To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the inclusion of certain additional periods of active duty service for purposes of suspending charges to veterans' entitlement to educational assistance under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs during periods of suspended participation in vocational rehabilitation programs.

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. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the amendment is going to be withdrawn, but let me explain what this language would have done. To the best of my knowledge, the leases haven't been permanently withdrawn yet.

This language would have prevented the Forest Service and the Interior Department from acting to protect our Nation's most visited wilderness area. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is located in northern Minnesota, and it is one of the last truly undisturbed wild places in America.

It is a national treasure, and it is under threat from sulfide-ore copper mining. The proposed mine is next to the wilderness. There is no buffer, and there is no barrier here. It is literally in the same water.

Sulfide-ore mining is the most toxic industry in America. It pollutes waterways with acid drainage that contains arsenic, mercury, and lead.

The Forest Service recognized how damaging this type of mining could be to the Boundary Waters, so they proposed a 20-year halt to Federal mine leases in the watershed. They were urged to study this withdrawal by our Governor from Minnesota, Tribal Governments, and people from all across America who were worried that sulfide mining could destroy the surrounding waters and lands.

They have a right to be worried. All these mines have failed. In 2014, a sulfide-ore mine in British Columbia failed, dumping billions of liters of toxic sludge, causing permanent environmental damage.

So the Forest Service wisely decided to conduct a science-based assessment to see if mineral withdrawal would make sense for the water- intensive ecosystem of our Boundary Waters.

Now, Mr. Chairman, despite what you might hear about what the gentleman said, the proposed mining withdrawal is not some overreach or some past or current administration being out of line. In 1976, Congress established this exact review process under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Congress intentionally provided a way to protect our country's natural treasures and vulnerable places.

If the gentleman's amendment would have come to the floor for a vote and would have passed again, it would have stopped that review process. It would make the withdrawal study meaningless, because it dictates the outcome.

If this amendment had been on the floor and it would pass, the withdrawal of the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore mining would have been off the table no matter what the study would have said is best for the wilderness.

In every conversation I have had, and I have had many, with Secretary Zinke and Secretary Perdue, they have told me the same thing: The study should be completed.

So I hope my colleagues and the President would reject having these leases go through without having a study.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Chair, I reserved my time. The gentleman has withdrawn the amendment. Even though the amendment has been withdrawn, I don't have the right to close or I would have used my time.

Could the Parliamentarian instruct me as to if my time is actually gone.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, we do have a tradition of mining in Minnesota--taconite mining is the new mining--and I just want to reiterate the fact that these leases are for mining and the company that is looking to mine is sulfide-ore mining.

But, Mr. Chairman, I want to close by sharing some words from the founding members of Kids for the Boundary Waters. I have their handwritten notes. To have handwritten notes from America's young adults these days is pretty special.

From Callie: ``This unique place shaped my life. The Boundary Waters helped me to realize my potential.''

From Henry: ``I have watched year after year as families like my own have grown together in this wilderness.''

From Julia: ``The pristine, untainted waters of the Boundary Waters are essential to the quality and uniqueness of the journeys of visitors.''

From Tommaso: ``I am more committed than ever to help preserve and protect this beautiful and unique ecosystem for future generations.''

From Elsa: ``Once the watershed faces sulfide-ore copper mining, it will never be the same.''

From Joseph, who started this organization during his fight with leukemia: ``What cancer has taught me for sure is that sometimes life only gives you one chance to get things right, and this is our one chance to protect the Boundary Waters.''

I urge my colleagues and others to join me in standing with these young, inspiring people and to oppose the lease renewal.

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

Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Grothman

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska has been enlightening me more about placer mining, and I appreciate learning more; but I have some questions that remain unanswered, so that is why I have opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I understand that between 400 and 600 miles of BLM-managed streams have historic or active placer mining impacts, and there is a legacy of historic claim with reduction of ecosystem function.

Now, BLM continues various outreach activities, including public meetings and interactions with individual miners, and is working with industry to incorporate best management practices and new reclamation techniques to accelerate stream recovery. I think that would be a good thing.

