water, compared to the type of drilling that is proposed off the coast 
of the Atlantic. What is happening is that, as we go further and 
further off the Outer Continental Shelf, the possibility of spills and 
the inability to take proper safety precautions become even more of a 
problem.

  That was what the BP commission recommended. They pointed out that as 
we go deeper out, the technology doesn't exist to protect the coastal 
areas from a spill.
  So I have to take issue with the gentleman. I would point out that 
the recommendations of the BP commission were never met.
  I ask my colleagues to stand united by voting in favor of protecting 
the health and economic vitality of the coastal communities of all 14 
States along the Atlantic Coast and the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I have seen, in the Natural Resources 
Committee, when I was there years ago, where fear tactics were used, 
saying that whales and other sea mammals, dolphins, would be killed 
because of the seismic work.
  We had the chief biologist from BOEM say not a single marine mammal 
has ever been harmed in the exploration and seismic work that we have 
done all over the globe, off the coast of the Falklands, in the 
Mediterranean, off the coast of Africa. These fear tactics of oil 
spills and things are just shortsighted on meeting our energy needs, 
and the gentleman from Arizona gets that.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, the irony of this aspect, to explore something 
that is of the public nature of the people of the United States, the 
ironic aspect is unfathomable.
  To look at seismic, we don't even want to do seismic. We need seismic 
in regard to looking at moorings in regard to big wind. That is what we 
have seen over and over again, that this area wants to have big wind.
  The other part to this aspect is, how does that work when you have to 
have a Russian tanker moored outside of your bay, which is one of the 
most easily spilled aspects of oil that you have to have for heating 
oil and natural gas in regard to heating your energy platforms in the 
areas? That is just unfathomable to me.
  We do this better, and the technology is actually coming back around.
  As the Western Caucus chairman, we went down to Houston to actually 
see the technology that exists. It is profound, absolutely profound 
what is there.
  No one is asking to go past go, collect $200. What they want to do is 
follow the rightful process in that aspect.
  There is evidence like I cited in the Gulf States. Definitely when 
you look at Louisiana, it is a plethora. It is one of the most diverse 
aquatic ecosystems around.
  There is a way to have this and looking at it and benefit everybody.
  Once again, the dichotomy of trying to separate one aspect of 
holdings for the American people, and then apply it to out West, where 
there is even more defined aspects of jurisdiction, to land aspects of 
public lands and public minerals and gas leases, is just ironic.
  Mr. Chair, I remain in opposition.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this 
amendment because I think it is shortsighted. There are States that 
want to play in the energy matrix. They want to play in the 
renaissance. They want to, hopefully, experience a 37.5 percent 
revenue-sharing back to the State.
  Hopefully, they can experience the jobs that are created in the oil 
and gas industry that is an economic boom, not only for the State 
coffers through tax revenue but also with the jobs that are created in 
those communities.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, 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 New Jersey 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 133 Offered by Mr. Buchanan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 133 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chair, 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 division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to issue a permit for the import of a sport-hunted 
     trophy of an elephant or lion taken in Tanzania, Zimbabwe, or 
     Zambia. The limitation described in this section shall not 
     apply in the case of the administration of a tax or tariff.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Buchanan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment. For 
my constituents and my area, it is very important to them.
  The amendment would prohibit permits for hunting and killing 
endangered lions and elephants for trophies in various countries in 
Africa--Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania.

[[Page H4955]]

  Both the African elephant and lion are endangered species on the 
verge of extinction. We have seen lion populations decline by 50 
percent in the past decade. In Tanzania, the elephant population 
declined by 60 percent between 2009 and 2014.
  This amendment is critical to help ensure these creatures do not 
become extinct. President Trump has called elephant hunting a ``horror 
show.''
  There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that trophy 
hunting aids in helping to manage the population of these animals. If 
this were the case, we would see an increase in the species, not a 
dramatic decline of the elephant and lion populations.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Sport hunting is an important recreational activity for countless 
Americans and has been for centuries. President Teddy Roosevelt, a 
champion of the conservation movement, went on hunting expeditions 
around the world.
  This amendment would negatively impact the people of Zimbabwe, 
Zambia, and Tanzania. The money generated from trophy hunts helps the 
local populations by providing jobs and funding for community services.
  One of the countries listed in the amendment is Zimbabwe. The 
Communal Areas Management Plan for Indigenous Resources, or CAMPFIRE, 
program in Zimbabwe attempted to create economic incentives for 
communities and landowners to conduct habitat and ecosystem 
restoration. At one point, CAMPFIRE generated more than $20 million, of 
which almost 90 percent came from trophy hunting, allowing communities 
to establish management over the habit and resources within the range 
area.
  Another country mentioned in the amendment is Zambia. Zambia's 
Administrative Design for Game Management Areas program has served as a 
model for locally accruing trophy-hunting revenue, as the program 
receives 67 percent of the trophy-hunting revenue in game management 
areas. Fifty-three percent of the program revenue is directed toward 
wildlife management. The remainder goes to community development.
  There is also a lack of sufficient data on the effect of hunting 
species that would lead us to support efforts like this amendment. 
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, many 
scientific studies on trophy hunting's effects on wildlife populations 
contain disclaimers of insufficient data to measure the effect of 
hunting on a species.
  Certainly, improvements can be made in these and other countries to 
further conserve species and benefit local communities. However, this 
amendment would take us in the wrong direction. Instead, we should 
focus our efforts on habitat loss and fragmentation, illegal poaching, 
and conflict with humans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my co-chair of the Congressional Animal 
Protection Caucus.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and 
I appreciate his leadership on this.
  Sadly, invoking the memory of Teddy Roosevelt is not exactly the best 
symbol of conservation. He was one of the people that slaughtered 
thousands of buffalo and had trophy hunting around the world.
  What is different today is that the scale is much greater, the 
populations we want to protect are dwindling.
  At one point, we thought there was an inexhaustible supply of wild 
animals to kill. Even Teddy Roosevelt ended up supporting legislation 
to be able to protect endangered species, which he did in terms of the 
slaughter of wild birds.
  We have seen these populations drop dramatically.
  What trophy hunters do, they kill the strongest, the most magnificent 
animals, that if they are left in the population, would promote 
stronger herds of elephants and lions.
  We are working against ourselves.
  For a while here, the Federal Government took steps to limit the 
issuance of these permits, which as my friend Mr. Buchanan points out, 
even Donald Trump says is a horror show.
  Now, I have been in Tanzania recently and looked at what happened on 
the ground. If you talk to those people there, their future is not 
slaughtering wildlife, it is protecting it.
  The photo expeditions where they take the pictures and they don't 
kill them, that they reuse over and over and over again, is far more 
valuable and doesn't hurt the species.
  Mr. Chair, I would respectfully request that we approve the 
gentleman's amendment, that we stop this barbaric practice, that we not 
undermine the protection of these species, and do everything we can to 
reverse the horrific condition they have faced over the course of the 
last 20 years.
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the chairwoman of the subcommittee.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, we should not be facilitating the hunting of 
species in countries that do not have good domestic conservation 
programs and have not demonstrated established, sound, science-based 
management programs.
  The Interior bill recognizes the importance of these iconic species 
and the role they play in the ecosystem. It is imperative to conserve 
these species, especially in light of the recent UN report on 
biodiversity that warns us that 1 million species face extinction.
  This amendment supports the committee's efforts to ensure the 
survival of elephants and lions for future and present generations. I 
support the amendment.
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The misinformation you have just heard on the floor: You are not 
going to save any animals, you are going to help kill animals.
  I have been to Africa eight times. I have tried to conserve, and I 
have done so. Areas that I have been hunting, like Namibia, the loss of 
the animals is because of poaching, not for the ivory, but because of 
the food, because there is no value to the animal, so they will kill it 
and eat it, the local people.
  You are not going to help it out, because there is no value to that 
animal other than food if you don't have trophy hunting when it is 
worth more.
  If I was to kill a buffalo over there, all I get is the head and the 
hide. They get the meat.
  All you are going to do is prohibit it being imported into the United 
States and making you feel good, but it is not going to save the 
animal. In fact, the animal is going to diminish. That has been proven 
regardless of what you may read.
  We are the real conservationists. It is going to let everybody else 
around the world go hunt in those areas, probably without any safeguard 
or investment.
  This may sound good, it may help somebody out in their district, but 
it is not going to save the animals.
  I suggest, respectfully, you ought to go and witness what is 
occurring over there by those that live there and are destroying the 
animals if we do not hunt them, because there is no value.
  I believe I am a great conservationist. I have probably saved more 
animals than anyone in the room, because I do contribute.
  You don't. You talk.
  I think it is a shameful thing to say we are going to tell another 
country what they can and cannot do. That is what you are doing to make 
yourself feel good, but you are not saving the animals.
  A conservationist is a true man that conserves, not tries to preserve 
in the natural state, because the natural state is very cruel. It takes 
the weak, it takes the strong, it takes them all. Man is the strongest 
of all, and they will take them all if it has no value other than food.

