Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.

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

Mr. Chair, the gentleman's amendment would block the EPA from regulating methane emissions from sources in the oil and gas sector.

Methane is a primary component of natural gas and is a potent greenhouse gas with global warming potential more than 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.

In 2013, nearly one-third of the methane emissions in the United States came from oil and gas production, processing, transmission, and distribution. There is no doubt, no doubt at all that methane contributes to the increased levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, which will contribute to long-lasting changes in our climate such as rising global temperatures, sea level rising, changes in weather and precipitation patterns.

Public health risks include more heat waves and drought, worsening smog, increased intensity of extreme weather events, and increasing the range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread diseases such as Lyme disease, West Nile Virus, and Zika.

The disgraced former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, tried to delay this rule, but the courts blocked that effort and ruled that the EPA cannot delay implementation. When is the majority going to stop the assault on the environment?

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment. Climate change threatens the health and welfare for current and future generations.

As the gentlemen have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, industry has moved-- has moved, in part, because of pressure from the EPA, and, in part, because of just the financial loss of allowing this methane gas to escape into the atmosphere. It is dollars that are burning up.

These are precious resources that we are taking from the Earth, and we should make sure that we don't waste any of it, and that is why I think the EPA rule should not be delayed.

As has been pointed out, industry has the ability to capture this methane. It has the ability to make money from it, and I want to just make sure that we encourage everyone in the industry to move forward.

Mr. Chairman, let me the give you an example. The Bakken Oil Field, which is in North Dakota--I am very familiar with it because I spent many a summer in that area--burns brighter than the entire metropolitan area of the Twin Cities at night because of the flares from the methane that are being burnt. That energy should be captured. It should be saved. We should be conservationists for future generations. We must take action, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very harmful rider, and it would prohibit the EPA from considering the social cost of carbon as part of rulemaking. The social cost of carbon is an estimate of economic damages associated with small increases of carbon dioxide emissions in a given year.

It represents the best scientific information available, incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory analyses. Weakening or eliminating use of social cost of carbon as a tool for Federal agencies that would ignore the sobering cost of health, environment, and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising temperatures, intensifying smog, and other impacts.

We cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate change, so I strongly oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate again: We should be using the best scientific information available, and we should be incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory analysis.

When we see children being hospitalized because of intense smog, more people suffering respiratory and heart disease, and other impacts from that, we all pay for that. Whether we pay for it in emergency room visits, we pay for it in our insurance, there are many ways in which we are individually paying for the pollution that is created, let alone recognizing the effects it has on climate change.

So, simply, again, we cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate change, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out, this amendment would prohibit the implementation of Washington State's revised water quality criteria. This standard protects communities from exposure to toxic contaminants, such as PCB, arsenic, and mercury in the fish that they eat.

Being from Minnesota, Mr. Chairman, I understand fish advisories very well. I often see signs that limit fish consumption for pregnant women, and for children in particular.

This action, however, would ignore court decisions and the voices of Native American Tribes, Asian-Pacific Islander communities, and fishing interests, all of which agree that seafood consumption standards are necessary in order to protect public health and water quality. In fact, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission has asked that Congress reject this amendment because it puts the treaty rights that have been protected and the resources of Tribes in Washington at risk.

Many native families subsist on the fish that they catch. Passing this amendment lowering water quality standards puts these families at greater risk of poisoning from their traditional foods.

There is a lot of funding in this bill and some of the other bills that we have on the floor, Mr. Chairman, that work to prevent diabetes or to lower risk from diabetes with high blood sugar. Tribal nations are finding that returning to native foods, such as fish, is a great and excellent way of preventing or reducing the effects of diabetes.

But after years of failure by Washington State to propose a protective standard, EPA finally put forth a standard which is more protective and meets the Clean Water Act requirements.

Now, I understand that the regulated community has always been uneasy about what stricter standards might be. The revised water quality criteria take steps to address their concerns.

The standard approved the use of new implementation tools, including a longer compliance schedule and intake credits. An intake credit means that, if the water comes to you with a pollutant and you don't discharge it, you are not responsible for having to remove it. So if you didn't pollute it, you are not responsible for cleaning it up.

This amendment would circumvent all of the work that has been done to devise a standard that protects public health and water quality.

Furthermore, Washington State officials believe that, despite the Congresswoman's good intentions--and I do believe that these are good intentions--this amendment would hurt the State of Washington. It would not actually help the dischargers.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when humans consume contaminated fish, it results in serious health impacts, such as cancer, organ damage and reproductive dysfunction, or impairment in brain development.

High fish-consuming communities--as I have mentioned, Native American Tribes and Asian-Pacific Islander communities--need the protections afforded by this revised water quality standard.