Of course, reclamation activities may be necessary, and what they are looking to do is to increase the cost to the miners, which the gentleman is objecting to, if I understand correctly, in order to get these streams and ecosystems back up to function.

This amendment would prohibit assessing the cost of the reclamation areas to placer miners who are profiting from mineral extraction on BLM-managed land.

I personally believe the American taxpayer should not shoulder the burden of the restoration costs, that responsible parties should.

So the gentleman will probably be enlightening me over the next couple of months on what he thinks might be able to be worked out so that both parties feel that the burden is not over-burdensome, but there is adequate reclamation going forward.

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

Mr. Chair, it has been pointed out that this amendment would block the EPA from regulating air pollution under section 115 of the Clean Air Act, which deals with international pollution and allows the United States to work with other countries on transboundary pollution issues.

Being a State that borders Canada, we enter into agreements with them many times to make sure that both of our countries are working together in the best interest of their citizens.

This gentleman has offered this amendment for a number of years. It used to be the amendment to torpedo the climate change agreement, but President Trump took care of that, so I am a little unclear as to why it is continuing to be offered.

Section 115 could be a tool in our toolbox for a path to achieve reduction targets for greenhouse gases. The gentleman's amendment would prohibit both the EPA and the Trump White House from even developing a well-considered recommendation as to whether or not to use this authority.

The President might, in some circumstances, want to work with another country to address something. This to me is just the latest in a long line of attacks on clean air and on the EPA's authority to respond to the urgent threat of climate change.

A vote for this amendment is another vote, in my opinion, for climate denial and to block action to curb carbon pollution that is driving our dangerous climate change.

We see the hurricanes getting stronger, the wildfires raging stronger, and now we are seeing the glaciers melt.

Mr. Chair, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to leave this tool in the toolbox for the Republican administrator at EPA, as well as for the Republican person who is serving in the White House. Let's leave them one tool in the toolbox in case they want to take it out and use it.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly would prohibit Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the endangered species listing of the New Mexico jumping mouse under the Endangered Species Act. It would restrict the Service from offering critical protections to preserve the species.

This amendment is harmful. Once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the role of Fish and Wildlife is primarily permissive, helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities.

Now, the majority of the habitat of the New Mexico jumping mouse is on Federal land, and Fish and Wildlife is working with the Forest Service to develop conservation measures that will protect the mouse while allowing livestock grazing on Forest Service lands and assuring adequate water for these cattle.

Since the endangered species listing, members of the livestock community

have voiced concern about their impacts to people who recreate and make their livelihood on Forest Service lands, which result from addressing the needs of the mouse.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has established three working groups to address these concerns, and they have come up with some creative solutions, like establishing cattle lanes to assure cattle can have access to water while protecting the vegetation necessary for the survival of the mouse.

We have been in contact, and we find that there is a lot of excitement and there is a lot of cooperation going on. So I would like to work with the Service to make sure that we give this a full chance of working.

Under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to recover this species, though all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. So the Service wouldn't be able to continue to recover the species under this amendment, but all the other activities of the Endangered Species Act would still apply. So the Service wouldn't be able to work collaboratively any longer with stakeholders to provide ESA compliance.

The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered Species Act. Defunding the Agency's ability to fulfill these legal requirements just makes the Agency and the Federal Government more vulnerable to lawsuits, which is an unnecessary cost for American taxpayers.

Additionally, this amendment would limit the Service from undertaking a required status review of the subspecies or from initiating any rulemaking to downlist or even delist this species, when it became appropriate.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wasn't here earlier, because he was attending to other work and now has come down to do his amendment, but I have been making the case that this type of authorizing language, these types of debates and discussions, should be taking place in the authorizing committee where we can bring in the Service, bring in the ranchers, find out what we need to do better to create win-wins.

When we just come and put things on the appropriations bill, it doesn't allow for that full vetting. It doesn't allow us that opportunity to work with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee after the authorizing committee is coming through and figuring out where we need to adjust the budget, or what we need to do, or how we need to do oversight to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing things that the gentleman is talking about.

