Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2740) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Heath and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for their great leadership. But let me thank the gentlewoman from New York again for her overall leadership as chair of the Appropriations Committee, and her ranking member as well.

These are the tools of female genital mutilation. Around the world, there are young girls and women who are facing this kind of brutal attack. My amendment, which makes a good bill even better, provides $1 million more to help combat the draconian practice of female genital mutilation, cutting, FGM/C, abroad.

Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for nonmedical purposes.

This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage, recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.

Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims already of FGM/C, female genital mutilation, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.

For example, around the world, at least five girls are mutilated, cut. More than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk.

The impacts of this on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth, and death.

I ask my colleagues to think about their children, their girls.

According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

So I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Rogers for their hard work in bringing Division D, the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs portion of this omnibus appropriations legislative package, to the floor.

I thank them all for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment, which makes a good bill even better by providing $1 million more to help combat the draconian practice of Female Genital Mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) abroad.

I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, even working with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.

Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.

For example, consider that:

1. Around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour.

2. More than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C annually.

3. The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth and death.

Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.

According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad.

The United Nations adopted a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 that includes a target to eliminate FGM/C and recognizing the abandonment of this harmful practice can be achieved because of a comprehensive movement that involves all public and private stakeholders in society.

With these provisions in place and my amendment increasing the funding for foreign assistance we can ensure Female Genital Mutilation/ Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a report in 2016 estimating that 513,000 women and girls in the United States were at risk or may have been subjected to FGM/C.

The presence of FGM/C in the United States brings a sobering truth to light, that we still have much work to do here at home to stop our young women and girls from suffering at the hands of this archaic and utterly unnecessary practice.

I am reminded of the story of Hadiatu Jalloh, a 7-year-old from Sierra Leone, who with her mother fled to Houston to seek a life saving operation to rectify complications from the practice of FGM/C from which she suffered for more than a year.

Due to complications from the FGM procedure, little Hadiatu could not stop bleeding, she then underwent two additional non-medical procedures to repair the damage she suffered.

However, the bleeding continued and after the second procedure to stop the bleeding, Hadiatu could not properly urinate and suffered terrible pain.

In her desperate quest for help, Hadiatu's mother Umu took her daughter across the border to Sierra Leone, but still could not find a doctor to treat Hadiatu.

Dr. Hardwick-Smith a world-renowned board certified OBGYN--along with a team led by Houston pediatric urologist Dr. Eric Jones--solved Hadiatu's problem by removing scar tissue during the successful surgery.

Stories such like this remind me of the importance of this work, and how can we cannot afford to ignore any instance of FGM/C.

And that is why earlier we celebrated the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation, a multinational effort to bring this practice to an end.

That is why my amendment reprograms funding that will be used by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for elimination of

Mr. Chair, I am reminded of the story of Hadiatu Jalloh, a 7-year-old from Sierra Leone who, with her mother, fled to Houston to seek a lifesaving operation to rectify complications from the practice of female genital mutilation, from which she suffered for more than a year.

This story reads: ``The Woman's Hospital of Texas Saves an African Girl's Life. Dr. Susan Hardwick-Smith and Dr. Eric Jones Provide Lifesaving Care to 7-year-old Affected by Female Genital Mutilation,'' only one of 200 million girls.

This amendment will focus and provide an extra focus and extra resources to have us be reminded to help these young women, girls, across and around the world. Let us give them a lifesaving hand up.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, lifesaving, so that more girls do not have to get this singular help from a singular hospital, but they can be helped at home because this dastardly act will be stopped.

Mr. Chair, I include a statement in the Record from USAID, and I ask for support of my amendment.

[From the Department of State and USAID]

The U.S. Government Working Together for the Abandonment of Female

Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a traditional

practice that ranges from nicking to total removal of the

external female genitalia. UNICEF estimates that at least 120

million girls and women have experienced FGM/C in the 29

countries in Africa and the Middle East where the practice is

concentrated. Given present trends, as many as 30 million

girls under the age of 15 may still be at risk. However, the

data show that FGM/C is becoming less prevalent overall, and

the younger generation is less vulnerable to the practice.

Though no religion mandates the procedure, FGM/C is practiced

across cultures, religions and continents. It is practiced in

sub-Saharan Africa, northern Iraq, Malaysia and Indonesia,

and new evidence is showing prevalence in other Middle

Eastern countries, including Yemen, Iran, Syria, Oman and

Saudi Arabia, and parts of South Asia. The practice also can

be found in Europe, the United States, Australia and other

countries in the West where immigrants bring their cultural

traditions with them.

The reasons given for conducting FGM/C, which is generally

carried out between infancy and the teen years, encompass

beliefs about health, hygiene, women's sexuality, rites of

passage to adulthood and community initiation rites. Research

has shown that all forms of the practice harm women's health,

causing serious pain, trauma and frequently severe physical

complications, such as bleeding, infections or even death.

Long-term complications may include recurrent infections,

infertility, (1) and difficult or dangerous childbirth that

can result in the death of the mother and infant. (2)

The U.S. Government has supported FGM/C abandonment efforts

since the early 1990s, considering the practice not only a

public health concern but also a human rights issue that

violates a woman's right to bodily integrity. In September

2000, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

officially incorporated elimination of FGM/C into its

development agenda, issuing an official policy and strategy

that underscored FGM/C was a serious health and human rights

issue. The U.S. Department of State emphasizes the need to

raise awareness among communities at the grassroots level,

through diplomatic and multilateral engagement and within

humanitarian settings to address the practice of FGM/C.

In August 2012, the United States released its first-ever

Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence

Globally, along with an accompanying Presidential Executive

Order directing its implementation. The strategy marshals the

United States' capacity and expertise to establish a

coordinated, government-wide approach to preventing and

responding to gender-based violence (GBV) and includes

harmful traditional practices such as FGM/C.

The United States also pursues regional, national and local

coordination among international donors, governments and

community leaders. U.S. Government agencies are actively

engaged with internationally based working groups to address

FGM/C, including the Donors Working Group (DWG) on FGM/C,(3)

which is composed of key international governmental and

intergovernmental organizations and foundations committed to

supporting the abandonment of the practice. USAID was a co-

founder of the DWG and is

dedicated to expanding and strengthening partnerships and

increasing resources for abandonment of this harmful

traditional practice. The group has collaboratively issued a

Platform for Action that summarizes the collective

programmatic approach that focuses on the community approach

to social change.

U.S. Government Efforts

The State Department's Secretary's Office of Global Women's

Issues (S/GWI) funded community-based approaches involving

men, boys and all members of society in public awareness and

education campaigns. The campaigns emphasized the detrimental

consequences of FGM/C on the physical and mental health of

girls, their families and the overall community in order to

promote long-lasting solutions. S/GWI also worked with the

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) to

strengthen the reporting of this issue in the Annual Country

Reports on Human Rights Practices. In addition to describing

whether FGM/C occurred and the type and category of FGM/C

most common, we are seeking information on international and

governmental efforts being taken to prevent and address FGM/C

(especially through educational programs, but also by means

of shelters, hotlines and police training).