I would like to, for the Record, again state that this amendment is not supported by the State of Washington or the Tribal communities in the area.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Clearly, more work needs to be done. I look forward to having this amendment not pass and for people to get down to doing the serious work that needs to be done to address the gentlewoman's concerns.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from implementing or enforcing its greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for medium-and heavy-duty engines.

Specifically, this amendment carves out an exemption for trailers. These fuel standards were jointly developed by the EPA and the Department of Transportation, and they will improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution to reduce the impacts of climate change.

In fact, the EPA and DOT estimate that these standards will lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1 billion metric tons and cut fuel costs by $170 million. And cutting fuel costs is always a good thing to go do.

These standards will achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions that are nearly equal to those associated with all the energy used by U.S. residents in 1 year.

These efficiency fuel standards have been in place since 2016, and companies around the world have already made massive investments in the cleaner technology. Blocking the rule now would have negative consequences for human health and the environment, but also for the economy.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this rule promotes a generation of cleaner, more fuel efficient trucks. President Obama was right when he said: ``We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.''

This amendment is harmful, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

First, I would like to make the case that this is a rider, that this is authorizing on an appropriations amendment, and that the author of the amendment is in the majority.

The majority could have a hearing in the authorizing committee. It could come to the floor. It could pass on the floor. The Senate could move it. And it appears to me that President Trump is in a position to sign this into law, should he choose to do so.

So there is another alternative vehicle for moving the gentleman's amendment forward, and that is to do it legislatively and not put it on an appropriations bill. The Senate has chosen to put no riders on their appropriations bill.

But the amendment is before us. As pointed out, it would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the threatened species listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the Endangered Species Act, and it would restrict the Service from offering any of the critical protections to preserve the species.

Now, once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, it is the role of Fish and Wildlife, and it is primarily permissive, to help parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities.

I also want to make sure the Record is clear that Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the information claiming an alleged taxonomic error in the listing of the species and found no evidence that the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is not a valid subspecies.

But under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to offer to recover this species, though the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. The Service

would not be able to work with agencies. The Service would not be able to work with developers. The Service would not be able to work with landowners and others to provide ESA compliance.

The Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing permits or exemptions. This means that landowners, industry, and other parties who might need to take the Preble's meadow jumping mouse incidental to their otherwise lawful activities, such as urban development, would become vulnerable to third-party lawsuits.

Additionally, this amendment would also limit the Service from undertaking the required status reviews of the subspecies or from any initial rulemaking to downlist or to delist the species, as appropriate.

Mr. Chair, I think it is pretty obvious that this amendment should go through a different way of coming to the floor, and that is through the authorizing committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered Species Act. Defunding the agency's ability to fulfill its legal requirements makes it more vulnerable to lawsuits, and I know that that is something that we are all trying to avoid here. When you have lawsuits, it is an unnecessary cost for the taxpayers.

Now, the gentleman's amendment would undermine the Service's ability to work collaboratively with States, local governments, communities, and landowners, to conserve this imperiled species. The amendment would create uncertainty for landowners and also make them vulnerable to lawsuits.

So we should not pass this amendment. We should be supporting the Fish and Wildlife Service efforts and not blocking the agency from doing its job.

Mr. Chair, my commitment to the chairman and to my walking partner in the tunnels as we all come over for votes is to work with them to make the Fish and Wildlife Service more responsible to the gentleman's concerns. But at this time, I have to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, the Service attempts to comply with the statutory mandate to review the status of listed species every 5 years to determine whether their classification as threatened or endangered is still appropriate. However, the Service has a backlog of such reviews due to funding limitations, such as the 42 percent listing `reduction contained in this bill.

In this bill, the work that the Service would need to do to comply with what you want in this bill alone is cut $8 million, so that just puts them farther behind.

In recent years, the Service has only been able to complete 100 to 120 reviews per year, which is less than half of what is needed to keep up with the requirement to review all the species every 5 years. So that falls on Congress for us not giving them the funds that they need to do the job effectively and efficiently as you are requesting, and the way to fix that is to give them the proper funding.

But as the gentleman might be aware, the chairman was given level funding this year. He did the very best that he could with what he had to balance things out in the interests of the requests he had from Members of the House, but this particular $8 million cut just makes your problem even worse.

This amendment would not remove species, without reviews, from the list of the species protected by the ESA. So the ESA prohibition against take would still remain, as would the ability of citizens to sue to force compliance.

If funding cannot be used to enforce the ESA for species with late reviews, that will leave the species unprotected.

While the proposed language would prohibit the Service from working with agencies, developers, landowners, and others to provide ESA compliance through section 7 consultations or section 10 permits for Federal or private projects that could potentially affect the species, it would not affect the ability of third parties to sue those agencies or landowners and potentially enjoin their projects due to the lack of ESA compliance.

