Chronic Wasting Disease Transmission in Cervidae Study Act

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill that would increase funding for the court-appointed special advocate, or CASA, and guardian ad litem programs.

In 2017, nine out of every 1,000 American children were victims of abuse or neglect. These experiences have a lasting effect, impacting a child's future in ways that are often not apparent in the days, weeks, or months after the trauma of abuse or neglect occurs. Providing support and advocacy for these children can make an enormous difference in their lives, and that is where the CASA program comes in.

CASA serves abused, neglected, and abandoned children through the recruitment and training of volunteers who advocate on behalf of children in courtrooms and other settings.

Mr. Chair, imagine being a 6-year-old child suffering from parental abuse. Home is not a safe place, and the secret that you, at only 6 years old, carry with you every day prevents you from speaking to your friends and your teachers and keeps you from making friends and building relationships.

Now, Mr. Chair, imagine that a neighbor calls the police after overhearing abuse. You are finally removed from a home that is filled with traumatic memories, but you are now looking at a scary and uncertain future in the foster system, and you will have to face your abuser in court.

That is where the CASA program comes in. They step in to provide a lifeline, a guide, a friend, and an advocate for the child. Every year, more than 85,000 volunteers advocate on behalf of the 260,000 children who experience abuse and neglect. CASA advocates help these children find their voices or even speak for them as they navigate the child welfare system.

CASA of Orange County has worked with more than 7,050 children in the 34 years that the program has served our community, and they have trained nearly 3,500 volunteers.

CASA of Orange County used essential funding to support Malena, an 11-year-old Orange County resident diagnosed with autism. In the 2\1/2\ years that she was in foster care, Malena lived in a group home, a foster home, a nurturing relative placement, and then a group home again. Throughout all of those changes, Malena had one consistent person in her life that she knew she could count on, her court- appointed special advocate.

That CASA was a steady force in attending countless meetings with her team to support and advocate for her needs. But her relationship with her CASA was so much more, teaching her things that she missed in childhood, such as how to tie her shoes, how to count money, how to write her name, and when her birthday was.

At CASA of Orange County and other CASAs across the country, their mantra is ``I am for the child.''

As a mother of three children, I am proud to stand here as an advocate for children in Orange County and across the country who experience abuse and neglect.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill that would increase funding for sexual assault kit backlogs, helping us to test the hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits across the country.

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

That works out to every 92 seconds someone is sexually assaulted in our country. Let me repeat that: every 92 seconds. And, in most cases, the perpetrators of these sexual assaults will never be held accountable. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, only 5 out of every 1,000 rapists will end up in prison.

We have an opportunity today to support victims of sexual assault by increasing funding to process the backlog of sexual assault kits that are waiting to be tested across the country. Having the data and information that a sexual assault kit can provide is essential to solving sexual assaults and preventing future assaults.

In my home State of California, there are 13,615 kits untested. We are failing every single one of those 13,615 victims whose rape kit is sitting and waiting for our attention, and we are failing tens of thousands more across the country, including those who will be sexually assaulted by a perpetrator whose DNA will sit untested for a crime already committed.

It costs an average of $1,000 and $1,500 to test a single rape kit. The lack of critical funding needed for these testing kits is the primary factor in the ever-growing backlog of untested kits. In 2016, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance gave Orange County a nearly $2 million grant to process more than 3,500 unprocessed kits, to investigate and prosecute cases, and to reengage survivors.

My amendment, which increases the funding in this legislation by $1 million, could help test approximately another 1,000 rape kits in California and across the country. The amendment would bring the total funding up to $50 million, which will only provide enough Federal funding for the testing of up to 50,000 kits. While that is enough to give answers to the 13,000 sexual assault victims waiting for analysis and help in California, because of a lack of data nationwide, we don't know exactly how many sexual assault kits are waiting in this country.

This funding likely isn't enough, and we know that. But Congress must do more to ensure that we are supporting the victims of sexual assault in this country. Increasing funding can play an important role, while it is not alone enough.

We need to support our State and local partners in addressing the backlog of rape kits through increased funding, through new policies for kit testing, and through improved training for those in the field.

I hope that this increase in funding helps us continue the conversation and raise more awareness about sexual assault and about the kit backlog.

I hope that survivors of sexual assault know that Members of Congress are fighting for them, and I hope they hear me and believe that this fight for justice won't end with this amendment. We need to support the victims of sexual assault across this country who deserve to have their kits tested, who deserve justice. We can and must do more.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 3055.

