Donald Beyer

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the subcommittee chairman, I was at the hearing all morning at Natural Resources a few months ago when we had the Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on this exact issue. He deeply resisted the idea, what he called, I think it was, the fix or the myth that we weren't working closely with the States. I completely agree with the subcommittee chairman that the Office of Surface Mining should work very closely with the States to develop this rule and, in fact, insisted that they had from the beginning of the Obama administration, picking up on what the Bush administration had done, right through today. I agree that this is appropriate, but I resist the wisdom of the truth that the States have been shut out of the process. One more small point, but a really important point. A 2009 report on the NIH Web site estimated that coal mining cost Appalachia five times more in premature deaths--$42 billion--than it provided the region in all jobs, taxes, and other economic benefits from coal mining--just $8 billion. We are not trying to get rid of coal. There is no war on coal. We just want to make sure that the people who are doing the work who live there are protected. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strips the language that would block the implementation of the Stream Protection Rule. We should not willfully delay or stop this rule. I am very familiar with mountaintop removal mining. When I was Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in the 1990s, mountaintop removal mining became the most prevalent coal mining technique in central Appalachia. I made more than 100 trips to Virginia's coalfields, and I know firsthand the negative impact mountaintop removal has had on the environment and on the health of these communities. If we know of reasonable ways to mitigate negative effects, we should be doing everything in our power to implement them. That is why the Stream Protection Rule is so important. During mountaintop removal, tens of thousands of cubic feet of mountaintops are blown off with explosives and pushed over the sides, filling mountain valleys with enormous waste piles. These valley fills, as they are called, bury headwater streams and everything else that once populated the valley. Already, mountaintop removal mining has flattened more than 500,000 acres of forested land and permanently buried over 2,000 miles of streams, destroying sources that feed our water. Emerging science has documented a dramatic decline in the diversity, the abundance, and the biomass of fish in streams with pollution that results from mining. It is the coal industry that asked the government to clearly define the expectations for environmental protection, and that is what this rule does. By introducing verified scientific methods and testing, the government provides regulatory certainty and achieves the environmental protection that is required by law. Without this rule, stream destruction continues to occur and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement will remain vulnerable to more legal challenges. Local citizens will be forced to resort to the courts instead of having their government act to protect their welfare. The stream protection rule is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the different regions where coal is mined. It is very different in Wyoming than it is in southwest Virginia. The rule is designed to prevent water pollution due to coal mining using current scientific understanding. It is designed to protect our families while protecting jobs. In fact, the Office of Surface Mining's analysis shows this rule will have minimal impact on coal companies and minimal job loss. The estimate is 10 lost jobs--10. We have seen how necessary this rule is in Virginia. Water monitoring found that Kelly Branch Mine in Wise County dumped the toxic pollutant selenium into streams at levels way above State water quality standards and without a permit to allow such pollution. As a result of a citizen suit, Southern Coal Corporation has since agreed to perform environmental cleanup projects and pay penalties and attorney fees for these pollution violations. But, Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't need lawsuits. This violation shouldn't happen in the first place. Now is the time to give the people of Appalachia and others around the country protections for their waterways that were promised to them by Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my constituents' demand that Congress act to prevent gun violence. Following yet another devastating shooting, the House has spent more than its share of moments engaged in contemplation. We have had plenty of times to pause and reflect. We have had more than enough moments of silence. The time to be silent has passed. Now it is time to act. My colleagues and I held a sit-in here on this House floor 3 weeks ago to demand a vote on solutions to gun violence. We were not engaging in some kind of stunt. We were not seeking publicity. We were speaking for the American people who have simply had enough. They have had enough gun violence, they have had enough moments of silence, and they have had enough carnage and devastation. The Orlando shooting was the latest in a seemingly endless series of horrific mass shootings that have shocked us all, all of which we agree in hindsight were committed by people who should not have had access to a gun. The individual in Orlando had committed horrible acts of violence against his ex-wife. He exhibited such derangement and rage that he frightened classmates and coworkers. He was even investigated as a potential terrorist by the FBI. He was, in nearly every respect, the very last person we would want to be able to have a gun, walk into a gun store and legally purchase an assault weapon, a Glock, and a massive amount of ammunition. He did not violate any laws in the purchase of these weapons because the laws we have are not good enough. Doing nothing is not rational. It is madness, it is folly, and it is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and deserve real action, not toothless