Mr. Chairman, as I said about the last amendment, we don't need another rider or extraneous provision in this bill. It is already overburdened with many, many riders.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to take this language to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction and work through and see if we can make positive changes and create win-wins.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And I would urge my colleagues, if they want the backlog to change, to help the chairman and me get more money into the allocation of this bill so the chairman and I can work to achieve those goals together.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow those who pollute the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's water quality standards.

Restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed continues to be a priority, and a priority for this committee to fund it. The EPA established the mandatory water quality standards and Congress has appropriated over $1 billion for the Chesapeake Bay Program to help States, localities, and businesses meet those needs. This amendment would jeopardize that funding and have devastating effects on the health of the bay.

How long will the States and localities be able to meet their obligations that they agreed to in 2014 in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement if the Federal Government's financial assistance goes away?

This is a partnership. We should keep the partnership moving forward.

Furthermore, if this amendment were to become law, it would block the EPA's ability to enforce the court-ordered settlement requiring the farm community and agribusinesses to meet watershed specific pollution limits. It would not, however, relieve the farms and agribusinesses from the requirements in the settlement.

The State and local governments want to move forward. They want to keep the partnership moving. But the Farm Bureau and, in fact, some of the industrial operators they represent don't think that they should be responsible for controlling the pollution that they dump into our rivers and streams across the country.

The courts have sided with the EPA on this matter, and the Farm Bureau continues their pursuit to stop mandatory cleanups through judicial appeals and through this amendment.

There are enough special interest provisions for big business in this bill already. We don't need any more.

Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, for more than 35 years, there has been a regional partnership created through the Chesapeake Bay Program, and it sought to restore and protect the Nation's largest and most productive estuaries. That is a partnership with the Federal Government which includes funding that is working together to achieve those common goals.

Now, I have nothing before me saying that the State of Virginia, or any of the regional partners, want to withdraw from this moving forward to continue to clean up this estuary. This amendment would undermine decades of work and decades of Federal dollars that the Federal Government has put in in partnership, and it would have devastating effects to the health of the bay and the economy it supports.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, this amendment, like some of the other amendments that we have seen, could be handled in the authorizing committee, which the gentleman is a member of, if memory serves me correctly.

The gentleman is in the majority. Call up, have a hearing, pass legislation, and then do it in a way that doesn't add more burdensome amendments and riders to this bill. The Senate is also controlled by the same party in the majority, and the President is of that party. So I would encourage the gentleman to go through what I would call regular order.

This amendment would prohibit the EPA from hiring scientists using its title 42 authority, the flexible hiring mechanism that allows agencies to attract and retain staff with outstanding scientific and technical skills.

This authority, as has been pointed out, is used by the EPA, the CDC, the NIH, and other agencies that require candidates who have specialized degrees in areas such as medicine, science, and engineering.

It is not always easy for the Federal Government to attract high- level professionals who have invested many years in school and could easily make more money in private practice or academia. In fact, we have heard that USGS and BLM quite often have problems keeping highly educated engineers in place because the private sector comes and offers them so much more money.

So the Federal Government has found it wise to allow these agencies to provide some additional funding to retain and recruit these employees. We should want to have the best and the brightest working for us and the American people--the best doctors, the best scientists, and the best engineers. So I am disappointed that the gentleman does not believe such highly specialized employees deserve the title 42 designation.

With our Nation facing crises like Lyme's disease, PFAS in our drinking water, and climate change, we should be investing in our scientists. We should be encouraging them to seek employment with the Federal Government.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, this amendment could go through a different order and not be placed onto an appropriations bill.

This is a shortsighted amendment. I think it deserves to have a fair and open vetting with the House concentrated on just what this would mean to the EPA. So I don't think we should attack Federal employees who sometimes have chosen to not receive as much compensation and devote their lives to public service.

Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1001 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1001, providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 119, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. The rule provides for consideration of the concurrent resolution under a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, my district in central Washington demonstrates the strength in utilizing a diverse portfolio of energy sources, while also working on the forefront of energy innovation in clean energy solutions for the future.

From the mighty Grand Coulee Dam, which is the largest hydroelectric power producer in the United States, to the Chief Joseph Dam, to the series of lower Snake and lower Columbia River dams, our region is undoubtedly blessed with low-cost, clean, reliable, and renewable hydropower.

In fact, hydropower provides our State with almost 70 percent of our energy needs. Improvements made to this technology to improve the efficiency, the safety, and the productivity of hydro demonstrate the importance of constantly improving our energy technologies.

