Donald Beyer

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, title XIV of this bill would give States and territories the authority to override Federal fishing rules in coastal waters of national parks, national marine sanctuaries, and some marine national monuments. This is simply not right. Places like Biscayne National Park, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monument belong to all Americans, not just to the fishing interests in Florida, Hawaii, and American Samoa. Protection of these special ocean places has overwhelming public support and is recognized by the scientific community as critical to making fisheries more productive. What is more, most of these areas do not even preclude fishing. California's national marine sanctuaries generate more than $140 million a year in economic impact from commercial fishing. Recreational anglers spend more than $100 million a year on fishing in the Florida Keys. I attended the public hearing in Homestead, Florida, last year on closing a very small part--less than 6 percent--of Biscayne National Bay for a marine national monument simply to bring the fish back, many fish that fishermen there hadn't seen in years. But fishing is not the only important use of these waters. Whale watching, snorkeling, scuba diving, and scientific research all generate enormous benefits, not to mention the impact that protecting coral reefs and other diverse productive habitats has on stabilizing our oceans and our fisheries in the face of global warming. Sometimes it is necessary to protect certain areas of the ocean, particularly those that have been over-fished in the past or are particularly sensitive to fishing impacts, if we want to support a wide variety of uses and keep our oceans healthy. Science shows that this benefits fishermen in the long run as well. My amendment is simple. It strikes title XIV of H.R. 2406 and leaves fishery management decisions in the waters of marine parks, sanctuaries, and monuments up to the Federal agencies charged with managing these resources in trust for all Americans. We would never think of allowing Wyoming to set hunting rules for Yellowstone, but without this amendment, this bill would allow the same thing to happen for our ocean parks that are every bit as magnificent. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, all I need is just a few seconds to point out to my friend from California that many of the things that he objects to are irrelevant and not germane to this amendment. We are not asking for background checks. We are certainly not setting up a structure where lawyers can sue. We are simply asking for a policy or notice to be in place, as many other policies and notices are in place at gun shooting ranges around the country, that recognize that Federal law prohibits certain people, some dangerous people from possessing or using firearms in the United States, and especially the public shooting range that is being funded by the Federal Government under Pittman- Robertson. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, with respect for my friend from Virginia, there is nothing in the amendment that suggests or requires background checks for people wanting to use public shooting ranges--in fact, just the opposite. All we are asking is that there be a policy or a notice saying, if you are otherwise prohibited from using weapons under Federal law, that you can't practice, hone your shooting skills on these ranges. Mr. Wittman and I both come from Virginia, where we have six target ranges managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Those six public target ranges have 17 rules. These rules include: use paper targets only; organized competitive shooting is prohibited; use of unauthorized target materials, such as cans, bottles, clay birds is prohibited. None of these is onerous. All we are asking is for an 18th rule that says, if you are otherwise prohibited from using a gun under Federal law, then you can't use it at the target range. We are not trying to extend background checks to everyone. That is not what this says. All we are trying to do is make sure that people who can't otherwise have possession of a gun don't go to a target range, rent one, and practice. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, H.R. 2406 would increase Federal assistance made available in the Pittman-Robertson Act for construction, operations, and maintenance of recreational shooting ranges on public lands. I, myself, am an avid outdoorsman and a big proponent of recreational activities, and I understand the value of recreational shooting. However, I believe that with these privileges come certain responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to ensure that we are not creating a situation where dangerous people are allowed to hone their shooting skills on the taxpayers' dime. My amendment today simply says, if you operate a public shooting range and if you receive Federal assistance by way of this act, then you must have a policy, a notice of some sort in place stating that no person who is prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm is allowed to use the shooting range. Nothing in this amendment creates new gun laws. Nothing in this amendment would infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners. Nothing in this amendment is onerous in any way. We are simply saying that the Federal Government should not be in the business of subsidizing dangerous people improving their marksmanship or creating spaces around guns where convicted felons feel like they can operate outside the law and endanger law-abiding sportsmen and -women. The Federal Government has an obligation to keep people safe. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I simply take a minute. Since we have no amendments on leaded bullets or lead in fishing, this may be the only time it is germane to clear up an issue from our debate yesterday evening. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), my good friend, mentioned about at shooting ranges, especially, bullets often end up back in the ground. I just wanted to clarify, and let me quote from the Science and Environmental Health Network, that in the environment many chemicals are degraded by sunlight, destroyed through reactions with other environmental substances or metabolized by naturally occurring bacteria. Some chemicals, however, have features that enable them to resist environmental degradation. They are classified as persistent and can accumulate in soils and aquatic environments. Metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic are always persistent since they are basic elements and cannot be further broken down and destroyed in the environment. Lead contamination of air, soil, or drinking water can ultimately result in significant exposures in fetuses, infants, and children, resulting in impaired brain development. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to get that on the record that the lead is not going to degrade once it hits the soil during hunting or fishing. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would weaken current law, undermine State laws concerning the carrying of firearms, and harm the efforts of law enforcement to take action against illegal firearms trafficking. Current law applies only to the transportation of a firearm in a motor vehicle. This bill would expand current law to allow a person to transport a gun outside a motor vehicle so long as the firearm is unloaded and locked in a container or is secured with a safety device. This would allow a person to walk down the street with an unloaded gun as long as the gun had a trigger lock on it, regardless of the State's laws on carrying guns in public. This amendment would also allow guns on trains, cable cars, and trollies so long as the guns are unloaded and locked, regardless of State or local laws. This is because trains, cable cars, and trollies are not considered to be motor vehicles under the applicable Federal definition. Current Federal law gives State governments the authority over firearms in these forms of transportation, but the Griffith amendment would remove that authority. The proposed amendment would also have a negative impact on our law enforcement officers' ability to enforce our gun laws. Specifically, this amendment would make it more difficult for officers to investigate suspected gun traffickers and people who illegally carry weapons. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Police Foundation. Statement of the Police Foundation Regarding Proposed Amendment to the Sportsman's Bill (HR 2406), February 25, 2016 The Police Foundation expresses its grave concerns with a proposed amendment to the Sportsman's Bill (HR 2406), by Congressman Morgan Griffith from Virginia, which will have a chilling effect on enforcement of illegal gun possession and other gun crimes. We strongly oppose the amendment's provision that could make law enforcement agencies liable for investigative stops and detentions of armed subjects. Further, the proposed amendment will drastically undermine states' concealed carry licensing laws. States must be able to determine their own concealed carry statutes and regulations that fit the values and enhance the safety of their communities and constituents. At a time when many cities and counties have just witnessed 2015 come to an end with increased homicides and non-fatal shootings, Congress should strengthen, not weaken enforcement of our nation's gun laws. We call on Members of Congress to support law enforcement officers as they perform the most dangerous job of confronting shooters and other armed criminals, and to uphold state and local efforts to make communities safer. We urge Members of Congress to oppose the proposed amendment.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in ambivalent opposition to my friend's amendment.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, in closing, I would like to thank the co-chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Wittman and Mr. Walz, for putting this together. I clearly resist the idea that our opposition comes from the radical left. The 37 million hunters and fishermen out there are not Democrats. They are not Republicans. They are both. They are not conservative or liberal. They represent all Americans. Representative McClintock and Chairman Bishop talked about the 928,000 acres, BLM and Forest Service, which are closed now. I very much respect that that seems like a big number and that perhaps there should be movement on that. I think the question is: Should those decisions be made by State and local land managers or moved to Washington, D.C., to the head of the Forest Service, to the head of BLM? I think it is weird that, in this body, we are talking about moving things to Washington for the decision to be made. In fact, in the hearing we had on Chairman Bishop's Land and Water Conservation Fund reauthorization, much of it was about moving the decisionmaking back to States and local governments. Perhaps there is a way to think about opening up these 928,000 acres with more input from State and local governments in the time to come. On ivory