So, an interesting thing, we got some information from the Service, and the Service has been working with the research community to expand the survey of the jumping mouse outside its currently known occupied areas. The goal of this expansion effort is to document additional populations. If they document additional populations, we could possibly move toward downlisting or delisting the species, as appropriate. But your amendment, unfortunately, would block that.

I would like to see this type of amendment be brought up under the majority--the majority is the same in the Senate, and the majority is in control of the White House--and have an opportunity to do the right kind of oversight to make sure that, when we are doing legislation with the best of intentions--if this survey were to come back and say that we could downlist or delist the species, this amendment would prohibit us from doing it.

So, at this time, I will oppose the gentleman's amendment. But I thank him for bringing this attention to the floor, and I will look more into it.

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

Mr. Chairman, in 2016, the Service officially removed the lesser prairie chicken from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife in accordance with the September 2015 court order vacating the Service's 2014 delisting determination, as the gentleman pointed out.

Now, the administration action was taken in light of the decision not to appeal the court's ruling. So they decided they weren't going to appeal, but they were going to try to move forward.

So the Service is currently conducting a species status assessment to characterize the current and future conditions of the lesser prairie chicken. The assessment takes into account both the threats and conservation efforts.

When I was in Nevada--I wasn't in your State, sir, but I was in Nevada with one of our other colleagues--I saw amazing work that was being done in collaboration, in fact, with an energy company, amazing work being done.

The gentleman from Nevada was unable to produce one prairie chicken for me to see that morning when we were out, but I believe that they are there and that the conservation is working, in spite of the fact that I didn't get to see one lesser prairie chicken.

But going back, the draft report was shared with peer and partner reviews, and the Service is working with them to get feedback. If the Service determines the listing of the lesser prairie chicken as threatened or endangered is warranted, it is unlikely that any rulemaking could be completed before 2018. So that would take 2 years, in which Congress could take action.

I would like the Service to be able to continue working closely with its partners, including State fish and wildlife agencies, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, industry, private landowners, and other partners, in the interest of conserving the lesser prairie chicken.

So what the amendment does, and why I am objecting to it, it halts, it stops, that transparent process that is working properly, that I saw in the field working properly and providing ample opportunity for public comment in how we could move forward.

So this amendment would make the decision. It would make the decision final about the conservation of the species on the basis of what is not, in my opinion, good science. So, at this time, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I hope all partners continue to work together.

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

This amendment seeks to block collaborative water management in California. Such management is aimed at benefiting all water users, cities, farmers, Tribes, the fishing industry, and recreation interests.

Specifically, this amendment blocks Federal compliance with the California Bay-Delta Plan, which is a plan being developed by the State of California to prevent the collapse of California's iconic salmon fisheries, and to preserve all beneficial use of the State's water.

After a decade of research and public outreach, the State government is close to finalizing the Bay-Delta Plan. It will increase water flows into the California Bay-Delta from the San Joaquin River. The increased flows will improve salmon survival and prevent an unfolding ecological crisis in the Bay-Delta, which is key for the environment for the Bay and the Pacific Northwest fisheries, one of the most valuable and unique ecosystems in the world.

While multiple factors have contributed to recent salmon declines, a key factor has been unsustainably large water diversions from the California rivers. The Bay-Delta seeks to address this by reducing diversions and increasing river flow.

Mr. Chair, this obviously is an amendment which the author is very passionate about. This also is something that the State of California has engaged in.

This amendment, in my opinion, once again, should be something that should be handled in an authorizing committee so the State of California can come in, the gentleman and his proponents of what the State is doing can have a discussion, and then the authorizers can work their will and let the appropriators know whether or not to move forward on this.

To do this amendment here shuts out a full, transparent discussion about what should or should not take place in the State of California, where the California citizens all across the State have had input with their elected officials on how to move forward.