Now, while we do rely heavily on hydropower, Washington also utilizes an array of other energy sources, both produced and imported, including oil, natural gas, coal, and a number of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

My district is also blessed with the only nuclear generating station in the Pacific Northwest, and that is the Columbia Generating Station, which is operated by Energy Northwest. Columbia produces 10 percent of the electricity generated in Washington and is a reliable, clean energy producer not dependent on weather conditions like some renewables are.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, while I am sure you are fascinated by this brief rundown of Washington State's source of energy, you may be wondering why I am speaking about such matters with the resolution before us today.

The resolution says, quite simply, that it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy--a simple statement. And while I could be spending my time listening to many ways a harmful tax would harm our economy and the American people, I thought I would also offer a demonstration of the many resources we have at our disposal for strengthening America's energy dominance.

Many of my colleagues, much like myself, support what we can call an ``all of the above'' energy approach. We believe government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be placing the thumb on the economic free-market scale. A carbon tax would be exactly that, a devastating hammer to what is currently an economy on the rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by the majority whip, Representative Steve Scalise from the great State of Louisiana, to oppose a carbon tax carbon tax as a solution to address carbon emissions and climate change, because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it simply is not a solution.

However, that is not to say that I oppose reducing carbon emissions. My constituents and the people of the great Pacific Northwest most certainly want a clean, healthy environment, and we should be doing everything we can to limit emissions. But a burdensome new tax that would fundamentally bring our innovative energy sector and growing economy to a standstill is not the answer.

Further, a carbon tax fails to recognize the diversity of our Nation and the different energy resources that exist in the United States. Quite frankly, the resources that exist in the State of Washington certainly may not be present in the State of North Dakota or Louisiana or Massachusetts.

We should be making clean energy more affordable, not making traditional energy sources more expensive. We should be cutting burdensome regulations that constrain the development and deployment of energy, whether it be nuclear, fossil fuels, or hydropower. These regulatory burdens should be removed and reformed to spur clean energy innovation with the power of markets, not within the hands of government bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, we, in central Washington, have another prize gem in our backyard. I am proud to represent the people that work at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. This premier Department of Energy lab is on the forefront of energy innovation. From enabling safe and sustainable fossil fuel exploration production, transportation, conversion, and end use, to transforming the U.S. power grid to meet economic, environmental, and security priorities for the 21st century, our national labs like PNNL delivers distinctive science and technology solutions for efficient and sustainable energy.

I am a proud member of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee where we continue to prioritize strategic energy research and development that will increase U.S. economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness.

Congress should continue to work on utilizing and empowering public- private partnerships to rapidly develop new technologies and then let the market catalyze its growth and commercial liability. There are great examples of these efforts taking place in the innovative high- tech communities of the Tri-Cities, Washington, where experts from the private sector are partnering with research and support offered by PNNL to develop grid-scale storage solutions and small modular reactor technologies, fundamentally transforming the future of nuclear power generation and battery storage technologies.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents want energy security and want a clean environment. They want economic growth, job creation, and they want to keep their low-cost electricity. The way to a cleaner, more prosperous future for our Nation's energy needs is not through more government bureaucracy. It is through empowering American innovation. That is why a carbon tax is wrong for my district in central Washington State. It is wrong for the entire State of Washington, and it is wrong for the United States of America. We need to innovate, rather than regulate the future of America's energy dominance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side seem to be focused on closed versus open rules. We hear that time and time again. They are ignoring that the structured amendment process has routinely been used by both parties when they were in the majority.

This majority has made it a priority to make in order amendments for floor consideration, which, I might point out, a majority of those amendments have been Democratic-sponsored or cosponsored. In fact, as of July 12 of this year, Republicans in this Congress, the 115th Congress, provided for the consideration of more than 1,650 amendments on the House floor: 745 of those were Democrat amendments; 630 were Republican amendments; and 280 were, proudly, bipartisan amendments, Mr. Speaker. So by no means are we stopping the process. That doesn't even count the thousands and thousands of submissions that Members make, both Republican and Democrat, to committees for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the fact that this is a totally closed process. It is open for participation by every Member of the House who represents constituents across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not yield for any other purpose.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to the resolution at hand about moving away from regressive taxes and top-down, Big Government regulation, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on this side of the aisle, but before I reserve my time, I just want to remind my good friends on the other side of the aisle that my colleague and good friend from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, did offer this amendment in the Appropriations Committee just last week. We did spend a great deal of time debating and discussing this idea.

As the good chairman from the Rules Committee said, and I will repeat, of the funds that were appropriated, there were $380 million appropriated for the Election Assistance Commission, which was the last of the final payment of the $3.65 billion originally authorized under the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Of these 2018 funds, there are still 39 percent of these dollars available to the States.

There is no crisis. The money is available to States that want those dollars for assistance. In fact, to date, my latest information, Mr. Speaker, there are still 19 States yet to submit an application.