and trafficking, Representative Wittman and I had a good conversation about how we really don't want it to address heirlooms that have been in the family for generations. That is not what the Obama rule is trying to do. We are looking at preventing trafficking. Every 15 minutes every day, an elephant is killed. I would love to explore the economic argument that somehow this ivory rule will make African elephants more endangered. What we are trying to do is cut off demand. Finally, Majority Whip Scalise talked about being hostile to hunting and fishing. I do think it is probably silly to think of the Army Corps of Engineers as a radical leftist organization. We want them to open the lands appropriately, but this is probably not the legislation to do it. I think many of these provisions will likely be dead on arrival in the Senate. If it passes, as it is likely to do with the majority, I am looking forward to working with Representative Wittman, Representative Walz, and others to get a good, bipartisan bill at the end of the day that we can all support for the hunters and fishermen of the United States. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I inquire how much time the minority side has remaining.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 2406, with great respect for my friend, the gentleman from Virginia. I respect very much what Representative Wittman and others are trying to do. The best I can do to describe H.R. 2406 is a missed opportunity. Many of the titles in the bill are inoffensive, but others would significantly hinder conservation efforts that benefit hunters, anglers, and other lovers of the outdoors. I myself am an avid hiker, Madam Chair. I just completed 25 miles on the Appalachian Trail in the snow last week in Representative Goodlatte's district. I am up to 1,288 miles on the Appalachian Trail. I would love to see conservation efforts that protect the long-term legacy of the Appalachian Trail like the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Simply put, this bill doesn't include the sporting community's top legislative priorities. The Natural Resources Committee Democrats have been clear from the beginning that we are open to discussions that could lead to compromise legislation--legislation that would indeed include many of the pieces of this bill, but also additional titles that would earn it broad bipartisan support. In a letter several days ago, Ranking Member Grijalva wrote to the chair expressing optimism that a noncontroversial outcome could still be achieved and requesting negotiations to produce a bill that would pass the House without opposition. Unfortunately, this request was denied. So I would love to have this bill on the suspension calendar, but not on the suspension calendar I would like to detail nine specific objections. Objection 1, this bill omits the top two priorities of the outdoors community, the permit reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the permit reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. LWCF has provided funding to help protect some of Virginia's most special places: the Rappahannock River Valley, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Historic District, and the Appalachian Trail. Studies have shown that for every dollar of LWCF invested, there is a $4 return to communities. The broader outdoor recreation conservation economy is responsible for more than $600 billion in consumer spending every year. This is one of the Nation's premier programs. Over the years, LWCF has been responsible for more than 40,000 State and local outdoor recreation projects: playgrounds, parks, refuges, and baseball fields. There is strong bipartisan support. I believe 88 percent of Americans want Congress to preserve it. So now is the perfect opportunity to do that. We have had hearings in the Committee on Natural Resources on Representative Chairman Bishop's bill. We need hearings on Representative Grijalva's H.R. 1814, which has more than 200 bipartisan cosponsors. This bill was the perfect opportunity to include that bill. It was also the perfect opportunity to do the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, NAWCA. It is a voluntary, nonregulatory conservation program. Farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners support the program, and every project is voluntary. It fosters conservation efforts by the non-Federal sector. Over the years, nearly 5,000 corporate, small business, nonprofit, State, and local entities have tripled NAWCA dollars by providing matching funds. The 50 State wildlife agencies are all active partners in it, and demand for NAWCA continues to exceed available funds. So this was debated and thoroughly vetted in the 112th and the 113th Congresses. It was unanimously reauthorized by Congress in 2006, and this was a great vehicle to do that. Objection 2, title X, I believe, which is the ivory title, this would gut the administration's proposed ivory rule. Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seized a 1-ton stockpile of illegal elephant ivory, most of which was seized from a Philadelphia antique dealer named Victor Gordon. For at least 9 years, Gordon imported and sold ivory from freshly killed African elephants in violation of U.S. law and the laws of the countries where the elephants were poached and the ivory was stolen. While a ton of ivory was confiscated, there is no way to know how much Gordon had sold during the previous decade or where it is now. How did he get away with it for so long? The ivory was doctored so it looked old enough to pass through a loophole in enforcement of the African Elephant Conservation Act, a law that was passed by us in 1989 to end the commercial import and export of ivory. The Obama administration's proposed ivory rule would close that loophole and prevent U.S. citizens from being involved--knowingly or unknowingly--in elephant poaching and the trafficking crisis. Ending the commercial ivory trade does not mean taking away the people's musical instruments, ivory-handled pistols, or family heirlooms. Museum collections, scientific specimens, and sport-hunted trophies will also be allowed to move freely. Neither the Fish and Wildlife Service's direct order nor the forthcoming Endangered Species Act rule restrict possession or transport within the United States, and transport into and out of the country will still be allowed with the appropriate documentation. Further, items up to 200 grams--7 ounces--of ivory can still be bought and sold, and that is more ivory than is in any piano or ivory- gripped pistol. What the rule will do is stop profiteering off elephant parts in this country. As long as ivory has monetary value, people will kill elephants to get it. Eliminating value will eliminate demand, and it is a necessary component of the broader U.S. strategy to reduce wildlife poaching and trafficking. I am disappointed that Ranking Member Grijalva's amendment to strike ivory was not made in order in the Rules Committee, but I understand no one wanting to vote on this floor to be in favor of killing more elephants. Regardless, the inclusion of that provision in this bill before us today shows that somehow we are unaware or unconcerned with the fact that poachers are slaughtering nearly 100 African elephants a day. Objection 3, Madam Chair, is section 302 of SHARE Act that would allow polar bear trophies. It creates a loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow a handful of wealthy trophy hunters to import polar bear trophies into the U.S. in defiance of current law. If passed, this will be the fourth major carve-out by Congress since 1994 for Americans who have hunted polar bears in Canada. Although the number of polar bears affected by this loophole will be relatively small, the cumulative effect of the carve-outs has been detrimental to an imperiled species. And these trophy hunters were not caught up in government bureaucracy or red tape. All the individuals hunted the bears after the George W. Bush administration proposed the species for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act despite repeated warnings from government agencies, hunting groups, and the conservation community that the trophies could face a bar on importation and that these hunters were hunting at their own risk. Granting this request would create a dangerous precedent by encouraging hunters to race for trophies the moment any species is considered for listing when such species most need protection, knowing they can rely on Congress later to let them import their trophies. Objection 4, the provision gives States the veto power on Federal fishing management and national marine parks, sanctuaries, and monuments. I flew to Homestead, Florida, this past spring, Madam Chair, for their public hearing on the Biscayne Bay, a national marine that was set aside by the park service. It was a small, small percentage of the total Federal lands and waters. About half the fishermen there were for it and half the fishermen were against it, but it missed the fact that these were not State waters and that we in Congress have a responsibility to the entire Nation, not just for any one county or one region. Our oceans cover more than 70 percent of the Earth, and 99 percent of that water is open to fishing, but in some cases science shows that we must protect certain areas. We all want more people to have more fishing opportunities, but the fish have to be there. I was impressed by something the director of NOAA told me a couple years ago, that the fishing marine reserves in the Pacific set aside by George W. Bush, you can now see them from space because the fish have recovered so quickly within those reserves, that the fishing vessels outline the perimeter of the reserve, which you can see from 100 miles away. Objection 5, title 15 bars the Forest Service from restricting dog deer hunting on certain national forest lands in Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The aim is to allow for a continued hunting of deer with dogs, which is an extremely controversial practice that pits landowners against hunters. Landowners complained. This didn't come from overzealous environmentalists or Federal regulators. It came from landowner complaints to the Forest Service to ban deer dogging in the Louisiana Kisatchie National Forest. Congress should let expert land managers manage land and other resources valued by all Americans. This decision to ban hunting deer with dogs was necessary to create balance among multiple users of the forest, and Congress should respect that. Objection 6 is title IV that creates the Recreational Lands Self- Defense Act. This bill would actually prohibit the Army from developing or enforcing any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm at recreation areas administered by the Corps of Engineers. It is just hard to believe that we are going to restrict the Army from regulating gun use on Army property. If the Army is in charge of lands management, it should be able to determine whether firearms are appropriate on a site. Army lands abut family homes and other sensitive sites. We should not lightly permit access in places where an accidental