Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6147) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the measures included here aren't just bad, they are dangerous. Take the Interior Appropriations bill. It would put the health and safety of Americans at risk by slashing funding to address climate change and enforce environmental safeguards.

The EPA, the agency tasked with fighting carbon emissions, is cut by $100 million. That is especially ironic since the majority was completely unwilling to rein in the wasteful spending by its former Administrator, Scott Pruitt. This is someone who spent $43,000 on a soundproof phone booth, but the majority was silent.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is cut by $65 million. That is after Republicans cut it by a third in the last fiscal year. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a champion of the LWCF, especially the stateside grant program where States provide a 50 percent match to grants that create more recreational and green open spaces in our districts. The people in communities in nearly every congressional district in the country have benefitted from these grants. We should be increasing, not cutting, LWCF.

There is even language in the bill that would repeal a rule designed to protect our wetlands and waterways. State revolving funds were cut by $300 million, a $150 million cut to clean drinking water and a $150 million cut to clean water projects like water treatment and sewage programs.

Mr. Speaker, the American people rely on Congress to make sure that the

water they drink is clean. What is going on with this bill?

As always, Republicans have again attached several poison pill provisions that undermine the health and safety of our communities and the environment. Every year--every year--provisions like these weigh down this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when will my Republican friends realize that harmful provisions like this are why the bill has to become law? I am especially outraged to see what the majority has done with the Financial Services Appropriations bill, especially after what we saw on Friday. That is when some of our worst fears were confirmed.

As part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced charges against 12 Russian military intelligence officers. They were accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee, hacking Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, and hacking the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The website of a State electoral board was also hacked. Voter information was stolen. Even the vendor of voting equipment was targeted for a cyber attack. And those individuals involved in administering elections were also targeted.

These charges are proof that our Nation, that our very democracy, is under attack. No troops were sent into combat. Not a single gun was fired. Instead, an adversary turned the internet into a battlefield. That is the new face of warfare in the 21st century.

Although the methods were different, this Congress should be responding the way we always have, by putting partisanship aside and putting our country first by doing whatever it takes to ensure we are not left vulnerable again.

But, Mr. Speaker, how is this majority responding? By using the Financial Services Appropriations bill to zero out funding for grants that help protect our election systems from cyber hacking. That is a cut of $380 million compared to what Congress enacted in fiscal year 2018. The wolf is at the door, and my Republican colleagues are inviting it inside for dinner. This is insane.

The President tweeted, shortly after the election: ``Unless you catch `hackers' in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be hard, but it is not impossible, because we now have a 29-page indictment from President Trump's own Justice Department providing the roadmap. The indictment goes into extraordinary detail outlining how Russia successfully hacked into our election systems, how candidates and committees were successfully targeted--not by China or somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds, as the President suggested, but by Russia, by Vladimir Putin.

It is mind-boggling that even after this indictment, after Russia's meddling was laid bare, the President did not stand up to Putin. He held a summit with him instead. He even told CBS News, in an interview before his sit down, that he ``hadn't thought'' about raising the issue with Putin during their talk.

It gets worse, Mr. Speaker. British investigators believe that current and former agents of the same Russian military intelligence service accused of disrupting our 2016 elections are also likely responsible for the nerve agent attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter in Salisbury, England, earlier this year.

Sadly, it is no surprise that the President didn't stand up to Putin. He never does. When President Trump was asked whether he was a friend or a foe, he recently called Putin a competitor instead, like this was all some kind of real estate deal.

A President who calls the free press, journalists in the United States, ``the enemy of the American people'' time and time again is unwilling to call the leader of Russia a foe or even an adversary. It is disturbing.

What kind of hold does Vladimir Putin have on this President, Mr. Speaker? So much so that the President basically blamed the United States for much of the tensions between the two countries.

The President even deflected when asked whether he trusts the American intelligence community or Putin.

The President may be satisfied by what he called Putin's strong and powerful denial of election interference, but I am not, Mr. Speaker. I am disgusted.

It is clear that an effort to defend our democracy will have to be led by Congress, because it is not coming from the White House. But we are not leading when we make it easier for an adversary like Russia to attack us again. That is retreating.

I remember learning about the separation of powers in school, how the legislative branch is a separate but equal branch of government. The Founders designed it that way so we could provide a check on a President.

Mr. Speaker, when are the Republicans in Congress going to provide a check on President Trump? He is cozying up to Putin instead of holding him accountable for hacking our election.

As Senator Schumer suggested, we should be increasing sanctions on the Russians. The Republican majority should be joining us, demanding the President's national security team that accompanied him to Helsinki testify before Congress, detailing what they know.

It is past time that Republicans end their attacks on the Department of Justice, on the FBI, and on the special counsel. Already, 32 people and three companies have been either indicted or pleaded guilty under Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Now, we will see where else it leads, but there is already evidence of clear wrongdoing.

He should be able to finish his work without any interference. The majority should move a bill from Representative Nadler to the floor immediately, so we can protect the special counsel's investigation from the whims of this President.

President Trump has shown he is willing to fire his FBI Director. Mr. Speaker, are the Republicans really going to stand by and make it possible for him to fire Robert Mueller, too?