So there is no crisis. There is help available. States have an opportunity to receive the resources necessary to make sure we have what all American people want, that our elections are held with the utmost honesty and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as tempting as that sounds, I think that the adequate 30 minutes per side is enough for both of us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Maine, as well as the gentleman from Vermont, getting back to the debate at hand.

I just want to share a few things that I have learned from a recent poll conducted by the Institute for Energy Research. They found that a resounding 85 percent of respondents agreed that we should not make energy more expensive.

Even more tellingly than that, though, when asked whether they trusted the Federal Government to spend the money from a tax on carbon emissions wisely, only 18 percent of the respondents felt that they would, while 74 percent said that they did not feel that way.

An overwhelming 73 percent of respondents agreed that the last thing that we need is higher taxes or more bureaucracy. And, lastly, 85 percent of respondents feared that consumers will wind up paying the cost associated with a tax or regulation, exactly what we have been saying.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the American people remain profoundly skeptical of government intrusion into the free markets, and like I said before, a carbon tax would be wrong for our Nation.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

MR. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

We are prepared to close on the Republican side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage with my good friend and colleague from the State of Massachusetts, especially on a particularly important issue such as carbon tax.

It is my feeling and the feeling of the majority of this House that we need to move away from aggressive taxes and top-down Big Government regulation. We need to get behind innovative-centric solutions that remove bureaucratic barriers to clean, affordable, and reliable energy technology and allow for real global carbon emission reductions.

Our affordable and reliable energy supply must be the focus, along with a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. A carbon tax simply would not yield those kinds of results.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying legislation, H. Con. Res. 119, which is simply this: Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows

An Amendment to H. Res. 1001 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to

clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into

the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union

for consideration of the bill (H.R. 12) to modernize voter

registration, promote access to voting for individuals with

disabilities, protect the ability of individuals to exercise

the right to vote in elections for Federal office, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and

controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority

members of the Committees on House Administration, the

Judiciary, Science, Space and Technology, Veterans' Affairs,

Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 12.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a Republican sense of Congress resolution proclaiming that a carbon tax would be bad for the U.S. economy. That is it. That is how this majority is choosing to spend its precious legislative time. I mean, this is a big nothing burger.

Instead of considering legislation to address the administration's horrific child separation policy at the border or addressing the surging cost of prescription drugs or taking action to address gun safety, or finally, finally holding Russia accountable for their interference in the 2016 election, something the President himself has trouble acknowledging, we are here considering a sense of Congress stating that a carbon tax would be bad for America.

You know, I don't know how many of my Republican colleagues are scientists, but you might want to meet some and talk to some of them. They are smart people. They deal in facts. They deal in evidence. They deal in results.

Look, Mr. Speaker, as any third grader knows, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and if I drop a pen, it will fall to the table because of gravity. We know that smoking causes cancer, and we know that the Earth is not flat. We also know that climate change is real and that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause. But Republicans are burying their heads in the sand with this glorified press release attacking a potential tool to combat it.

But even worse than what we are doing is what the Republican majority is blocking from consideration. This week they blocked an amendment that would have provided much needed funding to the Election Assistance Commission to protect our elections from further Russian interference. This is outrageous. Just days after President Trump sided with Putin over our own intelligence community, Republicans blocked funding to protect our elections. Essentially, the President sold out America in Helsinki.

So Republicans want to vote on a sense of Congress, let's consider the resolution reiterating Speaker Ryan's statement in response to the President's terrible performance in Helsinki. It acknowledges Russia's role in interfering in our election, and it affirms our support for the intelligence community. But, of course, the majority has blocked that resolution.

Instead, we are now debating our 92nd closed rule this Congress. This is the most closed Congress in history, with zero open rules. And for those in the gallery, the reason why this is important is because the majority of bills that have come to this floor have come in a way that nobody can amend them. Nobody can change even a word in the bill. I mean, this is supposed to be the people's House, not the Russia house.

Mr. Speaker, this, what we are doing today, is a waste of time. We have real issues to address--substantive issues to address. The American people deserve more than show votes that throw red meat to the oil lobby. I would say to my Republican colleagues: Do your job. Listen to the American people. Start addressing some of their concerns, like the fact that we need to protect our election system from more Russian interference. That is a serious matter. All of our intelligence agencies have said it is a serious matter, that it happened.

And what is your response? You zero out money in an appropriations bill to help protect our election system. Then you block an amendment that would allow us to put the money back in.

All we want is a fair fight. If you want to vote ``no'' on it, vote ``no'' on it. But the American people are concerned, even if you are not. Do your job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to get the gentleman from Kentucky to yield, but I guess he didn't want to get into an exchange. But he said that he is worried about Kentucky jobs. There is nothing in this bill that will protect one job anywhere.