Mr. Chair, it is frequently said that working men and women feel left out by their government's decisionmaking process. Too often in Washington, those with the greatest financial means can get the closest to the political, governmental, and regulatory process and, therefore, be better able to influence it.

Just as bad is that, in this gridlock political machine, what little action that does take place often takes the path of least resistance.

So when a species of whale is at risk of extinction for a whole slew of complex reasons--whether it be the overfishing that took place more than a century ago, climate change and warming waters that wreak havoc upon a whale's habitat, seismic air gun testing for oil and natural gas, deadly ship strikes by a large shipping industry, or the risk of entanglement in a lobsterman's fishing gear--who, and to what degree, does Washington regulate each? And who has a seat at the table to ensure that the process behind such decisions is fair and equitable?

Do we believe that a small group of fishermen in Maine have as strong a place at the table as does the fossil fuel or shipping industry, or the governmental affairs director with a K Street office in Washington?

I don't think so.

So NOAA, facing the threat of lawsuits, has rushed ahead using a decision support tool that was developed for the purpose of reducing ship strikes by the Navy and fed that tool with old data and hasty assumptions and have come forward to require Maine lobstermen to achieve a 60 percent risk reduction in their fishery.

What assumptions you might ask?

Maine's own Department of Marine Resources argues the tool is flawed because areas with a lot of fishing gear but few whales are labeled ``high risk,'' and areas with a lot of whales and less fishing gear are considered ``low risk.''

This scientific tool uses outdated habitat data from the mid- Atlantic, which is far away and different than the gulf of Maine. When attributing responsibility for injury or death of whale to fishing gear of an unknown origin, NOAA assumes an equal distribution between U.S. and Canadian gear, despite strong, recent scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary. And the data used do not accurately reflect the distribution shift of right whales since the year 2010.

Recent studies have established firm links between warming waters in the gulf of Maine and a 90 percent reduction of the plankton that right whales eat, calling into question whether the whales have stopped visiting the warming, plankton-depleted waters of eastern Maine entirely, which would greatly reduce the likelihood that any whale be entangled in Maine lobstermen's gear.

It is reasonable to ask NOAA to allow its decision support tool to undergo a peer-review process before enforcing punitive regulations upon Maine fisherman. Maine's Commissioner of the Department of Marine Resources has said that ``peer-reviewed science is the cornerstone of the decisionmaking process.'' Apparently, not in this case.

This amendment would require NOAA to use relevant data and an effective tool to ensure that its regulations target areas of high risk and yield the most effective conservation benefits possible to protect the right whale without unfairly burdening Maine lobstermen.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that the person who runs this program for NOAA has actually recently said that they intend to move forward with regulations, then do a peer review, and then, perhaps, come back with a different conclusion.

I think that they have got this backwards. They should be doing it the other way around, and that is what is at the heart of this amendment. I would urge support at this time for the amendment, as well as for the Moulton amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), and I thank her for joining me on this amendment and for her leadership on behalf of Maine fisheries.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Kim, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to H.R. 3055 on behalf of my colleague, Representative Andy Kim.

Over the past decade, more than 400 Veteran Treatment Courts have been established across our country. These courts address a serious problem to those who served. For veterans with post-traumatic stress, substance abuse simply compounds the issues that they face on a daily basis.

More than 2 out of 10 veterans with post-traumatic stress also experience substance abuse problems. These are service men and women who gave much to our country, only to come back and struggle long after their time in uniform has come to an end.

As representatives of a grateful Nation, we owe them solutions to the problems they face. Veteran Treatment Courts have been that solution for thousands of veterans and they continue to be so.

That is why this amendment would increase funding for this lifesaving program by $1 million. That is funding to help provide an alternative to incarceration for those in need. That is funding to help improve access to mental health services and rehabilitative care. That is funding to improve the functionality of our local VA services and better serve those who served us.

This is a proven program that addresses a critical need in a community that has given much to this country. Let's join together today to give something back to them.

With that, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment. I have seen these courts at work in such positive ways amongst my brothers and sisters who served in the military.

I want to thank Representative Andy Kim for offering this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, and I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

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

Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Crow

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

The Commerce Department has not answered basic questions related to the purpose behind its sharing agreement with the Department of Homeland Security.

Although I am not suggesting the Census Bureau will use the information for something other than statistical purposes, I think it is important to remind the Department we are mindful of how individuals' information will be handled.