This majority must also demand the President insist that the 12 Russians named in Friday's indictment are sent to the United States to stand trial. The President should have already done this when he met with Putin, but, apparently, it was an afterthought. Maybe he was too busy admiring the strongman to stand up for his country's interests.

I wish I were optimistic that Republicans would take these commonsense steps to protect our country, but I am not, not after what we saw in the Rules Committee last night. The majority failed to make in order an amendment by Representative Quigley. It was germane. But they failed to make in order his amendment that would provide $380 million to help States protect election systems from cyber hacking. This funding should not have been zeroed out in the first place.

Do my Republican friends see what is happening? Is anybody paying attention over there? Russia meddled in our election, and your response is to zero out funding for an election security assistance program. Then, when we pointed it out and tried to put the money back, you blocked the amendment. You won't even allow us to debate the program. That is the smallest step that they could have taken. Instead, we can't even have a debate on the floor.

Apparently, the Republicans are afraid of having a fair fight about protecting our democracy, and it is indefensible. If the President isn't willing to do more to prevent Putin from doing it again, then this Congress has an obligation to act, not gut the accounts that provide for election security.

We can start standing up by voting against this rule and the underlying legislation. It doesn't do nearly enough to protect our Nation against hostile foreign powers hell-bent on attacking our democracy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend from Oklahoma who I think said that 39 percent of the funds are still left in the Election Assistance Commission account. Well, we still have 5 months left in this year, and does anybody here really believe that these attacks are going to stop? And shouldn't we have money in the pipeline? Shouldn't we be prepared not just for this election, but for the election after that?

This is about protecting our democracy, and I don't understand why this is controversial. But no matter what you think about Mr. Quigley's amendment, it was germane. It was relevant to this bill. It should have been brought up, and we should debate it. All we are asking for is a fair fight.

We are deeply concerned about what is happening to our country, and we are especially concerned in the aftermath of President Trump's disastrous meeting with Vladimir Putin.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Congress to stand unified with the unanimous assessment of our intelligence community.

I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Engel's resolution, H. Res. 999, which follows word for word yesterday's statement by Speaker Ryan affirming Russia's attacks on our democracy.

This is the second time today that I am going to give my Republican friends a chance to go on the Record and agree with the words of the Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.

Defending our democracy shouldn't be controversial. Agreeing with the Republican Speaker that ``the United States must be focused on holding Russia accountable'' should not be controversial. I would say to my friends, take yes for an answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority has filled the Financial Services Appropriations bill with anti-Home Rule riders that meddle in local D.C. affairs. Not one or two provisions, which would be bad enough, but five.

One would prohibit D.C. from using its own funding to carry out Initiative 77, which eliminates the tipped minimum wage. That is an initiative, by the way, that passed recently with 56 percent of the vote.

Last night in the Rules Committee, the Republicans even made in order the Palmer amendment. This would prevent the District from implementing its local individual responsibility requirement. If passed, this amendment would increase health insurance premiums and cause residents to lose access to affordable coverage options.

Mr. Speaker, why are the Republicans continuing to interfere in local D.C. government? Where are the small-government conservatives? Where is the Freedom Caucus? They should be outraged by this meddling.

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton filed amendments to strike these riders and spoke in the Rules Committee last night. She asked a pretty simple question: Don't my Republican friends have their own districts to worry about?

Her amendments complied with the rules of the House, yet they were blocked from getting a vote on the floor. We can't even debate them here. The majority is afraid of a fair fight.

We are long past the point of breaking the record for being the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. This is more of the same for the most closed Congress in history, but that doesn't make it right, Mr. Speaker. When will the Republicans finally say, ``Enough''?

So enough with the meddling in D.C. affairs, enough with overriding the will of local residents, and enough with the restrictive amendment process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers the gentleman has on his side.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, when Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein announced the charges against 12 Russian military officers on Friday, he said: ``We need to work together to hold the perpetrators accountable, and we need to keep moving forward to preserve our values, protect against future interference, and defend America.''

Well, Republicans and Democrats working together need to come together to defend this country. That shouldn't be controversial. It should be common sense, and it should be above partisanship.

But we have a President who probably tunes out anything the Deputy Attorney General says because President Trump is too busy attacking the special counsel investigation on a near-daily basis. He calls it a witch hunt and even worse, and that is despite the fact that the Justice Department has issued more than 100 criminal counts against more than 30 people and three companies. Numerous associates of the President have pled guilty, and his former campaign chairman is sitting in jail today.

Or maybe more accurately, Mr. Speaker, the President attacks Robert Mueller's investigation because of that fact, because the special counsel could be closing in on even more possible wrongdoing. Where there is smoke there is usually fire, and there is at least a lot of smoke so far.

So, given the President's action, we need, as a Congress, to step it up. We need to hold Russia accountable and prevent this kind of hacking from ever happening again because the President, who is unwilling to say even publicly that he trusts the American intelligence community over Vladimir Putin, will not.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can go on record as disagreeing and condemning what the President did in Helsinki, which was such a betrayal of our values. And what we are asking to do is to vote to endorse the Speaker of the House, the Republican Speaker of the House's words.

I mean, quite frankly, we should have a resolution of disapproval on the floor, or maybe even a censure, given what the President did. But we are saying let's come together in a bipartisan way, and let's make a statement that we disagree with what the President did, what his behavior was.