So this amendment seeks to undermine what appears to be a successful implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan, which California has seen as a necessary step toward preventing precious fishery declines and the loss of thousands of jobs that rely on healthy fish and functioning ecosystems.

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

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time both sides have?

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I will make my remarks to close.

This amendment is an attempt to get the Congress involved in undermining a State's rights and its prerogatives.

The Federal Government should be assisting California in ways to restore the State's rivers and recover needed fisheries, instead of trying to interfere with obstruction from Washington. I often hear my colleagues say that Washington should get out of the way. In this case, I totally agree.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment clearly would prohibit Fish and Wildlife Service from enforcing limitations or prohibitions on the use of genetically modified seed in commercial agricultural operations conducted on national wildlife refuges.

As the gentleman pointed out, in 2014, a decision to curtail the use of genetically modified seeds or crops, GMOs, for use on National Wildlife Refuge System lands by 2016 grew out of several years of litigation successfully brought against U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

During the term of the litigation, the courts did not allow the use of GMOs. As a result of this restriction, the refuges found that they were able to meet their biological objectives and accomplish their wildlife management purposes without the use of GMOs and that GMO use could be curtailed nationwide.

This approach avoids costly litigation for the taxpayers and the need for additional site-specific compatibility determinations and NEPA analysis of GMO crops. It is a saver of the taxpayers' dollars.

Fish and Wildlife Service has proven over several years that they can accomplish their wildlife objectives without the use of GMOs. However, Fish and Wildlife policy on biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health does allow for the use of GMOs when it is essential to accomplish the refuge purposes and is approved by the Regional Refuge Chief.

This amendment jeopardizes the current FWS policy that is based on years of experience. We should be supporting Fish and Wildlife Service and its efforts, not blocking the agency from doing its job.

Mr. Chair, once again, this is the appropriations portion of Fish and Wildlife. This clearly is something that has gone through the court system, that has gone through authorization. It is a policy discussion and it should be done in the policy committee. It should be done where people can come in and testify and have their debate in full transparency. It should be done then and brought to the floor.

Mr. Chair, the majority controls the House, the Senate, and the White House. I would encourage the author of the amendment to not use the appropriation bills to put more riders on.

The gentleman may or may not be aware, Mr. Chair, that the Senate has no riders on its bill at all. And I believe that this could really put the chairman and myself, as the ranking member, possibly at a disadvantage when we go to reallocate those precious dollars, with all the requests that we have had on the floor over the past 2 days, when we go into doing what our job is, the appropriations.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership, or

programs, that are for the reforestation of urban areas. In fact, I celebrate and support the increase in funding. This amendment is particularly helpful, I hope, to create the legislative history of the importance of the urban reforestation program.

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member as well as the chairman of this committee for recognizing the importance of urban reforestation.

This amendment emphasizes the importance of the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership in urban forests and preserves our ability to return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children. I have offered similar amendments because I want an ongoing creation of legislative history to ensure that this program is kept.

In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all of our urban trees, a loss of over 600 million trees. Eighty percent of the American population lives in dense quarters of the city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to concrete areas that can help remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars in stormwater management costs.

I have certainly seen the devastation of droughts right in large cities. In particular, Houston, a couple years ago, lost many, many trees in a severe drought that we experienced over the summer. It took many community investors--when I say that, nonprofits--and Federal dollars to restore green life to Houston.

We know that asthma is on the rise. In people below the Federal poverty threshold, we see asthma increasing. Asthma comes when children have to be subjected to polluted air.

Some of the reasons individuals at lower income may have increased risk of asthma are increased exposure to indoor and outdoor pollutants, cigarette smoking, secondhand smoke exposure, and nearby industrial pollutants and highway traffic.

The good news is that trees provide the source of oxygen that is so necessary, and it comes about through a scientific process that I will discuss a little bit later.

We have a headline here from Science Daily that says: ``Cities and Communities in the U.S. Losing 36 Million Trees a Year.''