[[Page H4956]]

  So I urge the defeat of this amendment. I wish more people would go 
and look and see, because you don't know what you are talking about.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the immediate past chairman of 
the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus, the largest bipartisan caucus in 
the United States Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, and I agree 
with what the gentleman from Alaska just said.
  Hunters have conserved more acres and protected more animals all 
across the globe than many in this Chamber.
  I realize we are an urban Nation, that we are having more 
representation from urban areas and we have gotten away from our days 
of hunting and fishing and understanding the role that the hunter plays 
in conservation, but, as the gentleman from Alaska said, we are going 
to tell other countries that they can't allow hunting because we are 
going to shut off the ability of the American hunter to bring certain 
trophies back.
  These folks live with 5-ton animals that are damaging their crops, a 
whole season's worth of crops in one single night. Elephants are 
dangerous.
  Ultimately, if you take the hunter out of that situation, the hunter 
is paying with his hard-earned dollars, not your tax dollars, his 
money.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, 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 Florida will 
be postponed.


     Amendments En Bloc No. 5 Offered by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 5 consisting of amendment Nos. 134, 137, 145, 
146, 149, 150, 154, 157, 162, 166, 173, 174, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 
188, 189, and 191 printed in part B of House Report 116-119, offered by 
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota:

           amendment no. 134 offered by Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

       Page 232, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.


         amendment no. 137 offered by Mr. SCHWEIKERT of Arizona

       Page 258, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 288, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


       amendment no. 145 offered by Mr. HUDSON of North Carolina

       Page 311, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''.


         amendment no. 146 offered by Ms. MATSUI of California

       Page 293, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 301, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 149 offered by Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

       Page 302, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 150 offered by Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

       Page 258, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 322, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 154 offered by Mr. LaMALFA of California

       Page 310, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)(increased by $10,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 157 offered by Ms. BROWNLEY of California

       Page 258, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 267, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 162 offered by Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire

       Page 310, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 166 offered by Mr. RUIZ of California

       Page 309, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000) (decreased by $2,000,000)''.


        amendment no. 173 offered by Mr. TED LIEU of California

       Page 224, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $200,000)''.
       Page 224, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $200,000)''.


      amendment no. 174 offered by Ms. PLASKETT of Virgin Islands

       Page 301, line 8, insert ``, or any territory or possession 
     of the United States'' before the semicolon.


         amendment no. 179 offered by Mr. O'HALLERAN of Arizona

       Page 327, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 327, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 183 offered by Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

       Page 289, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''.


          amendment no. 184 offered by Ms. CRAIG of Minnesota

       Page 302, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 185 offered by Ms. HAALAND of New Mexico

       Page 322, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $35,000,000) (reduced by $35,000,000)''.


         amendment no. 186 offered by Ms. HAALAND of New Mexico

       Page 246, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $176,000,000) (reduced by $176,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 188 offered by Mr. LEVIN of Michigan

       Page 302, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.


            amendment no. 189 offered by Mr. McADAMS of Utah

       Page 267, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''.


        amendment no. 191 offered by Ms. SHERRILL of New Jersey

       Page 288, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,000,000) (increased by $8,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the amendments included in the en bloc 
have been made in order by the rule and have been agreed to by both 
sides.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendments and urge their adoption, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I rise to support the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Lowey for her support and Chair McCollum 
for working with us to include provisions important to Members on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Included in this en bloc amendment are several water provisions that 
I support, including grants to States to reduce pollution in our 
waterways.
  The amendment also supports the maintenance of the Great Lakes 
Advisory Board, which helps to ensure that transparent and credible 
views guide Great Lakes Restoration Initiative investments.
  Finally, the en bloc amendment includes language prioritizing funding 
for grants to fight domestic violence in American Indian and Alaska 
Native communities.
  Mr. Chair, I support the bipartisan en bloc amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Casten).
  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chair, the Great Lakes Advisory Board 
plays an essential role in providing the EPA with the technical, 
environmental, and local expertise needed to carry out the Great Lakes 
Restoration Initiative.
  This board is one of over 1,000 advisory boards that operate across 
the Federal Government.
  This past Friday, the Trump administration put all of those boards at 
risk by signing an executive order eliminating one-third of Federal 
advisory boards.
  These boards provide technical expertise on topics as diverse as 
animal health, safe pesticide use, trade, and offer useful third-party 
review of scientific research conducted at Federal agencies.

[[Page H4957]]

  The Trump administration order is, in a word, arbitrary, and it 
presents a clear threat to the ability of agencies to have the best 
information when making fundamental and far-reaching decisions.
  While my amendment is specific to the Great Lakes Advisory Board, I 
have offered this amendment to underscore the importance of preserving 
funding for all of these boards.
  The executive order is a mistake. It is another stunning escalation 
in this administration's war on science, and the American people 
deserve better.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), my distinguished colleague and friend.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also 
want to thank Chairwoman McCollum and Ranking Member Joyce for working 
with me on this very important amendment.
  In North Carolina's Eighth Congressional District, we are fortunate 
to have the Uwharrie National Forest. Throughout my time in Congress, I 
have heard horror stories from my constituents of the danger of the 
public roads within the Uwharrie National Forest.
  I have seen these roads firsthand and can testify to the critical 
need of paving these roads.
  My amendment works towards improving and maintaining these roads and 
assuring public access to this State treasure.
  One of my constituents had a heart attack, and the ambulance couldn't 
get down the road because of the ruts and the washouts. Thankfully, the 
desperate, resourceful paramedics got out of the ambulance and sprinted 
down the road with a stretcher.
  Another one of my constituents, their house burned to the ground 
because the road was so impassable, a firetruck couldn't get down to 
put out the blaze.
  These are just a few of the examples of the severe public safety 
concerns that my constituents are facing due to the inability of the 
Park Service to maintain these roads.
  It is unacceptable, and it is one reason why I have worked so hard to 
advocate on behalf of Uwharrie National Forest and advocate for more 
resources for the Park Service in general.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank the Chief of the Forest Service, Ms. 
Christiansen, for her attention to this issue and for working with me 
to address this public safety crisis.
  In addition, Mr. Chair, I want to, again, thank Chairwoman McCollum 
for her work to increase funding for road construction in this 
legislation.
  I will continue to work and stress the urgency of this issue until my 
constituents are safe. It is my duty as a Congressman to get this done.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well as 
the en bloc.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), another Great Lakes State.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman McCollum 
for her leadership in bringing forward a proposal that protects and 
preserves public lands, ensures access to clean air and drinking water, 
and combats climate change.
  I am especially pleased to see this bill's $90 million investment for 
the first time in Sewer Overflow Control Grants to control and treat 
sewer overflows and to help address the water infrastructure crisis our 
country faces.
  My amendment prioritizes grant funding from Macomb County's Chapaton 
Retention Basin and other such sewer overflow systems that help protect 
the water sources our communities rely on every day. This funding will 
help make urgent water quality improvements to Lake St. Clair, to the 
Great Lakes, and to freshwater bodies all across our country.
  Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank the former distinguished Member 
of this body and the current Macomb County Public Works Commissioner, 
Candice Miller, for her partnership to make sure we protect Lake St. 
Clair.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership, and I want to thank the Appropriations Committee, and this 
one in particular, for the great work that the committee is doing.
  I have had the privilege of doing amendments under the CJS, 
Agriculture, Interior, and let me express my appreciation for the added 
$2 million for research in Historically Black Colleges, and 
particularly the opportunity for my amendment to enable NIFA to 
increase funding by $2 million to the 1890 institutions, which are 19 
HBCU land grants to support educational research.
  It is so very important as it relates to food and agriculture, in 
particular, to make an increase so that the 1890 institutions can again 
be at the forefront of research. One of the schools in my area, Prairie 
View A&M, and Texas Southern University prepare the leaders for the 
agriculture industry of the future. So this legislation provides 
support for the many schools, such as Alabama A&M, Alcorn State 
University, Prairie View A&M, Fort Valley State University, Kentucky 
State University; and, of course, they enroll 40 percent of all African 
American students.
  So I am grateful for this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to 
support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Chair's En Bloc Amendment, which 
includes Jackson Lee Amendment No. 91.
  I wish to thank Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole of the 
Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  I thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Fortenberry for their hard 
work in bringing Division B, the Agriculture and Related Agencies 
portion of this omnibus appropriations legislative package, to the 
floor.
  Thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain my amendment.
  The Jackson Lee amendment supports the work of the National Institute 
of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) by making a modest increase in funding 
to that office for the purpose of supporting agriculture research 
programs at 1890s Institutions, which are land grant colleges at 19 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
  NIFA works to improve our nation's food production through 
agricultural research, economic analysis, extension, and higher 
education.
  The NIFA was created at the time of the industrial revolution to 
ensure that the nation would have a sufficient number of working farms 
to provide a reliable supply of domestically produced food.
  One of ways NIFA achieves its mission is by providing research grants 
to education institutions, which include 1890s institutions created by 
the Morrill Act of 1890.
  Today, land-grant colleges and universities can be found in 18 
states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  The list includes:
  Alabama A&M University
  Alcorn State University
  Delaware State University
  Florida A&M University
  Fort Valley State University
  Kentucky State University
  Langston University
  Lincoln University
  North Carolina A&T State University
  Prairie View A&M University in Texas
  South Carolina State University
  Southern University System
  Tennessee State University
  Tuskegee University
  University of Arkansas Pine Bluff
  University of Maryland Eastern Shore
  University of the District of Columbia
  University of the Virgin Islands
  Virginia State University
  West Virginia State University
  HBCUs annually enroll 40 percent of all African American students in 
4-year colleges and universities.
  HBCUs are prominent among research institutions in fields such as:
  animal sciences
  sustainable agriculture and agriculture economics
  toxicology and waste management
  conservation and environmental management
  business and industrial development
  biomedical science
  food and nutrition
  plant and social sciences
  international development
  The demand for fresh fruits and vegetables as well as concerns for 
the distance food travels before they reach the tables in urban areas 
has led to the rise of urban farming.
  HBCU agriculture research institutions are playing a significant role 
in bringing urban farming to communities of color.