So vote ``no'' on the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, it is my distinct honor to bring to the House floor the fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

Before I go into details about the bill, I would like to commend Chairman Frelinghuysen for his leadership and support throughout this process.

As reported by the Appropriations Committee, the fiscal year 2019 Interior and Environment bill is funded at $35.252 billion, which is equal to the FY18 enacted level. We have made sincere efforts to prioritize critical needs within our subcommittee allocation and in reviewing more than 5,200 individual requests.

In the interest of time, I won't outline all the problems or programs and activities funded in this bill. I would like to point out a few highlights.

The bill provides robust wildland fire funding totaling $3.9 billion. It fully funds the 10-year average for wildland fire suppression costs and provides an additional $500 million in suppression funds for the Forest Service. The committee has also provided a $30 million increase over fiscal year 2018 for hazardous fuel reduction.

The bill provides $500 million in fiscal year 2019 for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes, PILT program, which is a top priority for many Members on both sides of the aisle.

The bill also makes critical investments in Indian Country, a top priority of this committee. This legislation honors our commitment to Native Americans with a particular emphasis on Indian health, law enforcement, education, and water settlements.

The bill fully funds contract support costs and Tribal grant school support costs; provides funding to staff newly constructed health facilities; improves public safety; significantly increases economic development; invests an additional $16 million in fiscal year 2019 to address needs of schools throughout the BIE system; and invests an additional $82 million to correct funding disparities across the Indian Healthcare System.

Overall, funding to EPA has been reduced by $100 million from fiscal year 2018, with reductions aimed at research and regulatory programs. Members from the Midwest will be pleased to know that the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is maintained at the fiscal year 2018 enacted level of $300 million.

The bill continues to invest in water infrastructure and cleaning up contaminated land. These programs help create jobs and spur economic development in communities all across the Nation. The bill provides funds to leverage over $10 billion worth of investment in water infrastructure through the funding in the WIFIA program and the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds.

The bill also provides $3.2 billion for the National Park Service. It maintains, and builds upon, critical investments made in the fiscal year 2018 enacted bill to address longstanding park operations and deferred maintenance needs.

We have also attempted to address a number of concerns within the Fish and Wildlife Service accounts. The bill restores popular grant programs through fiscal year 2018 enacted levels. It also restores funds to combat international wildlife trafficking; protects fish hatcheries from cuts and closures; and continues funding to fight invasive mussels and Asian carp; and reduces the backlog of species that are recovered but not yet de-listed. We have also increased funds for the Recovery Challenge program, which we started in 2018 to challenge non-Federal partners to a more active role in recovering endangered species.

The bill also provides $360 million for Land and Water Conservation programs with bipartisan support.

Lastly, this bill makes significant investments toward critical deferred maintenance, construction, and infrastructure needs within the Department of the Interior, Forest Service, Indian Health Service, Smithsonian, as well as critical air and water infrastructure programs within the EPA.

In closing, I would like to thank staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked long hours on this legislation. On the minority side, I would like to thank Rita Culp, Jocelyn Hunn, and Rebecca Taylor.

On the majority side, I would like to thank Darren Benjamin, Betsy Bina, Jackie Kilroy, Kristin Richmond, Mac Cloyes, and Dave LesStrang from the committee staff, as well as Ian Foley, Rebecca Keightley, Tricia Evans and Dave Kennett from my personal staff.

To say the least, this has been a team effort.

Lastly, I would like to thank my good friend and ranking member, Betty McCollum, for working with me to address a number of critical needs throughout the bill.

Madam Chair, while we may disagree on some issues, we are never disagreeable and we continue to work well together.

Madam Chair, it is a good bill. I urge its adoption.

Madam Chairwoman, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for expressing support for the Superfund program.

The Superfund program continues to be a priority of this committee. In the fiscal year 2018 omnibus, we provided a $66 million increase to the program to accelerate cleanup of Superfund sites and respond to the release of hazardous materials.

I look forward to working together through the 2019 process to ensure that the Superfund program receives necessary funding to clean up and revitalize our Nation's toxic sites, like the American Cyanamid site, so that they are returned to productive use.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

I thank Mr. Ruiz for raising this issue. I would like to offer and continue working with the gentleman and the Forest Service to amicably and productively resolve the situation.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I want to acknowledge, our members on both sides of the aisle support more land acquisition funding, not less. That said, both sides of the aisle also recognize the maintenance backlog of our national parks is unacceptable.

In this bill we tried to balance the bipartisan support for land acquisition with bipartisan support for maintaining and improving the conditions of facilities we already own.

The gentleman from Arizona thinks we should direct a bit more to the National Park Service maintenance, and there is no debate that those needs are there.

Madam Chair, I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment and to work with the rest of my colleagues to address a need for funding to battle the spread the harmful invasive species. I support an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

The Delaware River Conservation Program leverages Federal funding by at least 2 to 1. That is exactly the kind of public-private partnership we should be fostering throughout the enterprise. That is why I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the Member's interest in the New England Scenic Trail and the National Park Service operations generally.