shot could wind up in someone's backyard or in a sensitive location. Accidental shots are real. A longtime family friend--a West Point graduate and a retired Army colonel--was sitting at his desk when a bullet, an accidental bullet, came through the window, hit him in the back of the neck, and he is a quadriplegic today. Objection 7 is title IX that changes a successful program, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. On the Natural Resources Committee, we have heard much from the majority, appropriately, about how we need to deal with the incredible infrastructure deferred maintenance backlog that we have on lands that we own. Basically, that we shouldn't buy more until we take care of what we already have. This would allow the existing act to take 100 percent of the land from land transactions and spend it on deferred maintenance. This violates the whole original idea of the act: that we would sell Federal land to get more Federal land back. Furthermore, it makes these expenditures subject to appropriation. So if we bring in X million dollars in land sold, we don't have to buy or even use that X million dollars on new deferred maintenance. It could just go to--wherever. I am disappointed that the bipartisan land-for-land FLTFA version that sportsmen in 165 groups have championed for a decade isn't included in the SHARE Act today. Objection 8 is title VI. Currently over 75 percent of all Federal land is open to hunting and fishing, but title VI deems all Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land open for hunting unless it is closed by the head of the agency through a long closure process. Right now, they can be closed by local land managers. Once again, I find this a little ironic because so much of the theme from the majority, which I respect, is to move decisionmaking back close to the communities that are actually affected. In this case, they are moving it away from the communities and to Washington, D.C., to close these lands. It also undermines the Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Finally, Madam Chair, objection 9 is trapping. The SHARE Act would dramatically expand the use of body-gripping traps on Federal public lands, including in sensitive wilderness areas. The provision takes the step, unprecedented in Federal law, of adding trapping to the definition of hunting, then creating a presumption that all these Federal public lands are open. Millions of acres of land would be open to trapping. Even under current law, roughly 6 million targeted animals are killed in traps every year, according to Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Held in a painful leghold trap, a beaver, a bobcat, a fox, will try desperately to break free in the hours or days until they succumb to dehydration, predators, or death at the hands of trappers. Traps are dangerous and they are indiscriminate in snaring not only targeted areas, but threaten endangered species, pets, or even unsuspecting children and adults. Leghold traps have already been prohibited or severely restricted in nine U.S. States in over 80 countries. Congress should be acting to protect the public, endangered species, and pets from dangerous and indiscriminate body-gripping traps, not expanding their use into additional areas. Really, how can trapping be described as sportsmanlike? Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my colleague and good friend.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I rise to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 3293, the legislation of my friend, Chairman Lamar Smith, the so-called Scientific Research in the National Interest Act. I understand the genesis of this bill: Mr. Smith's dismay at some of the titles of the National Science Foundation's funded research. This bill is the wrong approach to addressing the very occasional misuse of NSF grants, and it represents classic short-term thinking. I am a businessman, and I know of no one in the business community who wants politicians or government to decide business winners or losers. Of course, none of us, Democrat or Republican, believe that politicians should be making science decisions either. I believe Representative Bill Foster is the only Ph.D. scientist in the House, and the rest of us don't qualify. By proclaiming the seven definitions of what science is in the national interest, we politicians are, in fact, deciding what is worthy of scientific research. By the way, no one on this side yet has raised any objections to the transparency or the accountability of the National Science Foundation. That completely mischaracterizes our objections. These standards sound constructive and benign--increased economic activity, advancement of health and welfare, support for the national defense, et cetera--but only one of the seven definitions even mentions science. The last one says for the ``promotion of the progress of science for the United States,'' whatever that means. Where, oh, where is the commitment to basic research, the kind of fundamental research that I know all of us value? Listen to all the funny names that would have sounded especially funny at the time: Would Einstein's 1905 papers on special relativity, on the photoelectric effect, and on Brownian motion even qualify under the seven definitions? How about Niels Bohr's research on quantum mechanics? How about Murray Gell-Mans' work on particle physics in quarks? How about Rosalind Franklin's work on the crystallography of DNA? My college roommate spent 4 years at Berkeley, 1972 to 1976, studying something called Roman spectroscopy. He