We are not debating a carbon tax. This is a sense of Congress. This is a press release. This is not going to protect anybody's paycheck. This is ridiculous. Are you going to go home to your constituents and say, ``Oh, I did something for you. I passed a press release''? I mean, give me a break.

The gentleman talks about the poor. If he is worried about the poor, then stop cutting Medicaid. If he is worried about the poor, stop cutting food assistance from people struggling in poverty, because that is what the Republican majority has been doing consistently in this Congress. So I don't need any lectures about that.

To the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my colleague, let me again say, because I think people need to have this sink in, this is the most closed Congress in the history of our country: 92 closed rules. That means that the majority of bills--I want my Republican colleagues to listen to this as well--the majority of bills have come to the floor where nobody, even Republicans, are allowed to offer any amendments--nothing.

Is this the people's House? Is this what you came to Washington to do, to shut out debate, to shut out good ideas?

It is a disgrace. My hope is that the people of this country are watching and that they will send you a message in November.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, the Voter Empowerment Act, introduced by my colleague, Representative John Lewis, which would ensure equal access to the ballot, modernize the voter registration system, and take steps to eliminate deceptive practices that deter voters from casting their ballots.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this week, Republicans have brought to the floor a bill that zeros out funding for a grant program to the Election Assistance Commission to help States and local governments secure our elections.

Now, a news flash, Mr. Speaker--I hope my Republican friends are listening--Russia was just caught meddling in our election. In fact, meddling is not strong enough. They attacked our country.

When we discovered this, Mr. Quigley offered an amendment to restore this critical funding, and it was blocked in the Rules Committee. My friends in the Rules Committee won't even let us vote on it.

People may ask why, why can't we have a vote on putting money back in to secure our election system. Well, the reason why, I think, is because we might win and that Democrats--and there are probably a lot of Republicans--would join with us in supporting the amendment.

They denied it because it makes sense. It is common sense.

We should be funding this program and, instead, we are debating a press release that my friends on the other side are so passionate about, that will do nothing for anybody. It is just a press release. We are not debating a carbon tax. We are debating a press release. We ought to be protecting our election system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for

the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am now proud to yield to the gentleman from my home State of Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the hell else we can do over

here. I mean, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Washington only wants to yield for debate only, but how about yielding so that we can act?

I mean, I think the American people want us to do something. I mean, what happened in the 2016 election, what Russia did to our country, was a serious matter. And I am going to tell you, it is not just Democrats that are concerned. I know Republicans and Independents are concerned as well.

This is an American issue, and when our Nation is attacked, we come together. We put partisanship aside. We act. We just don't talk. We act.

We have been trying, using every procedural means we know. We have been appealing in the Rules Committee. We have been trying to bring these issues to the floor, and we get shut down every single time. This is unbelievable.

I mean, history is going to look back on the inaction of this Congress with great shame.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I can't believe what is said on this House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee, if he is so sure of his arguments on this issue, then bring the amendment to the floor, present your case, and let the majority of this House determine what we should do. I guarantee you the majority of this House would vote to provide the money to the States and to local communities, because they are hearing from their constituencies about how concerned they are about potential Russian meddling in our election.

They are doubly concerned after the President's horrific performance in Helsinki where he seemed to go out of his way to cozy up to Putin. So people are concerned.

So the vote that we lost in the Rules Committee was not to enact this amendment, the Quigley amendment, to put the money back in so that the grants could go to States and local communities, the vote we lost-- people need to understand this: the vote we lost was to have the ability to debate it and vote on it.

This is the United States House of Representatives. That is what we are supposed to do. Stop the obstructionism, especially on an issue like this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Will the gentleman yield?

That is correct, we cannot vote on that.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, when I offered the Quigley amendment, which would have allowed us to have this vote, all the Republicans voted ``no.''

We can try one more time. We have been trying and

trying and trying, but they are insistent on blocking this amendment from even being considered.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. What this House needs is a little democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, all these excuses. As the gentleman knows, hundreds of Members of this House don't sit on the Appropriations Committee. Should they not have a voice on this issue?

And, by the way, since that vote in the Appropriations Committee, a lot has changed in this country. If you are reading the news, 12 Russians were indicted for meddling in our election. The President of the United States went over to Helsinki and made nice with Vladimir Putin. That shocked not only the citizens of the United States, but the entire world.

So I disagree with the gentleman when he says there is no crisis. There is a crisis and we need to address it. We need to do everything we can to prepare ourselves for another attack. All we are asking for is a vote.

If the gentleman doesn't think there is a crisis, doesn't want to vote for this, he can vote ``no,'' that is his right, but for the hundreds of Members of this Chamber who would like a debate and a vote on this, give them that opportunity.

The Rules Committee ought not to be a place where democracy goes to die, especially on issues like this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry of the gentleman from Washington?