[[Page H4958]]

  HCBU's agricultural research programs also assist people living in 
densely populated areas to learn ways to eliminate food deserts, 
increase public education regarding farming, develop a greater 
appreciation for our nation's farmers, and provide new avenues for 
careers for those graduating with agriculture degrees seeking to inter 
into cutting edge agricultural research.
  The funds provided by the Jackson Lee amendment would support 
research and education into means for helping urban and suburban 
communities maximize their green space by turning it into productive 
farming resources to support access to affordable foods.
  The funding can also help to develop new research efforts directed at 
farming techniques for non-traditional farming space, such as those we 
are now seeing being developed for urban centers.
  Adoption of the Jackson Lee Amendment will benefit rural, suburban 
and urban areas by maximizing the potential for farming activity in 
areas where green space is limited, or land is underused.
  I urge support of the Jackson Lee Amendment and thank Chairman Bishop 
and his colleagues on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for 
their work on this important legislation.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment 
to H.R. 3055, which would provide funding for the 400 Years of African-
American History Commission. I would like to thank my colleagues, 
Representatives John Lewis, Barbara Lee, and Rashida Tlaib for 
cosponsoring this amendment which would provide an additional $500,000 
to support the work of this important commission. I would also like to 
thank Chairwoman Lowey, Chairwoman McCollum and the Appropriations 
Committee for working with me to include funding in the underlying bill 
and their support for this amendment.
  The 400 Years of African American History Commission is charged with 
planning programs and activities to commemorate the arrival of the 
``twenty and odd'' enslaved Africans who arrived at Point Comfort, 
Virginia 400 years ago this August and to recognize the influence and 
contributions of Africans in America in the 400 years since.
  Unfortunately, that August day in 1619 was not the last time men, 
women, and children arrived to our country as slaves or were born into 
bondage here. The history of our nation cannot be fully understood or 
appreciated without knowing and acknowledging their stories and 
understanding the ramifications of slavery. We must not ever allow 
ourselves to forget that this country, including our nation's Capitol, 
was built through the forced labor of enslaved Africans and their 
descendents.
  More than a stain on our nation's past, racism in America did not end 
with emancipation nor the end of Jim Crow. We must recognize how it 
continues to impact our communities and our nation today as we address 
issues of environmental justice, voting rights, mass incarceration, 
police brutality, and inequity in education and housing. Only then can 
we begin to move forward together as a country.
  In the past 400 years, African Americans have struggled and 
triumphed, making important strides and innovations in science, 
medicine, business, politics, law, the arts, and more. As we remember, 
mourn, reflect, and study horrific parts of our nation's history and 
work to address systemic racism today, the Commission is also intended 
to celebrate the many accomplishments of African Americans.
  This body has a history of funding the work of similar commemorative 
commissions and I trust that our support for the work of this 
commission will be no different. I remember fondly the many 
celebrations surrounding the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown 
Settlement in 2007, just a few miles up the James River from historic 
Point Comfort. As we look forward to the 100th anniversary of the 19th 
Amendment next year, I am grateful for the Women's Suffrage Centennial 
Commission and the funding they have received to support their 
important work. I am also grateful for this body's generous support of 
the United States Semiquincentennial Commissioners as we prepare to 
celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence in 2026.
  It was the successes of those previous commemorative commissions that 
Senator Tim Kaine had in mind when he initially developed the concept 
for this commission and asked me to introduce his bill in the House of 
Representatives. Each of these commissions received generous federal 
appropriations.
  While we were successful in getting our bill enacted and the 
commission established, Congress has yet to appropriate any federal 
funds to support the work of the 400 Years of African American History 
Commission. That changes with the Fiscal Year 2020 Interior bill, which 
already included $500,000 for the commission. The additional $500,000 
of funding provided in my amendment will ensure that there are 
sufficient opportunities for the American people to gather, to study, 
to reflect, and to fully appreciate the story of African Americans, 
their contributions to the fabric of our nation, and their resilience 
over the last 400 years.
  Mr. Chair, while it is imperative that we observe this year, 2019, as 
the 400th year since the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the 
English colonies with reverence, it is equally important that we 
celebrate all that our communities have achieved throughout those 400 
years.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in marking this occasion, as 
this body has so many other anniversaries, by fully supporting the 
Commission's ongoing work. Their efforts to preserve history and invite 
all Americans to reflect and remember is essential as we continue to 
work towards creating a more perfect union.
  Ms. MOORE, Mr. Chair, I rise to thank the chair and ranking member 
for including my amendment to increase funding to help low-income 
households replace lead pipes in this en bloc amendment.
  Even with the plus-ups in this bill for a number of programs within 
the EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grant account, and I thank the 
subcommittee and full committee for their work there, the amount of 
resources we are providing pales considerable in comparison to the need 
to address water infrastructure needs.
  Let's just look at this program that I am amending today. The program 
is authorized at $60 million. Even after the subcommittee provided a $5 
million boost (and I thank the chairwoman for that), it still is only 
funded at a third of the authorized level.
  This is a critical program because grantees are able to provide aid 
to low-income homeowners to replace lead service lines. Unfortunately, 
those households most affected by this problem often have the fewest 
resources to replace the pipes.
  Recent media reports indicate that the EPA may be finally closer to 
issuing its new lead in drinking water regulations.
  And while better and stronger regulations help, we won't regulate our 
way out of the lead poisoning crisis that is afflicting our 
communities.
  We must put our funding where our mouths are. We must help get the 
lead pipes out of the ground and help homeowners get them out of their 
homes. We must ensure children get tested and treated, if they need it. 
We must ensure that homes with lead paint get remediated. And all of 
that takes funding--there is no substitute for that funding.
  Just this past weekend, the city of Milwaukee had the honor of 
hosting the Great Lakes Governors and Premiers, the chief executives of 
what would be the third largest world economy if you added up the GDP 
of the individual states and provinces.
  At the top of their agenda was addressing how to provide clean 
drinking water for the over 105 million residents of the Great Lakes 
region on both sides of the international border. According to the 
Governors and Premiers, the Great Lakes region contains the highest 
concentrations of lead service lines in the United States.
  I want to echo the call of the Great Lakes Governors & Premiers for 
the federal governments ``of both the U.S. and Canada to provide 
appropriate resources . . . to support the accelerated replacement of 
Lead Service Lines.'' They also called for a comprehensive approach 
that leverages ``a variety of funding sources and flexibility to match 
the right tool with each project.''
  This bill moves us forward--no question. The THUD bill that we are 
tackling later this week also provides increased funding for HUD's 
housing lead control programs. But we need to start taking much bigger 
steps if we are ever going to get to the point where all children will 
be safe from this scourge.
  That's the goal of this amendment. And I thank the chairwoman for her 
support.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I rise to thank the chairwoman and committee 
for including my amendment to increase funding by $1 million for an 
Indian Health Service program combatting domestic violence in Native 
communities.
  I know the chairwoman understands this issue very well. Protecting 
women in Native communities was a big focus on the VAWA reauthorization 
that passed this chamber earlier this year. I want to make sure we 
provide the strong funding that will be needed to make those changes 
reality and protect Native women. This is one program that does that.
  The Indian Health Services Domestic Violence Prevention Program is a 
small program but it's having a big impact. The DVPP was established in 
2015 as a nationally-coordinated program that provides culturally 
appropriate domestic violence and sexual assault prevention and 
intervention resources to American Indian and Alaskan Native 
communities with a focus on trauma informed services.
  The vast majority of DVPP grants focus on domestic and sexual 
violence prevention, advocacy, and coordinated community responses, 
with some supporting forensic