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

Madam Chair, as the gentleman knows, I am a strong supporter of the National Park Service and the Historic Preservation Fund. While I have some concerns about the offset at the Office of the Secretary, this is a bipartisan amendment I can accept, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, to the gentlewoman, my colleague on the House Intelligence Committee, this is certainly an amendment I can accept. The gentlewoman and I have a history over the years of working together on this program, and I am happy to continue it.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have no objections and urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman and I have a history over the years of working together to support HBCUs. I thank the gentleman for working with me on this issue and with the ranking member, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I am happy to continue to work with the gentlewoman from Texas on this program and others, and I have no objection.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am happy to support the gentlewoman from Michigan in her quest. The Great Lakes Science Center has bipartisan support for the role it plays in protecting the economic and environmental health of the Great Lakes region.

Madam Chair, I support my colleague's amendment, urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment. I will work with the gentleman to address this issue with the United States Geological Survey and learn more about where this mineral occurs.

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

Madam Chair, it is my understanding that the United States Geological Survey is in its early stages of discussing temporary spaces but that, eventually, the United States Geological Survey may have to develop a long-term solution for the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory.

I encourage the Department of the Interior, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Park Service to work together to develop a plan for the future observatory because operating the HVO out of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park was a cost-effective solution for many years.

Madam Chair, in the meantime, I certainly support my colleague's amendment. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we can accept the gentleman's amendment.

The committee takes invasive species threats seriously. We spent a lot of time on Asian carp in our committee in prevention efforts throughout the bill. It is a bipartisan effort. Everyone is very concerned about this. We are talking about a bounty program, possibly, to go after these things. Let's go do it.

I accept the gentleman's amendment, but I will be working with him and the rest of my colleagues to ensure that Asian carp and grass carp control and prevention efforts are effectively coordinated across the agencies within our jurisdiction.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman, and certainly we are prepared to accept the amendment.

I understand the gentleman's overall goals to continue funding for the AML pilot consistent with the fiscal year 2018 enacted bill that provided the funding for the six Appalachian States, and I know the economic devastation that has happened throughout that region.

This increase to the AML program by $30 million, so that Ohio, Alabama, and Virginia would receive $10 million each, equal to the fiscal 2010 enacted levels, could certainly help in those regions.

So we can accept this package of amendments at this time. I look forward to maintaining funding for the six States, with distribution similar to fiscal year 2018 and the final 2019 enacted bill. As such, I encourage my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment and work with him and the rest of my colleagues to address the public safety and justice construction needs in Indian Country.

The ranking member and I have worked very closely together in Indian Country to recognize the shortcomings throughout Indian Country in Indian education, Indian healthcare, and certainly within the Indian public safety and justice problems that we are having throughout the United States.

Mr. Chair, I certainly support an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I was happy to support the gentleman and accept the prior amendment, but this just goes too far.

I couldn't agree with the gentleman more that the Federal obligations for construction in Indian Country far outweigh the amount of money we have in the budget. That is why the Bureau of Indian Affairs Construction account has been and will continue to be a nonpartisan priority for the subcommittee, and we are certainly proud of the progress we have made so far, but I cannot support an offset on an account that also serves Indian Country and other underserved populations.

In addition to cutting the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, this amendment is likely to cut the Office of Native American Relations, the Office of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the Office of Civil Rights, and the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Again, while I agree with the increase, and I certainly don't disagree with the gentleman's intentions, I cannot in good conscience agree to this offset.

If we find money down the road in this process as the gentlewoman and I are going through the conference, this is something I would be very interested in looking at, but right now I must encourage a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Chair, in light of the catastrophic hurricane season last year and the fact that we are already in the midst of another hurricane season right now, I suspect there is additional relief needed for the territories in the weeks and months ahead. So with this reality upon us, I am happy to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, while I certainly have some concerns about

the offset, I am able to support my recent classmate's and colleague's amendment. As the gentlewoman knows, this bill has a strong history of supporting underrepresented communities, including African American and Tribal communities.

This bill funded the construction of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture and continues to strongly support the operations of this very popular museum.

This bill maintains a strong bipartisan support for Tribal health, Tribal education, Tribal law enforcement, and numerous other priorities critical to Native Americans and Alaska Natives, and this bill supports underrepresented communities throughout the Historic Preservation Fund grants under the National Park Service.

Though we may have to turn the lights off at the Department of the Interior if we keep going on--he is a Navy SEAL; he will get by--I certainly urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and ranking member, Mr. Calvert and Ms. McCollum, for their leadership on these issues of preservation.

The Jackson Lee amendment increases grant funding by $500,000 so that organizations interested in historical preservation, especially in underrepresented communities, have the ability to study, survey, and nominate properties to the National Register of Historic Places.

Due to lack of resources, certain communities are underrepresented in this process, so this amendment ensures that they have a greater opportunity.

The Jackson Lee amendment ensures that sites important to our American history are no longer overlooked due to mere lack of resources. It accomplishes this goal by promoting research that uncovers information to assist in telling the full American story.

Historical places create connections to our heritage that help understand our past, appreciate our triumphs, and learn from our mistakes. And they cover all of the cultural backgrounds, from African Americans, to Anglos, to Hispanics, and to Asians, all in this wonderful, diverse country who have had a story to tell, as well as Native Americans and many others.

Such stories might otherwise be lost because urban renewal and out- migration of Blacks destroyed or led to the abandonment of many African American communities. Preservation helps recognize, save, revitalize, and protect Americans' historic places, build communities, and foster education and pride.