half measures engineered to silence the people trying to solve this problem. Please, no more games and no more inaction. Just give us a vote on real reform. Last night, in the middle of the night, I found myself wondering why doesn't the Republican leadership let us have the vote on no fly, no buy and on expanded background checks? After all, House Republicans have 247 votes; House Democrats, only 188; and not every Democrat might even vote for these bills. With the 59-Member majority, the Republican pro-gun position would certainly prevail. Or would it? How many moderate Republicans in swing districts might actually vote against their constituents' desires or vote for their constituents' desires? We cited polls again and again that 85 percent of Americans don't want people on the terrorist watch list to be able to buy guns, and 90 percent of U.S. citizens want to close the background check loopholes. This is what political scientists call a tough vote. Vote for your constituents and you are in trouble with the NRA. Vote your conscience and you are in big trouble with the Republican leadership. And if you toe the NRA line, the most extreme position, you can be sure your Democratic proponent will let all voters know this fall that you voted with the terrorists. Yes, a tough vote. Do what is right and moral and sensible and just, and you are in political trouble. Do what Paul Ryan and the NRA want you to do and you are in political trouble. This is why the Republican leadership will do anything they can to keep from having a House vote on these issues. But isn't this why we are here? To make the tough votes? To follow our conscience? To do what is right, damn the political consequences? At the very end of our careers, will the poets write verses about the thousands of easy votes we cast? Neither party has a monopoly on wisdom or truth, but let's have the debate. Let our people argue and persuade and vote and be brave enough to live with the choices we make.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the NRA- authored H.R. 4237, the so-called Protect America Act. Mr. Speaker, how does this legislation protect America from gun violence? This bill would do nothing to close the terror gap that currently allows suspected terrorists to legally buy guns. This bill would do nothing to address our anemic background check system that allows up to 40 percent of all firearm transfers to proceed without a background check. And this bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill. Mr. Speaker, there are steps that Congress can take to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and to keep Americans safe from gun violence. Unfortunately, the Protect America Act would accomplish neither. This body should be concerned with protecting Americans from gun violence, not protecting its Members from tough votes. Mr. Speaker, let the people's House vote on real, meaningful, commonsense legislation that would keep our constituents safe.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 338.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Susan H. Warner, the former District Director for Virginia's 8th District. Susie Warner worked with great cheer and with a wry sense of humor for 25 and a half years as the district director for the congressional district just across the Potomac River. She sat at the helm for twenty- four years for Congressman Jim Moran--his entire tenure--and the last year and a half before her retirement for me, graciously schooling the staff in the thorniest case work issues, how to handle every last constituent with grace, and how to keep a warm office environment to boot. During those 25 years, Susie was a pillar of her community in the Lee district of Fairfax County, and a fixture of political life in Northern Virginia. And I'm sure she will continue to be. So often, when a member of my staff meets a constituent the first thing they hear is ``Do you know Susie Warner? I love Susie Warner.'' Susie loves all of us right back, and often lets us know. ``How ya doin', kid?'' is a routine greeting for almost anyone. ``I love you babes,'' she told the staff, often as her parting farewell at the end of the workday. Susie's approach to problem-solving was old-fashioned, in the best sense of that phrase: She is friends with almost everyone she ever met. This included many, many liaisons in the federal government, who were indispensable to solving case work problems. She built those friendships over years of chats and commiseration, and at least one of her federal liaisons cried when told that Susie was retiring. She would draw upon that vast reservoir of friends and acquaintances in the community to find the answer for a constituent, or to identify and connect someone with exactly the right person in an organization who could fix the problem. She used her sweet talk and her smarts to solve many, many intractable problems for many people in need. Reciting the list of those she helped would keep me on the floor for hours if not days. I learned very quickly to value and rely on her sage advice and judgment, just as Congressman Moran had for all of the years in which they worked together. Her leadership will be sorely missed.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Rep. Cartwright's Amendment to H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Rep. Cartwright's amendment would keep in place a moratorium on the use of the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-76 privatization studies at the Department of Defense. These studies use a faulty methodology to determine whether or not to outsource federal civilian jobs. It is wrong to jeopardize their livelihood in the name of privatization, especially when the tools to justify it are so faulty and biased against our federal workforce. Multiple reports, including by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense Inspector General, criticized the A-76 process for failing to properly track costs and savings. A-76 studies improperly alienate our hard working civilian employees critical to the military. These personnel provide depot maintenance and equipment recapitalization, logistics capabilities, engineering expertise necessary for modernization, warfighter training, base support and facilities sustainment, medical care and treatment, and family care programs that are critical to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and their families. We cannot afford to leave such costly decisions up to faulty data. A- 76 studies cost the Department of Defense money, at the expense of military readiness, troop safety, and our federal civilian workforce. We should not lift this moratorium.