[[Page H4959]]

healthcare services to victims of domestic and sexual violence.
  I appreciate the effort made by the subcommittee in the bill to add 
funding to bring funding for this program back to the FY 2017 funding 
level. Thank you for recognizing the need and prioritizing a response.
  But I think we must do better especially when you consider the 
staggering need here.
  The statistics (as incomplete as they may be) are frightening: 
American Indians and Alaska Natives are 2.5 times more likely to 
experience violent crimes and at least 2 times more likely to 
experience rape or sexual assault crimes than people who are not 
American Indians or Alaska Natives. More than 4 in 5 American Indian 
and Alaska Native women, or 84.3 percent, have experienced violence in 
their lifetime.
  There are currently some 83 tribes, tribal organizations, Urban 
Indian Organizations, and IHS federal facilities that receive funds 
totaling nearly $12 million from this program. These include projects 
in my city of Milwaukee as well as in Alaska, Nebraska, and Oregon, 
among others.
  I understand the constraints that the subcommittee faces. The needs 
always outnumber the resources. But this is a pressing priority. This 
additional funding will hopefully allow for more grantees serving more 
tribal communities that can help begin to turn the tide.
  I know the chairwoman has been a champion for Native American 
communities and I thank her for her support of my amendment.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to the Interior Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2020. In 2013, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Office of Law Enforcement 
established the Wildlife Detector Dog Program as part of a national 
effort to combat illegal wildlife trafficking. Certified canines and 
wildlife inspector handlers go through a 13-week training course at the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Detector Dog Training Center 
in Newman, Georgia, and they are trained for real work environments 
such as mail facilities, ocean containers, and air cargo warehouses. 
Since the program's inception, USFWS has added more wildlife detectors. 
There are now six detector dogs deployed at USFWS designated ports of 
entry: Dutton in Houston, Texas; Beans in Chicago, Illinois; Viper in 
Miami, Florida; Samm in San Juan, Puerto Rico; Dock in Anchorage, 
Alaska; and Lockett near my Congressional District in Los Angeles, 
California.
  These highly intelligent canines, paired with highly trained 
handlers, are able to detect many wildlife scents, such as elephant 
ivory, sea turtle skin, dried seahorse, python skin, and rhino horn. 
USFWS has reported that the use of these dogs is far more efficient 
than deploying human inspectors. For every 1,000 packages sniffed by 
dogs, 10 packages are properly inspected by humans.
  The Wildlife Detector Dog Program strengthens and expands USFWS' 
inspection capabilities on illegal wildlife products. With more than 18 
major ports of entry across the country, I would like to take this 
opportunity to urge more attention and resources be dedicated to the 
growth and expansion of this program.
  My amendment will designate $200,000 of Department of Interior 
appropriations for the Wildlife Detector Dog Program, which is the 
estimated cost of adding an additional K-9 unit to the program. I thank 
Chairwoman McCollum for her support on this amendment and I urge my 
colleagues to join us in passing it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 135 Offered by Mr. Duncan

  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Jackson Lee). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 135 printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, 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 division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce--
       (1) the final rule entitled ``Carbon Pollution Emission 
     Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
     Generating Units'' published by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015 (80 Fed. 
     Reg. 64662); or
       (2) the final rule entitled ``Standards of Performance for 
     Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and 
     Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating 
     Units'' published by the Environmental Protection Agency in 
     the Federal Register on October 23, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 
     64510).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I rise today with an amendment to ensure 
that no funds go to the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.
  In 2015, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency published a final 
rule for the Clean Power Plan, with the intent to reduce CO2 
emissions from the existing fossil fuel power plants by 32 percent by 
2030. It set specific and stringent limits on greenhouse gas emissions 
for each State based on its electricity mix.
  While this sounds well intended, it is important that we look at the 
costly and burdensome reality of the so-called Clean Power Plan.
  It would cause a slew of economic, environmental, and legal problems. 
Families and businesses would be hit the hardest with more expensive 
energy and utility bills. And for what?
  According to climatologist Paul Knappenberger: ``Even if we implement 
the CPP to perfection, the amount of climate change averted over the 
course of this century amounts to about 0.02 centigrade. This is so 
small as to be scientifically undetectable and environmentally 
insignificant.''
  It is evident that the Clean Power Plan is nothing more than a feel-
good environmental regulation promulgated by the radical environmental 
left and is based on a trajectory that is negligible, all while driving 
up the cost for average American families.
  Beyond the negligible effects of the Clean Power Plan, it is legally 
unfounded and may even be unconstitutional. In the words of Laurence 
Tribe, who testified before Congress: ``EPA is attempting an 
unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the States, 
Congress, and the Federal courts--all at once. Burning the Constitution 
should not become part of our national energy policy.''
  Because of its legal issues, more than half the States in the country 
petitioned the Supreme Court to pause the Clean Power Plan 
implementations. A stay was issued in 2016.
  I strongly commend the Trump administration for taking action on this 
issue this week and replacing the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable 
Clean Energy rule. This move paves the way for affordable and clean 
energy, and I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and 
support continued American energy dominance.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, whether or not my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle want to admit it, climate change is real. It is 
caused by human activity. And it will--I should say, it is even 
currently now having devastating impacts. If we don't take bold action 
to reduce climate pollution, it is 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, EPA 
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.
  Those numbers, Madam Chair, are the EPA's numbers. Just think of it.
  The administration that is held with the responsibility of protecting 
America's air and water so that it is fit for human consumption puts 
out a regulation to limit the pollution that actually increases the 
amount of pollution

[[Page H4960]]

that we emit, causing more deaths, more asthma attacks, more trips to 
the emergency 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.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, specifically, the CPP aimed to 
dramatically reduce carbon dioxide, CO2 emissions, from new 
and existing power plants. These new regulations called for an 
unrealistic 32 percent nationwide cut in CO2 emissions by 
2030 from 2005 levels.
  I have just got to tell you, we are wrapping up scientific evidence, 
and we are putting a moral cloud on it. That is exactly the definition 
of what Alinsky wanted us to start talking about and moving processes.
  These new mandates placed incredible burdens on States. They would 
have increased the electrical rates and endangered overall reliability 
of the grid. 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 suit on December 1, 2015. Unfortunately, 
President Obama decided to veto both of these pieces of legislation and 
continue his war on coal.
  We shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Climate change has been 
going on for eons of time. That is why you can actually have a fossil 
coming from Green River, Wyoming, that is nowhere close to the ocean. I 
vote against this.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I believe I have the right to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), one of the other cosponsors of this 
amendment.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Chair, this amendment prohibits funds under this 
act from being used to enforce two rules under Obama's so-called Clean 
Power Plan.
  This plan was administrative overreach, plain and simple. It would 
have mandated the shutdown of power plants and increased energy costs 
for families across the country.
  The Clean Power Plan is just another example of Obama-era 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 percent reduction in the CO2 emissions rate 
for affected power plants and to achieve about 90 percent of that 
reduction by next year, 2020. That was totally unrealistic.
  Arizona has Palo Verde nuclear plant. It is the largest producing 
nuclear plant in the entire Nation. Often Arizona produces more energy 
than it consumes, and so we sell our energy and our electricity 
throughout the Southwest. So Arizona energy is American energy.
  The regulations that strangle Arizona power generating stations harm 
American consumers well beyond our borders. I applaud the Trump 
administration for recognizing the harm of the Clean Power Plan and 
repealing and replacing it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, to be clear, many States supported the 
clean energy rules of the Obama administration because they know air 
knows no boundary. So one State decides it is not going to have clean 
air rules, and that drifts into the next State, affecting that State's 
health and quality of life. So it was prudent for the Federal 
Government to step in and set standards.
  No one's power plant was going to be forced to be closed. They were 
just being told to clean up the air. So when it leaves one State to 
drift into the next State, it is 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 for power 
plants is an important part of an overall strategy to protect us from 
the worst impacts of climate change. We owe it to the next generation. 
They are watching our actions.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, 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 South 
Carolina will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 136 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 136 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, 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 division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to plan, design, study, or construct, for the purpose 
     of harvesting timber by private entities or individuals, a 
     forest development road in the Tongass National Forest.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  This amendment is simple. It would restrict the subsidization of 
logging roads in the Tongass wilderness.
  There are currently more than 5,000 miles of road that are used for 
logging. They are not accessible to the public. These roads are 
subsidized simply because the timber industry in the Tongass cannot 
sustain itself. It could not exist other than the fact that we build 
logging roads for them.
  It is a problem on several levels. First and foremost, there is a 
long-term liability associated with them. Currently, there is some $90 
million worth of deferred maintenance, and 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 and 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 sink.
  This amendment is supported by many environmental and taxpayer 
advocate groups: Alaska Wilderness Action, Earthjustice, the Sierra 
Club. But because it is a profligate waste of tax dollars, we have 
Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste 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 subsidization 
of the destruction of this precious resource making climate change 
worse while undermining the values that make the Tongass so valuable.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alaska is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H4961]]

  

  Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer), my good friend. I am always amazed how many people in this 
body know what is better for Alaska.
  Four times in this last 2 weeks some of you have come out: I know 
what is best for Alaska.
  This Roadless Rule was never to be. It was Obama's decision, and we 
appealed it, and we 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 don't consume, new trees do. 
They clean the air out; old trees do not. We are not talking about, 
really, timber here, because you can't have a timber sale unless it is 
put up for sale. We are talking about access across Federal lands, 
because State land is one side--State land and Federal land in between.
  We are asking, very frankly, just to have access. And that is the 
law. Under the ANILCA law, there was to be no more. Obama changed it by 
regulation. We are changing it again.
  Now, I don't understand where he got this information, how he got it, 
what he has seen, where he has gone.
  You talked about tourism. Tourism is great for you people in Oregon 
who want to come to Alaska, but it doesn't support our schools. It 
doesn't support a growing society. It, frankly, supports old growth, 
which has no value at all, other than to look at for a short period of 
time when it dies.
  We had 32 forest fires last year, because you don't allow roads into 
an area so we can manage them, and that is wrong.
  All we are asking is to have what the State was guaranteed by this 
body. And you are taking it away from them and saying: You don't have 
access to your lands. You don't have a right to build anything because 
you don't have the ability to have a road.
  And I stand here as one Member who represents the greatest State in 
the Union, the largest district. I constantly see people--incinerators, 
game, timber, mining. Why don't you mind your own damn business? This 
is not yours.
  I am disappointed the gentleman would do this.
  You are a friend of mine. Did you ever consult me about this? No. And 
that is disrespectful.
  Maybe I ought to think about something that makes you more respectful 
to me.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman (Mr. Blumenauer), my 
friend, for introducing this amendment.
  Earlier this year, I introduced a bill to codify the Roadless Rule 
across the country. For nearly two decades, the Roadless Rule has been 
an important tool for preserving pristine forests, clean water, and 
wildlife. It has also protected taxpayers from subsidizing even more 
costly road building in national forests.
  No roadless place is more in need of this protection than Tongass 
National Forest in Alaska. The Tongass National Forest is home to some 
of the most undisturbed, temperate, old-growth rainforests in the 
world.
  These 16 million acres of beautiful landscape are also a critical 
carbon sequestration tool and a 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 
sportsmen industries, the State of Alaska has proposed to strip this 
forest of full Roadless protection.
  Stripping Roadless Rule protections from Tongass National Forest will 
allow millions of taxpayer dollars to be funneled into incredibly 
expensive road-building projects in one of the most remote, wild parts 
of our country.
  This amendment does not end discussion of how and where the Roadless 
Rule should be applied in Alaska and other States. It is much simpler 
than that. All this amendment does is prevent taxpayer dollars from 
being used to subsidize more old-growth logging in Alaska's Tongass 
National Forest.
  Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill to construct 
environmentally harmful roads for the logging industry in this pristine 
place. This is the exact sort of fiscally responsible amendment my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle should support. That is 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.
  Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chair, I suggest, when they talk about the taxpayer, 
these roads that are in place now, maintenance costs were already 
there. The reason they are not being used is because there is no timber 
in that area, which have been cut already, a very small amount of the 
Tongass. I am talking about State land.
  By the way, can I ask the gentleman who just briefly spoke, or 
anybody: Have you been to the Tongass?
  Do any one of you want to answer that? No. They are mimicking or 
parroting what has been fed to them.
  This is not the United States of the Federal Government; it is the 
United States of America. You are taking away the right of a State of 
access to their land because of this action, and that is wrong.
  I said we won it in court. You may not know that. We will win it 
again, because the law is very clear: There was to be no more in 
Alaska, but Obama did apply it.
  So I am saying: Have at it. It is not going anywhere.
  I shouldn't get excited. It is just the idea that you are supposed to 
be representing a form of government, and you should have a right to 
represent your district. That is your responsibility.
  Stay out of my district, because you are not doing what is right for 
the State of Alaska, and that is my job. I say shame on you.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time each 
side has remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Alaska has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, 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 to witness the most catastrophic fires in 
Arizona history because of our mismanagement of forests: The Wallow 
fire, the largest fire in Arizona history; and then the Yarnell fire, 
where we lost 19 firefighters.
  It is incredible that what we are doing is we are trying to have 
jurisdiction over fires. There is a reason why we have had to subsidize 
that: because we have put the industry out of business by sue and 
settle.
  Folks, there is a cost to these fires, and 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 
trees, not old-growth trees. A happy medium of all is a dynamic forest.
  So if you are preventing this--the gentleman from Arizona ought to 
know better. We are sitting on catastrophic results in Arizona. Let's 
not impugn the trees in Alaska.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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 I am 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. I referenced 
the fact that we have an opportunity to be able to focus our attention 
on things that really do make a difference.
  I haven't spent time in the Tongass; I have spent time in Alaska. But 
the principle applies in Oregon and other States in terms of heavily 
subsidized logging roads.

[[Page H4962]]

  Logging roads don't make forests safer. They don't prevent forest 
fires. And as a matter of fact, when we look at logging operations, 
they are often less sustainable. In fact, logging sometimes causes 
forest fires and puts people in these areas who cause fires.
  Now, I would just respectfully suggest that what I said about Alaska 
being threatened more by climate change than any other, I am happy to 
provide my good friend from Alaska the references in terms of verifying 
the statistics and facts that I have used, but the fact remains this is 
something we shouldn't do, we don't need, and I strongly urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, 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 Oregon will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 139 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 139 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, 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 division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final rule 
     entitled ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
     Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act'' 
     published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the 
     Federal Register on December 15, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 66496 et 
     seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It would prevent any 
funds in this bill from being used to carry out the EPA disastrous 2009 
Endangerment Finding.
  The EPA'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 the oversight of 
the quality of information disseminated by the Federal Government. 
Unfortunately, bureaucrats in President Obama's EPA evaded the 
requirements set forth 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, why then did President Obama's EPA go to such lengths to prevent 
their assessment from rigorous peer review?
  Interesting.
  In April of this year, President Trump's Office of Management and 
Budget released a memo to ``reinforce, clarify, and interpret agency 
responsibilities with regard to responsibilities under the Information 
Quality Act.''
  In April, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned the EPA to 
stop using the 2009 Endangerment Finding until it subjected itself to 
the high-level scientific peer review that is legally required under 
the Information Quality Act.
  CEI's petition to the EPA found numerous instances in which the EPA 
failed to meet the Agency's own peer review standards for the highly 
scientific assessments. Some of the failure of the EPA noted by CEI 
include failing ``to allow public, including scientific and 
professional societies, to nominate potential reviewers,'' allowing an 
EPA employee to conduct peer review, utilizing peer reviewers who were 
reviewing their own work, and reliance on the United Nations Climate 
Change Panel reports that do not meet Federal peer review standards.
  Completely obnoxious.
  Now, even the staunchest advocates for taking aggressive action on 
our climate should be able to agree that the process the EPA used to 
adopt the Endangerment Finding failed to meet the required peer review 
process.
  Fortunately, there is an alternative. Madam Chairwoman, I believe the 
best way to improve our environment and to ensure the economic 
prosperity of this country is to rely on sound science, not on the 
opinions of unelected bureaucrats at the EPA.
  If climate alarmists are so confident that the 2009 Endangerment 
Finding is sound science, then conduct proper peer review, following 
the guidelines of the Information Quality Act put forth by OMB, that 
will assure the outcome.
  Madam Chairwoman, this is not a partisan issue. No matter what side 
of the climate change debate you fall on, we can all agree that the EPA 
has evaded its responsibility to peer review and developing sound 
science when authoring its Endangerment Findings.
  The process was broken, and good process makes good policy, which 
makes good politics. This body should not fund the implementation of 
policies based on the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
  Madam Chair, I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support 
my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, we have many fine employees at the EPA--
great employees--and I would be hesitant to put them in the way that 
sometimes the term ``bureaucrat'' is used, because sometimes that can 
feel demeaning. So, to the great scientists in the EPA, I just want 
them to know that I respect their work.

                              {time}  1430

  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition, as I said, to this 
amendment, which would prevent the EPA from implementing its 
endangerment finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and 
welfare.
  The EPA's endangerment finding is simply a legal restating of 
something that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said. 
Every single scientific academy in the world--and I want to stress 
that, Madam Chair. I heard the gentleman talk about some kind of peer 
review, but I am going to go with what the national scientific 
academies in the world and 97 percent of climate scientists have been 
telling us for decades. I am going to go with 97 percent of the 
scientists, Madam Chair.
  Whether or not my colleague on the other side of the aisle will admit 
it, our climate is changing. We know it in Minnesota, and I hear other 
people from around the country talk about it. And we do know that it is 
caused by human activity.
  We are already experiencing negative impacts from climate change. The 
severity of those impacts will only increase if we don't reduce climate 
pollution.
  The endangerment finding does not regulate climate pollution, but it 
does say that we need to take action to address it, and I agree.
  We have a moral obligation to future generations to leave this planet 
better than we found it. Blocking the endangerment rule won't make that 
happen for future generations.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I ask one simple question: If Members of this 
body are so confident of the 2009 endangerment findings, then high-
quality peer review would result in the same outcome, correct? What 
would be the fallacy with that?
  Once again, good process builds good policy builds good politics. We 
fail to do that. We want to use science when it is convenient for us. 
That is the problem.
  The other side calls themselves the party of science. Then they 
should be all for this peer review aspect. But, no, we don't want to do 
that because it is not convenient.
  Once again, I agree. Climates are always changing. That is why we 
find fossilized fish up in western Wyoming. Was man around during that 
time? No, not at all. Were the carbon footprints