Ensuring the public trust in the Census is vital to getting an accurate count, and this amendment helps in that goal.

Mr. Chair, I rise in very strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment.

The zero-tolerance experiment has been a tragic mistake. It has swamped U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and district courts with low level nonviolent cases previously handled by DHS and, if necessary, immigration courts. It has also separated thousands of families and traumatized children and parents. Children may remain with parents in DHS custody, but they cannot follow them into jail, even for such misdemeanor charges.

DOJ should focus on criminal gangs, human trafficking, and smuggling, most of which passes through, not between, the ports of entry.

The zero-tolerance policy restricts seasoned prosecutors from pursuing serious crime and distorts priorities by requiring an unbalanced and inflexible approach. It is clearly not improving things at the border.

Mr. Chair, I urge the House to adopt this very important amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I recognize what my friends from Maine are attempting to do to help an important industry in their State, but I must oppose them in favor of supporting the critically endangered Atlantic right whale.

The decision support tool that this amendment would block is used by States to determine how they can ensure they are taking steps to protect these whales. Preventing its use would, therefore, remove the ability of the States to make their own determination.

Consequently, NOAA would be forced to set a national standard. Additionally, given the way it is drafted, this amendment would block NOAA's conservation work on right whales, not just in the Atlantic, but also in the Pacific.

Other agencies that rely on this tool include the Coast Guard and Navy, who rely on it to ensure that they are in compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

As I said earlier, I understand my friend's concern, and I would support funding to help develop new and more whale-friendly fishing gear and other mitigation options. I cannot, however, support an amendment that removes a scientific tool to make informed natural resource management decisions. It would only further endanger these majestic animals.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my colleague from the Bronx's amendment.

Opioids are a serious threat to the health and well-being of our communities, and we must do everything we can to combat this epidemic.

Within the Department of Justice grant programs, the bill provides $501 million in funding, an increase of $33 million for grants to combat the crisis. This funding includes drug and veterans courts, residential treatment, and for the first time, a grant program for Law Enforcement Assistance Diversion, or LEAD, which seeks to get individuals into treatment and out of the criminal justice system.

The addition of this amendment further strengthens a bill that increases grants for treatment and prevention.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment. My colleague sends an important message by calling attention to the misuse and overuse of solitary confinement in Federal correction and detention.

In 2016, the National Institute of Justice issued a detailed study of the use of restrictive housing in U.S. detention. In addition, the Office of Inspector General in 2017 reported on the use of restrictive housing for mentally ill persons in the custody of BOP and included 15 recommendations to improve how BOP treats such inmates.

While solitary confinement represents a small percentage of restrictive housing, it is particularly concerning because of evidence that its use can be harmful and even counterproductive to correctional objectives.

Mr. Chair, I encourage the Department to take note of the concerns expressed here, and I ask that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment.

When, in March, the Justice Department broke with the principle that its core mission should be to defend, not sabotage, the law of the land, it went too far.

The White House is entitled to push its own policy position on healthcare--it has made no secret of its hostility to the Affordable Care Act, despite never offering an alternative of any kind--but it cannot pick and choose which laws to support.

My friends across the aisle criticized the Obama administration for its use of prosecutorial discretion. In this case, the Department is not just neglecting to defend the law, it is using appropriated funds to directly attack it.

This amendment will, hopefully, stop that, and that is why I strongly support it.

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule, and they have been agreed to by both sides. They improve the bill. I support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).

Madam Chair, at this time, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.

Madam Chair, we have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I understand the gentleman's intention, but I could not disagree more.

The agriculture bill funds a variety of national priorities from food safety, to agriculture research, to drug approval, to rural development, to nutrition programs for our children.

Reducing spending by 14 percent would hurt our farmers, who are already suffering terribly from retaliatory tariffs, and it would hurt small communities who are still in need of adequate broadband. It would hurt those who are waiting for cures to rare cancers. It would jeopardize America's status as a leader of global agricultural science. It would slow our response to foodborne illness outbreaks. It would harm children and families who rely on these programs to put food on their tables.

The bill already rejected the administration's draconian cuts to programs that assist our rural communities and vulnerable populations.

