Donald Beyer

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any strong objections to the parts of this bill that deal with forest resilience, and I yield to people who know a lot more about forests than I do. But I am concerned that H.R. 2936 is harmful for all of the species that rely on forests for habitat and that the bill specifically includes provisions that specifically attack and undermine the Endangered Species Act. The bill allows the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to unilaterally determine if authorized logging and forestry management actions would adversely affect listed species or critical habitat without ever consulting experts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as is required by the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, the bill declares that, for purposes of the ESA, all logging and other forestry activities carried out pursuant to the bill are ``nondiscretionary'' actions. Deeming these actions to be nondiscretionary serves as a direct waiver of the Endangered Species Act regulations and protections and allows forest activities to violate the ESA and jeopardize species. Another provision exempts the Forest Service and BLM from implementing regulations that require consultation on management plans when a new species is listed as threatened or endangered or there is a new critical habitat designation. This, in particular, will have profound implications for species that have been proposed or are candidates for listing under the ESA that rely on these lands for habitat, such as the North American wolverine. In short, this bill dismantles interagency consultation that is integral to wildlife protection under the Endangered Species Act. America's forests are home to over 400 threatened or endangered species, including the Florida panther, native wild trout, and the black-footed ferret. We cannot allow this bill to strip protections for these iconic species and eliminate environmental review processes for our Nation's forests. So on this basis--the threat to the Endangered Species Act--I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a special group worthy of our recognition for the sacrifices they have made for our country. This month, the surviving members of the 50th Company, Infantry Officer Candidate School's Class OC 24-69 will have their first reunion at Fort Benning, 48 years after pinning on the gold bars of second lieutenants. The men in the 50th Company came from 42 different States, representing all walks of life and backgrounds. They accepted the risks and volunteered to become Army officers at the height of the Vietnam war. After graduation, over half received orders to Vietnam. Two classmates made the ultimate sacrifice: James Du Pont and Thomas Edgren. Many others earned the Purple Heart. At the reunion in Fort Benning, these men will renew the bonds forged 48 years ago. Please join me in pausing to reflect on their sacrifices and extending them our thanks.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a special group of Americans who are worthy of our recognition for the sacrifices they made for our country. In October of this year, the surviving members of the 50th Company, Infantry Officer Candidate Schools Class OC 24-69 will have their first reunion at Fort Benning, Georgia, 48 years after pinning on the gold bars of Second Lieutenants. It was a time when the United States was still deeply mired in the Vietnam war. The young men who made up the 50th Company came from 42 of our 50 states and represented all walk of life and ethnic heritages. Almost all of them had recently graduated from college, and were of an age at which most of their contemporaries were starting their careers, not facing military service and the rigors of war and sacrifice. They were fully aware that the Vietnam war did not receive the near universal support that the country had offered the servicemen and women of World War II, in whose shadow they had grown up. The feelings of these men toward the war in Southeast Asia were as varied as those of their countrymen. Nevertheless, they accepted the risks inherent in their decision to become Army officers. Despite their varied backgrounds and their support for, or opposition to, the Vietnam war, they shared more important traits--a love of the United States of America, an abiding belief in democracy, and a devotion to duty no matter the consequences. They had all volunteered for the OCS. Within a year of graduation, over half would receive orders for Vietnam. Two classmates made the ultimate sacrifice for our country-- James DuPont from North Canton, Ohio and Thomas Edgren from Libertyville, Illinois. Many others were awarded the Purple Heart. They all, no matter where they served, made sacrifices as previous generations who had served in the armed forces had sacrificed-- separation from families, missed holidays, arduous and often dangerous work, and sometimes miserable living conditions. And sadly, for these men of the Vietnam era, their sacrifices were often met upon their return with indifference and even open hostility from a seemingly ungrateful country. Some of these men made the military a career. But most were classic ``citizen soldiers'' who returned to civilian life once they had served. They raised families and became successful lawyers, doctors, ministers, teachers, government workers, farmers, and business men. Over the years, most of the men of the 50th Company put their time in the service behind them. They lost contact with each other as other life issues took precedence. But through the efforts of a few determined classmates, plans were laid for this fall's reunion. They will gather again at Fort Benning, another generation of Americans who laid down their plowshares to pick up rifles, only to beat them back into plowshares when duty was honorably done. At the reunion, these old comrades-in-arms will renew the bonds that were forged 48 years ago through the long marches in the brutal Georgia heat, the early morning runs in combat boots and rain, the countless pushups, and the brotherhood of blood and sweat of hard Army training. Now they will share their pride in having served. I ask my colleagues to join me in pausing to reflect on the sacrifices made by these men and the millions of others they represent, and to extend to them our personal thanks and the thanks of our country.