I am reminded of Freedmen's Town in my home city and Emancipation Park, which was the first park bought in the entire State of Texas by freed slaves.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 8 to Division A of H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019.

This Jackson Lee Amendment increases grant funding by $500 thousand so that organizations interested in historical preservation, especially in underrepresented communities, have the ability to study, survey, and nominate properties to the National Register of Historic Places.

Due to lack of resources, certain communities are underrepresented in this process so this amendment ensures that is no longer the case.

This Jackson Lee Amendment ensures that sites important to our American history are no longer overlooked due to mere lack of resources, it accomplishes this goal by promoting research that uncovers information to assist in telling the full American story.

Historical places create connections to our heritage that help us understand our past, appreciate our triumphs, and learn from our mistakes.

Madam Chair, by understanding and designating landmarks we stimulate local revitalization and foster interest in places that otherwise may go unnoticed, despite cultural and historic significance.

By preserving historic sites that tell the story of Americans in this country, we draw attention to the contributions of both ordinary and extraordinary people.

Such stories might otherwise be lost because urban renewal and the out-migration of blacks destroyed or led to the abandonment of many African American communities.

Preservation helps to recognize, save, revitalize and protect America's historic places, build communities, and foster education and pride.

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) provides matching grants to State and Tribal historic preservation offices.

These HPF grants are used to pay for research and surveys of historic sites, training for staff, and the work involved in nominating these sites to the National Register of Historic Places.

In short, it makes preservation possible to communities that otherwise would not have the means to engage in the nominating process.

The Jackson Lee amendment is essential because it provides funds to preserve sites that are directly connected to the Civil Rights Movement.

For example, earlier this year I introduced H.R. 4745, the Emancipation National Historic Trail Act that seeks a federal designation of the Emancipation National Historic Trail.

The Emancipation National Historic Trail extends approximately 51 miles and marks the migration of newly freed slaves, who, upon learning of the Emancipation Proclamation two years after the President had signed it into law, departed from what is now the Osterman Building and Reedy Chapel in Galveston, and charted a course along Texas State Highway 3 and Interstate Highway 45 North to Freedmen's Town and Emancipation Park in Houston.

Increasing grant funding for this program would make projects like the Emancipation Trail possible.

Madam Chair, it is imperative that we preserve and codify the historical record and memorialize significant events of our past.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for Jackson Lee Amendment No. 8 to Division A of H.R. 6147 as it is vital that we support the preservation of important sites.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for that, and I want to give an example that earlier this year I introduced H.R. 4745, the Emancipation National Historic Trail Act, that seeks Federal designation of the Emancipation National Historic Trail, that it would extend 51 miles and mark the migration of newly freed slaves. But, more importantly, it takes us from Captain Granger in Galveston, who brought the slaves in Texas who were freed in 1865, 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and it tracks the historic markers all the way to Freedmen's Town and Emancipation Park.

This is an opportunity not only for the communities to be joined together but, again, to reemphasize history that is intertwined. A study shows the connection between culture, heritage, and tourism, and that 37 percent of global tourism has a cultural motivation, and 57 percent of travelers are strongly influenced by history and culture in their choice of holiday destination. This will help underserved communities.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of this committee for their commitment to historic preservation.

Since 1837, Historically Black Colleges and Universities have served the needs of higher education for the African American community. The first HBCUs were established in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee.

After the Civil War, there was an influx of HBCU establishments throughout the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Jackson Lee amendment provides an additional $1 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, and within that fund to be allocated to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, institutions that are uniquely American, fundamentally historical, and distinctly beneficial to the American culture and history.

In my State of Texas, it joins with any number of States throughout the United States in the North, the South, the East, and the West. Interestingly, these schools are not relegated to the South. They are actually all over the United States, and they are older structures. For those of us who visited these schools, we recognize the importance of continuing to preserve their historic structure.

I mentioned earlier that there are great results in funding and profits for those who can provide historic opportunities for travelers to visit.

In 2017, Congress appropriated $4 million for the Historic Preservation Fund to rehabilitate historic structures on campuses of HBCUs that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places either individually or as contributing to the National Register of Historic Places. I can assure you that these are great assets to America. The projects must meet major program selection criteria, and all work must meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines for archeology and historic preservation.

Simply, what we are doing is allowing our history to be preserved. The network of more than 100 historic institutions, established as early as 1837 for former slaves and by former slaves and freedmen, contain repositories of important books, papers, and memorabilia of Black history.

Black history, as other history, is American history, and the opportunity to preserve it and to continue to expand the opportunity to improve buildings that will now educate this generation of students is an important role for us to play.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 10 to Division A of H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Financial Services Appropriations Act of 2019.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 10 provides an additional $1,000,000 for the Historic Preservation Fund to be allocated to Historically Black Colleges and Universities--institutions that are uniquely American, fundamentally historical, and distinctly beneficial to American culture and history.

Since 1837, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have served the needs of higher education for the African American community.

The first HBCUs were established in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee.

After the Civil War there was an influx of HBCU establishment throughout the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest.

Since the 1990s, the National Park Service has awarded over $60 million in grants to over 80 of the remaining active HBCUs.