I know the gentleman said he has no further speakers, but we are being inundated with speakers on this side. Does the gentleman want to maybe send a few minutes our way?

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thought I would ask.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, can I just double-check and inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional speakers over there?

Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that I have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that we are here debating a press release. We are not debating a carbon tax. We are debating a press release.

I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you are against the carbon tax, go back to your office and issue a press release and send it to your local newspapers, because that is what this is.

We are wasting precious time on this floor when there are other issues. We have children being separated from their parents at the border. We have prescription drug prices that are skyrocketing. We need an infrastructure bill. We have gun violence in this country that is out of control, where there are massacres occurring on a regular basis. And what are we doing? We are doing a press release. This is shameful.

And on the issue of Russian interference in our elections, we ought to be having a debate on an amendment to provide more funds to States and local authorities to protect their election systems.

The gentleman from Washington says: Oh, there is still 39 percent of the money left. They don't need it. I think his information is old, because we are told that every single State has put in a request for additional assistance. Why don't we debate that and vote on it and do the right thing?

I am looking at a New York Times article that just appeared today where the President of the United States, Donald Trump, says Russia is no longer targeting the U.S. I mean, is this for real? What is wrong with him?

It is time for Congress to stage an intervention with him and tell him to listen to his intelligence agencies who contradict what he has just said this morning. This is urgent.

We can't count on the President of the United States to do the right thing. Congress needs to stand up. Congress needs to be counted.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with a body approximately 3 inches long, a 4-to 6-inch long tail, and large hind feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives primarily in streamside ecosystems in Wyoming and Colorado.

To evade predators, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse can jump up to 18 inches high, like a miniature kangaroo. But this little acrobat's most famous feat was its leap onto the endangered species list back in May 1998, a move that has since hindered development on the front range of Colorado, from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to the Wyoming border.

Among projects that have been affected are the Jeffco Parkway southeast of Rocky Flats, an expansion of the Chatfield Reservoir, and housing developments in El Paso County along tributaries of Monument Creek. Builders, landowners, and local governments in affected areas have incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of this mouse. Protecting the Preble's mouse has even been placed ahead of protecting human life.

On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event that damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and public works projects. As a result of the Preble's mouse's listing as an endangered species, many restoration projects were delayed as Colorado sought a waiver.

Moreover, the scientific evidence simply does not justify these delays or the millions of taxpayer dollars that go toward protecting a rodent that is actually part of a larger group that roams throughout half of the North American Continent.

Several scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's mouse does not warrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all and is actually related to one of the largest and most widespread genetic lineages of North American jumping mice. Even the scientist that originally classified this mouse as a subspecies has since recanted his work.

Moreover, the Preble's mouse has a low conservation priority score, meaning that the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on protection efforts could have been better spent on other, more fragile species.

My amendment would correct the injustice that has been caused by the inaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and would refocus the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that have been thoroughly scientifically vetted and that should be managed by the Endangered Species Act.

This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste and has previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate occasions, all by bipartisan votes. So I encourage my colleagues to, once again, support this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

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

I will just conclude by saying, if the Fish and Wildlife Service worked together with developers, local communities, and other groups, that would be one thing. But when they come in with a hammer and say, you have to do it this way, that is really not working together. That has, unfortunately, been the experience of many parties on the front range of Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge that, once again, we support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following current law, specifically section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, by conducting their review of all threatened and endangered plants and wildlife at least once every 5 years.

Time after time, the Federal Government refuses to follow the will of Congress when it enacted the Endangered Species Act. The government designates land as ``critical habitat'' despite not meeting the ESA definition, and the government consistently refuses to remove plants and animals from threatened or endangered status even when those species are flourishing and no longer in need of ESA protections.

But you may ask yourself: How does the government know when a species should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? How does the government know if a species is recovering? The answer could be found in the ESA, and it is a requirement that the Federal Government review all plants or species that are currently listed as endangered or threatened every 5 years.

Under the Endangered Species Act, the purpose of a 5-year review is to ensure that threatened and endangered species have the appropriate level of protection. And because the ESA grants extensive protection to a species, including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, it makes sense to regularly verify if a plant or animal is being properly classified or if it should be delisted.

Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged earlier this year that it has neglected its responsibility to conduct the required reviews for nearly 1,000 species.

By enforcing the 5-year review, my amendment will ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best available scientific information in implementing its responsibilities under the ESA, including incorporating new information through public comment and assessing ongoing conservation efforts.

This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Mining Association, and the American Farm Bureau, and it has previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate occasions, all by bipartisan votes.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service follows the law, the letter of the law, in the Endangered Species Act and that we do not allow the agency to spend money that would violate current law.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to once again support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Two quick responses, then I am going to yield some time.