The Office of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)

largely supports efforts in humanitarian settings and among

refugees with programs designed to prevent and respond to

GBV, which includes FGM/C. These organizations rely on U.S.

Government assistance to provide humanitarian assistance to

refugees, survivors of conflict, internally displaced persons

and stateless persons worldwide. This encompasses a wide

variety of assistance, including the provision of protection,

shelter, health care, water and sanitation, as well as the

prevention of and assistance to survivors of GBV and FGM/C.

PRM also supports targeted activities to prevent FGM/C in

Somali and Sudanese refugee populations.

USAID supports implementing partners, both from Washington

and at the country level, to provide communitybased programs

in key countries where the practice is prevalent. The

Agency's projects have supported targeted programs in Burkina

Faso, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Mali and

Nigeria, among others that consider cultural sensitivities

and are integrated with health, economic, social or democracy

and governance programs. USAID programs are community based,

involving community and religious leaders as well as women's

groups, men and youth to advance the quality and

effectiveness of abandonment efforts and to improve

conditions that will lead to FGM/C abandonment.

Projects In-Country

Egypt--S/GWI supported a project working in the community

of Al Darb Al Ahmar in Cairo called Creating Attitudes

Favorable to the Elimination of the Practice of FGM/C.

Through the dissemination of appropriate and relevant

information, coupled with education initiatives and public

awareness campaigns, S/GWI supported the Aga Khan Foundation

to address and prevent violence against women and girls,

including FGM/C, in select Cairo communities. Additionally,

the project provided training and capacity building in victim

advocacy and mental health for health care providers,

community leaders and volunteers.

In 2008, the USAID mission in Egypt incorporated FGM/C into

an existing community-level health program, reinforced by

select national-level messaging and educational messaging.

The program furthered Egypt's ongoing efforts to bring about

abandonment of FGM/C, as it involved training staff at both

the Ministry of Health and nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) to broaden the reach and coordinate with the

government's National Council of Childhood and Motherhood to

create a coherent national strategy.

Sudan--The Office of the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and

South Sudan is funding a program in West Nile State to

strengthen the capacity of community leaders and local

organizations to effectively and sustainably address FGM/C.

The project mobilizes children, women and men in the

community to support collective declarations of abandonment

of FGM/C. Through intensive trainings, community leaders draw

upon preexisting social structures to engage with the wider

community and build community ownership to end FGM/C

sustainably.

Iraq--In coordination with the DRL, S/GWI is funding a

multidimensional program in northern Iraq composed of

integrated victim services and a successful educational

campaign for village residents and political and religious

leaders, leading to the first-of-its-kind declarations of

villages being ``Female Genital Mutilation Free.''

Kenya--PRM provides resources to NGO partners to promote

awareness and prevention of FGM/C through community-based

institutions and civil society, including men's groups, youth

groups, women's groups and religious leaders. Other projects

promote social and economic empowerment of women and girls to

reduce the risk of exposure to GBV, including FGM/C, while

educating participants on the impact of harmful traditional

practices, including FGM/C.

USAID conducted studies to better understand the practice

of FGM/C among the Somalis in northeastern Kenya to inform

the design and implementation of interventions and to clarify

the correct Islamic understanding of FGM/C. The research

provided crucial evidence that FGM/C is neither a religious

practice nor one sanctioned by Islam, which clearly

stipulates provisions for the protection of basic human

rights, upholds the sanctity of the human body and prohibits

any practice that violates these rights or causes harm to the

body without justification. The conclusions called on

religious scholars to collaborate with medical doctors to

make verdicts based on scientific facts and to work with

their communities to help delink FGM/C from Islam.

USAID is supporting the launch of the Kenya Centre of

Excellence for FGM/C, which will be based at Nairobi

University, to create a pan-African center for learning and

developing innovative research approaches. The center will

also train leaders and champions for working toward the

abandonment of FGM/C and welcomes support from the

international community and others to join in this effort.

Ethiopia--In northern Ethiopia, the U.S. Government

supports an FGM/C awareness-raising program for women and

girls living in Shimelba and My'Ayni refugee camps. Specific

efforts include coffee discussions with girls, women, boys

and men on GBV-related topics and services and a Girls'

Wellness Week, which promotes adolescent girls' health

through a coming-of-age ceremony without FGM/C.

USAID supported collaboration with the Ministry of Health

and the National Committee on Traditional Practices to

educate communities on the harmful effects of FGM/C. The

program helped women and community leaders to understand the

motives of ``FGM/C demanders,'' respond to their concerns and

provide them with information on the negative impact of the

practice. More than 2,250 people participated in FGM/C

abandonment activities; a national Anti-FGM/C Women's Leaders

Team was established, and a member of that team drafted a law

against FGM/C that the Ethiopian parliament passed in July

2004.

Mali--USAID helped the Ministry of Health develop and pilot

a national training curriculum for primary medical providers

to increase their capacity to identify, treat or refer FGM/C

complications and educate and counsel clients and community

members on the negative aspects of the practice. A network of

trained providers was created consisting of extension workers

from NGOs and community and religious leaders. As a result of

their work, the percentage of men and women who said they

were in favor of abandoning FGM/C increased from 15 to 62

percent, and the percentage who intended to have FGM/C

performed on their daughters decreased from 81 to 33 percent.

Senegal--USAID has supported The Grandmother's Project

(GMP), which incorporates FGM/C into a broader girls' and

women's health and family planning program to bring about

positive changes in community traditions. The approach

involves grandmothers and elderly women, a once marginalized

group, in social change. The project encourages learning and

communal decision-making through open discussions about

problems confronting the community. The aim for GMP is to

have community members identify their problems and reach

consensus on possible solutions that best suit their needs,

leading to long-term and lasting change.

West Africa--USAID has supported Tostan, a participatory

education program that works village by village to

incorporate democracy, problem solving, basic mathematics,

literacy and essential health education, including

information about FGM/C, into the learning experiences that

ultimately empower the entire community. As a result of this

multidimensional approach, thousands of villages in West

Africa have publicly abandoned FGM/C and other harmful

traditional practices upon completion of the Tostan program.

n the United States, in 2012, at the first-ever Zero

Tolerance Day event that was held at the U.S. Department of

State, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke

passionately about creating conditions for ending FGM/C, so

all girls can realize their full potential. At that event,

organized by USAID and the State Department, a spark was lit

among the communities that have worked tirelessly for years

toward the abandonment of FGM/C. The event became a catalyst

for raising government and donor awareness and was repeated

in 2013 when it was hosted by former Ambassador-at-Large for

Global Women's Issues Melanne Verveer. Ambassador Verveer led

a panel discussion that included Amina Salum Ali, Ambassador

of the African Union to the United States; Dr. Nawal Nour, a

Sudanese-American from Brigham and Women's Hospital in

Boston; Bacary Tamba from Tostan, an NGO in Senegal; and

Jessie Hexpoor from Hivos, an NGO based in the Netherlands.