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, the caribou are a food source for Alaskan indigenous groups who have lived off the land for thousands of years. All of this devastation will likely do very little in the short run to reduce the deficit. The oil prices are so low that no oil company is going to attempt to extract fossil fuels at this time. We believe the ANWR must be protected from the budget for future generations, its wildlife, and the native people who inhabit it. Part two, Mr. Chairman, is the budget also attacks Federal Government employee retirement benefits. It instructs the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to reduce the deficit by $32 billion. This clearly targets Federal employee retirement benefits because that is the only substantial mandatory spending within the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's jurisdiction. By slashing these promised benefits, the budget will eliminate any sense of financial security that Federal employees currently have. We should be protecting their rights and benefits. This was the original bargain they made. Most gave up much more lucrative careers in the private sector for the opportunity to serve all Americans, and for a small but secure Federal pension. It is also going to make it a lot more difficult for us to recruit and retain the quality employees who make America great. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this budget, and let's work together to create a Tax Code that really does simulate our economy and that works for all Americans.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this issue. I hear so much from my friends on the other side that I agree with, and I very much would like to work closely with them. I point out to the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, my friend from Ohio, that while we have the highest corporate rate in the world, 35 percent, which is clearly not desirable, I served in Switzerland for 4 years, where there were 700 American companies because the tax rate was so much lower. Yet that 35 percent rate, in actuality, turned out to be less than 14 percent across all American corporations, and a quarter of American corporations pay zero. As we look at refining this, it is not just about dropping that rate. It is about making sure that every American corporation pays a fair share of their taxes to the U.S. citizens. I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. Budget resolutions, by their nature, are political documents. But this one also has an instrumental purpose, because the only reason this budget resolution is on the floor is to pave the way for the partisan process for the tax bill, which will significantly increase the deficit in order to give tax breaks to those who need them least. I think everyone in this body agrees that the average American taxpayer, those who have had virtually no raise for 30 years, deserve and need tax breaks. If we can give them that tax relief, the economy will grow faster. But the Senate reconciliation instructions that will ultimately pass are written to allow for a $1.5 trillion increase in the deficit, and that is assuming that the fuzzy math and the rosy expectations actually work out. I appreciate the charts that my friend and colleague, Mr. Rooney, showed that pointed out that we would like to get to 3.1 percent economic growth. I heartily agree. But if we look at the period right now where we now have the worst disparity in wealth and the worst disparity in income that we have had in a long time, that tracks this decline from 3.1 percent to 1.6, 1.8, 2 percent. When I started off in our family business, the corporate tax rate was 78 percent, and our economic growth was a lot higher. Not that we want to go back to 78 percent, but putting more money in the hands of the top 1 percent is not what is going to make this economy grow more quickly. Actually, looking at the critical programs that are cut in this Republican budget gives us almost a handy guide of more effective ways to spend money. For example, this budget cuts transportation spending by 25 percent at a time when we have a D in our infrastructure by the American Society of Civil Engineers, when President Trump and candidate Hillary Clinton both campaigned hard on more infrastructure investment, not a cut. This budget cuts student aid by $211 billion when we know from our Joint Economic Committee hearings that the student debt our young people carry is one of the reasons they don't start new businesses, one of the things that suppresses the growth of new businesses in America. We also know that human capital is the key to economic growth all through history and today. It contains massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, making healthcare more expensive for those who can least afford it, and that is not a way to grow the