These grants work to preserve the historic structures on HBCU campuses, many of which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

In 2017, Congress appropriated $4 million from the Historic Preservation Fund to rehabilitate historic structures on campuses of HBCUs that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places either individually or as contributing to a National Register historic district.

Projects must meet major program selection criteria and all work must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.

HBCUs represent a significant place in American history.

This network of more than 100 historic institutions established as early as 1837 for former slaves and freedmen contain repositories of important books, papers and memorabilia of Black history.

In addition, HBCUs served as meeting places during the civil rights struggles of the 1900s.

Against substantial odds, HBCUs have played a unique role in transforming the landscape of higher education in the United States, and continue to prepare the African American professional and civic leaders needed by communities, employers and the nation.

In 2013, HBCUs comprised 3 percent of all four- and two-year colleges and universities, but enrolled 10 percent of African American

undergraduates, produced 18 percent of the nation's African American college graduates, and generated 25 percent of African Americans with bachelor degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Created to educate black students at a time when society had yet to integrate, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU's) have had an outsize impact on the success of the black community and therefore the American community as a whole.

HBCUs do not only educate--HBCUs have and will continue to fill an important role in education opportunity and engagement for millions of young people from diverse backgrounds.

Ensuring HBCUs receive the funds necessary to succeed enriches our culture as a nation and promotes a more complete history of our country to be preserved.

Emphasizing the importance of diversity is the best way to tell the complete story of the American experience, and when the American story is told by all of those who helped shape its success as a nation, we perpetuate American exceptionalism.

Madam Chair, our HBCUs are not just academic institutions, rather, incubators that stimulate black excellence that, more importantly, preserve the rich and true history of those of African descent--again, contributing to the fabric of American culture as a whole.

Texas Southern University, an outstanding HBCU, is a major contribution and asset to the 18th District, serving as a distinct example of the benefits that these institutions offer to the community.

HBCUs not only enjoy historical campuses, but they are also repositories of expertise on American History.

In a 1998 study, more than 100 HBCUs identified 712 historic properties that were owned by the schools in responses to a survey from the U.S. Government Office of Accountability.

Nearly half of those buildings, 323, are on the National Register of Historic Places indicating significance in American history, and the others were eligible for the national register based on surveys by state historic preservation officers or considered historic by the colleges and universities.

According to the surveys at that time, 103 HBCUs estimated $755 million in costs to restore and preserve the properties, such as improving accessibility to people with disabilities, roof replacement and removing lead-based paint or asbestos, both known for containing cancer-causing material.

Routine maintenance costs were not part of the estimates.

We, as a nation, have a responsibility to foster education, culture, knowledge, diversity and leadership; and with that, Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to ensure that HBCUs continue to serve as repositories of American History and thrive as academic institutions and continue to benefit society as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for Jackson Lee Amendment No. 10.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Calvert, and, again, I thank the ranking member who has been so gracious.

I believe Texas Southern University--not as old as 1837--Prairie View A&M, and others throughout the Nation will benefit from preserving these historic buildings, and, as well, providing them as a source of learning for everyone around the Nation.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank Ranking Member Lowey as well as the full committee chair for their work, but I would like to give a special thanks to Chairman Calvert and his staff, whom he mentioned by name, and of course my wonderful staff, including my personal staff, for working together using a collaborative approach to help us move forward.

The subcommittee has a challenging portfolio of issues, and I commend the chairman's efforts to maintain many of the fiscal year 2018 investments, such as addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance on Federal lands and investing in Indian Country. I want to express how sincerely proud I am of this subcommittee's nonpartisan approach to addressing the issues facing our Native American brothers and sisters.

I am pleased that the bill recommends an increase of $410 million over the fiscal year 2018 enacted level for programs critical to Indian Country.

The health, education, and safety of our Tribal communities is a Federal responsibility that our subcommittee takes very seriously, and that is the one bright spot in this bill; but, unfortunately, other important priorities for the American public did not fare as well.

Even though the fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee allocation is equal to the fiscal year 2018 enacted level, the majority is proposing a $100 million cut from the Environmental Protection Agency, which is just untenable.

The cuts in this bill would target air and water quality programs, reduce Federal funding to enforce the law against polluters, and, if enacted, they will undermine the EPA's ability to keep our families and communities healthy and to protect our environment for future generations.

We are at a defining moment in history. The Interior bill has an opportunity to make a global difference in the quality of life for generations to come, but, sadly, this bill is a mirror of the Trump administration's actions and disregard for the environment.

We cannot afford to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence the planet is warming, sea levels are rising, and glaciers are melting. We must do more, not less, to pursue policies and programs that will put us on the right path to conserve and protect our natural resources and the planet we call home.

The bill before us also reduces funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by $65 million from the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. This program has strong bipartisan support. It conserves natural areas and provides recreational opportunities in all 50 States.

The American people expect us to be good stewards of our public lands and wildlife, but this bill falls short on that commitment.

In addition to the irresponsible cuts to the EPA, I must express my concern and my disappointment to the 18 partisan riders in this bill that pander to special interests at the expense of the public good. These riders undermine clean water and clean air safeguards, jeopardize protection and recovery for vulnerable species, and even intercede in California water issues outside of the jurisdiction of the subcommittee.