They each have made, and are continuing to make,

extraordinary contributions toward putting an end to FGM/C,

and the Ambassador noted, ``are a testament to why community-

driven, holistic approach is essential to achieving

sustainable progress.'' The event brought together activists

from the NGO community, diplomatic corps and policymakers in

the U.S. Government to address ways various stakeholders can

work together toward zero tolerance for FGM/C. The event also

attracted 1,648 online participants from 30 countries in an

interactive virtual discussion.

USAID has commissioned a desk review of interventions,

evaluations and reports published since 2000 on ending FGM/C.

Based on

this review, as well as key informant interviews with

experts, USAID is drafting a report called Ending Female

Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Lessons from Ten Years of

Progress. The report will review lessons learned, promising

approaches and recommendations for the future. By looking

back, policymakers and advocates will be better able to move

forward decisively to create societies that allow women and

girls around the world to achieve their full potential.

Our vision of the way forward has been sharpened by all the

work that went on before this decade.

First, the centrality of ``social norms''--what communities

believe and how they act and expect the members of that

community to act--must be addressed.

Second, a wide range of actors play pivotal roles in the

abandonment of FGM/C: men; women; grandmothers; boys; girls;

and community, health, religious and political leaders.

Third, and perhaps most important, the focus must be on

holistic, integrated, multisectoral approaches that bring

together the advocacy, policy-level work and community-level

transformation of social norms.

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

Mr. Chair, this is a very important amendment in the cycle of life, protecting endangered species, which give the joy of life and understanding to the world, to the coexistence of humans and these wonderful species that have given us so much knowledge.

My amendment makes a good bill better by providing a $1 million focus to combat the transportation of the remains of endangered species, to bring down the desire to go after these endangered species.

So many of us remember, a few years ago, the brutal killing of Cecil the lion. At that time, I introduced and sought the support of my colleagues as original cosponsors of my legislation, Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened Species Act of 2015. This bill sought to strengthen partner countries' capacity in countering wildlife trafficking and designating major wildlife countries for protection.

The amendment now is offered in the same spirit: to prohibit the taking and transportation of any endangered and threatened species as a trophy to the United States.

Currently, the Endangered Species Act does not protect the majority of wildlife animals killed. At this point, we can choose to make wise decisions that will sustain the global population, or we can ignore the warning signs.

Climate change is not the only threat facing our world. There is also massive extinction of microscopic organisms to more complex insects and animals. More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct.

So I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

I thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Rogers for their hard work in bringing Division D, the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs portion of this omnibus appropriations legislative package, to the floor.

I thank them all for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment, which makes a good bill even better by providing $1 million combat the transportation of the remains of endangered species.

A few years ago, in light of the brutal killing of Cecil the Lion, I introduced and sought the support of my colleagues as original co- sponsors of my legislation entitled, Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened Species Act of 2015.

That bill sought to strengthen partner countries' capacity in countering wildlife trafficking and designating major wildlife countries for protection.

This Jackson Lee Amendment is offered in the same spirit--to prohibit the taking and transportation of any endangered or threatened species as a trophy into the United States.

This amendment provides $1 million to focus efforts on poaching of endangered species on protected preserves.

Hunting endangered species that are on protected preserves should come with an element of greater risk to those who engage in this practice.

The amendment provides additional resources to ensure better coordination and monitoring of incidents like the killing of Cecil the Lion, with a goal of holding people accountable.

Currently, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not protect the clear majority of wild animals killed and imported.

Because of this loophole, tens of thousands of wild animals are killed every year by trophy hunters and transported into the United States.

The conservation of endangered and threatened species is critically important to the sustainability of our biodiversity, ecosystem and the beauty of wildlife as we know it.

Biodiversity and ecosystem balance are essential to sustaining life as we know it on planet earth.

The rate that species are disappearing globally can easily be compared to other mass extension events in our earth's history.

Human life requires a health global biodiversity and ecosystem.

At this point we can choose to make wise decisions that will sustain the global population or we can ignore the warning signs.

Climate change is not the only threat facing our world--it is also massive extinction from microscopic organisms to more complex insects and animals.

More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct.

As new species evolve to fit ever changing ecological niches, older species fade away.

But the rate of extinction is far from constant or natural.

At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 50 to more than 90 percent of all species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of the eye.

Another threat to endangered species are terrorist organizations that pose a threat to our environment and natural wildlife, utilizing the funds from their illicit activity of wildlife poaching to fund their terroristic activities.

Vulnerable species are at the mercy of transnational terrorists groups whose actions place these natural inhabitants of the earth in danger of extinction.

For example, the population of African elephants has decreased from 1.3 million to 400,000, with 22,000 poached in 2012.

Only 3,200 tigers remain in the wild, and these tigers remain in danger of being poached for their skins, bones and body parts.

This supports the efforts of the State Department under the Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program to dismantle the wildlife trafficking syndicates in the global south from Africa to Asia.

I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this amendment that in a significant way makes a difference for the safety and security of endangered species.

The food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe relies upon biodiversity and balance in ecosystems.

Scientist warn that our planet is now during its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals.

Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural ``background'' rate of about one to five species per year.

Scientists estimate we're now losing species at up to 1,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.

It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by the year 2050.

I ask my colleagues to support this Jackson Lee Amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her support of my original amendment on female genital mutilation, and I thank her for her support of this amendment.

I just offer to my colleagues a list of the vulnerable endangered species: Giant panda, giant tortoise, giant white shark, greater one- horned rhino, hippopotamus, leatherback turtle, loggerhead turtle, marine iguana, olive ridley turtle, polar bear, savanna elephant, snow leopard, sea turtle--all of these, among many others. The jaguar is now threatened. The white rhino is threatened.

I include in the Record the endangered species list I mentioned:

Species Directory

Common name, Scientific name, Conservation status:

Dugong, Dugong dugon, Vulnerable.

Forest Elephant, Vulnerable.

Giant Panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, Vulnerable.

Giant Tortoise, Vulnerable.

Great White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, Vulnerable.

Greater One-Horned Rhino, Rhinoceros unicornis, Vulnerable.

Hippopotamus, Hippopotamus amphibius, Vulnerable.

Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, Vulnerable.

Loggerhead Turtle, Caretta caretta, Vulnerable.

Marine Iguana, Amblyrhynchus cristatus, Vulnerable.

Olive Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea, Vulnerable.

Polar Bear, Ursus maritimus, Vulnerable.

Savanna Elephant, Loxodonta africana africana, Vulnerable.