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

Madam Chair, I urge that this amendment be rejected.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

The Distance Learning and Telemedicine program offers grants to rural areas to provide access to education, to training, and to healthcare. These resources are critical in providing funding to acquire audio, video, and other advanced technology equipment to extend educational and medical services, including those seeking opioid treatment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Chair, the amendment would bring the total funding for the program to $75 million in our bill. This program provides grants to encourage and improve telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas through telecommunications and other technologies, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it. It enhances the bill.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

There is wide support and recognition as to the need for investing in broadband infrastructure. As a necessity for modern life, we must continue our efforts to bridge the broadband divide to ensure that as many rural Americans as possible receive fast and reliable broadband service and the multitude of benefits that are associated with it.

Madam Chair, the gentlewoman's amendment, if adopted, would bring broadband funding to the highest level since 2009, with the Recovery Act. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will certainly enhance this bill.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. As I have said before, Congress' oversight role is one of the most important functions. That function extends to preserving the integrity of science.

The academics, economists, and researchers at USDA produce top-notch scientific reports characterizing the state of the farm economy, the agricultural industry at large, and analyzing future impacts. It is clear that one of the most important stressors on agriculture today and in the coming years will be the effects of climate change.

We cannot prevent the effects of climate change by simply removing any reference to it in the Department's scientific publications. We must allow the science community to do its work, free from political influence.

Madam Chair, I have no objection to the proposed amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, and I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I yield to my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague's longtime support for fair trade practices for our livestock and for our poultry farmers.

I have worked on this issue over the years with the gentlewoman, and I, too, share her concerns regarding the GIPSA rules and the administration's past history in such rulemakings.

I look forward to working with my colleague from Ohio as the administration takes steps toward complying with the farm bill requirements from 2008.

Madam Chair, as the designee of Chair Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. Chair, this is Maleah Davis. We mourn her loss in Houston, Texas. She was 4 years old.

My amendment provides funding to support and engage adult men and young persons to reduce and prevent domestic violence against children. In recent reports, 1,600 children died because of abuse or neglect.

This amendment will help ensure the safety of vulnerable children in at-risk households who are powerless to get the help and attention they need from our government.

To illustrate this, this is the case of Maleah Davis, a 4-year-old girl who lived in Houston. In the past, Texas Child Protective Services removed Maleah and her two brothers from their home over reports of abuse but returned them again in February. They took them away from their relatives and, along with a court judge, returned them to this family.

Maleah's mother dated her boyfriend for years, and they had a son. Maleah's mother had gone to a funeral out of town.

When the boyfriend initially reported that his girlfriend's daughter was missing, he told detectives that he had been attacked, but surveillance video shows him carrying a black bag out of the home.

The last time that Maleah was seen was going into that home.

The real question is whether or not the Child Protective Services is really doing its job, whether or not it is dealing with educating these families or intervening in these families to make sure a loving little girl like Maleah Davis does not lose her life.

In addition to this funding to intervene in men and boys' lives to prevent this kind of abuse and loss of life, and the tragedy of finding the remains of little Maleah in a plastic bag along the highway in Arkansas, I look forward to working with my colleagues on an overhaul of children's protective services throughout the Nation, because, in particular in Texas, 1,600 children die of abuse and neglect, many of them in children's protective services.

I am delighted that my amendment passed.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Chairwoman Lowey's En Bloc Amendment No. 2, which includes Jackson Lee Amendment No. 19.

I wish to thank Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole of the Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order.

I thank Chairman Serrano and Ranking Member Aderhold for their hard work in bringing Division A, the Commerce-Justice-Science portion of this omnibus appropriations legislative package, to the floor.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is simple and straightforward and ensures that our government works to protect our children.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 19, reprograms $2 million in the Office of Justice Programs grant funding to support programs to engage adult men and young persons to reduce and prevent domestic violence against children.

This amendment will help ensure the safety of vulnerable children in at-risk households, who are powerless to getting the help and attention they need from our government.

To illustrate the need for this amendment, let me share with you the tragic case of Maleah Davis, a 4-year old little girl who lived in Houston.

In the past, Texas Child Protective Services removed Maleah and her two brothers from their home over reports of abuse, but returned them to the home in February.

Maleah's mother dated her boyfriend for years and they shared a toddler son together.

Maleah's mother had gone out of town when she left her daughter under her boyfriend's care.

When the boyfriend initially reported that his girlfriend's daughter was missing, he told detectives he had been attacked by unknown men a day earlier and that they kidnapped Maleah.

However, surveillance video outside of the home shows Maleah never left their apartment after she followed him in, and shows him carrying a laundry basket with a trash bag out of the building a day before he reported her missing.