The Senate has committed to work in a bipartisan manner to keep controversial policy riders out of their appropriations bills. I agree with that strategy and believe these policy issues should receive a full and transparent debate in the authorizing committees of jurisdiction. Congress must stop holding the government hostage over these ideological policy riders.

And, finally, it is impossible to talk about the bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency without addressing the ethical problems that have plagued this administration and were embodied by the former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. There is ample evidence that the former Administrator was misusing Federal dollars for lavish expenses and prioritizing the interest of corporations over protecting America's families. Mr. Pruitt may be gone from the Agency, but Congress should be doing considerable oversight to ensure that a culture of transparency and accountability is restored at the EPA.

We should also be doing our best to ensure that every agency we fund is not abusing taxpayers' dollars. So I am deeply disappointed that my Republican colleagues voted down multiple amendments in our committee markup that would have held up our responsibility for oversight and adequately funded ongoing investigations. They also denied several more Democratic oversight amendments a chance to come to this floor for debate today.

Madam Chair, this bill fails the American people. It cuts environmental protections. It removes safeguards for our air and water and endangered species and allows rampant corruption in the executive branch to go unchecked. I know we can do better than this, and it is my hope we will do better after conference.

Madam Chair, I thank Mrs. Lowey for yielding.

So despite my current opposition, I intend to continue to work with the chairman through this year's appropriations process to produce a responsible bill that I know we can have both parties support in the end.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund support public land conservation and ensure access to all the outdoors for all Americans. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, all 50 States enjoy and appreciate access to this fund.

The House bill provides $360 million which is $65 million below the fiscal year 2018 level. So this account has already seen a cut.

So I think that the committee made it very clear. We are very concerned about deferred maintenance in the national parks. The FY18 budget provides a $40 million increase over the FY18 enacted levels for facility operations and maintenance.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

I believe I have the right to close, Madam Chair, so I reserve the balance of my time until closing.

Madam Chair, to the gentleman who is offering the amendment, I appreciate his goal of wanting to address backlog. I would love to address more of our national park's backlog. But as I pointed out, the Land and Water Conservation Fund also has broad bipartisan support and has already taken a cut of $65 million below the FY18 budget level. So increasing access to our public lands for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities has bipartisan support, just as addressing the deferred maintenance.

So if we can see an increase in the 302(b) as we move forward in committee, I am sure the chairman would consider that, and I would be very much in support of working something out.

But at this point, I am adamantly opposed to cutting the Land and Water Conservation Fund any further.

With that, I would tell my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I think what the gentleman from New Jersey is talking about is something that I am supportive of, but I am not supportive of the offset.

As the gentleman is aware, our 302(b) allocation was level-funded, and the 2018 omnibus bill provided $5 million to implement the Delaware Basin Conservation Act in FY19. An additional $5 million is provided, so it is a total of $10 million.

The offset to the amendment is what I have an objection to, not the gentleman's goals. The offset the gentleman

uses does not require a one-for-one match. The offset that he is using in order to move forward would reduce Fish and Wildlife Service construction by $3.85 million, and it has already been cut by $6 million. So the total cut to Fish and Wildlife construction would be $10 million at the end of the gentleman's amendment.

At this time, I am going to object to the amendment, but I would work with the gentleman and the chair to not only get a higher 302(b) allocation, but to find a different offset.

Madam Chair, I am honored to stand up and support Historically Black Colleges and Universities and, as has been pointed out, the important role that they play in our education system. Adding additional resources to preserve these structures on these campuses is necessary to maintain them.

Madam Chair, I am very honored to represent many people from the Oromo community who are proud alumni from HBCUs. I stand with the gentleman to make sure that we have the resources needed for African American preservation and history, not only to have passed along our appreciation of our Nation's history to future generations, but to give the next generation great buildings to be educated in.

Point of parliamentary inquiry. Could our side have an opportunity to look at the amendment? We haven't had an opportunity to see it. We do not know whether or not we would object. It might be a friendly amendment to us.

Permission to Consider Amendment Nos. 16 and 17 Offered by Mr. Johnson

of Ohio En Bloc

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

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment that takes more money from an already starved EPA account. This bill already severely cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's operating account by more than $100 million. The air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the funding and policy decisions that are made in this bill, and the consequences will be negatively felt in communities across this Nation.

It is unfortunate that our 302(b) allocation was level funded, and I am sorry to hear that the gentleman's account in which he is trying to restore funding also received a cut. I often know that cutting the EPA is an easy target for many of my colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Chair, but I want my colleagues to understand what this amendment would cut, if adopted.

This account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle: permitting construction projects across the country, toxic risk prevention, and a successful brownfields program, and even pesticide licensing.

I understand that the amendment would direct more funds to States in Appalachia who have suffered ravaging environmental costs caused by coal mining, and, once again, I want to stress that it is unfortunate that you are trying to restore funding that had been cut, but our allocation was very short.

Unfortunately, I cannot support any deeper cuts to the EPA because they will have consequences that will be felt by people all across the country, so I must oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear. I understand that this amendment would direct more funding to States in Appalachia who have suffered from the ravaging environment caused by coal mining, and that is a very noble goal, as I said before.

But at this time I have to oppose this amendment. Once again, I want to point out, we were level funded in our allocation in the Interior bill that we are debating today with amendments, and I cannot support any further deeper cuts to the EPA.