And then another headline: ``Researchers Suggest Reforestation Around Urban Areas to Reduce Ozone Levels,'' which enhances, creates, makes worse the asthma that many of our children suffer from.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to Division A of H.R. 6147, the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and to commend Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their leadership in shepherding this bill through the legislative process.

Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution, which operates our national museums including the National Zoo.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important message from the Congress of the United States.

The Jackson Lee Amendment emphasizes the importance of Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships and urban forests, and preserves our ability to return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children.

Similar amendments were offered and accepted in the Interior and Environment Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year 2018 (H.R. 3354), Fiscal Year 2017 (H.R. 5538), Fiscal Year 2016 (H.R. 2822), Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 2643), and Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5386), and were adopted by voice vote.

Mr. Chair, surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious danger.

In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our urban trees--a loss of over 600 million trees.

Eighty percent of the American population lives in the dense quarters of a city.

Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete area that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars in storm water management costs.

I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban reforestation.

In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real estate.

Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban sprawl and deterioration.

Mr. Chair, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves both the protection of existing natural resources and active support for restoration and improvement projects.

Several years ago, American Forests, a leading conservation group, estimated that the tree cover lost in the greater Washington metropolitan area from 1973 to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 million cubic feet of storm water runoff annually, which would have taken more than $1 billion in storm water control facilities to manage.

Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen.

People breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.

A typical person consumes about 38 pounds of oxygen per year.

A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can produce about 260 lb of oxygen annually--two trees supply the oxygen needs of a person for a year.

Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and pollen with their leaves.

A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 pounds of the small particles and gases of air pollution.

Trees help combat the effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels that is causing our atmosphere to ``heat up.''

Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt, concrete and metal surfaces.

Buildings and paving in city centers create a heat-island effect.

A mature tree canopy reduces air temperatures by about 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit.

A 25 foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling costs of a typical residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average annual savings of $120 per American household.

Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds, and reduce annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent.

Mr. Chair, trees play a vital role in making our cities more sustainable and more livable.

The Jackson Lee Amendment simply provides for continued support to programs like Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships that reforest our urban areas.

For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee Amendment and thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together this legislation.

[From Science Daily, Apr. 18, 2018]

Cities and Communities in the US Losing 36 Million Trees a Year

Source: USDA Forest Service--Northern Research Station

Summary: Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined

from 42.9 percent to 42.2 percent between 2009-2014. This

translates to losing an estimated 36 million trees or

approximately 175,000 acres of tree cover annually.

Scientists with the USDA Forest Service estimate that

between 2009 and 2014, tree cover in the Nation's urban/

community areas declined by 0.7 percent, which translates to

losing an estimated 36 million trees or approximately 175,000

acres of tree cover annually. Pavement and other impervious

cover increased at a rate of about 167,000 acres a year

during the same period, according to research by USDA Forest

Service scientists.

Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined from 42.9

percent to 42.2 percent. Twenty-three states had a

statistically significant decrease in tree cover, with a

total of 45 states showing a net decline. Trees improve air

and water quality, reduce summer energy costs by cooling

homes, reduce noise, mitigate runoff and flooding, and

enhance human health and well-being, making them important to

human health and urban and community infrastructure. The

annual benefits derived from U.S. urban forests due to air

pollution removal, carbon sequestration, and lowered building

energy use and consequent altered power plant emissions are

estimated at $18 billion.

The study by Dave Nowak and Eric Greenfield of the USDA

Forest Service's Northern Research Station, ``Declining urban

and community tree cover in the United States,'' was

published in the journal Urban Forestry and Urban Greening.

A table showing tree cover and impervious cover change by

state is available at: https://www.nrs.fsis.fed.us/news/ release/resources/cities-communities-losing-tree-cover/ ``Urban forests are a vital part of the nation's

landscape,'' said Tony Ferguson, Director of the Forest

Service's Northern Research Station and the Forest Products

Laboratory. ``Forest Service research puts knowledge and

tools into the hands of urban forest managers that supports

stewardship and the wise allocation of resources.''