Sea Turtle, Cheloniidae and Dermochelyidae families,

Vulnerable.

Snow Leopard, Panthera uncia, Vulnerable.

Southern rockhopper penguin, Eudyptes chrysocome,

Vulnerable.

Albacore Tuna, Thunnus alalunga, Near Threatened.

Beluga, Delphinapeterus leucas, Near Threatened.

Greater Sage-Grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus, Near

Threatened.

Jaguar, Panthera onca, Near Threatened.

Mountain Plover, Charadrius montanus, Near Threatened.

Narwhal, Monodon monoceros, Near Threatened.

Plains Bison, Bison bison bison, Near Threatened.

White Rhino, Ceratotherium simum, Near Threatened.

Yellowfin Tuna, Thunnus albacares, Near Threatened.

Arctic Fox, Vulpes lagopus, Least Concern.

Arctic Wolf, Canis lupus arctos, Least Concern.

Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus, Least Concern.

Brown Bear, ursus arctos, Least Concern.

Common Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncates, Least

Concern.

Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus, Least Concern.

Macaw, Ara ararauna, Least Concern.

Amur Leopard, Panthera pardus orientalis, Critically

Endangered.

Black Rhino, Diceros bicornis, Critically Endangered.

Bornean Orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus, Critically Endangered.

Cross River Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla diehli, Critically

Endangered.

Eastern Lowland Gorilla, Gorilla beringei graueri,

Critically Endangered.

Hawksbill Turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, Critically

Endangered.

Javan Rhino, Rhinoceros sondaicus, Critically Endangered.

Malayan Tiger, Panthera tigris jacksoni, Critically

Endangered.

Orangutan, Pongo abelii, Pongo pygmaeus, Critically

Endangered.

Saola, Pseudoryx nghetinhensis, Critically Endangered.

South China Tiger, Panthera tigris amoyensis, Critically

Endangered.

Sumatran Elephant, Elephas maximus sumatranus, Critically

Endangered.

Sumatran Orangutan, Pongo abelii, Critically Endangered.

Sumatran Rhino, Dicerorhinus sumatrensis, Critically

Endangered.

Sumatran Tiger, Panthera tigris sumatrae, Critically

Endangered.

Vaquita, Phocoena sinus, Critically Endangered.

Western Lowland Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla gorilla,

Critically Endangered.

Yangtze Finless Porpoise, Neophocaena asiaeorientalis ssp.

asiaeorientalis, Critically Endangered.

African Wild Dog, Lycaon pictus, Endangered.

Amur Tiger, Panthera tigris tigris, Endangered.

Asian Elephant, Elephas maximus indicus, Endangered.

Bengal Tiger, Panthera tigris tigris, Endangered.

Black-footed Ferret, Mustela nigripes, Endangered.

Blue Whale, Balaenoptera musculus, Endangered.

Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus Thynnus, Endangered.

Bonobo, Pan paniscus, Endangered.

Borneo Pygmy Elephant, Elephas maximus borneensis,

Endangered.

Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, Endangered.

Fin Whale, Balaenoptera physalus, Endangered.

Galapagos Penguin, Spheniscus mendiculus, Endangered.

Ganges River Dolphin, Platanista gangetica gangetica,

Endangered.

Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas, Endangered.

Hector's Dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori, Endangered.

Humphead Wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus, Endangered.

Indian Elephant, Elephas maximus indicus, Endangered.

Indochinese Tiger, Panthera tigris corbetti, Endangered.

Indus River Dolphin, Platanista minor, Endangered.

Irrawaddy Dolphin, Orcaella brevirostris, Endangered.

Mountain Gorilla, Gorilla beringei beringei, Endangered.

North Atlantic Right Whale, Eubalaena glacialis,

Endangered.

Red Panda, Ailurus fulgens, Endangered.

Sea Lions, Zalophus wollebaeki, Endangered.

Sei Whale, Balaenoptera borealis, Endangered.

Sri Lankan Elephant, Elephas maximus maximus, Endangered.

Tiger, Panthera tigris, Endangered.

Whale, Balaenoptera, Balaena, Eschricthtius, and Eubalaen,

Endangered.

Whale Shark, Rhincodon typus, Endangered.

African Elephant, Loxodonta africana, Vulnerable.

Bigeye Tuna, Thunnus obesus, Vulnerable.

Black Spider Monkey, Ateles paniscus, Vulnerable.

I believe we can do better, and I would ask my colleagues to do better by supporting the Jackson Lee amendment.

For example, the population of African elephants has decreased from 1.3 million to 400,000, with 22,000 poached in 2012. Working with my amendment, working with this legislation, we can have a greater focus on ensuring the protection of endangered species.

Mr. Chair, I ask support for the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me the time.

We finished up in the Rules Committee, I think, before 10 p.m. last night. I was optimistic that we finished up that early.

It is not the Members you need to worry about, Mr. Speaker. It is the staff of the Rules Committee you need to worry about, because they had hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of amendments submitted that they were going through all weekend long, trying to sort out what are those amendments that could be made in order, what are those amendments that would need waivers of the rules, what are those amendments that could be considered on the floor and not be repetitive.

It is an amazing burden on the staff to have to go through all those amendments, Mr. Speaker, and it is an unnecessary burden.

You weren't here at the time, Mr. Speaker, but I am looking right down here below me at the gentleman from Kentucky. He used to be the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee the last time we came to the House floor under regular order, as my friend from California suggests, and we allowed every Member of this institution--everyone who had been elected by their constituents back home, everyone who has a voting card--to come and offer any idea that they had to improve upon the underlying bill.

I don't take issue with much of what my friend from California said about many of the good things in this bill. There are many good things in this bill.

But what I love about the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker, different from the Rules Committee, is they come to the House year after year and say we have done an amazing job working together in a bipartisan way in the Appropriations Committee, but the other Members of the House who don't serve on that committee, if they have some expertise that they think can improve the bill, bring it on. Bring it on. Let's go down to that House floor. Let's have that festival of democracy. Let's test those ideas, and let's send the best product that we can to the President's desk.

My friend from California says that this is a good bill and that it should absolutely be signed by the President. She could be right. I would probably disagree with her, Mr. Speaker, but she could be right.

The fact of the matter is, the law of the land, as it exists today, won't let us implement this bill. This bill spends above those caps, the statutory spending caps passed by the Congress and signed by the President.

This bill cannot become law at these levels. If it were to, we would have an automatic sequester that brings the levels down.

That is a terrible way to govern. We have learned that lesson over the past 10 years together.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I didn't have to point to the gentleman from Kentucky and say remember the days when

everybody's voice mattered in this institution. Remember those days. That day should be today. It is not an easy pathway to get back to.

I remember when we were trying to do open rules on the Republican side. My Democratic colleagues would come to the floor and offer amendments that they knew would pass with a minority of Republican votes and a lot of Democratic votes. Then they would vote in favor of that amendment to change the bill, but they would vote against the final bill, knowing it would not be able to pass without their support.

