Donald Beyer

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law.

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

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the City of Alexandria's First Responders on the scene of the shooting at Eugene Simpson Memorial Park in my district in Alexandria, Virginia. On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 around 7:00 a.m., an individual at Eugene Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria, Virginia fired shots at Members of Congress who were practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. The shooting wounded United States Representative Steve Scalise, Capitol Police Officers David Bailey and Crystal Griner, Congressional staffer Zack Barth, and former Congressional staffer Matt Mika. The timely response of Alexandria's First Responders most certainly saved lives. Alexandria Police Officers Nicole Battaglia, Alexander Jensen and Kevin Jobe arrived within minutes of the 911 call. Officer Battaglia came under fire upon arriving at the scene and immediately engaged the shooter. In the opinion of Alexandria Police Chief Mike Brown, Officer Battaglia's actions diverted the shooter's attention, allowing the other responding officers to neutralize the shooter. Medical care provided at the scene by members of the Alexandria Fire Department, including paramedics Fiona Apple and Richard Krimmer, ensured this senseless act of violence did not become a casualty event. I am honored to commend these valiant individuals for their selfless service; I thank them not only for their impact on the victims of this senseless act of violence, but for their daily positive impact in my district.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Louisa Brinson, a federal employee who is retiring after more than thirty-seven years of service at the Social Security Administration (SSA). Ms. Brinson began work at SSA in 1979 as a Summer Aide in the Las Vegas, Nevada, field office. Shortly thereafter, she was promoted to be a Claims Development Clerk. In 1985, she was detailed to Baltimore Headquarters where she joined the Operations team in the Modular District Office. After the detail, she joined the Alexandria, Virginia, field office complex where she received all of her promotions, beginning with Service Representative, Claims Representative, Management Support Specialist, Operations Supervisor, and since 2007, the District Manager of the Arlington, Virginia, field office. With her high level of energy and enthusiasm, Ms. Brinson has made significant contributions to SSA during her career. Her ability to envision and adapt to change was evident in her leadership. She has shared her wisdom and knowledge of how important it is to have trust with the public SSA serves, as well as the employees she managed. Her devotion to the important mission of the Social Security Administration has been characterized by a commitment to excellence and to providing the highest level of support to her staff and management team. Ms. Brinson is not only a dedicated federal employee who has helped untold numbers of my constituents in Virginia's 8th Congressional District; she also is one of my constituents. Today I salute Louisa Brinson for her leadership, her compassion, and her years of service to our country. We here in Northern Virginia are fortunate to have her as a public servant and as a friend and neighbor.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my friend from Florida for his support for this sensible amendment, and I hope that we can proceed. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the bill before us today is a well-intentioned attempt to create a process which would minimize the risk of fire along electrical utilities' rights-of-way. Yes, there are some problems with the bill, but my most significant objection is that this bill, our Natural Resources Committee, and this Congress refuse to act on the urgent need to address how our U.S. Forest Service deals with wildfires. The Forest Service burned through more than half of its budget last year fighting wildfires. Yet our leadership won't bring to the floor for a vote a bipartisan legislation that deals with the problem of ``fire borrowing.'' In the 114th Congress, just such a bill, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act had 151 cosponsors--67 Republicans, 84 Democrats--but it never even got a committee hearing. So that is disappointing, and even irresponsible. So, once again, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are going to go into this fire season knowing that they don't have the resources to do the work necessary to mitigate wildfire damage on U.S. public lands. In a recent report on fire suppression costs, the Forest Service reported that funding available for recreation, heritage, and wilderness had fallen 15 percent; funding for roads is down 46 percent; facility spending, off 68 percent; deferred maintenance outlays have been slashed by a disastrous 95 percent. Mr. Chairman, in my two terms on the Natural Resources Committee, we often debate and fret about how little money is available for maintenance of our public lands, the deferred maintenance. The diversion of these funds for wildfire suppression is among the many causes. Non-fire-related staff has been cut by 39 percent since 1998, and over the last two decades, the cost of fire preparedness and suppression