Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Gosar for his leadership on this and other issues in the Congressional Western Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, mining in the Superior National Forest, where these leases are located, has previously been authorized by Congress on several occasions. First in 1950, and again in 1978. With that bill--the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act-- Congress established a compromise in which mining was prohibited within the 1.1 million acre Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but specifically authorized in the Superior National Forest. Likewise, U.S. Forest Service plans for these areas have identified mining in these Superior Forest locations as a ``desired condition.'' Despite this longstanding precedent, in December of 2016, the Obama administration abruptly canceled mining leases that have been held and renewed for decades in northern Minnesota. Then in January, the day before leaving office, President Obama signed off on a mineral withdrawal for an area spanning 425,000 acres, including 95,000 acres of State school trust fund lands. There is a torrent of misinformation surrounding this bill, with alarmist groups begging that we ``save the Boundary Waters.'' Mr. Speaker, the Boundary Waters were saved in 1978. The low-impact mining arrangements that these mining leases entail do not endanger the Boundary Waters, which is itself protected by a significant buffer as well. The bill reiterates--redundantly, I will add, but in order to make it crystal clear--that mining is prohibited in the Boundary Waters and the surrounding buffer. To say otherwise is a blatant falsehood. A few other facts that you won't hear from alarmists but that deserve to be said: this bill retains the full protections enshrined across the array of environmental laws and regulations which apply to mine leasing, permitting, and operation. The most notable in this case are the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--and the Clean Water Act, which still apply, in full. But the fact is that this bill is not about removing environmental protections, as some may have said. Rather, what about when you don't actually remove any? Rather, what initiated this situation is an arbitrary overreach by the Obama administration at the last minute. It was looking to score political points on its way out the door by taking the near- unprecedented action of initiating a full mineral withdrawal. That was undemocratic, and the huge support that this bill and mining in general enjoys in Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, where the Superior Forest is located, is proof positive. But Article IV of the Constitution vests Congress with authority over public lands, and it is now up to us to act. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this chance to clear the air on some of the misconceptions and falsehoods that have been tarnishing this bill. It really is unfortunate that commonsense, local issues like this one are being dragged into a national partisan brawl. Nevertheless, I hope my colleagues are able to see through the deception, recognize the clear benefits of mining in Minnesota, and vote ``yes'' on this important bill. Finally, I would like to share some comments from the Associated General Contractors of Minnesota, who noted that ``H.R. 3905 changes no environmental review processes, relaxes no environmental standards, and specifically restates Congress' prohibition on any mining activity in the BWCAW and the surrounding protective buffer.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record their full letter. Associated General Contractors of Minnesota, November 22, 2017. Dear Congressman Walz: On behalf of the Associated General Contractors of Minnesota and our over 400 member firms, I am writing to urge your support for H.R. 3905, the ``Minnesota's Economic Rights (MINER) in the Superior National Forest Act,'' bipartisan legislation sponsored by Cong. Tom Emmer (MN-6th) and cosponsored by Cong. Collin Peterson (MN-7th), Cong. Jason Lewis (MN-2nd) and Cong. Paul Gosar (AZ-4th). H.R. 3905 is currently on the agenda of the House Rules Committee, on a path for House floor action in the coming weeks. In 1950, Congress took action to make land available for mineral exploration and development within the Superior National Forest (SNF) within the Iron Range region in Northeast Minnesota. In 1978, Congress prohibited mining within the region's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) and an adjacent protective buffer zone, while reaffirming that mining should be allowed and promoted in the remaining area of the SNF. H.R. 3905 aims to correct the injustices being thrust upon the Iron Range by requiring congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, as well as providing for the renewal of certain mineral leases and ensuring future leases in the area remain valid and renewed as outlined by current law. Moreover, H.R. 3905 changes no environmental review processes, relaxes no environmental standards, and specifically restates Congress' prohibition on any mining activity in the BWCAW and surrounding protective buffer. H.R. 3905 would reaffirm long-standing Congressional intent in the management and development of critical minerals in Minnesota, eliminate bureaucratic delays in developing environmentally-responsible mine projects proposals, and restore the promise of future job growth and economic opportunity to an economically distressed region of the state. We strongly urge your vote in support of H.R. 3905. Thank you for your support of mining in Minnesota and the thousands of good paying jobs that are sustained through safe and effective management of these natural resources. Sincerely, Tim Worke,