That is a great strategy, and it has been used by both sides, if my colleagues want to be in the business of making a point. It is an awful strategy if my colleagues want to be in the business of making a difference. If Members came to this institution to govern instead of to get the next sound bite, that is a terrible path to be on.

Mr. Speaker, if Members went through those hundreds of amendments the way that the Rules Committee staff went through them over the weekend, they would see good idea after good idea after good idea that has been turned away before it could be considered on the floor of this House. I don't know whether those amendments would have passed or failed. I know some of them would have passed; I know some of them would have failed.

There was a time in this institution when we let the votes decide, when we let the membership decide.

Mr. Speaker, we have changed those rules. It is now 13 men and women who sit on the Rules Committee who decide.

I value my friend from California's suggestion that we get back to regular order, and I know it is not an easy path to follow. This bill is the most open we have had so far this year, and yet, it still denies Member after Member, on both sides of the aisle, an opportunity to have their constituents' voices heard.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. If we speak with one voice in this body and reject this rule, we will do better. All it takes is the courage of our convictions to do that.

I hope my Members will stand with me in aspiring to do better today than we did yesterday and better still tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a colleague of mine on the bipartisan Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a gentleman who offered a germane amendment that was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Spano).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my friend if she would like to change her last statement.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague well, and I thoroughly enjoy working with her on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California. I do not object.

Mr. Speaker, while we have many champions of life in this institution on both sides of the aisle, none is stronger than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a tireless fighter for life.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to remind the Chamber that we tried to offer an amendment last night in committee that would have addressed this funding.

The Rules Committee rejected the consideration by the whole House of a measure that would provide what we all agree is urgently needed funding. We are seeing some of that passion here at this moment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say when we had this conversation in the Rules Committee yesterday--again, my friend from California is on the Appropriations Committee--and she said we talked about bringing forward an emergency funding bill that is more comprehensive. We are working on expediting that.

I would say to my friend, agreeing to one of these unanimous consent requests would be the absolute fastest way to expedite that if she would like to reconsider her position.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to my neighbor from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to bring H.R. 3056 immediately to the floor under an open rule.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, we spent a great deal of time today talking about the humanitarian crisis on the border, and that is because, despite all of the very positive things that are in this bill that my friend from California has mentioned, what is not in this bill is one single penny to go to the border today. There is not a Member of this institution who does not know that we need that money going to the border today.

I am not talking about contentious issues like border security, though that shouldn't be a contentious issue. That should be an issue of agreement, as well. I am talking about an issue on which we are unanimous, which is taking care of those people who are in the

custody of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3056 would provide $4.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, as a fiscal conservative, I don't say that lightly--$4.5 billion. That is not $4.5 billion to get us through another year, Mr. Speaker. That is not $4.5 billion to start in October and run us through the next fiscal year. That is $4.5 billion today to address needs that exist today, to fill shortfalls that are happening today, to solve problems that demand solutions today.

There is not one word in this bill to provide a single solution anywhere in America today. But if we defeat the previous question and amend the rule as I have suggested, we can provide those solutions today, and we can do it in a partnership way that will make America proud.

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

I would advise my friend that I do not see any speakers remaining, and when the gentlewoman has exhausted her speakers, I will be prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about two kinds of issues down here today. When I listen to my friend from California talk about all the wonderful things that are in the underlying bill, I can't tell you how much I wanted to stand up and celebrate with her that appropriations season is often that way.

Mr. Speaker, you haven't seen it in your time, but there was a time in this institution where the way we spent America's money reflected America's priorities, and it turned out--you wouldn't know it by reading the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, but it turned out those priorities didn't hinge on whether you had an R or a D behind your name. It didn't hinge on whether you came from the Deep South or the Northwest.

It turned out, when we started voting on issues one dollar at a time, we began to find that we had agreements with one another that had not yet been explored. We began to find, Mr. Speaker, that we could celebrate achievements together in ways that had not yet been explored.

Mr. Speaker, the year I came to Congress, and many of my other colleagues here came that very same year, you may remember the appropriations process hadn't been finished by the Democrats. When Republicans took over, the young freshman class of which I was a part said we need to get down there, and we need to finish that job. It was a Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. We brought up the entire Federal discretionary budget.

Now, that is a lousy way to do business. It is a lousy way to do business. We used to bring up bills one appropriations bill at a time.

There are 12 bills, Mr. Speaker. We have gotten in a bad habit of omnibus bills. As you know, what we switched to last year and what the Democratic majority is continuing this year is bringing up groups of four or five bills together.

But at that time, in the spring of 2011, Mr. Speaker, we brought them all up. We brought them all up together. And do you know what we said, Mr. Speaker, the brand-new Republican majority?

You know how it is when majorities change, Mr. Speaker. Folks have gotten their feelings hurt. They feel like they were a little wronged by the previous majority. My friend from California knows what I am talking about.

You might have expected the Republican majority to say, ``We are going to jam our priorities through, diversity of ideas be damned,'' but we didn't. It was Speaker John Boehner at that time, Mr. Speaker, and he said we are bringing up the entire Federal discretionary budget, and any Member, Mr. Speaker, any Member from either side of the aisle who has an idea about how to make it better, their ideas are welcome here on the floor of the House.

Oh, you want to talk about a festival of democracy, Mr. Speaker? We started on a Tuesday. We thought we were going to be done by a Thursday. We ended up going 24 hours a day, finishing in the early hours of Saturday morning.

And by ``finishing,'' Mr. Speaker, I mean we allowed every single Member's voice in this body be heard on every single issue that their constituents sent them here to address. Every Member of this institution left tired, Mr. Speaker, but every Member of this institution left feeling like they had had a chance to represent their constituents the way the United States Constitution intended.

It doesn't always work that way, Mr. Speaker. I sit on the Rules Committee. We decide what amendments are made in order and what amendments aren't.

In the last Congress, when the Republicans controlled this institution, we didn't make every amendment in order. We did not make every amendment in order, Mr. Speaker.

But what we did do is we made more Democratic amendments in order than Republican amendments. We did. But because, for obvious reasons, when you are in the leadership, it is easier to push your agenda. When you have opportunity not to be in the leadership, it is harder to push your agenda. We made more Democratic amendments in order last Congress, Mr. Speaker, than Republican amendments in an effort to bring a diversity of ideas.

This Congress, Mr. Speaker, when Republicans are in the minority and the Democratic majority is writing the rules, 70 percent of all amendments that have been made in order have been Democratic amendments. Eighteen percent of the amendments have come to Republicans. Five times more amendments were given to the majority than to the minority. Again, we gave more to the minority than the majority.