activities has grown from 62 percent of the Forest Service's total budget, to more than half--52 percent. That shift has come at the expense of programs and staff that every American wants: staff on recreation, permits, timber sales, hunting, and fishing. Everything else is suffering because of our inability to deal in a constructive way with wildfire mitigation. So now is the time that we address wildfires to be treated as the major disasters they are and for the efforts to put them out, to be eligible for disaster assistance, and not subtract it from funds that land managers need to do their daily jobs. So my very simple one-sentence amendment simply says that no money in this bill--this bill will not divert legitimate wildfire mitigation money more to wildfires than is already there. I urge you to vote ``yes'' on my amendment so, at the very least, we can prevent this bill from detracting from further Federal wildfire suppression efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the bill.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pastor Dave Kirkland, who led us in the opening prayer. Pastor Kirkland is appointed as the pastor of Dulin United Methodist Church in Falls Church, Virginia, where he has been the pastor for the last 17 years. Previously, he was appointed to Del Ray United Methodist Church in Alexandria, Virginia, for 6 years and associate pastor at Asbury United Methodist Church in Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 4 years. Dave's passion in ministry is related to the great Commandment: to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. This is articulated in preaching, raising money, and good deeds performed by the congregation through reaching out to the lost and the least. A highlight of this ministry of hope at Dulin: over 60 homeless persons each Sunday morning are served a breakfast, attend a worship service, and are given toiletries and assistance cards to purchase items at Giant Food. Dulin is engaged in several local ministries, such as Homeless Shelter, Homestretch, Rebuilding Together, and Meals on Wheels; and he also supports a child rescue center in Sierra Leone. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to welcome Pastor Dave today to the House of Representatives, and I personally thank him for offering the opening prayer.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, today I stand in recognition of international students and scholars, and the U.S. institutions of higher education they attend, all of which are bearing the brunt of this Administration's rhetoric and actions. To ensure our nation's security, economic well-being, and academic leadership, we must remain an open and welcoming nation. According to the Association of International Educators, international students and their families contributed nearly $33 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2015-2016 academic year. International students who have spent time in the United States become informal ambassadors when they return home, carrying an appreciation for common values, counteracting stereotypes about the U.S., and enhancing respect for cultural differences. They also act as cultural liaisons for U.S. students and help them succeed as global citizens. Actions taken by this Administration have generated a great deal of uncertainty within U.S. academia. Many currently-enrolled international students and scholars will choose not to travel home at the end of the academic year, for fear they might not be allowed to return in the fall. Unsurprisingly, for prospective students, nearly 40 percent of higher education institutions reported application declines in international students for the first time in many years. We must stop the anti-immigrant rhetoric and make the United States an open and welcoming country for the bright, ambitious international students who contribute greatly to our country. I urge my colleagues and the Administration to recognize the vital contribution international students and their families make when we welcome them to this great country. To the international students and scholars who may be unsure about coming, I say: Your contributions are valued and you are welcome here.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to do everything in our power to avoid a government shutdown. Federal workers protect our public health and environment, they deliver our mail, they help our businesses and home buyers, and they keep us safe. Shutting down the government would suspend their paychecks, damage their morale, and shut off the essential services they provide. My friend, Mr. Wittman, and I have drafted legislation to protect the pay of Federal employees in case Congress and the White House fail to reach an agreement. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. This bill is unusual. Usually you do everything you can when you introduce a bill to get it passed. You work hard to get it written into law. But this bill, I will do everything I can to prevent it from being considered because, if it becomes law, it means that Congress has failed and we have shut down our government. Republicans hold the White House and both Chambers of the Congress, so what happens next is up to them. I hope my friends here will have nothing to do with the White House plan to hold hostage the budget agreement and payments to stabilize health insurance rates. I urge my colleagues to act swiftly and responsibly to work out a bipartisan funding bill and avoid a government shutdown.