economy. We have an opportunity to enact fiscally responsible, sustainable, bipartisan tax reform that focuses on the Americans whose wages have been stagnant for 30 years. I believe the Democrats are prepared to engage in real reform. It should be simpler. It should be fairer. We should absolutely do away with the special deals and credits and gimmicks, but we need a lower rate for most Americans, and not make sure that 80 percent of the tax benefits go to the people who need them the least, who have the smallest propensity to spend and to invest. There are many other things wrong with this budget. Let me just point out two particular problems. Number one, the budget attacks the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It essentially sacrifices wildlife and environmental protections to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest. ANWR encompasses more than 19 million acres and is one of the last intact landscapes in America. It is essential that we protect this wild and spectacular land. The government briefly opened ANWR to seismic testing in the 1980s, and the damage from that activity is still visible today. Truck tracks still scar the expansive tundra where the permafrost never healed. Since then, the Federal Government has protected ANWR from harmful oil and gas drilling because of concerns about the impact on species like polar bears, muskoxen, and caribou. Mr. Chairman, there are 37 land mammal species, 8 marine mammal species, 42 fish species, and more than 200 migratory birds that inhabit the ANWR. Seismic testing could do lasting damage to the fragile ecosystem way before drilling. Seismic activity sends shock waves underground, disturbing denning polar bears.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Booz Allen Hamilton Toastmasters Potomac Club, a ten year Arlington, Virginia communications and leadership club, achieving significant success in its club and membership. Toastmasters International is a global, international communication community founded in 1904 by Dr. Ralph Chester Smedley. Dr. Smedley, the director of a local YMCA, observed several young men who were not getting jobs. He took it upon himself to form a speaking club, in which he mentored young members on how to shake hands, answer two to three minute table topics, improve nose to nose communication, practice skills of vocal variety, mitigate use of filler works, use their hands to maintain audience attention, and take constructive recommendations from peers. He also taught the young men how to ``step away from the podium'' and ``dance your words''. Today, the Crystal City chapter of the club is a healthy, vibrant community of communicators in Virginia's 8th Congressional District. In a record 4 months, the club grew from near critical to President's Distinguished, the Toastmasters International's highest club ranking. I salute the Toastmasters Potomac Club for their dedication to living out the values of Toastmasters International's founder Dr. Ralph Chester Smedley

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I am opposed.

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

Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. I offer this amendment to recommit to reveal the flaws in the bill. The sponsor of this bill, Mrs. Comstock and I both represent northern Virginia, and she and I both want to eliminate gang violence. MS-13 is a menace to society, and I endorse the goal of destroying it through legal means, but this bill wouldn't do that. This bill will promote widespread racial profiling. It will violate First Amendment protections. It will expand mandatory detention of immigrants. It will raise serious constitutional questions on judicial review of government designation of certain groups. And it bars humanitarian relief for individuals in violation of international treaties. I take gang violence and MS-13 very seriously. The young man Mrs. Comstock referred to, found dead in a park in my city of Alexandria, was actually found by a dear family friend. But we can do this in a bill that doesn't promote racial profiling or violate the Constitution. So in this motion to recommit, we offer language to get at one of the most glaring flaws in this bill that it can go after humanitarian workers. The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act creates an overly broad definition of a criminal gang by allowing DHS to essentially designate any individual as a gang member. As written, it could cover a wide range of organizations ranging from churches to fraternities, to political groups. This will allow ICE to target people who may or may not appear to be in a gang and charge all those who seem in any way connected to individual members of a gang. Religious workers who are engaged in immigrant ministry could be subject to prosecution. Immigrant ministry is not smuggling in airless trucks. In my district, we have a number of faith communities who provide for the unemployed, the homeless, those without language. Already, ICE swept up half a dozen men as they exited a church service. Under this bill, the pastor could be next. If a nun, through her work, interacts with a potential gang member, she, by the context of this bill, could be a gang member. It is not accidental that the Catholic bishops and the nuns have written to oppose this bill. The harboring provisions are so sweeping, the religious workers who provide shelter, transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could be found liable of criminal activity. And this is not transportation across the U.S. border. This is transportation to work or to English lesson