I see my friends from Minnesota down here saying, ``I had an amendment. It was a good idea. My constituents asked me to offer it. It is germane to the underlying bill. I just want my day on the floor to vote.'' That day has been denied, Mr. Speaker, for amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment. Hundreds of amendments. Good ideas, bipartisan ideas.

My friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, had an amendment, Mr. Speaker, that required that we fund nuclear waste disposal licensing. Nuclear waste is

spread out all across this country. I don't know if it is in your district, Mr. Speaker, but I have got it right next door to me. It is stored as best we can across the Nation. We are trying to license a national repository. We have spent billions as a nation preparing for that. All he wanted was a vote on an amendment that has wide and deep bipartisan support. I think it would have won, but we will never know because the powers that be denied him even the chance to discuss it.

The question isn't, is there something good in this underlying bill? The question is, do you believe any of the rest of us have anything to add to make it better?

My friends made in order some Republican amendments. I told you that so far this year there have been five times more Democratic amendments made in order than Republican amendments. This bill today is better. It is only twice as many Democratic amendments than Republican amendments. It is still nowhere close to fair, it is still not representative, but this is where we are.

There is not one dollar, Mr. Speaker, for the humanitarian crisis on the border. The New York Times in an editorial on Sunday said, ``The financial reality is that this agency is overwhelmed.'' Talking about the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

``So far this fiscal year, it has taken charge of nearly 41,000 unaccompanied children, a 57 percent increase over last year. The entire program could run out of funding by the end of June.''

There is not one dollar in this bill for that. That is what my colleagues came to ask unanimous consent to do. That is what defeating the previous question would do.

We all agree there is a crisis at the border.

The editorial goes on for the New York Times, Mr. Speaker.

``There should be no ambivalence about the urgency of addressing the humanitarian needs. While lawmakers wring their hands and drag their feet, tens of thousands of migrant children are suffering.

``Congress needs to get serious about dealing with that suffering.''

There is no bill on its way to the floor, Mr. Speaker, except for the one you heard my colleague ask Member after Member after Member for unanimous consent to bring. And you heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle deny that. I understand. We don't usually get unanimous consent requests to prove during Rules Committee debate.

I don't fault my colleague for objecting. But if we defeat the previous question as I am proposing, Mr. Speaker, and we add an amendment to the rule, we will continue to consider the bill that my friend from California is so proud of. But we will also consider the bill that provides immediate funding to the men and women serving us on the border as they seek to address this humanitarian crisis.

It gives me no pleasure to bring it up during Rules Committee debate, Mr. Speaker, because I don't think we disagree on this. I think we are together on this. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle is saying no and no and no and no to doing something that they know needs to be done. I do not understand it.

But I know this. Here, on Wednesday, we have got one shot to fix it: one. Not two, not three. There aren't a dozen different options. We have got one shot to fix it.

Defeat this previous question, add an amendment to the rule, and bring up this emergency funding supplemental. Do what we all know needs to be done. If it stretches from the editorial page of the New York Times to a conservative Republican from the deep south, Mr. Speaker, you know it has broad bipartisan appeal.

We get so used to saying no in this Chamber. We get so used to running each other out in politics. Let's take yes for an answer. Let's do something we all know needs to be done. Let's take a shot at doing better today than we did yesterday. Maybe we will come back and do better still tomorrow.

Defeat the previous question. Add this amendment to the bill. In the absence of that, I will have to ask that we oppose that rule, Mr. Speaker, and give us a chance to go back to the drawing board one more time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 436 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported the rule, House Resolution 436, providing for consideration of H.R. 2740, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2020.

The rule provides for further consideration of H.R. 2740 under a structured rule and makes in order 115 amendments. The rule provides no further general debate.

The chair of the Appropriations Committee may also offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments made in order by the rule and not earlier disposed of.

Finally, the rule includes one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, it was only a few months ago that we were standing here voting to end the longest government shutdown in the history of the United States, a shutdown that hurt so many of our constituents, constituents like David Pesko, an FAA air traffic controller at Ontario Airport.

He was in escrow to purchase a home, and, without a paycheck coming in, he had to rely on his family and friends' generosity in order to make ends meet.

We owe David and the American people much more, and that is why I am especially proud of the timely introduction of these appropriations bills. It exemplifies the hard work of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and this majority's commitment to good governance.

Mr. Speaker, in years past, we have relied strongly on omnibus spending

bills to fund the government. But now, with the hard work done by Members on both sides of the aisle, this majority is leading us in a return to regular order.

As has often been said on this very floor, the primary job of Congress is to fund the American government and keep it open and operating. Our constituents deserve no less.

With this package under consideration today, the House will do just that with respect to 4 of the 12 spending bills.

In passing this bill, we will provide crucial funding for services across broad areas of the government and fulfill our promises to the American people. That funding includes historic investments in programs that provide opportunities for millions of people, including my constituents in the Inland Empire.

Perhaps more important than what is included in this bill is what is not included. This minibus rejects the President's draconian budget cuts that would have hurt every American, but especially women and children.

Instead, we have won increased funding for a number of important priorities.

This bill boosts biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, expands opioid abuse treatment and prevention programs, and launches new initiatives for maternal and child health.

I recently visited three health clinics in my district that provide 30,000 families with lifesaving care.

This bill provides $400 million for the Title X Family Planning Program so that everyone in the Inland Empire and across America can continue to have access to cancer screenings, STI tests, reproductive care, and other lifesaving services.

It also protects against the administration's policies that prevent a woman from making choices about her future, like when to have a child.

When women do decide to become mothers, this bill supports them by investing in working families and our children with $7.8 billion for the Childcare and Development Block Grant program.

Passing this bill will demonstrate our commitment to the ideal that all students deserve a quality, safe, and affordable education, and that commitment is realized in over $24 billion in funding for Federal Student Aid programs, almost $2 billion more than the President's insufficient request.

Just as important is this bill's acknowledgement of how far we have to go in helping underserved communities, the bill provides $917 million to assist minority-serving institutions, including $150 million for Hispanic-serving institutions like Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State San Bernardino, and UC Riverside, which prepare thousands of students in my district to be tomorrow's leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I am also happy to report that this legislation provides the funding necessary for a 3.1 percent pay raise for our servicemembers, who continue to serve our Nation around the world.

As the mother of an Air Force veteran, it is wonderful news to hear that our servicemembers are being acknowledged for the hard work that they do keeping our Nation safe, at home and abroad.

In addition to paying our servicemembers more, this bill will protect our men and women in uniform from one of the most common harms that they encounter: sexual assault.

The $38 million in additional funding for DOD'S sexual assault prevention and response programs will ensure that survivors have representation while navigating the complicated military justice process, that they will not have to wait years for a resolution--years, Mr. Speaker--as one of my constituents had to do.

This bill not only invests in our priorities at home; it advances our priorities abroad. I am particularly pleased with increased investments in certain areas, including global reproductive health and aid to Central American countries.