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my constituents' demand for an independent investigation of the Trump-Russia scandal. Since mid-November, this has been a major issue for the people I represent, who are deeply concerned about protecting democratic elections. Among their concerns are the following: Changes last July to the Republican Party's platform that are beneficial to Russia, which the Trump campaign spearheaded. A few days later, Trump's call on Russia to launch a cyber attack against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Trump's refusal to say anything negative about Vladimir Putin, such as his terrible record on human rights or his crackdown on dissent. The intelligence community's consensus that Putin directed a campaign of weaponized information against Hillary Clinton. And the implication of numerous Trump advisers in unseemly relations with Russia, including Michael Flynn, Jeff Sessions, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and Carter Page. Mr. Speaker, my constituents have watched as the House Intelligence Committee's investigation lapsed into confusion and obfuscation, obviously at the behest of the White House. Last month, that committee canceled public hearings which would have included the testimony of former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. My constituents have watched President Trump, whose Presidential campaign is under FBI investigation, alternate between protestations that ``Trump-Russia is a hoax'' and repeated attempts to change the subject.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor the 67 men from Alexandria who made the ultimate sacrifice in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War for our freedoms and liberties. Those men include forty-four Soldiers, fifteen Marines, five U.S. Air Force pilots and three Sailors. Their combat duty in Southeast Asia extended over an eleven-year period from May 1962 to June 1973. Their heroism and meritorious service resulted in the award of: one Medal of Honor; one Navy Cross; five Silver Stars; five Distinguished Flying Crosses; twenty-seven Bronze Star Medals; one Prisoner of War Medal; one Soldier's Medal; fifty-one Purple Heart Medals; and forty-four Air Medals. Six families await the return of the remains of those who are still missing in action in a far-off land. All the families mourn the loss of their loved ones. Their fellow citizens salute these men for their service and honor their sacrifices. The names of all 67 men are on the Captain Rocky Versace Plaza and Vietnam Veterans Memorial located in Alexandria, VA.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1431 is a blatant attempt to cripple the important mission of the EPA by stacking the EPA Science Advisory Board with industry insiders. When Congress established the Science Advisory Board in 1978 to review the scientific data that informs the EPA's regulatory process, they did that with the requirement that the Board be balanced with representatives from industry and academia. The legislation we are considering today would skew that balance in favor of industry, with the intent of slowing down the EPA's regulatory process. With a significant respect for the vice chair from Oklahoma, it makes no sense to suggest that the representatives of regulated corporate interests, however expert, can be credibly described as ``defenders of scientific integrity.'' I am particularly concerned about the double standard mandated by this bill. On the one hand, the bill makes it easier for industry representatives to serve on the Board by only requiring that they disclose their conflicts of interest. There is no recusal requirement for industry insiders, no matter how deep their financial ties may go or how much their industry is regulated by the EPA. But, astonishingly, on the other hand, the same scientists and researchers who received EPA research grants or contracts are automatically disqualified from service. Any scientists or researcher would be precluded from accepting any grant or contract for 3 years after their service. So the scientists who spent their whole career becoming the world's top experts on a given topic must choose between advising our public health or continuing their research. They can bring their knowledge to the EPA and give up that work or continue. Why oh why would we make it more difficult for the scientists and academic experts to participate in the Science Advisory Board while at the same time making it easier for industry experts to participate? Why would we want less science on the Science Advisory Board? This proposal does nothing to advance science or protect public health. Instead, it creates senseless hurdles, burdensome red tape for the Science Advisory Board, and makes it more difficult to achieve its mission. We need to let scientists and researchers do their jobs by opposing this legislation.