classes. It is incredibly concerning that it would subject people who have never committed a crime, never been arrested, never been indicted, to deportation; and it would apply retroactively. Indeed, mere suspicion of involvement in harboring could classify individuals as gang members. So it is very obvious here that humanitarian exemption is needed, but that is not the only concern with this bill language. The overly broad definition would empower immigrant authorities to conduct dragnet sweeps of Latino communities and other communities of color. Media reports make it clear that law enforcement has recently relied on questionable and unreliable evidence to assert that Latino individuals are gang members, including wearing certain kinds of clothes or doodling in an area code from a Latin American country on a school notebook. Officers have alleged gang membership sometimes based on merely being seen with people who are alleged gang members or living in neighborhoods known to suffer gang activity. This expansive language could and will sweep up people who have committed no criminal activity whatsoever. As a representative of Virginia, a State with a long and troubled history with race, I think we need to be very careful before we implement policies that allow for structural racism. This bill has many more flaws, which general debate covered. But I want to be clear, before we pass this bill and start locking up nuns and priests and other religious workers, we should not continue this one-dimensional conversation on immigration policy. We cannot focus only on enforcement and a mass deportation agenda. It doesn't fix our immigration system. We have got to work on comprehensive immigration reform, and we begin with the President's recent decision to eliminate DACA and put Congress on the clock. We should be acting today to protect our DREAMers. 800,000 young immigrants'--not members of MS-13--lives depend on it. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge CNA in Arlington, Virginia, which is celebrating its 75th Anniversary of work in the public interest. CNA operates both the Center for Naval Analyses, which is the Federally Funded Research and Development Center for the Navy and Marine Corps, and the Institute for Public Research, which works for a variety of federal agencies including FEMA, Health and Human Services, the Coast Guard, and FAA. CNA was founded in 1942 at the request of the U.S. Navy by civilian scientists who left their positions at prestigious universities to help address the problem of U- boats sinking U.S. ships. In CNA's rich history, CNA has: Served the U.S. Navy with scientific analysis throughout World War II, leading Admiral Jerauld Wright to conclude: ``I believe that no group of comparable size contributed more to the successful conduct of our war effort.'' Served the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps continuously for 75 years. The nonprofit organization in its service for the Navy and Marine Corps specializes in operations, weapons systems, logistics, manpower, training, policy, planning, special operations, and cyber warfare. Analysts who have accompanied U.S. troops in every war and major operation since World War II. CNA analyst Dr. Irving Shaknov made the supreme sacrifice in service of the nation when he was shot down during the Korean War while collecting data in a Marine Corps fighter. He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom. Analysts who have been injured or rescued from the water in the course of their service to the armed forces. Analysts who serve in war and peace as scientific advisors at the side of combat commanders on land, at sea, and in headquarters organizations like the Pentagon. Been a ``go to'' source of independent and objective advice that Congress relies upon. CNA has supplied analysis in response to congressional mandates for reports on Sea Based Air Platforms, the capacity of the national airspace system, Top Officials National Counter-Terrorism Exercises, detention programs for foreign detainees, the Afghan National Security Forces, and U.S. counterterrorism against Al-Qaeda, among others. Provided research leadership. In support of the Gates Commission, CNA was instrumental in laying the analytical foundations for ending the draft and creating the all-volunteer military. Repeatedly demonstrated its independence and willingness to stand behind scientific analysis even when it has proven unpopular. Its work on success rate of Tomahawk cruise missiles in Operation Desert Storm and changes in Soviet naval strategy in the 1970s challenged conventional wisdom at the time. Provided field analytical support in response to humanitarian disasters in its service to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Navy, and the Department of Health and Human Services. It has provided both real-time and after-action analysis for Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, Hurricane Sandy, and now, Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. I applaud CNA and its 75 years of public service, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting organizations like CNA that are committed to objectivity and data-driven solutions to the nation's problems.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I stand here also to express my strong support for the Amash amendment. Civil asset forfeiture without limits presents one of the strongest threats to our civil, property, and constitutional rights. It creates a reverse incentive for law enforcement to seek profit over justice. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this great amendment.