This bill empowers countless women who are the backbone of their families around the world by increasing funding for family planning programs, reversing the President's disastrous global gag rule, and contributing $55.5 million to the United Nations Population Fund.

Robust funding is included for counter-narcotics and law enforcement efforts in Colombia, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.

This bill also ensures that the funding provided goes to the right people--the right people, Mr. Speaker--instead of the corrupt officials that undermine democracy and misuse U.S. aid. This is especially important given the recent report regarding corruption in the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala and Honduras.

And, finally, the last part of this bill that I would like to highlight is what we are doing to invest in our energy and water infrastructure.

The bill rejects the President's shortsighted proposed cuts to key energy and water programs and, instead, invests $46.6 billion to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, build the next generation of clean energy technologies, and combat the urgent threat that is climate change.

This is a good bill. This is a bill that should be signed into law, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule so that we can get back to regular order and avoid another costly shutdown.

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

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

I would like to remind my colleague that I also serve on the Appropriations Committee, and we had a very open and transparent process. Every subcommittee invited all Members to come before us to present their ideas or their requests to the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. We have also supported 95 percent of the written requests from all Members.

So to say that it was not transparent and that Members did not have an opportunity to come before and present their ideas is incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is tiring to hear from so many * * * males on this floor talk about a woman's right to choose.

Mr. Speaker, if it pleases my colleague on the other side, I will withdraw my statement about sex-starved males on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I will agree to withdraw my statement regarding----

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will put it in different terms. It is tiring to be here on this floor or in committee as a woman and to continue to be counseled about what types of affordable planning, whether it is family planning, conversations that rightfully I deserve to have with my own doctor.

Choosing when women want to have a family and to avoid pregnancies before they become pregnancies, it is unfortunate that that is something that continues to be denied to American women day in and day out on this floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, contraception for women is not something that should be debated here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I will not. I will not yield for that purpose, and all time yielded is for the purpose of debate and debate only.

Mr. Speaker, I will not yield.

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

I want to remind my colleagues why we are here today. We are considering a bill that provides $7.97 billion in humanitarian assistance, a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops, $1.9 billion for the Job Corps, $41.1 billion for mental health, for Alzheimer's research, HIV/AIDS, cancer research, and others.

I agree that we need to address the humanitarian situation at the border, and Democrats have been saying this for a very long time. We said so when crying toddlers were being torn apart from their mother's arms. We said so when children were being put in cages. We said so when children were being drugged. We said so when children were being sexually abused.

I visited those facilities. I saw the tragedy with my own eyes. HHS needs an influx of funds, and we cannot wait until this bill is enacted.

In the coming weeks, we will consider the administration's request for a supplemental appropriations bill. That supplemental, not the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill, is the appropriate place to deal with this year's ORR funding. That is not just because we can't wait for the annual appropriations process to be completed; it is also because we have concerns about how ORR is managing some of those shelters.

With all the abuses that have come to light, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with us that we need to have more oversight, additional oversight over these facilities.

Most importantly, this amendment increases and decreases the same account. It is not an actual effect. The children deserve more than a messaging amendment. They deserve better than that.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, while we may not agree on everything, I do want to thank my colleague from Georgia for his participation in this process. I hope we can agree that getting back to regular order is the right thing to do, not for Democrats and not for Republicans, but for the American people.

Congress cannot write a blank check and allow children on our southern border to continue to be abused while they are in our custody. We need transparency, we need accountability. Members of Congress need to be able to go and inspect these facilities without being denied entry.

On the issue of participation among Members of Congress through this process of appropriations, I want to state once again that ideas are absolutely welcome. However, the Appropriations Committee chairwoman cannot order Members to participate in the process. We can set up meetings and we can invite them to come and participate, and many did. They presented their ideas, they presented their requests for funding for their districts, and, guess what, 95 percent of those requests were agreed upon through a process of mitigating.

Now, if I was writing this appropriations bill myself, it would look very different. If my colleague from Georgia was writing this appropriations bill himself, it would look very different. He and I both know that. But our commitment is not to our personal agendas. Our commitment is to the rule of law, is to democracy, and is to the American people, our constituents, who sent us here to represent them.

The underlying legislation is a strong bill that is the result of good, hard work by Members of both sides of the aisle. It is about time that the House of Representatives got back to doing the business of the people in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer Congressman Luetkemeyer's

amendment to ensure the United Nations climate change organizations are no longer used as an international slush fund for ineffective climate change research and projects.

Unfortunately, many of the United Nations climate change organizations operate with little oversight or accountability, while being financed, in part, by the American taxpayer.

Unelected bureaucrats and foreign leaders across the globe should not have greater control over U.S. policy than our citizens and elected officials, especially when we are paying for it.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCC, and the Green Climate Fund, GCF, have been surrounded in controversy since their inception.

The IPCC, which is broadly represented as the top authority on climate matters, was under fire when emails were publicly released from a university in England that showed that leading global scientists-- that 95 percent, they are always quoting--intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals.

Further, while the IPCC supposedly issues assessments based upon so- called independent surveys of published research, some of the most influential conclusions summarized in its report have neither been based upon truly independent research nor properly vetted through accepted peer-reviewed processes.

The United Nations Green Climate Fund, which, unfortunately, received $1 billion in taxpayer funding thanks to the Obama administration, has not approved a new project since 2017, causing the executive director of the fund to resign.

According to the Green Climate Fund former co-chair, 30 percent--yes, 30 percent--of the funds pledged are never going to materialize.

Despite its stated goal of supporting developing countries to pursue renewable energy sources, the Green Climate Fund's pledges that do materialize are going to wealthy nations with little to no effect on emissions.

Let me give a couple of examples.

One project to install a solar plant in Kazakhstan directly benefited Chinese construction companies instead of investing in Kazakhstan's companies. Directly investing in one of our economic rivals, China, is definitely the best use of taxpayer funds.

Worse yet, the fund proposed a $9.8 million investment in the wealthy kingdom of Bahrain's oil sector. How is this pursuing renewables in developing countries?

Many former and current members of the United Nations climate change organizations acknowledge they have made little to no progress and don't see the organization being successful in the future.

This amendment is not about climate change, but about the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Our constituents should not have to foot the bill for organizations that have no track record of success and have a proven history of funding corruption and bad science to advance a radical climate change agenda.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, once again, throwing money into the wind when it has no accountability is foolhardy. We have seen these over and over. Good process builds good policy is good politics.

We want to see outcomes, and what we are not seeing from this is outcomes.

Mr. Chair, I ask everybody to join in.

This isn't about climate change. This is about accountability. We need to see results, not just throwing money to the wind.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I want to applaud the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), but I also want to highlight that there is a further issue that we need to address.

Not only is there a pipeline problem, but there is a floodplain problem that needs to have some jurisdiction and some changes and involvement.

We have become the victims in regard to when floods run. We see our infrastructure on this side of that international border being destroyed.