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those words. It is great that we have been hearing today from Representatives from all over the United States: from North Carolina on the Atlantic Coast in Georgia to California on the Pacific Coast, from Michigan on our Northern border to Texas on our Southern border. And we have been hearing America speak tonight, so I think that is very special. Now, there are some who would prefer to gloss over the vital role that the Bible has had in the founding of our Nation and the implementation of this unique form of government, but none of our Founding Fathers were perfect. Indeed, there are times in our Nation's history when Biblical principles were not acted upon. Yet, listen to what President Harry Truman said during his address to the Attorney General's conference on law enforcement problems: ``The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. ``If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government, which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.'' Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor, and it has been a pleasure to commemorate National Bible Week this evening. As I said a moment ago, we heard from colleagues from all over the United States. I am grateful to these colleagues who have joined me to honor the Word of God. I am also thankful to the National Bible Association for their vision for National Bible Week and for their encouragement for our efforts today. Mr. Speaker, the prophet Isaiah, thousands of years ago, wrote: ``The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of our God endures forever.'' How true. Civilizations have risen and fallen in those thousands of years since that was said, generations have come and gone, yet here today on November 14, 2017, we are still celebrating the enduring Word of God. We celebrate National Bible Week. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to come to the House floor tonight to celebrate National Bible Week. This is an opportunity, for the next hour, to celebrate the tremendous influence of the Bible on the freedoms we enjoy today in America. We are truly blessed to live in a nation where we are free to worship and read the Holy Scriptures without fear of persecution. There are many places throughout the world, unfortunately, where such freedoms do not exist. Americans have the right, under our wonderful system of government, to respect and study the Bible, or any other system of belief, if they so choose, or even no belief at all. That is the beauty of the American way, and I believe it is founded and goes back to the Bible. In 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared the week of Thanksgiving to be National Bible Week. Every U.S. President since has followed this tradition by declaring this time of year to be National Bible Week. The National Bible Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have designated the specific days of November 12 through 18 of this year as National Bible Week. This is the week set aside to recognize the Bible as a foundational building block of Western civilization, the Judeo-Christian heritage, and the legacy that motivated and shaped the founding of the United States. In this hour, we will hear from Members of Congress from various faith traditions and denominations speak about what the Bible means to them and what it means to the country. We are here, in keeping with tradition, to recognize National Bible Week. Mr. Speaker, I am just going to speak for a couple of moments about my own personal experience and then turn it over to some Members who want to share some thoughts that I think bear worth listening to. When I was a freshman at the University of Kansas four decades ago, someone asked me if I knew what the Bible was about. I said, yes, I knew what it was all about. But I realized that my answer was actually pretty presumptuous because I had never actually read any of it. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this might be true for others who might be listening tonight. The only honest thing I could do at that point was to read the Bible for myself. I started by reading the Gospel of John in the New Testament. When I read it, I discovered that I hadn't known at all what the Bible was about. In that Gospel, Jesus says: ``I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.'' And I ended up discovering a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who became my Lord and Savior. Mr. Speaker, this is what I know from personal experience. It is better to read the Bible for one's self and not just to take someone else's word for what is in it. For me, it made all of the difference in the world. My life has been totally different since then as a result. As King David says in the Psalms: ``The unfolding of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.'' As we celebrate National Bible Week, we remember the importance of faith in both our private and public lives. We recognize the Bible's powerful message of hope. We cherish the wisdom of the Bible, and we thank God for providing this Holy Book that has truly been, in the words of the Scripture, ``a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.'' Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his words and for focusing our attention on the U.S. Constitution and some other great things, as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes). He won a special election and is one of our most recently elected and newest Members of Congress. I look forward to seeing him doing good things here for a long time to come.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his wonderful thoughts. He quoted some of the Presidents in our great country's history. I have two more quotes along with that same line. The gentleman mentioned Ronald Reagan, ``The Gipper.'' In his own National Bible Week declaration, he wrote when he was in office: ``When I took the oath of office, I requested the Bible be open to 2 Chronicles 7:14, which reads: `If My people, which are called by My name shall humble themselves, pray, seek My face, and turn from wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven and forgive their sin and heal their land.' '' The President said: ``This passage expresses my hope for the future of this Nation and the world.'' One last quote along this line. President Abraham Lincoln once said: ``I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), who is my good friend.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her heartfelt remarks. Many of the early American settlers came to the New World with the express purpose of following the Bible according to the convictions of their own consciences. One of the first acts of Congress during the tumultuous beginning of our Nation was the authorization of an American-published Bible. The war with the British had cut off the supply of any Bibles from England. Our Founding Fathers understood how important it was for the American people to have Bibles, so, in 1782, Congress reviewed, approved, and authorized the first known English language Bible to be printed in America. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to mention something about fulfilled prophesy. This is one of the reasons why we can believe in and trust the Bible. People come here to Congress with all different kinds of backgrounds, including pastors. This diversity of background adds a valuable thread of experience and thought that helps us all. One reason many people respect the Bible is that so many prophesies for telling future events have come true exactly as foretold. In the Old Testament, there are many predictions that were given to prove that, if a speaker were divinely inspired, those things that he predicted would come true; it would validate the words of that prophet. The Book of Daniel, for instance, contains scores of detailed prophesies that were literally fulfilled. Skeptics have fallen back to the position that Daniel must have been written after the fact and is, therefore, not being honest. In fact, the Book of Daniel is found in its entirety in the Greek's Septuagint and partially in the Dead Sea Scrolls, both of which we know predated the events that were prophesied. That means that the critics of the dating of the Book of Daniel are the ones who are not being honest. The rise and fall of empires, the capture and destruction of cities, the destiny of kings all were prophesied in minute detail. Archeology and history have literally confirmed hundreds of such prophesies as having come true. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri for her wise words and thought-provoking words. I yield to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for being here tonight and for those thought-provoking and very well- intended words. As our next speaker comes to the podium, let me mention the issue of archaeology. Archaeology is one of the reasons why we can have trust in that what the Bible says is true. There are many archaeological discoveries which have validated Biblical accounts, giving trustworthiness to the Bible that we acknowledge and commemorate during this National Bible Week. Time and time again, archaeology has shown that Biblical personalities, locations, and events actually existed in time and space. Claims by critics that a Biblical statement was simply made up have been debunked by later archaeological studies more times than we can say. Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck has said: ``It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted or contradicted a Biblical reference.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for his sincere words. When National Bible Week was started in 1941, even though that has only been 76 years, the Bible itself has been celebrated by Americans since the beginning of our country--in fact, before we were a country. Our Presidents have been very vocal in their acknowledgment of the Bible and the DNA of who we are as Americans. Several have been quoted. Listen to what Civil War hero Ulysses Grant gave as advice to Sunday school children: ``Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties; write its precepts on your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book we are indebted for the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future.'' Then he finished with this quote from the Bible: ``Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those profound and heartfelt words that he has just shared with us. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his great work throughout this whole process leading the committee and getting this to the finish line, but we need to push it over the finish line. Mr. Speaker, for 56 years, this bill has been the primary way in which Congress executes its Article I constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. This year's bill finally begins to rebuild our military after a half decade of cuts which slashed nearly one-quarter of the defense budget. For 6 years, we have just been barely getting by: cutting resources as the world becomes more dangerous, asking more and more of those who serve, and putting off tough choices. We are at a key decision point. This bill will continue to save billions of taxpayer dollars while cutting wasteful bureaucracy and streamlining acquisition, but it will also strengthen missile defense and, in many ways, make our military more focused on its core mission of preparing to fight and win wars. There are so many good things in the bill, I can't go over all of them. I sincerely ask my fellow Members to support this NDAA.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, sponsored by the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers). This bill simply intends to bring hydropower permitting into the 21st century by improving efficiency, accountability, and transparency within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and also reducing Federal duplication. Hydropower is a reliable and emissions-free source of electricity that accounts for much of the Nation's total renewable electricity generation. In fact, only 3 percent of existing dams in the United States produce hydroelectricity. This illustrates the vast opportunity in this country for new hydropower generation. In the Water, Power, and Oceans Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee which I chair, we have spent much of this Congress crafting and advancing legislation to capitalize on these opportunities. Legislation such as my bill, the Bureau of Reclamation Pumped Storage Hydropower Development Act, is intended to promote pumped storage hydropower development at existing reclamation facilities. Mrs. McMorris Rodgers' bill in front of us today goes hand in hand with those efforts. Even our friends across the aisle agree with our efforts to promote hydropower development. At a May oversight hearing in my subcommittee on the challenges facing hydropower, committee Democrats helpfully suggested that we should find ways to retrofit all nonpowered Federal facilities with hydropower. We should all agree that improving the permitting and approval process for these facilities would be the easiest way to achieve this goal. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers again for sponsoring this critical piece of legislation. She has been and continues to be a champion supporter of hydropower. Just last month, my subcommittee considered another bill authored by the Congresswoman-- H.R. 3144--that looks to provide certainty and reliability to several Federal hydropower projects producing electricity in the Federal Columbia River Power System that have been mired in third-party litigation, questionable and expensive judicial edicts, and onerous Federal regulations.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I believe Americans are compassionate people. I also believe Americans are angered by injustice, and I know Americans are eager to protect the defenseless. In a past hearing before the Judiciary Committee on this bill, Dr. Maureen Condic said in her testimony: ``Imposing pain on any pain- capable living creature is cruelty. And ignoring the pain experienced by another human individual for any reason is barbaric.'' H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, gives us a chance to choose compassion by preventing abortions from taking place if the child is 20 weeks or older. Science proves that not only can these children feel pain, but since their pain inhibitors are undeveloped, they feel pain even more intensely than we can. In Dr. Condic's words: ``We simply have to decide whether we will choose to ignore the pain of the fetus or not.'' Mr. Speaker, I am choosing not to ignore their pain. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this compassionate bill.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment 191 to the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill. This amendment prohibits funds from being used to issue a license relating to the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The JCPOA allowed for the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran Air, but it is an Iranian airline that the Treasury Department designated in 2013 for providing material, support, and services to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. What changed in those 3 years from that designation to the signing of the JCPOA? Congress has yet to see a report of good behavior on the part of the Iranians. The Ayatollahs continue to call America the ``Big Satan.'' The sales of these aircraft must be stopped so long as the Iranians continue to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism. I thank Representative Roskam for his leadership on this issue and hope that it passes with unanimous support.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that statement. I will say to the gentlewoman from Minnesota that I would love to work with her on this. I know that, in the Natural Resources Committee, we are going to be looking at some of the different facets of the Endangered Species Act, and I hope we can continue this dialogue. This amendment seeks to make the agency comply with the law. That provision is in there for a reason, so let's enforce what Congress, in its wisdom, put into the law many years ago. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following current law, specifically section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, by conducting a review of all threatened and endangered plants and wildlife at least once every 5 years. Time after time, the Federal Government refuses to follow the original intent of the Endangered Species Act. The government designates land as critical habitat despite not meeting the ESA definition, and the government consistently refuses to remove plants and animals from threatened or endangered status even when these species are flourishing and are no longer in need of ESA protections. But you may ask yourself: How does the government know when the species should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? How does the government know if a species is recovering? The answer can be found in the ESA and its requirement that the Federal Government review all plants or species that are currently listed as endangered or threatened every 5 years. Under the act, the purpose of a 5-year review is to ensure that threatened or endangered species have the appropriate level of protection. The reviews assess each threatened and endangered species to determine whether its status has changed since the time of its listing or its last status review and whether its status should be changed or maintained. Because the act grants extensive protection to a species, including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, it makes sense to regularly verify if a plant or animal is being properly classified or should be delisted. Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has acknowledged that it has neglected its responsibility to conduct the required reviews for hundreds of listed species. By enforcing the 5-year review--which is in the law--my amendment will ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best available and most current scientific information in implementing its responsibilities under that act, including incorporating new information through public comment and assessing ongoing conservation efforts. Now, I am sure you will hear the ranking member say that the problem is that there is simply not enough money to comply with the law, but the reality is that megasettlements and overzealous regulators have caused the number of species listed under the endangered species list to balloon to unmanageable levels. For the recovery of a threatened or endangered species or plant to be successful, we must prioritize our limited resources to where they are most critically needed. I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service complies with the ESA and that we do not provide money in this bill that would violate current law. This exact amendment was added to the fiscal year '16 Interior Appropriations bill by voice vote and was added to the fiscal year '17 bill by a bipartisan rollcall vote. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support this amendment for the third time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with a body approximately 3 inches long, a 4-to 6-inch-long tail, and large hind feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives primarily in streamside ecosystems along the foothills of southeastern Wyoming south to Colorado Springs, in my district, along the eastern ridge of the Front Range of Colorado. To evade predators, the mouse can jump, like a miniature kangaroo, up to 18 inches high. In 1998, it leaped onto the Endangered Species list, a move that has hindered development from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Wyoming. Among projects that have been affected: the Jeffco Parkway southeast of Rocky Flats, an expansion of Chatfield Reservoir, and housing developments in El Paso County along tributaries of Monument Creek. Builders, landowners, and local governments in affected areas have incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of this mouse. Protecting the Preble's mouse has even been placed ahead of protecting human life and property. On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event that damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and public works projects. As a result of the Preble's mouse being listed as an endangered species, many restoration projects were delayed as Colorado sought a waiver. In fact, FEMA was so concerned that they sent out a notice that stated: ``Legally required review may cause some delay in projects undertaken in the Preble's mouse habitat.'' It went on to warn that ``local officials who proceed with projects without adhering to environmental laws risk fine and could lose Federal funding for their projects.'' While a waiver was essentially granted, the scientific evidence simply does not justify these delays or the millions of dollars in taxpayer money that go toward protecting a mouse that is actually part of a larger group that roams throughout half of the North American continent. Scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's mouse does not warrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all and is actually related to the Bear Lodge jumping mouse. Even the scientist that originally classified this mouse as a subspecies has since recanted his work and agrees that the Preble's mouse subspecies designation is no longer defensible. Moreover, the Preble's mouse has a low conservation parity score. What that means is that hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on protection efforts that could have and should have been spent on other more sensitive species. My amendment would correct this injustice that has been caused by the inaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. It would refocus U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that have been thoroughly scientifically vetted and that should be managed by the Endangered Species Act. This exact amendment was added to the fiscal year '16 Interior Appropriations bill by voice vote and was added to the fiscal year '17 bill by a bipartisan rollcall vote. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for a third time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying there is one other sort of a temporary element in this whole episode. And that is when you go from Colorado into Wyoming, the mouse is no longer threatened or endangered. There is a political boundary line between the two States. In its wisdom, the Fish and Wildlife Service says that if you go north far enough across the State line, it is no longer threatened or endangered. There is an element of arbitrariness that I think also calls into question why this was ever done in the first place. Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I also applaud the leadership of Representative Gaetz on this important amendment No. 113 to the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill. This commonsense amendment prohibits American taxpayer dollars from supporting Palestinian elementary schools that are named for Palestinian terrorists who have murdered innocent human beings. Many of these terrorists have murdered children who are no different than the very children in the schools named after them. Dalal Mughrabi, as was mentioned earlier, a Palestinian terrorist, blew herself up on a bus in 1978, killing 37 Israelis, including 13 children. Her name is plastered on countless elementary schools, summer camps, and memorials around Palestinian Authority-controlled territories in Israel. I applaud Denmark, Norway, and other countries that have frozen funds from U.N.-affiliated Palestinian organizations that name their buildings after terrorists like Dalal Mughrabi. The United States Congress should have undivided moral clarity on this issue in this year's appropriations bill. We cannot use taxpayer dollars to fund Palestinian incitement to murder innocents, and that is why I introduced legislation to stop sending American aid to the Palestinian Authority until they end their practice of financially supporting terrorists and the families of terrorists. We must end U.S. contributions to the PA's campaign of incitement wherever we find it. I thank Mr. Gaetz for offering this important amendment, and I hope it passes with unanimous support, as it should.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Congresswoman Ros- Lehtinen's amendment No. 110 to the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) for taking leadership on this as well. This amendment would prohibit funds from contributing to a number of United Nations agencies that endlessly single out our ally, the State of Israel, for poor treatment. There are numerous issues with these agencies, but as for UNRWA, the very size of the agency is an underlying problem. UNRWA was created to address the short-term needs of refugees, but it has perpetuated the problem. As of July 1, 2014, UNRWA had 30,252 employees for 5\1/2\ million registered persons in a number of Middle Eastern countries and territories, compared to the U.N. High Commission for Refugees staff of 7,700 in 2013, which provides support for 42.9 million refugees in more than 100 countries. The proportion is just way out of scale when you compare those kinds of agencies. UNRWA is out of control. Additionally, UNRWA's grounds have been used to store rockets. Israel has been fired upon from UNRWA facilities, and UNRWA has employed individuals affiliated with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. These are just a few examples of how U.N. agencies have mismanaged funds. It is unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars contribute to this problem. I thank the Congressman and Congresswoman for offering this important amendment, and I hope that my colleagues support it so that the United Nations can get to helping individuals who need it the most.