Maleah's remains were later discovered in a bag along Interstate 30 in Arkansas.

Although the case has not been completed yet, there are valuable lessons that we can learn from Maleah's and similar cases.

There have been similar cases to Maleah where the caretaker initially reports a missing child but we later learn that the caretaker is actually the suspect and perpetrator of the crime.

Similar cases include 5-year old AJ Freund from Illinois, whose father confessed to hiding his body in the basement, and 7-week old Shaylie Madden from North Carolina, whose mother has been charged with first-degree attempted murder.

The nation has learned from Maleah and other similar stories that we must do everything in our power to protect at risk children.

Maleah Davis should be alive today.

Horrible cases such as this should not be happening in America; we need to make sure our checks and balances are keeping our children safe.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that would provide an additional $1 million increase to the NASA Office of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Engagement for the purpose of supporting the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program also known as Space Grant.

I first want to thank Chairman Serrano and the House Appropriations Committee for providing $48 million for the Space Grant Program, especially given that the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request proposed an entire elimination of not only the Space Grant Program, but also the entire Office of STEM Engagement.

Founded in 1989, the NASA Space Grant Program is made up of a national network of colleges and universities. It is a program that inspires, educates, and develops America's future technological workforce with hands-on projects, courses, and research, ensuring that our next generation is excited and equipped to thrive in our Nation's aeronautics and space programs.

I would be remiss if I didn't say that my district, Colorado's Second District, which I am proud to represent, is home to three Space Grant consortium members: Colorado State University in Fort Collins; the University of Colorado in Boulder; and Front Range Community College.

These institutions support almost 300 students, preparing them for successful STEM careers. In April, I was proud to lead a bipartisan letter with the entire Colorado delegation in support of this program.

The program doesn't just provide benefits to my home State, but to the entire country, Space Grants consist of over 850 affiliates and 52 total consortia across the country. There is one in every State, as well as the District of Columbia.

From reaching Mars, to exploring the depths of the galaxy, if we want to ensure that our Nation remains on a path of discovery and innovation, we must invest in our students and education.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment before them, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama, and as he articulated, I think there is incredible work happening with respect to the Space Grant Program in his State, in my State, and in States across the country.

With that, I appreciate the ability to offer the amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of funding for a critical, lifesaving program, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. We know that background checks save lives.

Since the NICS background check system was put into effect, over 38 million background checks have been conducted, preventing over 3 million firearm purchases from ending up in the wrong hands.

In 2018, Colorado conducted 340,816 checks against the NICS system with 6,279 denials. Making sure that guns are not sold to people who should not have them is one of the most important things we can do to prevent gun violence. But we can, and we must do more to strengthen the background check system.

The dangers of an incomplete system are clear. Just about 2 years ago in November of 2017, a gunman walked into a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and fatally shot more than two dozen people.

The shooter was prohibited from owning a firearm due to a domestic violence conviction he received while serving in the military, but the Air Force failed to upload the proper record to NICS, and the gunman was able to pass a background check and purchase the firearm that he used in that massacre.

In response to that incident, this body authorized additional funds to

support the efforts of States and Federal agencies to submit critical criminal history and mental health records to NICS. The need for these funds was underscored just 2 months ago in April in my home State of Colorado.

A Florida woman who should not have been able to buy a gun and could not have bought one in her home State, traveled to Colorado, passed a background check, and purchased a shotgun. Schools around the region were forced to close as authorities searched for the woman following credible threats made to schools across the Front Range.

These episodes underscore why it is so critically important that we increase funding for the NICS program so that we can continue to enhance it and improve it, and ultimately save lives.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to try to prevent gun violence in our country. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, in 2013, the EPA issued new standards on air pollutant emissions for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration, which include the small, remote incinerators used in remote Alaska.

My amendment would prohibit the EPA from enforcing these rules on small, remote incinerators in Alaska. My amendment would not affect anyone but Alaskans.

I know this Chamber has shown great interest in my State recently, but I sincerely hope you would agree that enforcing these rules in remote locations that are not even connected with the highway system is unjustified.

While I appreciate the focus on clean air, these standards are unattainable for rural Alaska. If the 2013 criteria are enforced in my State, residents and industry alike would be forced to be noncompliant or would not be able to use waste incinerators at all.