When it comes to funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service, they are just going to have to basically do what every other private or governmental entity, family, and individual has to do, which is prioritize their spending. They have to live within their means. We all have to live within our means. They have to have the priorities where they can do the job with the money that they are given.

Number two, I think that maybe my colleague would agree with me that outside environmental groups are largely to blame for bringing massive lawsuits that tie up a lot of the resources of the Fish and Wildlife Service so they can't be doing their business of protecting the species that they are already supposed to be caring for. So I think they really get a lot of the blame here as well.

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment, which we have done in the past three different times on a bipartisan basis.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the committee for supporting me in my very important amendments last evening, and I have another very important amendment that is before the committee here today.

Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment that would prevent the administration from dismantling the EPA's Great Lakes Advisory Board. I am so pleased that this bill has again rejected the President's proposal to gut the GLRI, and this amendment would prevent them from dismantling the advisory board.

Mr. Chairman, this is a critical matter for anyone who drinks water. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to some 40 million people. Let me say that again. Forty million people depend on this resource for one of life's basic requirements, water, not to mention anglers and recreation.

As an old African proverb goes, water has no enemies. So, hopefully, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is something that we are going to recognize as having played a critical role in protecting and restoring one of America's greatest national treasures, a life- sustaining element, water.

Just to mention, not to bore people with a lot of statistics, but the Great Lakes contain about 21 percent of the world's surface freshwater and more than 80 percent, 85 percent, of the freshwater in North America. This is indispensable.

As critical as this funding is, it is also important that the EPA receive advice and input from local stakeholders regarding priorities under that program. The Great Lakes Advisory Board provides such advice.

EPA established the board in 2013 to provide independent advice to the EPA administration in its capacity as chair of the Federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. Some of the past activities of the advisory board have been providing the EPA with recommendations regarding what are the most significant stressors and needs for the Great Lakes ecosystem; providing the EPA with recommendations on ways to ensure effective public input into the Great Lakes action plan process; and providing advice on whether the GLRI should invest in efforts to understand long-term, future threats and communicate them to the Great Lakes community for action.

In light of reports of efforts to undermine the board, on a bipartisan basis, I joined colleagues in writing to the EPA earlier this year to make clear that we support the establishment and maintenance of the board. My amendment would put teeth behind this letter and make it clear to the administration what congressional intent is regarding this important advisory board.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from California. He is a very effective leader on this issue. I appreciate him.

An effective Great Lakes Advisory Board is vital to ensuring that the GLRI remains successful and impactful today and in the years to come.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today to offer an amendment to increase resources available to help address a scourge that is occurring in so many of our communities: lead poisoning.

My district is facing its challenges like so many in our country, and the Federal Government must do its part by ensuring that we provide the resources to address this scourge.

Two of the most prominent vectors are old housing and old water infrastructure, lateral lead pipes. My amendment would attempt to address just one of the sources of lead, old lateral lead pipes, while recognizing the need to address housing when the appropriate funding bill comes to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, we know that children throughout America are at risk of a major public health crisis given aging drinking water infrastructure and housing stock. In my district alone, there are tens of thousands of lead service lines that pose a threat to the public health of children.

We have heard so much about Flint, Michigan, but I can tell you that lead poisoning in my district mirrors that of Flint, Michigan. I mean, Mr. Chairman, there just are no safe levels of lead for children.

As noted in a recent report by The Pew Charitable Trusts: ``In the absence of lead, hundreds of thousands of children would be more likely to realize their full potential thanks to higher grade point averages, a better chance of earning high school diplomas, and graduating from college, and a reduced likelihood of becoming teen parents or becoming convicted of crimes.'' Yet lead exposure remains a serious threat for far too many kids and their families in our country.

The only way to remove lead pipes as a source of lead contamination is to completely remove them. That is the goal that I joined with my former and dearly loved colleague, the late great Louise Slaughter, in writing to urge the EPA in March of this year to update its lead and copper rule to require

the full replacement of lead service lines.

But both public utilities and private homeowners are hard pressed to finance this needed work. It is my understanding that the average cost can be somewhere between $6,000 to $8,000 to replace such lines, which is an unimaginable sum for many of the households that our constituents live in.

My amendment would provide funding for one of the newest tools that Congress created in the 2016 WRDA bill to help communities address lead pipes. This program provides grants for lead reduction projects that help reduce the concentration of lead in drinking water by, among other uses, providing assistance to low-income homeowners to replace lead service lines.

Recognizing the need, Congress authorized the program at $60 million per year; yet it received only $10 million in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus appropriations bill. While I would like to get closer to the authorized level, my amendment is modest and pragmatic and would simply continue funding for this program at the fiscal year 2018 level.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his stewardship and for his recognition of the importance of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.