[[Page H4963]]

at that time very similar to what they are today? They were higher at 
that point in time.
  Science has been peer-reviewed, and that is why we have gotten to the 
point that when I give you one set of circumstances, you get the same 
outcome. That is what peer-reviewed science is. This country is set 
upon sound science. We ought to determine that.
  Madam Chair, I ask for everybody to vote for this, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Once again, what I see is delay by not going with 
scientists around the world.
  Madam Chair, 97 percent of the scientists leading the way on what we 
should be doing clearly state that human activity has a direct impact 
on climate change. We can't ignore the dangers of it.
  We need urgent and bold action to address climate change. We don't 
need to be putting our heads in the sand. We don't need to be delaying.
  I oppose the taxpayers of this country spending more money when we 
already have sound science. I oppose wasting time. So I oppose this 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 140 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 140 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 224, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,720,000) (increased by $1,720,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Gosar and the Congressional 
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 predominant pathways and 
mechanisms for the transmission of chronic wasting disease in cervid 
populations.
  There is a lot of CWD research out there--some good, some not so 
good. What we need is an authoritative and comprehensive scientific 
consensus on how chronic wasting disease spreads. This study will allow 
us to pursue the most effective methods to fight CWD, but we cannot do 
this without the proper resources.
  I thank the committee and the subcommittee chairs, ranking members, 
and staff for increasing CWD funding and for providing language that 
encourages greater scientific collaboration within the Federal 
Government. This will set us on the right path to understanding how CWD 
infects and how it spreads, and it will give the foundation of 
knowledge we need to build the right policy.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment in 
order to be able to speak on it.
  The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I thank both gentlemen for their concern 
and dedication to this issue. In the 1990s when I served in the 
Minnesota House on our environment and agriculture committee, I first 
learned of chronic wasting disease and the way that it was frightening 
hunters and people who like to consume deer meat.
  We took some action when I was in the statehouse to address this, 
only to find out it is a bigger flare-up and something that we need to 
address.
  In my home State of Minnesota, under the leadership of Governor Walz, 
we are putting more time, more energy, and more resources into working 
on this issue. That is why my colleagues will find that the House 
report accompanying the Interior bill highlights the committee's 
concern about chronic wasting disease and the need to continue to 
collaborate with partners to develop early detection tools and 
compounds 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 
provinces in Canada. Once this disease is established in an area, the 
risks can remain for a long time in the environment, and we are finding 
out that ``a long time'' is a long time.
  The lack of treatment or vaccines for this insidious disease 
highlights the need for more research. As a member of the Agriculture 
Committee, we have been talking to the USDA about what we can do about 
disposing of these carcasses because this disease not only appears in 
the wild, it also appears in some captive herds that are used for 
consumption.
  I want my colleagues to know that I look forward to working with them 
on this issue. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to let both 
gentlemen know that it is in the report language, and we look forward 
to the authorizers working more so we can do even more to address this 
disease.
  Madam Chair, I thank the gentlemen once again for their amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota. 
Chronic wasting disease is 100 percent fatal. We have similar diseases 
like mad cow disease in cattle and scrapie in sheep.
  One of the things that we are very concerned with, as the gentlewoman 
alluded to, is that we have no testing available for hunter 
populations. Is it communicable to human beings and to other aspects of 
agriculture? Those are some of the things that we really need to 
address.
  As the gentlewoman said, we have now seen it in 25 States, so it is 
spreading. Once again, being 100 percent fatal, we have 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 
it is at the forefront.
  I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. As a veterinarian, as a 
physician, he understands the dire ramifications of this. I thank the 
gentlewoman for accepting this.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 143 Offered by Mr. Duncan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 143 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 286, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 
     11.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I rise today with an amendment at the desk 
to ensure that 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 planned to further 
American energy dominance.

[[Page H4964]]

  The opening of a small part of ANWR for oil and gas drilling will 
increase access to our resources and will help decrease the prices of 
oil and gas for the American people.
  Alaska contains 192 million acres of parks, refuges, wilderness 
areas, and nature preserves, and 19.5 million acres of this is in ANWR. 
Before tax reform and the opening of ANWR, 92 percent of the 19.5 
million couldn't legally be touched by drilling.
  The law changed to open new opportunities for responsible energy 
development, and we shouldn't backtrack. This area was set aside to be 
opened in 1980 by a Democrat-controlled Congress and is limited to 
2,000 Federal acres, just 0.0001 percent 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 of my 
time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment that 
would strike section 118 from the bill.
  I want to begin by setting the record straight on what 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 National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. That is an outright 
misstatement, Madam Chair. Although, as I will explain, I can 
understand why those who championed the inflated revenue numbers 18 
months ago might be a little worried.
  On the contrary, the language says that when the Department of the 
Interior offers those leases up for sale, it simply must make sure that 
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 and Natural Resources Committee to come up with 
legislation that would raise $1 billion over 10 years.

                              {time}  1445

  Since the lease, that $1 billion was supposed to help offset the cost 
of a $5 trillion tax cut. In reality, I believe it was a scam to get 
around a point of order. Once the ANWR provision was included in the 
tax bill, the Congressional Budget Office said the provision would 
raise 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 CBO, which got its information from the Interior 
Department, the first resale 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 CBO they could raise from our public 
lands, then they should have no problem with the language in our bill, 
because that is exactly what our language does. It tells the Interior 
Department that 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. That is called accountability, and the taxpayers have a right 
to expect it.
  Now, since we don't know exactly how many acres Interior intends to 
offer up for lease, and we can't 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 the 
companies to bid $2,500 an acre for these public lands.
  Apparently, the administration and the congressional opponents are 
having second thoughts about those promises now and want a little 
amnesty. On May 21, the Office of Management and Budget sent the 
Appropriations Committee a letter making it clear that the 
administration opposes section 118 language. OMB says that the $500 
million figure was arbitrary and unrealistic.
  Now, how could the administration claim that that number was 
arbitrary and unrealistic when CBO estimates were based on the 
administration's data?
  Where was OMB in December of 2017 when CBO first came out?
  More importantly, where were the congressional opponents of drilling 
ANWR back then?
  Why didn't they sound a little alarmed 18 months ago?
  Why not speak up and say: ``Wait a minute, I think this number is too 
high, maybe it is unrealistic''?
  Well, I suspect they thought they would never be held responsible for 
the projections that they were touting back then, and maybe that 
explains why the language in the Interior bill is characterized as 
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.
  So let me be clear. I oppose opening up ANWR for drilling. But now 
that it is in the tax bill, we have an obligation to make sure that the 
American taxpayer is protected, and the language currently in the 
Interior bill does exactly that, Madam Chair. It ensures that the 
public property is not given away to the oil and gas industry for a 
song.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), who is one of the cosponsors of the amendment and 
the dean of the House.
  Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We passed the same opening of ANWR 14 times in this House, including 
when the Democrats controlled it, because this was set up by Moe Udall, 
Senator Jackson, Ted Stevens, and myself for an area that has potential 
great value to this Nation and, of course, the State of Alaska. That 
has been decided. Because they said at that time and I said at that 
time that if Congress was to say we should open ANWR, drilling can take 
place.
  Now, as far as the figures go, one of the things that bothers me, 
because the statement says 50 percent of the CBO score, one score, the 
first sale may not make that.
  But who is to say what the second sale is going to make or the third 
sale?
  So the total amount is for the Treasury of the United States of 
America.
  This area is not pristine. I have to say that. I wish some people 
would go up and see it. It has been developed before by defense 
systems. The people there who live there, the Native people, the 
Inuits, they support it. The State of Alaska supports it. It is the 
right thing to do for America.
  This is a backdoor approach by certain people of the other party who 
want to not open ANWR. You lost that battle. We won. For the good of 
the country, the good of the State, and for the good of the people, we 
won. This is a back way to stop it.
  I believe we are going to raise that money. That is how confident I 
am. I think the sales will produce what we say. So I am not going to 
really get excited about this, because it is not going to go anywhere. 
Thank God we have got two Senators for every State. It is the right 
thing to do. That is why the Constitution and the forefathers made it 
that way. So I have got two Senators who will make sure this doesn't go 
anywhere.
  I appreciate those who oppose it. I thank the chairwoman for actually 
saying she does oppose opening ANWR. I respect that. I happen to 
support it, and I think I will be proven right.
  I believe this amendment is the right way to go. I think we ought to 
eliminate the question, so I am going to urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
legislation. It is the right thing to do. Then let's go forward and 
really govern for the future. That is important. We are missing that.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairman, this amendment attempts to change the 
requirements for oil and gas leases. I will say it's very 
entrepreneurial in its disguise.
  But I want to remind people in regard 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 developed with ANWR is just one-fifth the size of the Dulles 
Airport. Amazing. If you have ever been there, it is something to be 
seen.

[[Page H4965]]

  As the Congressional Western Caucus chairman, we actually took that 
liberty of going up there and being hosted by the gentleman from 
Alaska. What you are being told and what is being there in aspect isn't 
the same.
  So, Madam Chair, I actually join the gentleman from South Carolina 
and ask for a ``yes'' vote.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce).
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. 
When it comes to ANWR, there is no such thing as a noncontroversial 
policy provision. This one found its way into the Interior-Environment 
spending bill at a time when longstanding bipartisan provisions have 
fallen out.
  As I mentioned during general debate on this spending package, we 
need to remove these poison pill riders before we can reach a 
longstanding bipartisan agreement. That is why I support the amendment 
to strike this controversial policy position.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. May I inquire how much time I have on closing, Madam 
Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Well, Madam Chair, 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, and 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 don't get taken to the cleaners.
  Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, 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 South 
Carolina will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 144 printed in part B of 
House Report 116-119.