Mr. Chair, this is a golden opportunity to highlight an opportunity that is a joint venture between the two countries that we can actually see some camaraderie to actually facilitate change.

Mr. Chair, I applaud the gentleman for bringing this up, and I look forward to seeing us remedy this continuing problem.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It would prevent any funds in this bill from being used for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is responsible for some of the worst multinational agreements we have signed onto.

These agreements are technically implausible and have unrealistic emission goals in order to appease environmental extremists. This includes the flawed Paris Agreement, for example.

Americans for Tax Reform estimates the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 6.5 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $2.5 trillion.

NERA Consulting estimates those numbers are even higher and that the

Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 31.6 million jobs by 2040 and reduce the GDP by over $3 trillion.

In June of 2017, President Trump announced he will withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, stating: ``The Paris Climate Accord is the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers. . . . and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.''

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has also become a mechanism for executive overreach. For example, when President Obama signed us up in the Paris Agreement, he did not consult Congress in any way. This was a direct assault on Congress' constitutional duty to approve any treaty signed on to by the United States.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Mr. Chairman, the best way to improve our environment and ensure our economic prosperity is to allow energy innovations in this country, not by sending millions of dollars to some transnational organization.

We have new innovations being implemented in our energy sector as we speak, every day. From carbon sequestration coal plants in Texas, to the shale revolution in the Midwest, to solar facilities in my home State of Arizona, locally driven solutions are creating thousands of jobs and benefiting our environment.

It is a simple concept. The people who depend upon our energy resources to provide security for their families and communities understand those resources best. States and municipalities are best suited to deal with local issues than are the distant out-of-touch Washington and U.N. bureaucrats.

The facts are clear: The U.S. has had one of the largest absolute decreases in carbon emissions of any country in the world. From 2005 to 2017, the U.S. cut 862 million tons of carbon, a 14 percent decline. Over the same period, global emissions increased by 26 percent. China increased its emissions by 4 billion tons, and India increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 1.3 billion tons, a 70 percent increase.

America's energy renaissance is the backbone of our economy. It is a story of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity. The story of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a much different one, one that is characterized by a one-size-fits-all policy that gives special preferences to some of the world's worst polluters, like China and India.

This isn't a partisan issue. This is about doing what is right for America and protecting freedom and opportunity for our children and grandchildren. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, we hear the same lame excuse over and over again, that doing the same thing over and over, we are going to get a different result. Well, that doesn't work anymore.

Trust is a series of promises kept. Why don't we set by example? And that is exactly what we are proposing here.

The United States, by our technology, by our innovation, has shown the way in regards to combating climate change. That is exactly the way that we ought to handle it, not by some failed multinational bureaucracy that uses the United States as a slush fund.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity. Once again, we have seen the ineptness of the United Nations in regard to this. We have seen the misuse of money to developed nations like China and India, and we allow them to continue to pollute when we set the example.

I like the idea of setting the example for everybody else to follow. We are the innovators. We are the leaders. We ought to establish that. I ask everybody to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I am shocked that my colleague would propose an amendment that would strike all funding for bilateral family planning.

These services prevent unintended pregnancies, maternal deaths, and abortions; reduce rates of infant and child mortality; empower women to stay in school and join the workforce; create stronger and healthier families; and improve economies.

Aren't these bipartisan policy outcomes that both sides of the aisle should be supporting?

Family planning does exactly what it says: It helps women plan when to have a family.

But, as we sit here today, more than 200 million women around the world still lack access to modern contraceptives.

If we want to build the self-reliance of countries, one of the most cost-effective measures is to increase access to the family planning services that women so desperately seek. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, cutting funds to bilateral family planning programs is simply bad foreign policy. It undermines U.S. Agency for International Development objectives and hurts millions of women and girls.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, while this amendment does not have a budgetary effect, I would like to thank my colleague for raising such an important issue for millions of women around the world.

For more than 200 million women, female genital mutilation can mean health problems that haunt them for the rest of their lives. The quest for gender equality will not be complete until women are no longer subjected to these practices.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chair, while this amendment does not have a budgetary effect, I thank my colleague for raising such an important issue.

I was pleased to be able to increase the resources available in this bill by $10 million, for a total of $100.6 million to combat wildlife trafficking and poaching.

Wildlife trafficking generates more than $8 billion, annually. I am optimistic that a comprehensive and appropriately resourced approach to address the drivers of trafficking will help us turn the corner.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, most of us, even my friends across the aisle, agree that climate change is a real global threat. Our military also believes this.

Prohibiting United States contributions to the multilaterals that combat climate change is a shortsighted, harmful policy that does not prepare our country to face this threat.

I cannot emphasize enough that climate change is exacerbating the root causes of conflict. We will see an increasing demand on our humanitarian and other resources if we don't address it now.

We cannot afford to stand idly by while others address climate change, nor will we simply avoid its impact. We already feel its effects. This is precisely why we should not be alienating multilateral partners who want to join us in the fight.

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

Mr. Chair, in times of crisis, we seek to join forces with multilateral partners to help mitigate and recover from damage, and our approach to combating climate change should be no different.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, while this amendment does not have a budgetary effect, I would like to thank the gentleman for raising such an important issue.

The International Outfall Interceptor pipeline is long overdue for repair. When wastewater leaks from the pipeline, it poses a severe public health risk and a threat to southern Arizona's regional economy and drinking water.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change brings together critical multilateral partners so the United States does not have to combat climate change alone. By supporting the UNFCCC, we are signaling to the world that we are committed and serious about combating this threat.

The United States has been a party to the UNFCCC since 1992. As chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, I will never support efforts that jeopardize our treaty-based obligations, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the United States must remain committed to our global partners because climate change just cannot be fought alone.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, while this amendment does not have a budgetary effect, I would like to thank my friend for raising such an important issue.

The progress made in Armenia's transition to democracy and the Velvet Revolution is a refreshing development at a time when so many other countries are headed in the opposite direction. This account funds critical programs to counter Russian aggression and influence in Europe and Eurasia and support to key partners like Ukraine and Georgia. I am prepared to work to provide the necessary resources to encourage continued progress in Armenia, and I am willing to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend for bringing this issue to our attention.

The committee takes seriously oversight of taxpayer dollars. I concur with the gentlewoman's remarks. The SIGAR continues to serve American taxpayers by reporting on instances of waste, fraud, and abuse in Afghanistan.

The language included in the House report was not intended to suggest that the committee expects or is directing SIGAR to cease operations by September 30, 2021. Rather, the requirement in the House report is for SIGAR to provide a plan on its future state considering the administration's proposing drawdown in Afghanistan.

We must protect American taxpayer funds from waste, fraud, and abuse. I look forward to working with SIGAR on effectively achieving this important mission as the U.S. engagement with Afghanistan continues to evolve.

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