Mr. BEYER

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) for yielding time. Mr. Chair, moving forward with permits for seismic airgun surveys for subsidy oil and gas deposits puts our vibrant Atlantic coast at risk. I am a Virginia businessman, and I look at what seismic testing does. Congressman Rutherford and I led a bipartisan letter to the administration signed by over 100 of our colleagues expressing our concerns about seismic airgun blasting. Our coastal economy relies on healthy ocean ecosystems, which generate $95 billion in gross domestic product, support nearly 1.4 million jobs each year. We have heard from countless businessowners, as Congressman Sanford has said, elected officials, residents all along our coasts who recognize and reject the risks. NASA, the Department of Defense, the Florida Defense Support Task Force have all expressed concern that offshore oil and gas development will threaten their ability to perform critical activities. The North, South, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, which are responsible for the management of fish stocks and habitats in Federal waters from Maine to Florida, also have significant concerns about the risks associated with offshore drilling and seismic airgun blasting. So you have numerous fishing and tourism interests, including all the local chambers of commerce, tourism, restaurant associations, an alliance representing over 41,000 businesses, and 500,000 fishing families from Florida to Maine oppose offshore oil drilling activities as well. Opening up the Atlantic to seismic testing and drilling jeopardizes our economy and these coastal economies in the most immediate terms. I strongly support the LoBiondo-Sanford amendment and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this critical amendment.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, to respond to both my friends from South Carolina, one of the dilemmas with the additional exploration is that, by law, the data obtained from the seismic surveys are proprietary. They will belong to the many different companies that will be doing this, and they won't be available to the American public; they won't be available to local government officials; they won't even be available to Members of Congress. So this inability to access information will leave coastal communities without the opportunity to provide these substantive cost- benefit analyses that Congressman Sanford referred to. Our constituents would take on significant risks without being involved in the future development decisions. So, for that reason, I encourage us to vote for the Sanford amendment.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 431. Section 431 does two things. First, it withdraws the Clean Water Rule. Second, and more importantly, it breaks procedure and creates a loophole so that the removal of the Clean Water Rule does not have to abide by the Administrative Procedure Act. In essence, we are creating a loophole to eliminate a rule, a rule requested by the Supreme Court and one that took several years to put together. This elimination without allowing tweaks, thoughtful removal, or comment is a radical and dangerous precedent. In fact, 80 Members of Congress and I actually asked for an extension of the 30-day comment period to eliminate the Clean Water Rule to allow the American people to have a say. The Trump administration agreed with us and extended the comment period an additional 30 days. I don't get to say that too often. So clearly, there is a desire for a comment period, as evidenced by our letter and the administration's decision to appropriately extend the comment period, but the language in this bill would eliminate that process completely. I include in the Record the request for extension. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 29, 2017. Re Request for Extension of Comment Period on EPA and Corps Proposed Rule Defining Waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. Administrator Scott Pruitt, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203 Dear Administrator Pruitt: We request a minimum 90 day extension to the proposed 30-day comment period to rescind the 2015 Clean Water Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (Jun. 29, 2015). The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) finalized the Clean Water Rule to clarify the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. The EPA and the Corps solicited comments on the Rule for over 200 days. In accordance with