In many locations, there are very limited options for the handling and disposal of waste. The ground is frozen or the water table is too high. The locations that would be impacted by this rule are hundreds of miles away from waste facilities in Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks.

While garbage trucks are critical to the infrastructure of the lower 48, transporting waste from these remote sites would generate more emissions than burning near the sites.

When EPA wrote this rule, they used bad science and statistical methods to select the new standards. They didn't use enough samples to have statistical confidence in the values, and two of the incinerator units they used in the emission data do not even qualify as ``small'' or ``remote'' areas. They were both located within 20 miles of a regional landfill.

Incineration is the cleanest, most environmentally sustainable way to deal with waste in small villages. One thousand pounds of waste can be reduced to 50 pounds of ash that can be safely transported.

Keep this in mind: We have a lot of small villages that can only have incinerators; they cannot have landfills without shipping it. I am talking about 400 or 500 people.

This is not a good idea. It is the wrong thing to do.

I will say again, Alaska is a little unique. We are just about half as big as the United States, with 750,000 people. To put this standard in place, making these people, frankly, break the law is wrong. This amendment would keep them from applying that to the standards.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, but, again, what do you do with a town that has 500 people and the only way to dispose of waste is by burning it or letting it go on the turf, letting it blow around, letting it pollute the other parts of the Earth? This is the only sensible way to do it.

I am not talking about great big cities. I am talking about small communities that cannot have landfills. And that does occur.

We don't have that many in Alaska, but where they do have these incinerators, there ought to be some compliance in the sense that: Okay, guys, you are not really polluting the air. It is a better way. There is more environmental damage by not being able to bury it, letting it run around on the top of the surface of the Earth, than there is burning it.

I know I just came out of Denmark. They have one of the largest incinerators in the world. It handles 2 million people. They burn 35 tons an hour.

Now, I am saying, okay, let's have those kind of incinerators, but you can't afford it for a small village.

Mr. Chair, I know where the gentlewoman is coming from, but you can't apply all rules to every place at one time when it doesn't work. You have to look at the total environmental damage.

I think, if you don't burn it, you have a lot harder problem than you do if you do burn it, so I urge my colleagues to support this small, innocuous amendment to try to make people live a better way than having them forced by a government agency to a standard that can't be met unless they just let it run around on the top of the ground.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment as well.

I want to thank the Agriculture Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop, for working with our side to include many amendments that are important to our Members. The chairman has been a great partner and has been very fair throughout this process.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, as it reflects the will of many Members and also makes appropriate changes to the bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Riggleman).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Madam Chair, there are no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment primarily to engage in a discussion with the gentleman from Arizona.

Madam Chair, first let me say, I do understand the concerns of the gentleman from Arizona.

Here is the issue: The Food and Drug Administration is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that persons seeking to be healed have both the right to try innovative products as well as the right to be protected from harm or any false claims.

So let me say to my friend, Mr. Biggs, we would like to offer this: Chairman Bishop and I would seek the opportunity to have the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, meet with us to dialogue on the very important issues that you are raising and to relay your concerns. I will commit to you that your objections will be conveyed to their leadership before they move forward on this guidance.

So, in light of that consideration, I kindly, respectfully request that the gentleman consider withdrawing the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Bishop for yielding the time and for his eloquent remarks.

I just want to rise, even though we are under the guise of opposition, to actually thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We have had substantive, thoughtful, lengthy discussions about broadband and its importance to rural revitalization, as the gentleman well put, and it is more than just wires laid. It is about creating an ecosystem of livability.

In his words, the gentleman touched on those very points. I think the gentleman would be proud to see the underlying work here in that regard, but he has made it better.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Madam Chair, trying to control what words USDA officials use to describe changing weather conditions should not really be our focus.

For one, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem. USDA has plenty of materials on their website or elsewhere with the term ``climate change'' embedded in them. If the USDA were going to completely wipe away this terminology for political purposes, which was implied, they would have done so over the past 2\1/2\ years.

Secondly, the amendment attempts to politicize an issue that does not need further politicization. For example, Chairman Bishop and I were able to have a civil discussion on changing climate in a subcommittee hearing this year without dragging controversy into it. In addition to outside witnesses, USDA actually sent up a subject matter expert on the very topic. We had a hearing where we talked about how to deal with changing weather and how our farmers and ranchers could adjust to such changes.

Instead of spending time on this type of messaging, let's spend our time on actually helping our farmers and ranchers and building a more secure and sustainable energy future that benefits all of America.

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