States or districts with the greatest annual net percent

loss in urban/community tree cover were Rhode Island and the

District of Columbia (minus 0.44 percent), Georgia (minus

0.40 percent), and Alabama and Nebraska (minus 0.32 percent

each). States with the greatest annual net loss in tree cover

were Georgia (minus 18,830 acre/year), Florida (minus 18,060

acre/year) and Alabama (minus 12,890 acre/year).

Three states--Mississippi, Montana and New Mexico--had

slight, nonsignificant increases in urban/community tree

cover. Nationally, Maine has the highest percent tree cover

in urban/community areas with 68 percent tree cover. At 10

percent tree cover, North Dakota ranked as having the lowest

percent urban/community tree cover.

``Urban forests are an important resource,'' said Nowak.

``Urban foresters, planners and decision-makers need to

understand trends in urban forests so they can develop and

maintain sufficient levels of tree cover--and the

accompanying forest benefits--for current and future

generations of citizens.''

As of 2010, urban land occupied 3 percent, or 68 million

acres, of the United States, while urban/community land

occupied just over 6 percent of the United States, or 141

million acres.

Overall, urban/community impervious cover had a

statistically significant increase from 14.5 percent to 15.1

percent (an increase of o.6 percent), States with the

greatest annual net percent increase in impervious cover were

Delaware (0.28 percent), Iowa (0.26 percent), and Colorado,

Kansas and Ohio (0.24 percent each). States with the greatest

annual net increase in impervious cover were Texas (17,590

acre/year), Florida (13,900 acre/year) and Ohio (8,670 acre/

year).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6147, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this bill is consistent with years past that provided robust funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Therefore, this is an initiative I can support and we accept.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, EPA was directed by the President to take a second look at the methane rule promulgated by the Obama administration. In conjunction with that review, EPA attempted to provide the regulating community with some certainty by postponing some implementation dates. However, the courts have blocked that from happening.

In light of these challenges, the time is ripe for a temporary pause on the enforcement of these requirements, so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2018 bill included $10 million for EPA to establish a grant program to provide funds to States and communities for lead reduction projects as authorized in the 2016 WIIN Act.

I might also point out that we now have a WIFIA program that is in the bill, which will allow for communities throughout the country to leverage up to $5 billion annually, and maybe more in the future, in their communities for such things as lead reduction within their towns and counties.

Mr. Chairman, therefore, this is an amendment we can accept, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly support her amendment.

Under the previous administration, EPA proposed this stringent water regulation standard in Washington State without utilizing sound scientific data or evidence. In doing so, EPA created regulatory uncertainty and imposed unachievable permit levels on the State, which are costly and nearly impossible for industries to comply with.

I encourage the State, the Tribes, and the EPA to continue to work together to find agreeable standards that improve water quality and human health while, simultaneously, providing clarity to the impacted communities and industries. In the meantime, though, I certainly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the House has spoken on this. In last year's conference report, we directed Fish and Wildlife Service to make this species among its highest priorities for consultation and permit processing. Obviously, the agency has not moved fast enough, and they need to get hopping.

So I am sure this amendment will squeak by with all of our support. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. The root of the frustration with the Endangered Species Act is that species rarely get delisted, and people who are directly affected by a listing are condemned to a life of an additional Federal rule indefinitely.

Congress tried to prevent this by requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to review the status of every listed species every 5 years and to down-list or delist species accordingly.

Today, the Service has a backlog of 892 species without a current 5- year review.

Without these 5-year reviews, species could be recovered and we wouldn't even know it. I find this simply unacceptable.

Unless the Service focuses its personnel on inherently Federal responsibilities under the ESA and non-Federal partners take the lead on actual recovery, we will never break the contentious and litigious cycle that we have now.

And, by the way, we have actually increased the ESA recovery budget in this bill for 5-year reviews. So let's get ESA working again.