Administrative Procedure Act, the agencies first established a public comment period for 90 days and extended the comment period twice in response to extension requests. The final rule reflected over 1 million public comments on the proposal, the substantial majority of which supported the Clean Water Rule. The agencies also initiated an extensive public outreach effort, including over 400 meetings across the nation with various stakeholders, including but not limited to: states, small businesses, farmers, academics, miners, energy companies, counties, municipalities, environmental organizations, and other federal agencies. The agencies incorporated these comments into the final Clean Water Rule. President Trump's Executive Order 13778 directs EPA and the Corps to evaluate whether to revise or rescind the Clean Water Rule, ``as appropriate and consistent with law.'' We ask that as you examine the Clean Water Rule, like the prior administration, you engage in a thoughtful and comprehensive process bound in scientific fact. Americans depend on clean water for their health and livelihood. More than 117 million Americans rely upon drinking water from public water systems that draw supply from headwater, seasonal, or rain-dependent streams that were vulnerable to pollution before the Clean Water Rule. As such, the decision to roll back the Clean Water Rule cannot be made in haste. We are concerned that the EPA has provided limited time and opportunity for stakeholder involvement and official public comment. Any proposed rulemaking must include sufficient time and participation to gather input from concerned and affected parties, including those whose legal rights and responsibilities will be affected by this effort. For example, the 2015 Clean Water Rule provided legal certainty that regulatory-defined water features, such as stormwater control features, wastewater recycling structures, and puddles, are not covered by the Clean Water Act. However, that certainty would be eliminated if the 2015 Clean Water Rule were rescinded. Given the history of engagement on this issue and the fact that parties may be subject to greater regulatory uncertainty by this effort, a comment period of 30 days does not allow for meaningful engagement from the public and stakeholders. The Clean Water Rule is robust and ensures that water sources are protected by taking into account the connected systems of water, from wetlands and seasonal bodies of water to large rivers and lakes. The requirements of the Rule were meticulously developed and addressed longstanding uncertainty, improving our national commitment to protect not only America's water, but the American people. If the Clean Water Rule is revised or rescinded, the process must be comprehensive and deliberative. We ask that you take into consideration the opinions of the American public by extending the comment period, allowing for respectful debate. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Donald S. Beyer Jr., Brenda L. Lawrence, Gerald E. Connoll, Grace F. Napolitano, Matthew A. Cartwright, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison, Jared Polis, Paul D. Tonko, Niki Tsongas, Jackie Speier, Carol Shea-Porter, Debbie Dingell, Gwen Moore, Katherine Clark, Mike Quigley, Raul M. Grijalva, Earl Blumenauer, Zoe Lofgren, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Anthony G. Brown, James P. McGovern, David E. Price, Alan Lowenthal, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Daniel W. Lipinski, Cedric L. Richmond, Louise M. Slaughter, Colleen Hanabusa, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jared Huffman, Jerry McNerney, Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Naette Diaz Barragan, Bill Foster, Jamie Raskin, Betty McCollum, John Sabanes. Jerrold Nalder, Suzanne Bonamici, Steve Cohen, Marcia L. Fudge, Beto O'Rourke, Grace Meng, Mark Pocan, Anna G. Eshoo, Ted W. Lieu, John Yarmuth, Alma Adams, Alcee L. Hastings, Adam Smith, A. Donald McEachin, Tony Cardenas, Dwight Evans, Brendan F. Boyle, James R. Langevin, Salud O. Carbajal, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Judy Chu, Eliot L. Engel, Jan Schakowsky, Richard E. Neal, Pramila Jayapal, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Yvette D. Clarke, Jose E. Serrano, Daniel T. Kildee, Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, William R. Keating, Stephen F. Lynch, Doris Matsui, Richard M. Nolan, Elizabeth H. Esty, Pete Aguilar, Adam B. Schiff, Marcy Kaptur, J. Luis Correa, Scott Peters.