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I have several objections to the legislation being considered today. As with the Secret Science Reform Act, the bill would seriously undercut the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use science to inform their work. The bill would prohibit the EPA from using any scientific findings when the EPA did not have total access to the underlying data. This would eliminate some of the best available science from being considered by the EPA. Let me be very clear, there is nothing secret nor dishonest about relying on voluminous, peer-reviewed studies published in the most credible scientific journals in the world to make public health decisions. Equally problematic, the bill would force the EPA to grant full access to any scientific data it does possess, including highly sensitive materials like trade secrets and personal health histories. Much has been made about the ability of the EPA to redact this information, but there is a piece of legislation that says: By simply signing a nondisclosure agreement at the discretion of the EPA administrator, you can have access to all of the nonredacted information. We talk about the accountability of the EPA. What is the accountability of violating a simple nondisclosure agreement? It becomes so easy for these private health information trade secrets to be sold for a small fortune on the black market. It certainly doesn't make sense to provide such an easy avenue to potential bad actors. I would also like to object to the title of the legislation and the implication that EPA employees and scientists are somehow not honest. Many of those folks live in Virginia, and, frankly, I am tired of Members of Congress bad-mouthing my constituents. These are hardworking public servants who have dedicated their lives to clean air, clean water, and to our good health. And I want to reassure the many wonderful employees of the EPA that, in Congress, we do, in fact, appreciate your good work on behalf of the American people. Lastly, much like the TrumpCare bill we almost considered last week, there is no CBO cost estimate. The chairman mentions that he has asked the CBO to use a different methodology. The last one they said was going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars to implement. It is hard to imagine anything where the EPA has been required to fund or acquire data that is not going to be unreasonably expensive relative to anything before. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of National Medal of Honor Day to recognize the heroism ``above and beyond the call of duty'' of Captain Humbert Roque ``Rocky'' Versace, USMA Class of 1959. Captain Versace, who was captured by the Viet Cong with two other U.S. soldiers on 29 October 1963, endured nearly 23 months of inhuman treatment at the hands of his communist captors. That included denial of medical treatment (for the 3 bullet wounds he sustained during his capture), insufficient daily food ration, indoctrination attempts, beatings and confinement to a cramped bamboo cage. Portions of his Medal of Honor citation read: ``[H]e demonstrated exceptional leadership and resolute adherence to the tenants of the Code of Conduct from the time he entered into a prisoner of war status . . . he attempted the first of four escape attempts by dragging himself on his hands and knees out of the camp through dense swamp and forbidding vegetation to freedom . . . Captain Versace scorned the enemy's exhaustive interrogation and indoctrination efforts, and inspired his fellow prisoners to resist to the best of their ability. When he used his Vietnamese language skills to protest improper treatment of the American prisoners by the guards, he was put into leg irons and gagged to keep his protestations out of earshot of the other American prisoners in the camp . . .'' The Viet Cong murdered Captain Versace on 26 September 1965. After more than 51 years, Captain Versace is the only U.S. Soldier who received the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War to remain Missing in Action.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, my amendment today is meant to address only one of several troubling provisions in the bill. As my colleagues have pointed out, the SCRUB Act is a radical approach to deregulation and would prioritize cost savings through repeal of rules without considering their public benefit. The underlying bill would also prohibit agencies from making any new rules--even in the case of an imminent threat to public health or safety--unless the cost is offset by repealing an existing rule. We have heard often on this floor my Republican friends rail against regulations promulgated by faceless bureaucrats. Well, this bill seeks to accomplish all of this through the work of an unelected commission-- faceless--with virtually unlimited subpoena authority and jurisdiction over every existing regulation. This body would work in the shadows to roll back environmental and workplace protections, putting dollars and cents over public health. The legislation grants so much in the way of authority, but comes with so little in the way of oversight, transparency, or public accountability. President Trump and my friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk a lot about draining the swamp. Madam Chair, what the Republicans are proposing today makes a swamp look like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, all at the cost of $30 million to the American taxpayer. My amendment today would bring a modicum of transparency and ethical oversight to the shadow bureaucracy by requiring commission members to follow the same financial disclosure rules as Members of Congress, congressional staff, or any Federal official. My amendment would also ensure that commission members don't come in through the ``revolving door'' by inserting a requirement that the individual must not have been a registered lobbyist at any point during the previous 2 years. Congress not only has the authority, but the duty to review existing regulations and, when necessary, to mandate reforms. But I understand why Republicans want to delegate this work. Because who wants to be the one to recommend rolling back rules governing clean air, clean water, food safety, workplace protections, domestic violence, victim protections, and many other rules that are in place to keep Americans healthy and safe? Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment simply to give transparency, openness, and clarity to the people who will be making the decisions under the SCRUB Act.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the former ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

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

Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, just in mild response, I am, I believe, heartened to know--that may be the wrong verb--but, at least, respect my friend and colleague from Alaska's notion or assertion that these terrible, inhumane hunting practices, which we have talked about for the last hour--whether it is gassing wolves in the den or shooting bears from the helicopter or using bait for the bears or many of the iron leg traps--that all these things do not occur in Alaska on the wildlife refuges; that they are illegal in Alaska. If that is so, that is an excellent thing. I wonder why the need for the Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Fish and Wildlife regulations if none of these are, in fact, happening. In any case, there is still a legitimate debate about whether the Fish and Wildlife regulation contravenes ANILCA and the state establishment act. Hopefully, this doesn't have to go to court in order to do that, but I think there seems to be enough judicial precedent that if it did go to court, the Fish and Wildlife regulations would be upheld. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed to be part of this discussion of H.J. Res. 69. Day in and day out, we have meaningful debate in committees and the House floor that reflect very real philosophical differences about the responsibilities and the limits of the Federal Government. These differences and world views inevitably reflect differences in values. Today, I can't understand how my Republican friends can defend values that allow and promote the cruelest possible killing methods. Humans have hunted for millennia. This hunting traditionally requires patience, skill, cunning and encourage, but not sugar doughnuts, helicopters, gasses, or leg traps. Today's House joint resolution would overturn this incredibly fair and reasonable U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regulation that would rightly prohibit controversial and scientifically justified killing methods on 76 million acres of Federal wildlife refuge lands--76 million acres that belong to the American people. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act authorize--and, in fact, require--the Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain the natural diversity of refuges in Alaska, regardless of State wildlife laws. This includes protecting healthy populations of apex predators like wolves and bears. So this rule would prohibit the inhumane and indiscriminate killing of keystone species in the national wildlife refuges. This does not interfere with fair chase hunting methods. It doesn't even prevent inhumane and indiscriminate killing on State and private lands. Anyone voting to support this Congressional Review Act resolution today is tacitly supporting using airplanes and helicopters to scout land and shoot grizzly bears, killing wolves, black bears, coyote mothers and their pups and cubs in dens, actually gassing them, and the trapping of grizzly bears and black bears with steel-jawed leg-hold traps and wire snares, where they are trapped, bleeding, frightened, slowly dying of thirst and starvation. Statewide polls show that Alaskans strongly support eliminating these cruel and unsporting practices. Alaska also gains over $2 billion in economic activity for wildlife viewing, which is five times what it earns from hunting. This makes economic sense. It is a huge driver of tourism. Many come to Alaska for the unique opportunity to see bears, wolves, and other keystone species. They are the very ones at risk if we pass this resolution. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, to oppose these cruel and inhumane practices. They are not sporting practices, and they violate any understanding of humane values and respect for nature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. BEYER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, a quick response to the notion that the fears of inhumane practices are utterly false. In a Los Angeles Times story in 2012, the headline is: ``Alaska officials expand aerial shooting of bears.'' It goes on to say: ``The controversial `intensive management' moves are the latest in a series of increasingly aggressive control methods targeting bears and wolves in Alaska. In some areas, wolf pups can be gassed in their dens, bear cubs and sows can be hunted, and wolves shot from helicopters.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).