                Amendment No. 147 offered by Mr. Mullin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 147 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, 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 division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the final rule entitled ``Oil and Natural 
     Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
     Modified Sources'' published by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 
     35824).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds for 
enforcing the Obama administration EPA 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 oil and gas production has increased over 25 percent since 
2005, related methane gas emissions have actually decreased over 40 
percent during the same period, meaning the industry is doing a good 
job of regulating themselves.
  It is counterproductive for the Federal Government to enact harmful 
regulations that cause inefficiencies and recklessly spending taxpayer 
dollars enforcing hardships on true job creators.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, this amendment would prevent the 
Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing commonsense rules 
requiring oil and gas industries to prevent natural gas leaks from 
their drilling operations. The rule has been in effect for 3 years now, 
and the oil and gas industry is complying with those regulations.
  Preventing methane leaks has an important public health benefit. 
Leaks from natural gas operations are significant sources of ozone 
pollution which trigger asthma attacks and send thousands of children 
to emergency rooms every year.
  This rule actually saves the oil and gas industry money because 
natural gas that is not wasted can be sold.
  The proponents of this amendment argue that the rule isn't necessary 
because oil and gas companies have an incentive to prevent leaks. But 
the simple fact is 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, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. My colleague, Mr. Mullin, is absolutely correct. When 
former President Obama directed the EPA, BLM, and other agencies to 
target industries for greenhouse gas emissions, they went directly for 
the oil and natural gas first.
  But this EPA rule targeting methane is completely unnecessary. It is 
produced as a byproduct of oil and natural gas production, but it is a 
valuable product in itself that can be sold and is sold. It is 
something that oil and gas companies routinely capture and sell. They 
were doing a great job of this even before this rule. It was 
unnecessary.
  Even EPA estimates show that the methane emissions have decreased 
while the production of natural gas and oil have increased over the 
same period. The free market has provided an incentive to reduce 
methane release on its own. There is no further need for the EPA to 
impose this bureaucratic hurdle. It is expensive. The cost is estimated 
to cost our economy $530 million annually. Amazing.
  Once again, as Ronald Reagan used to say:

       Government is not the solution, government is the problem.

  This is a regulation in search of a problem.
  Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, in closing, during the conversation that was 
taking place just a second ago, a comment was made that said it 
actually saves the industry money. I got have got to step back and 
think, how is that possible? Because if it was saving the industry 
money they wouldn't oppose it.
  If it is saving money, who would oppose it?
  I haven't met a regulation ever from a small business owner--which is 
the only reason why I am here, because of the job-killing regulations 
that come out of this place constantly--that has ever saved me any 
money.
  What we are talking about are real jobs that affect real people's 
lives.
  This Congress always talks about job creation and creating job 
packages. We want to brag about how many jobs we have created. This 
body doesn't create jobs. We are supposed to create an environment in 
which job creators can create a job, and we are saying this one will 
kill jobs.
  So why would we support this?
  It doesn't make any sense to me.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, we know for a fact that methane leaks

[[Page H4966]]

contribute to ground level ozone pollution. We know that that is 
harmful to human beings. We do know that reducing leaks improves the 
bottom line for the oil and gas companies.
  So I oppose this amendment. And I want to stand with common sense to 
do everything possible to keep these leaks from happening in the 
future.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, 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 Oklahoma 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1500


                Amendment No. 148 Offered by Mr. Mullin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 148 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, 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 division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or 
     guidance that references or relies on the analysis contained 
     in--
       (1) ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for 
     Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'', 
     published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
     Carbon, United States Government, in February 2010;
       (2) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in 
     May 2013 and revised in November 2013;
       (3) ``Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and 
     Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 
     Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews'', published by the 
     Council on Environmental Quality on December 24, 2014 (79 
     Fed. Reg. 77802);
       (4) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in 
     July 2015;
       (5) ``Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost 
     of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive 
     Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the 
     Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous 
     Oxide'', published by the Interagency Working Group on Social 
     Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government, in August 
     2016; or
       (6) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States 
     Government, in August 2016.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, my amendment would prohibit funds from 
implementing the social cost of carbon rule.
  The Obama administration continuously used social cost of carbon 
models which can be easily manipulated in order to attempt 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; we want clean water; and we take care of the land 
we live on. Using subjective standards to create job-killing 
regulations is not the way to accomplish this goal.
  The social cost of carbon rule is nothing more than more burdensome 
red tape for the American people.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I am sorry to say that I have to oppose the 
amendment from the gentleman from Oklahoma and appreciate his thoughts, 
but he is completely wrong.
  The amendment is a harmful rider that would prohibit the EPA from 
considering the social cost of carbon as part of rulemakings.
  The ``social cost of carbon'' may sound a little confusing to people, 
but, frankly, it is 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 of the social cost of carbon as a 
tool for Federal agencies would ignore the sobering cost of health, 
environmental and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising 
temperatures, 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 and have the best scientific tools available, and this is one.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, 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 but prohibit 
funds from being used for implementing the Obama administration's 
flawed social cost of carbon, or SCC, valuation.
  This job-killing and unlawful guidance sneakily attempts to pave the 
way for cap-and-trade-like mandates. Congress and the American people 
have repeatedly rejected cap-and-trade proposals.
  Knowing that he could not lawfully enact a carbon tax plan, President 
Obama attempted to circumvent Congress by playing loose and fast with 
the Clean Air Act to unilaterally implement this unlawful new 
requirement under the guise of guidance.
  The social cost of carbon is not based on science, and the models can 
be easily manipulated to arrive at whatever conclusion is desired.
  Once again, when we look at carbon, it is a nutrient for plants. To 
say otherwise is disrespectful. Once again, we play loose and fast with 
sound science.
  So, in regards to this, the House has decisively voted a dozen times 
to block or defund and oppose the social cost of carbon. I support the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, while I respect the gentlewoman's opinion--and 
this is one of those things where we agree to disagree--I do have to 
say one thing.
  She said the science in measuring the social cost of carbon has 
proven true. Actually, that is not true. The science isn't there. We 
actually don't have a good method to measure the social cost of carbon.
  That is why the whole issue is that it can easily be manipulated to 
fit whatever model they choose, which means that they can pick and 
choose what type of energy we are able to produce and how we produce 
it, meaning that they can choose, not the consumer, to say: We no 
longer want to have fossil fuels as a choice; we only want renewables.
  If we are going to be an all-of-the-above country and we are going to 
embrace industry and entrepreneurs, then we have got to embrace all of 
the above. If consumers don't want that, if certain States don't want 
to buy fossil fuel energy, then they can choose not to do so.
  In Oklahoma, we are all of the above. Not only are we a leader in 
producing fossil fuels, but we are also the third largest in producing 
renewables. We believe all of the above.
  Our neighbor in Texas, while they are a leader in producing oil, they 
are the number one in renewables.
  Isn't it ironic that both are red States?
  All we are saying here is let's not manipulate and allow the 
government

[[Page H4967]]

to pick and choose. Let the consumer choose.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I do appreciate my colleague from Oklahoma 
clarifying that it is a big State for renewables and Texas is as well, 
and I encourage them to continue farther down that path because that is 
certainly an important challenge that we have to overcome is having 
more renewables in our country.
  I would again say that climate change is the greatest environmental 
threat that mankind has ever faced. We need to deploy every available 
tool at our disposal and address this crisis, including the best 
available science and economics, which I believe is also represented in 
the social cost of carbon analysis.
  I strongly oppose the Mullin amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Himes). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, farther 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 151 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 151 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 288, line 24, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000) (increased by $500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of my 
amendment which would demonstrate the environmental benefits of the 
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, as well as show the cost of 
delaying passage of this agreement.
  USMCA 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 toward a 
unified goal of improving the environment.
  Importantly, the agreement also maintains each country's 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 cows, and 
eliminating air travel.
  My amendment would direct the EPA 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. It is time for Democrats to decide 
what is worse for them: giving President 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 it is time to 
vote. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 156 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 156 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, 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 division C (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to--
       (1) alter or terminate the Interagency Agreement between 
     the United States Department of Labor and the United States 
     Department of Agriculture governing the funding, 
     establishment, and operation of Job Corps Civilian 
     Conservation Centers (or any agreement of the same 
     substance); or
       (2) close any of the following Civilian Conservation 
     Centers:
       (A) Angell Job Corps Civilian Conversation Center.
       (B) Boxelder Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (C) Centennial Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (D) Collbran Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (E) Columbia Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (F) Curlew Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (G) Great Onyx Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (H) Harpers Ferry Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (I) Lyndon B. Johnson Job Corps Civilian Conservation 
     Center.
       (J) Jacobs Creek Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (K) Mingo Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (L) Pine Ridge Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (M) Schenck Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (N) Trapper Creek Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (O) Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (P) Wolf Creek Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (Q) Anaconda Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (R) Blackwell Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (S) Cass Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (T) Flatwoods Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (U) Fort Simcoe Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (V) Frenchburg Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (W) Oconaluftee Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (X) Pine Knot Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.
       (Y) Timber Lake Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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 
Service Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers.
  Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, after overwhelming concern expressed by a 
broad coalition of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both 
sides of the Capitol, I am pleased to report that the Secretary of 
Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, has listened to our concerns and informed us 
that the proposal to end the CCC program will be withdrawn.
  Over the past several weeks, I have helped lead this coalition to 
tell the important story of our Civilian Conservation Centers and the 
value they provide in supporting rural communities and maintaining our 
public lands, actively managing our Nation's 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 CCCs; the U.S. 
Forest Service; and our many local, regional, and Federal partners in 
strengthening