had no idea what it would do. Today we call them MRIs. That is the whole point of basic research. We don't know where it will lead. We don't know that it is in the national interest. It just adds to our knowledge. On the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, we reveled in the NASA presentation of the Pluto photographs. How does our New Horizons mission to Pluto possibly qualify under the seven definitions of the national interest? I respect that the chair of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee wants the NSF funds expended into legitimate scientific research. I agree. Mr. Smith used the phrase ``demonstrably in the national interest.'' How could we definitely know, when all of basic research is, by definition, long term rather than short term? Let's let the scientists decide and oppose this well-meaning but ill- conceived legislation.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the STREAM Act. We should not willfully delay the stream protection rule. I have seen firsthand the impacts of coal mining, both positive and negative. I spent 9 years visiting the coal counties in Virginia: Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Wise, Russell, and others. When times are good, there are good incomes and nice cars. When times are hard, times like today, when we are not mining much coal mostly because of the abundance of natural gas, then things are pretty sad. When I was Lieutenant Governor of Virginia during the 1990s, mountaintop removal became the most prevalent coal mining technique in central Appalachia. Surely, coal can have a positive impact on local economies. But we also have to look at the impact it has on the environment and the health of these same communities. My good friend, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, has said that these are about the lives of people. Absolutely right. And we have shown callous disregard for the health of the people who live in these communities. The citizens of these same Virginia coal counties have by far the worst health outcomes of anybody in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The cost-benefit analysis, yes, but we are not doing anything to stop coal companies from mining coal or even mountaintop removal. We are just demanding that it be done responsibly. It takes tons of rocks and soil to expose underlying coal seams, but these are placed in valleys, headwater streams filled with all this displaced material. This can have significant impacts on water quality. West Virginia University--not one of those liberal universities in New England--a West Virginia study in 2012 found that mountaintop coal mining has adverse impacts on surface and groundwater quality. The Congressional Research Service, nonpartisan, said, since 1992, almost 1,200 miles of streams were buried by surface coal mining practices. The cumulative effects of such surface coal mining operations include, number one, deforestation, which has been linked to harming the aquatic community; two, accelerated sediment and nutrient transport; and, three, increased algae production. Surface mining has also been responsible for most of the huge flooding in central Appalachia because, when you disturb natural streambeds, cover them with mine spoils, destroy the vegetation, all the topography is different. Virginia Tech has been working with the coal industry for over 30 years to mitigate these effects, to reclaim the streams and lands that have been disturbed, and a lot of progress has been made. But we can and should do all that we can to protect our critical headwater and small streams before the impacts occur. Water monitoring found that Kelly Branch Mine in Wise County, Virginia, dumped toxic pollutant selenium into streams at levels far above the State water quality standards and without a permit to allow such pollution. As a result of a citizen suit, Southern Coal Corp. has since agreed to do the environmental cleanup, but we shouldn't need the lawsuits which too often lead to the bankruptcies of the coal companies. Lawsuits like this make it unsurprising that a group of researchers from West Virginia University--again--and Washington State University published a study in 2011 on the association between exposure to mountaintop removal mining and the increased rate of birth defects in central Appalachia. This again gets back to callous disregard for the people who live in central Appalachia. These people have been paying for the externalized costs of mountaintop removal for far too long, and local communities have been suffering life-threatening health problems and a damaged ecosystem. This is why, with Congressman Lowenthal and Congresswoman Esty, we offered an amendment to ensure that this bill paid attention to the negative health impacts. Unfortunately, the amendment was not made in order. But we can't continue to ignore this. Adjusted for every other factor, overwhelming scientific evidence links the practice of surface coal mining with elevated rates of serious health problems, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary disease, and overall mortality rates are about 20 percent higher in the coalfields than the national average. The ecological integrity of the streams is an indicator of the human cancer mortality rates. So the folks that live near these streams are much more likely to die and die young. This bill destroys the proposed protection for the people who live in southwest Virginia and coalfields across the country. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the STREAM Act. The people of Appalachia deserve better.