Mr. Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am happy to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. This is another example of EPA overreach. It is my hope that my colleagues from Virginia and Pennsylvania can continue to work with the administration to find common ground on approaches that will improve water quality in a more flexible manner. I certainly support this amendment and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, now you know how it feels about California water. I got the drift of this thing.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's interest on this issue and appreciate the variety of opinions about it. I thank the gentleman, as well as the gentlewoman from Minnesota, who is the subcommittee's ranking member, for her willingness to work with the committee. As we work together to try to move forward with this bill, I hope a compromise will be found.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the Dean of the House's amendment and his dedication to the sound management of natural resources on behalf of constituents in his State.

Obviously, mining, and certainly placer mining, is unique to Alaska. Alaska certainly has a unique history when it comes to mineral extraction, probably more than any other State in the Union. It is certainly a big part of Alaska's economy and the economy of the United States. It is a mutually beneficial enterprise.

This amendment is similar to the ones adopted by voice vote in FY17 and FY18, so I certainly urge my colleagues to adopt it by a voice vote yet again.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

In 2015, a Federal court ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the lesser prairie chicken from the list of threatened and endangered species. Environmental activists immediately petitioned the Agency to list the species again, and the Agency, having been stung by the court, concluded that the petition had merit.

Now the Agency is on the verge of listing the species yet again, and it will end up in court again, where it will be delisted again. Rinse and repeat.

Folks, how many times must we repeat this cycle before people start working together? How much money must be wasted fighting each other before we realize that our money is better spent actually helping the species?

This amendment calls a timeout on the madness, at least for one species. That is why I am urging an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

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

Mr. Chairman, our State Water Board is out of control. Our State Water Board is involved in a political operation to remove farming out of the State of California.

This amendment would attempt to put a stop to the reckless State plan and continue the current New Melones operations. This is something we need to act on and act on immediately. We are in crisis.

I am a strong advocate for Mr. Denham's position and, certainly, for his constituents, and I am glad to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

The National Academy of Sciences was established by Congress in 1863 in the midst of the Civil War to provide independent, objective advice to the Nation on matters related to science and technology.

The Academy, in 2016, released a comprehensive literature review on the science of genetically engineered crops, or GMOs as they are commonly referred to. The Academy found zero scientific evidence that GMOs are any more or any less safe for human consumption and the environment than organisms modified by more traditional genetic methods, like selective breeding.

This amendment blocks an outdated policy made during the last administration which pandered to extreme environmental groups by feeding into the unfounded fears of GMOs. This amendment is an opportunity to rise above fear-mongering and make sound policy based on science and rationality.

Mr. Chair, let's do the right thing and vote ``aye.''

Mr. Chair, although the base bill already continues to support this program at the fiscal year 2018 level, I am happy to accept this amendment, as I have for the past 2 years.

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

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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment previously failed by recorded vote in July of 2016. The amendment taxed ranchers and attempts to relitigate the Bundy matter.

DOJ was found to have withheld evidence and to have violated these ranchers' rights. There is no reason to relitigate this matter at this juncture. The regulations are already in place.

This is an unnecessary political amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman brings up exactly the point I am trying to make. We are trying to relitigate a previously settled issue. It was actually found that these ranchers' rights were violated by the Department of Justice.

We started looking--the Hammonds were brought up. When we were actually looking at this case where they actually tried to look at the fire danger on their land, and it got beyond their lands and on to public land, they were fined exclusively and hardlined.

Where is the same type of justice given to the Forest Service or the BLM when their prescribed burn fires go out of hand and take private holdings? It is not the same. This isn't about freeloading. This is about a case where we need to look at how we take care of our public lands.

Mr. Chair, I ask everybody to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that supports recreational shooting, K-12 education, and responsible energy development by prohibiting funds for the Ironwood Forest National Monument that was unilaterally designated under the Antiquities Act.

By looking at the map here, it is very clear that this monument was a political land grab meant to prevent responsible energy and mineral production, as well as multiple use on Federal lands. You couldn't construct something even worse than that.

As you can see, the monument boundary starts in the right corner here in the yellow and includes a large mineral deposit that includes molybdenum, manganese, gold, and peripheral lead-zinc-silver.