[[Page H4968]]

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.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw my amendment, but I will continue 
to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I do 
not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Maine is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo Mr. Newhouse's 
comments et large.
  The Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers are a critical aspect of 
rural America's ability to fight fires and do good work in rural 
America.
  I want to applaud Secretary Perdue for reversing his decision. It is 
one thing to be here in Washington, DC, and think you are counting the 
taxpayers' money very carefully and doing the right thing; it is 
another thing to be out in the real world and live the life that we 
have out there in timber country and know what valuable lessons they 
provide these at-risk youth who, frankly, would have no other options 
going forward and, at this point, fight our devastating wildfires. They 
are adjunct to the professional people that we have out there.
  I thank Representatives Newhouse, DeFazio, Gianforte, and even 
Senator Merkley on the Senate side. This is one area where you have 
nice bipartisan, bicameral support, and it is an area where it is good 
to see Congress come together and the executive branch understand the 
realities of the world.
  Mr. Chair, I really appreciate everyone's efforts. It has been fun to 
work on that.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I 
thank my colleague from the Appropriations Committee for doing this. 
This is an important amendment that would prohibit any changes to the 
Job Corps centers or their closure.
  I appreciate that Secretary Perdue has announced his change of heart, 
but I want to make sure that the administration doesn't change the plan 
again.
  I think everyone else has said it very articulately. These are really 
important operations. They teach our young people a tremendous number 
of things. They provide full-time and temporary jobs. In New England--
as on the West Coast, I am sure--we need a lot of these people to help 
us with some of the challenges that are going on today.
  The Department of Labor had previously announced a proposal to close 
nine of the facilities. That would have impacted 356 full-time and 107 
temporary and contract employees. More than 3,000 students were at risk 
of losing the opportunity to develop the skills and work experience 
they need to get jobs, and that would include the 966 students at 
centers that have been proposed for closure.
  Our Nation would lose out as well. We have already heard some of the 
ways that would happen on the West Coast, as it certainly would on the 
East Coast as well. These are countless hours for young people in 
conservation work, forest restoration work, and wildland firefighting.
  To quote a USDA web page, I will say that ``there has never been a 
time when Civilian Conservation Centers were more necessary or a more 
worthwhile investment in our Nation's future.''
  Mr. Chair, I concur with the gentleman, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend and colleague from 
Maine, Ms. Pingree, as well as my good friend and colleague from 
Oregon, Mr. Schrader, for their comments.
  In the weeks since this proposal had been announced to close the 
Forest Service Job Corps CCCs, I know my colleagues have, and 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 CCC program. I will quote a couple of those comments, 
Mr. Chair.
  The first one: ``Job Corps saved my life.''
  ``The 10 months I spent at Fort Simcoe were the most beneficial 
months of my life.''
  Another person said of the program: The CCC ``didn't just change my 
life but saved my life.''
  ``I am so grateful for Columbia Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation 
Center. . . . If they hadn't accepted me, I would be in a different, 
much worse phase of my life.''
  Mr. Chair, I would, again, 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. Forest Service Job Corps 
CCC program.
  Mr. Chair, I respectfully withdraw the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


          Amendment No. 158 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 158 
printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 285, strike line 6 and all that follows through line 
     25.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 445, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment is pretty simple. 
Section 117 in division C of the base text of the bill prevents the 
Department of the Interior from carrying out a NEPA review, a National 
Environmental Policy Act review, for the planning of offshore energy 
production.
  Mr. Chair, we just heard a few amendments back, debate about the 
importance of science, the importance of data. Let's 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. Chair, there is a process under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act where you go do an offshore plan. It is a pretty clear process. If 
folks have a problem with that, amend the law. Amend the law, don't use 
the appropriations process to prevent the public from getting access to 
information and access to data so the Federal Government can make an 
informed decision.
  This is flawed text of 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 and the right data, as 
my friends were recently speaking about.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which 
would strike section 117 from the bill.
  I have been a strong opponent of the current administration's 
offshore drilling proposals. I am proud to have the chance to manage 
this time 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 mischaracterization that I think has 
been made. The description of the gentleman's amendment states that it 
is removing language from the Interior bill ``which prohibits funds'' 
for the administration's 5-year offshore drilling plan. That is 
actually 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 Presidential administration is the only plan that 
has completed all the steps required by the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act. Because of

[[Page H4969]]

that, we agree that the Interior Department is free to continue to 
implement the previous 2017 narrow plan.
  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 timeframe. This new plan, if implemented, would open up the entire 
East and West Coasts to drilling.
  To date, the current administration has put out one iteration of its 
plan, with two more to go. Despite not having completed the process, 
the administration has acknowledged it is already conducting pre-lease 
work in the mid-Atlantic, south Atlantic, and southern California 
planning areas.
  The budget for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management states that it 
is preparing ``four new environmental impact statements for the lease 
sales that are planned in early 2020 or early 2021,'' which is where 
the problem comes in.
  The new 5-year 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. That decision has essentially frozen 
work on the new plan.
  In fact, the Secretary told me, under questioning in an Interior 
Subcommittee hearing last month, that he did not know the outcome of 
the proposed plan. He said a new plan wasn't ``imminent.'' He was also 
quick to point out that no previous 5-year plan has ever included 
drilling in a State that was opposed to such activity.
  If that is his bottom line, then he might as well throw in the towel 
right now as there is not a single State along the Atlantic or Pacific 
Coasts that is in favor of drilling.
  My home State of Maine has a $5.6 billion tourism industry, 71 
percent of which comes directly from the Maine coast. Thirty thousand 
Mainers make their living in marine industries. Our world-famous 
lobster fishery alone brings in $500 million annually.
  Our Governor, our Senators, our congressional delegation, and many of 
our cities and towns oppose the OCS drilling proposal.
  As nearly one-third of the United States population lives in the 
coastal areas impacted by this proposal, and there is broad bipartisan 
opposition to this issue, moving forward makes no sense, either 
fiscally or practically.
  The language in our Interior bill simply supports that position. It 
says to follow the law, complete all procedural steps, including 
responding to the concerns of the American public, the concerns of 
their Governors, and the concerns of their Members of Congress, before 
moving forward on individual drilling projects.
  To the Department, it says to save its money until it completes the 
process and finds out if it 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, shouldn't be controversial, and I don't think it is.
  As such, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana; protect our coastlines from Maine to Florida, 
from Washington State to California; and support the process contained 
in the OCS Lands Act.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chair, section 117 of this bill is just another 
example of the anti-American energy agenda being pushed by this 
Democratic majority.
  The draft Outer Continental Shelf leasing program proposed by the 
Trump administration is actually a forward-looking 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 mineral resources in the Gulf 
is vital to our national defense because it will make the U.S. more 
energy independent and will let us continue to be the worldwide leader 
in energy production.
  The draft proposal in this program will 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 America- and Louisiana-first energy policy should 
be fought tooth and nail.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend for offering this amendment to 
strike section 117, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, let me run through a few points 
here to see if I can clarify a number of the remarks.
  The base text of the bill actually prevents the Department of the 
Interior from carrying out the steps that are required.
  Think about the concept of what was said, Mr. Chair. It was said that 
they want the Department of the Interior to follow the law. Well, what 
would they be doing otherwise?
  The provision in the bill, section 117, prevents them from carrying 
out pre-leasing activities. This text prevents them from being able to 
follow the law.
  I am baffled by this, and I am 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 it tries to force the Obama-
era plan from ever being changed. The base text prevents the process 
that is in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act from being allowed to 
go forward.
  Mr. Chair, what is really important to talk about here, when you go 
back to look at what energy policies and different administrative 
policies have done, do you know that back during the Obama 
administration in 2011, one half of this Nation's trade deficit was 
attributable to us bringing in energy from other sources, bringing them 
in from foreign countries, empowering their economies, creating jobs in 
their countries?
  I am an American. I represent people here. I am trying to help make 
sure that we have a healthy economy and that we have affordable energy.
  Mr. Chair, folks are going to try and say, oh, this affects emissions 
and climate change. Our gas, which is replacing the dirtier Russian 
natural gas, is actually reducing global climate emissions, which is 
part of our strategy that has resulted in the United States having 
greater emissions reduction than any other country in the world.
  It is really fun to go out and talk about all these things, but we 
have to keep this based in facts and statistics. This amendment makes 
sense. It simply does allow the Department of the Interior to follow 
the law, making sure we maximize our resources.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am sorry to disagree, but I hope that my 
colleagues won't be fooled by the comments coming from the proponents 
of this amendment.
  This is not about energy security or energy imports and exports. It 
is 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.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Chair, if my colleagues think the Department of the Interior 
should follow the law and complete the process, then I urge them to 
oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, 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 Louisiana 
will be postponed.
  The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Cunningham) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________