To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require the annual human rights reports to include information on the institutionalization of children and the subjection of children to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, unnecessary detention, and denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of persons, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I encourage adoption of the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Chairman, I have no opposition to this en bloc amendment moving forward, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers present at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

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

Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Calvert of California

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this en bloc amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to all these amendments included in the en bloc. Many of them use offsets from accounts in the Environmental Protection Agency of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they are already severely underfunded.

I am particularly troubled by one amendment to this group that threatens our Nation's most visited wilderness area. Let me tell you why I oppose the Emmer amendment.

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, located in northern Minnesota, is one of the last truly wild places in America. These 1.1 million acres of unspoiled woodlands and more than 1,000 pristine lakes are beloved by adventurers, canoers, and sportsmen from all across our country. This national treasure lies in the vast Rainy River Watershed and flows north into Voyageurs National Park and onward towards Canada.

Recently, there has been a push to conduct sulfide-ore copper mining less than 3 miles from the Boundary Waters Wilderness. This mining threatens to irreplaceably damage the waters, the wildlife, and the landscape. Sulfur ore mining is the most toxic industry in America, polluting waterways with acid drainage that contains arsenic, mercury, and lead.

In 2014, the Mount Polley sulfide-ore mine in British Columbia failed, dumping billions of liters of toxic sludge and leaving permanent environmental damage in its wake.

To protect the boundary waters from this type of destruction, the Forest Service acted last December and launched a thorough environmental analysis with public engagement to assess what type of mining, if any, is appropriate on Federal lands and this watershed for the next 20 years. The Trump and the Obama administrations have both agreed we need a thorough, scientific-based assessment of the best management of this sensitive ecosystem and conservation of our boundary waters.

The Emmer amendment upends this careful process. It pushes aside the Forest Service's ongoing study. It mandates that dangerous copper and sulfide mining will be allowed in the watershed, regardless of the conclusions of this environmental study, and it intentionally ignores a public process that hundreds of thousands of Americans weighed in on with comments on both sides of the issue. In my opinion, this amendment sets a horrible precedent, wastes taxpayer dollars already invested in this study, and threatens a national treasure, and it should never become law.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment that takes more money away from an already starved Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's main operating account is already cut by $240 million.

The EPA plays a critical role in keeping Americans safe both during natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey and on a day-to-day basis. I know this because the EPA, right now, is cleaning up a toxic waste site that has been recently discovered in my congressional district.

Unfortunately, the very air we breathe and the water we drink is endangered by the funding and policy decisions that are made in this bill, and their consequences will be negatively felt in communities across this Nation.

Now, this amendment would increase funding for the National Park Service, something I do support. I have just been to Glacier National Park, where I saw their backlog, and I agree wholeheartedly that we should be investing in our parks, but it cannot be done at the expense of our public health.

Republicans have chosen to put forward an omnibus bill that leaves nearly $5 billion of nondiscretionary funds on the table. So rather than gutting the EPA farther, we should be using all the resources available to us and working on a bipartisan budget agreement.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose an amendment that takes more money away from the EPA.

As I mentioned before, this bill already severely cuts the EPA's main operating account by $240 million. The air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the policy decisions that are being made in this bill. The consequences will be felt in communities across the Nation. I understand, for many, cutting the EPA is an easy target, but I want my colleagues to understand what this amendment would actually be cutting, if adopted.

This account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the country, toxic risk prevention, parts of the successful Brownfields Program, and pesticide licensing.

So I understand that the money would direct more funding to States in Appalachia. Appalachia is suffering. They are suffering from the raging environmental harm caused by coal mining. But, unfortunately, I cannot support any deeper cuts to the EPA.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the challenges that the gentleman is suffering in his State and throughout Appalachia, but I cannot support any more deeper cuts to the EPA, so I must oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment that takes more money, again, away from an already starved EPA.

This is a duplicate from the last amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia earlier. It cuts another $32 million from the EPA's operating accounts.

Our country right now is dealing with two catastrophes caused by hurricanes. The destruction is going to be felt for years. The EPA right now is one of the primary Federal agencies responsible for protecting human health, monitoring air and water, and managing recovery and cleanup, so it would be simply reckless to adopt another amendment that would further cripple the EPA.

These two amendments would cut the EPA by $108 million.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I understand clearly what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is trying to accomplish.

I wish we could accomplish that goal. But with already a $240 million cut to the EPA and all of the challenges on the EPA--we just recently agreed on this floor by a voice vote to cut the EPA another $75 million. This would be another $33 million.

So I hope that we can reach a place in the funding that the chairman and I have where we can address the serious concerns that you bring to the floor where you had success with programs. But, at the same time, I would be cutting opportunities for cleanup, especially with all of the disasters looming--forest fires, disasters, and cleanup I just had recently in my district that came out of the blue. The EPA wouldn't have money to respond.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I want to also commend the chairman and working with the whole committee to make sure that the arts and humanities receive the funding that they did.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Langevin

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $12 million in cuts to the already underfunded Superfund Enforcement program, with an equivalent cut to Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas leasing program.