But as the chairman moves forward and as we go to conference, if we can start restoring some of the funds to the EPA, I would like to work with the gentleman to restore some of the funds to this also important program; but at this time I have to oppose.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 6147, the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019, which also includes the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2019.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the third installment of the House's effort to pass all 12 appropriations bills on the floor for fiscal year 2019. We have previously passed appropriations bills covering Energy and Water, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Defense.

Today we turn to the work of the Appropriations Committee Subcommittees on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and Financial Services and General Government.

Once the House finishes its work for the week, we will have passed 6 of the 12 appropriations bills across the floor.

Overall, the package covers $58.65 billion in spending. Of those funds, $35.25 billion are allocated to the Interior bill and $23.4 billion to the Financial Services bill, which is equal to the enacted level for fiscal year 2018 for both of these bills. The package represents many months of work by the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, as I have so often said when discussing appropriations bills, today's package represents the most fundamental duty of Congress, to fund the government and keep it open each year to continue to provide our constituents with the services they need and deserve. But, importantly, this package also fulfills an additional duty of Congress to the American people: its fiscally prudent stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned money and to ensure that we appropriately prioritize where and how to spend taxpayer dollars in the most efficient manner.

Mr. Speaker, the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill funds critical programs at the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other crucial areas. Among the areas of greatest importance, the bill includes $3.9 billion for the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to fight wildfires. It includes $500 million for payments in lieu of taxes to help local governments, and it provides $2.6 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund.

It funds the National Park Service at $3.25 billion, an increase of $53 million over fiscal year 2018. Of great import, not only to my home State of Oklahoma but to Native Americans all across the country, the bill honors our treaties and trust agreements by providing $5.9 billion for the Indian Health Service and $3.1 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Education.

The bill also fulfills an additional commitment to the American people by including provisions to rein in the runaway regulatory agendas of parts of the Federal Government. It reduces the EPA's regulatory programs by $228 million. It also fully repeals the economically damaging waters of the United States rule and includes various prohibitions preventing the EPA from overregulating agricultural operations and exempting livestock producers from EPA greenhouse gas requirements.

The Financial Services and General Government portion of this bill provides $23.4 billion across several important accounts. It provides $7.7 billion for the operation of the Federal court system. The bill also provides funding to help combat the opioid crisis, including $415 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including $280 million for high-intensity drug trafficking areas and $118 million for other Federal drug control programs.

It encourages responsible spending at the Internal Revenue Service by appropriating $11.6 billion for IRS activities, an increase of $186 million over fiscal year 2018, and continues stringent oversight and protections of taxpayer dollars that have been included in recent years.

The bill provides $1.66 billion for the Securities and Exchange Commission and will help grow the economy by providing $737 million, or full funding, in capital to various Small Business Administration loan programs. Perhaps most importantly, this bill includes provisions that will finally bring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under congressional oversight.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, when the CFPB was created in the original Dodd-Frank Act, the new agency was allowed to operate without congressional oversight because it did not receive appropriations. Consequently, since its inception, unelected bureaucrats at the CFPB have been allowed to operate entirely without congressional supervision. Today's bill will remedy that and will ensure that the CFPB falls under congressional authority, oversight, and supervision once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. The package before us represents a fulfillment of our most important responsibility as Members of Congress and provides appropriate funding in two divisions: Interior and Environment, and Financial Services and General Government. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their months of work in making this bill a reality and cheer their efforts on moving forward to completion of the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will turn and yield time to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly respond to my friend's concern about the Election Assistance Commission funds.

As I am sure he is aware, that was the last installment last year, this fiscal year, of a $365 billion authorization that was actually done back in 2002. Currently, 39 percent of those funds for this year are still available to the

States. Actually, 19 States have yet to submit any sort of request, and the legislation itself has not been reauthorized. If the authorizing people reauthorize it, I am sure we will revisit this matter.

It also worth noting that anything added will be available only from October 1, and the election is 5 weeks after that. So the idea that we are going to do something in that period of time, I think, is a bit of a red herring.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), my good friend from the Seventh District.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

Let me make a couple of comments in response to my friend.

It was the last President, not this President, who told Russian leaders that he would be more flexible after an election.

It was the last President, not this President, who said Russia was not a geopolitical threat and chastised Mitt Romney when he raised it in the campaign.

And it was the last President, not this President, who drew a red line and then refused to enforce it.

If you actually look at the Record, it is this administration and this party that, frankly, has begun to restore America's defenses after years of neglect by the last administration. That is not good news for Russia.

It is this administration that has also encouraged and cajoled some of our allies to increase their defense level up to the levels that they, themselves, had committed to.

It was this President that twice enforced red lines in Syria.

It was this Congress that administered ever-increasing penalties on Russian sanctions.

So I think if you look at the actions, the actions are pretty impressive.

But I want to actually get back to the matter at hand, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: funding the Government of the United States.

Although not perfect, the bill before us today will lead to the completion of the House's work on two more appropriations bills. We will provide funding for important government activities like fighting forest fires, funding the Indian Health Service, enforcing tax and securities laws, and funding our national parks; and we will ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is no longer allowed to operate without congressional oversight.

While I look forward to completing our work and passing all 12 appropriations bills, this legislation represents an important step along the way to fulfilling that goal. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their work.

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