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

Mr. BEYER. So is this our new status quo, that once an industry decides it doesn't like how a regulation turns out, we eliminate that regulation without comment or consideration for the various stakeholders or its value. We are eliminating the process here that we, Congress, put in place to ensure that those regulations were being considered, adjusted, or even removed, that they were done thoughtfully and while keeping stakeholders, like the American people, in mind. It could be any rule, but the rule at stake this time is the Clean Water Rule. Over 100 Members of Congress joined me to reinforce the value of the Clean Water Rule, because without it, the streams that help supply public drinking water serving one in three Americans will be at risk. Rolling back the Clean Water Rule cannot be made in haste and without stakeholder input. Clarity was needed in light of the Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 about uncertainty of the scope of the waters protected under the act. The EPA and the Corps held a lengthy and inclusive public rulemaking process, 200 days of public comment, 400 meetings across the Nation, and the rule reflected over 1 million public comments on the proposal, the substantial majority of which supported the Clean Water Rule. So we are overruling, essentially, 1 million comments and 400 meetings to do this without the appropriate administrative process. So if it is withdrawn, I simply ask that the process be comprehensive and deliberative, and the bill does not allow for that. With this rule at stake, this time it is the Clean Water Rule, but it could be any rule going forward. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from Members of Congress to Administrator Scott Pruitt opposing the proposed rule to rescind the Clean Water Rule. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, August 18, 2017. Hon. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the perspective of the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on this. I think our clear understanding is that the exemptions, as currently written, allow for all normal farming, ranching, forestry activities, and that the permit would only be required when there is a substantial difference from the activity as it has gone on before, and that this is the way the law has been interpreted and enforced for the last 40 years. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to preserve our current Clean Water Act protections for our rivers, streams, and wetlands. Our Nation's river systems and wetlands provide values that no other ecosystem can. These include: natural water quality improvement, flood protection, shoreline erosion control, recreation, general aesthetic appreciation, and natural products for our use at no cost. Yet section 430 of this bill seeks to undermine the critical balance between protecting these waters and the day-to-day operations of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and foresters. Under current law, farmers, ranchers, and foresters can carry out their normal operations in any waterbody without securing a Clean Water Act permit. So what this means is farmers can continue to plow their fields, including potential wet areas that have been farmed for decades, plant their seeds, harvest their crops, without ever having to obtain approval under the Clean Water Act. Any normal farming, ranching, and forestry exemption is going to include minor limitations. For example, a farmer cannot use the current exemption to convert his farmland to a residential development without obtaining a permit. And a rancher can't use the exemption to plow under a wetland to expand his reach of grazing lands. And forestry operations cannot use this exemption to change the course of a local stream to improve drainage on their growing lands. In short, the way the Clean Water Act currently operates is to allow normal ranching, farming, forestry operations to continue without a permit, unless the activities either change or convert the use of the waterbody to a new purpose, or impair the historic flow or reach of a stream or wetland. So if the planned activity triggers any of these limitations, the current law requires the activity to obtain a permit. That is perfectly reasonable. But section 430 of this bill would, in essence, provide an absolute clean water exemption for impacts to any streams or wetlands that happen to be on agriculture, ranching, or forestry lands, regardless if they have any relation to these activities. Mr. Chairman, this is a fundamental change to the Clean Water Act, and one where the impacts have never been explored. When the EPA was asked what the impact of this amendment would be, here was their response: This amendment would be a significant departure from almost 40 years of implementation of the Clean Water Act by eliminating the existing provision requiring that the exemptions apply only to normal, as in established or ongoing, farming practices. This change could result in the loss or impairment of thousands of acres of valuable wetlands and other waters where land is converted to agriculture. Mr. Chairman, we should not be using an appropriations bill to change Federal policy related to the protection of our Nation's rivers and streams. To the best of my knowledge, no hearings or investigations on the impacts of this provision have been held. If this Congress is interested in overturning almost 40 years of Clean Water Act precedent, regular order would require hearings before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which has sole jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act, and approval by that committee before consideration on the floor. This rider is bad policy for the protection of our environment, for the protection of human health, and bad policy for the protection of our public safety. Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues an occasion that marks the 50th wedding anniversary of two individuals who not only have committed their lives together in marriage but also in the service of our great nation. The Honorable Daniel A. Mica served as a member of this Chamber, in the 96th and the four succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1979 through January 3, 1989) initially representing Florida's 11th and then subsequently, 14th District. Mr. Mica and his wife, Martha Fry Mica met while students at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida, and were married on August 12, 1967 at St. Jerome Catholic Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Mica's brother, John L. Mica, also a former member of this Chamber, served as the best man. Mr. Mica's friends, Richard McBride and John Sargent, served as groomsmen. Mrs. Mica's friend, Karen McClary Cakouros, served as the maid of honor, her sister, Mary Alice Fry, served as bridesmaid and her brother, Stephen Fry, served as lector. As a result of their interest in public service, the newly-married couple began working together on the campaign of Honorable Paul G. Rogers. Mr. Mica later served as Chief of Staff to Mr. Rogers, and succeeded him, serving five terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, working tirelessly for Floridians and all Americans. Subsequently, Mr. Mica worked more than two decades in the world of advocacy and association management. Mrs. Mica, while raising four children, received her juris doctorate degree from George Mason University and co-founded a landscape design business. Over the years, they have given generously of their time by serving on the boards of non-profit charitable organizations and as members of their Catholic parish. Now living in Alexandria, Virginia, Mr. and Mrs. Mica continue to serve through their charitable work. They are proud parents and grandparents. The four children and five grandchildren are Christine Mica, of Alexandria, Virginia; Daniel A. ``Andrew'' Mica, Jr., his wife Elizabeth ``Libby'' Davies Mica, and their children Elin and Owen, of Belmont, Massachusetts; Caroline Mica Jolly, husband Frank Mosley Jolly, III, and their children Martha Jeanne, Gentry and Edward, of Alexandria, Virginia; and Paul Anthony Mica, of San Diego, California. Born in Hannibal, Missouri, Martha Fry Mica is the daughter of Anna Marie Wagner Fry and Gentry Schultz Fry. Martha has six siblings, Susan Fry Lochrie, William Fry, Roger Fry, Stephen Fry, Mary Alice Fry, and Tracy Fry Rothaus. Daniel Andrew Mica was born in Binghamton, New York. He is the son of John Mica and Adeline Rose Resciniti Mica. Dan has three siblings John L. Mica, Adeline ``Cookie'' Mica Downing, and David R. Mica. Admired and loved by their family and friends, Mr. and Mrs. Mica demonstrate tremendous generosity and love of country. Therefore, I am pleased to congratulate them on their Golden Wedding Anniversary.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, my amendment would direct the Vet Centers to use $2.5 million of the additional funding allocated in the underlying bill to provide outdoor experiences for veterans as part of their continuum of care. This program would support veterans in developing a community of support to treat combat-related injuries, especially those related to their behavioral health. The Vet Centers are uniquely positioned for the collaboration and development of alternative and supplemental approaches. We know that traditional mental health services are underutilized by veterans, but a 2014 University of Texas study found that, after just a one-week-long Outward Bound veterans wilderness expedition, those veterans who participated showed clinically significant improvements in mental health variables like sense of social connection and attitudes towards seeking psychological help. They also showed important decreases in depression and anxiety. The Senate Appropriations Committee has already included the same language in their version of the MILCON-Veterans Administration Appropriations bill. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I am very grateful to the chairman of the subcommittee for including this in the en bloc amendments because it will enable Vet Centers to explore alternative avenues for engaging veterans in a supportive environment to help with both mental health and readjustment to civilian life.