Superfund Enforcement is the epitome of Federal fiscal responsibility. It ensures that polluters pay for the cleanup and the mess they have caused.

For over 35 years, EPA's Superfund Enforcement program has enabled thousands of site investigations at cleanups and has required viable responsible parties to either conduct the work or pay for the cleanups of these Superfund sites, in other words, hold parties accountable for the action and correction of their activities.

Any cuts to these funds clearly places corporate interests over that of the health and financial well-being of the American people.

According to the EPA, the Superfund Enforcement program's efforts to negotiate settlement agreements and issue order for cleanup work accounts for approximately 69 percent of all the cleanup work currently underway at Superfund sites around this country.

For every dollar the Superfund Enforcement program spends, private parties commit $8 toward cleanup work. The enforcement funding is essential in saving taxpayer dollars and the scarce resources of the Superfund trust fund to address truly abandoned and orphaned sites.

As of August 1, 2017, there were 1,845 Superfund sites in the country. These sites include dangerous and toxic substances not just in my backyard but in everybody's backyard.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Superfund sites tend to be located near lower income communities and around communities of color. Approximately 53 million people live within 3 miles of a Superfund site in this country, and 46 percent of them live in poorer communities and communities of color. Fifteen percent of those residents live below the poverty level.

According to a National Association of Clean Air Agencies report: ``Without EPA's enforcement, companies could avoid reporting, or minimize the reported amount of toxic materials released to the environment.''

Following one of the most catastrophic hurricanes to hit Texas, the EPA found that 13 Superfund sites have been flooded or could face damage as a result of Hurricane Harvey.

Administrator Pruitt has repeatedly tried to justify his cuts to the agency by claiming that he wants the agency to go ``back to the basics.'' I can't think of anything more fundamental than cleaning up the most toxic sites in the Nation to protect the health of the people who live nearby in those communities.

Restoring the ability of the EPA to self-sustain its core mission should be a no-brainer for those on both sides of the aisle. In order to restore the funding, my amendment will make a modest cut to the BLM's oil and gas program. This program is a massive giveaway to the very polluters that have made the existence of the Superfund program a necessity.

Currently, 7,950 drilling permits are approved and not being used. There are 14.4 million acres of public land under lease and not producing. There is no justification to dole out more taxpayer money in order to expedite and speed up the permitting or leasing practices when we have that amount not being used and over close to 15 million acres under lease, as we speak.

A report by Oil Change International recently found that the U.S. Government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015. Meanwhile, oil giant ExxonMobil's profits more than doubled in the first quarter of this year, which equaled $4.1 billion in profits for just that one quarter. They certainly did not need more taxpayer money while communities across the United States continue to be exposed to toxic and hazardous pollution.

My amendment restores, in part, EPA's core mission to protect the public health of the American people and to hold all polluters responsible and liable for the environmental and health risks they cause.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a prudent, necessary protection of public health and the environment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $1 million in cuts to the Environmental Justice program within the EPA, with an equivalent cut to leadership and administration within the DOI Office of the Secretary.

In 1992, the program was created and originally called the Environmental Equity Office. It was created after a series of releases of reports that revealed polluter sites were disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color.

With minimal support, the program has provided communities with leveraged resources to do things like revitalize neighborhoods, build health centers, expand affordable housing, create green space and recreation areas, and, more importantly, raise the awareness of the disproportionate treatment in both affected communities and decisionmakers.

Despite this success within the EPA for decades, we are not even close to dealing with the issue of environmental justice.

In 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that racial minorities and low-income communities are still disproportionately affected by the siting of waste disposal facilities, permitted emissions facilities, and that they often lack the political and financial clout to properly bargain with polluters when fighting a decision or seeking redress.

A report by the staff of the House Committee on Natural Resources found that clean water access and sanitation infrastructure on numerous reservations across the Nation more closely resemble developing countries than they do the rest of the Nation. Nearly half of all homes on Tribal land lack access to adequate drinking water, sewage, or solid waste disposal facilities. As a result, Native families often end up drinking unclean water that increases disease risks and impairs Tribal economic development.

Additionally, low-income communities of color have been on the frontline of Houston's petrochemical industry for decades, and when Harvey struck, they were some of the first to feel the effects as chemical plants caught fire, refineries began flaring toxins, and polluted floodwater went into their neighborhoods.

The EPA Office of Environmental Justice helps integrate concerns of these communities within the general activities of the agencies. This is not a program that can afford to be scaled back, especially as concerns of environmental justice continue to arise around Hurricane Harvey and now in Irma's path. It is critical that we protect frontline communities and communities of color from disparate impacts caused by environmental pollution. One million dollars is not a lot of

money for this task, but it reaffirms the significance of the office and our sense of equality.

Today I ask my colleagues to join in defense of these communities and show them that Congress cares about their public health, their housing, and their importance as people.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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.