The boundary then works its way up and also encircles the purple, which is a significant copper deposit.

Continuing to move up to the green, the monument encompasses significant amounts of lead, zinc, and silver veins.

Moving further up the map to the next yellow, the monument encircles the entire Silver Bell Mine and operations, as well as other claims, and also encompasses massive mineral deposits that contain molybdenum, manganese, gold, and peripheral lead-zinc-silver.

Moving to the blue and to the top left of the monument, the boundary almost entirely encircles two large veins that contain barium, lead, and silver.

Essentially, all the colored areas on the map are off limits to new energy and mineral exploration and development as a result of the monument land grab.

Proponents claim the 188,619-acre monument is necessary to protect a stand of ironwood trees covering 640 acres. Let me repeat that. Proponents claim the 188,619-acre monument is necessary to protect a stand of ironwood trees covering 640 acres.

Wow. If this unilateral monument designation was not political, it would have had a significantly different boundary and been much smaller.

There is nothing glamorous about this monument, and it was an unconstitutional taking by then-Secretary Babbitt and the Clinton administration, pointblank.

The Arizona Mining Association, Arizona Rock Products Association, Arizona Mining Industry Gets Our Support, and the Southern Arizona Business Coalition recently asked for this monument to be modified significantly, stating: ``One-third of the area encompassed in the Ironwood Monument is either State trust lands or privately owned. These lands have effectively lost all economic potential as a result of the national monument designation. . . . At the time of the designation, the State government estimated that it would lose $100 million in mineral rights. This does not include financial losses to private companies or the lost employment potential for the mines.''

Asarco and Liberty Star Uranium and Metals Corporation of Tucson have also asked for this monument to be significantly altered.

Further, the Ironwood Forest National Monument has caused harm to the common schools beneficiary, K-12 education, by locking up these lands, preventing multiple use, and stopping important revenues from flowing to the educational coffers.

The Ironwood Forest National Monument enacted a complete ban on recreational shooting. No utility corridors are allowed in the monument. One-quarter of the monument can be closed to human entry for over one-third of the year due to the presence of sheep, and nearly 10,000 acres of this monument are completely locked up at all times. Further, the monument constitutes an attack on ranchers by negatively impacting grazing.

This monument designation was an unconstitutional taking. Asarco invested $72 million prior to the monument designation in hopes of expanding the mine. They will likely invest several hundred million more, create new jobs, and grow the economy if the mine is no longer within the monument boundary.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has not been able to fully implement vital management activities within the monument boundaries, including fencing to protect wildlife, predator control, law enforcement wildlife investigations, and responses to illegal wildlife activities.

In November, 24 Members of Congress sent President Trump a letter recommending a recession of this monument amongst other monument recommendations. That letter was endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, Americans for Responsible Recreation Access, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the Public Lands Council.

This amendment is endorsed by the American Exploration and Mining Association, American Encore, AMIGOS, Asarco Mining, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Free Market America, the Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona Liberty, the Arizona Pork Council, Concerned Citizens for America, Eagle Motorcycles, Rim Country Custom Rods, the Southern Arizona Business Coalition, and Yavapai County Supervisor Jack R. Smith, amongst others.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their time and for their good work on this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, look at how this monument is connected and concocted. I think every which way. You couldn't make a worse definition for a monument.

What it basically does is it goes to the far side to catch these two minerals over here. Down here in the middle, it goes to the far edge. This is called gerrymandering for minerals. This is a political bias based upon takings from the people of Arizona.

Remember, I responded by saying: Listen, one-third of this designation was private and State lands. These are part of the dedication to the citizens of Arizona.

So when you look at this, this is the worst concocted. This is the vanity of, actually, atrocities of monuments gone haywire.

Now, I am happy to work with the gentleman from southern Arizona to rightsize this monument. I would be happy to do that. But this concoction is a blatant exercise in overjurisdiction of the Federal Government and misutilizing the Antiquities Act.

Mr. Chairman, I ask everybody to vote for my amendment.