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution and add my strong opposition to the resolution before, also. As I read the text of H. Con. Res. 89, whereas by whereas, I found myself in disagreement with virtually every alleged predictive statement. This resolution is framed as long-term economic wisdom, yet exemplifies short-term thinking and economic folly. A carbon tax should, in fact, increase the cost of fossil fuels, but will also accelerate the rapidly falling cost of all other fuels: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and perhaps even nuclear. A carbon tax absolutely must not fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those with fixed incomes. The best of the carbon tax plans, Representative Van Hollen's carbon cap and economic dividend, returns every dollar gathered by a carbon cap to every U.S. citizen with a Social Security number. This carbon cap is actually progressive, with a net increase in the disposable income for most Americans, and certainly our neediest citizens. This will be a net job creator. The resolution suggests that jobs and businesses will move overseas and that a carbon tax will restrain economic growth. British Columbia instituted a carbon tax in July 2008, and over the following 5-year period, its GDP growth actually outpaced the rest of non-carbon-priced Canada. In one ``whereas,'' it states that U.S. energy policy should encourage private sector innovation and development, but nothing would stimulate and sustain such innovation as powerfully as would appropriate carbon pricing. Every manufacturer, perhaps every family, would continue to search out the best ways to minimize the costs of production and to maximize family welfare. We are resilient, creative, and adaptive. For a long time, conservative and liberal economists have agreed that a carbon tax is the most efficient and effective way to deal with climate change. Let me quote from a recent letter from four conservative and libertarian leaders to Members of Congress: The least burdensome, most straightforward, and most market friendly means of addressing climate change is to price the risks imposed by greenhouse gas emissions via a tax. This would harness price signals, rather than regulations, to guide a market response. That is why carbon pricing has the support of free market economists, a majority of the global business community, and a large number of the largest multinational private oil and gas companies in the world. One of the policy issues that most divides our Congress is the debate on the appropriate level of governmental regulation. But to quote again from the same letter: An economy-wide carbon tax that replaces existing regulatory interventions could reduce the cost of climate policy and deregulate the economy. Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center wrote a paper called ``The Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax.'' He argues that, if conservative denial of climate science is grounded in ideological aversion to command-and-control regulation, as proposed in the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, conservatives should embrace and promote a revenue-neutral carbon tax as a more efficient, less burdensome, free market alternative. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose both resolutions as they are unwise, unnecessary, and of backward thinking.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Blumenauer amendment to request a feasibility study on the installation and operation of Capital Bikeshare stations on the Capitol Grounds. I would like to thank Mr. Blumenauer for his bike-partisan leadership over the years and for his work on this issue specifically. His passion for cycling is known to and appreciated by so many of us. Mr. Chairman, Capital Bikeshare opened in 2010 in the District of Columbia and in Arlington, Virginia, which I am proud to represent. Since then, the system has grown steadily to include more than 350 stations. It has changed the way many people in this region travel. The U.S. Capitol receives millions of visitors every year, and millions more visit our offices to talk about their issues and concerns. These people are friends, families, and constituents. There are also guests of the United States from all over the world. Capital Bikeshare has been successful precisely because many of these visitors want to see our city up close, from the seat of a bicycle. Expanding this very successful program to the Capitol Grounds is a great way to give tourists, local commuters, and our staffs an excellent transportation alternative, not to mention the benefits the bicycle has on the environment, individual health, and traffic congestion. This need is especially great right now as the D.C.'s Metrorail system undergoes extensive, prolonged maintenance. This puts a real strain on all the other modes of transportation in the city. Capital Bikeshare is beloved by D.C. residents and visitors alike, and we should be setting a strong example by supporting the program and welcoming stations in the place where we work, right here on the Capitol Grounds. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Blumenauer for his leadership and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congressman Matt Cartwright, and I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple: it strikes section 108 of this bill. Section 108 would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from updating the definitions of the terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material.'' These definitions underlie section 404 of the Clean Water Act which governs dredge and fill permitting, one of the most important components of the act. To freeze those definition in time, as section 108 does, ties the hands of the implementing agencies, despite evolving scientific understanding and current regulatory insights. Current and future administrations must have discretion to implement key terms and clarify them when needed. The alternative puts our Nation's waters at risk. My amendment would remove this anti-Clean Water Act rider. When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, the section 404 permit process was supposed to be used for certain construction projects, like bridges and roads, where raising the bottom elevation of a water body or converting an area into dry land was unavoidable. But under a 2002 rule change, the definition of ``fill material'' was broadened to include ``rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, overburden from mining or other excavation activities.'' The revised rule also removed regulatory language which previously excluded ``waste'' discharges from section 404 jurisdiction, a change that some argue allows the use of 404 permits to authorize certain discharges that harm the aquatic environment. The Clean Water Act section 404(b)(1) guidelines are not well suited for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous wastes, such as mining refuse and similar materials, into a water body or wetland. In sum, the net effect of the 2002 rule change was to alter the Corps permit process in ways that Congress had never intended. It was not congressional intent to allow mining refuse and similar material--some of it hazardous--to qualify as fill material and, thereby, bypass a more thorough environmental review and meet Federal pollution standards. Downstream water users have every right to be concerned that the section 404 process fails to protect them from the discharge of hazardous substances. Lower Slate Lake in Alaska is the perfect example. A permit allows the discharge of toxic wastewater from a gold ore processing mill to go untreated directly into the lake, despite the fact that the discharge violates EPA's standards for the mining industry. Mining waste can contain toxic chemicals known to pose health risks to humans and aquatic animals. Continuing the practice of dumping this waste into our Nation's streams and rivers is dangerous and irresponsible. EPA estimates that 120 miles per year of headwater streams are buried with the chemical-laden discharge as a result of surface mining operations under existing divisions of ``fill.'' Equally important, a 2008 EPA study found evidence that mining activities can have severe impacts on downstream aquatic life and the biological conditions of a stream. That same study found that 9 out of every 10 streams downstream from surface mining operations were impaired based on assessments of aquatic life. Mr. Chairman, this provision, section 108, is a preemptive strike against protecting our drinking water. Since there is no time limit on this provision, it would not only block the current administration but any future administration from considering changes. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and strike section 108 from this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, much like the previous discussion, our amendment would simply strike section 110. As it stands, section 110 would prevent the implementation of the Clean Water Rule. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers adopted the Clean Water Rule following a lengthy and inclusive public rulemaking process. It restores the Clean Water Act protections to streams, wetlands, and other important waters of the United States. Without the Clean Water Rule, the streams that provide drinking water systems serving one in three Americans will remain at risk. Almost everyone agreed that clarity was needed in light of the Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 that interpreted the regulatory scope of the Clean Water Act more narrowly than the agencies and lower courts. Those cases created uncertainty about the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. Calls for EPA to issue a rule even came from such organizations as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Western Business Roundtable, and the National Association of Manufacturers. Prohibiting the EPA from implementing this rule, as section 110 would direct, would perpetrate this confusion. There are countless cases to reiterate this point. For example, the EPA acknowledged enforcement difficulties in a case in which storm water from construction sites carried oil, grease, and other pollutants into tributaries to the San Pedro River, which is an internationally recognized river ecosystem supporting diverse wildlife, but where the waters in question flow only for part of the year. The agency stated that it had to discontinue all enforcement cases in this area because it was so time-consuming and costly to prove that the Clean Water Act protects these rivers. So we need to end the confusion. But, unfortunately, we are left with the Clean Water Rule not currently being enforced because of a Federal Court ruling that blocked its implementation while it is being litigated. The Corps and the EPA will continue to make Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations based on the 2010 guidelines, as they did before the promulgation of the 2015 rule, doing the best they can with the ambiguity that they are forced to work with. So this confusion will continue. It needs to be said that opponents of the Clean Water Rule have it wrong. The rule respects agriculture and the law by maintaining all of the existing exemptions for agricultural discharges and waters. It identifies specific types of water bodies to which it does not apply-- areas like artificial lakes and ponds, and many types of drainage and irrigation ditches. It does not extend Federal protection to any waters not historically protected under the Clean Water Act, and it is fully consistent with the law and the decisions of the Supreme Court. I want to reiterate. The administration has created a strong, commonsense rule to make clean water a priority by protecting the sources that feed the drinking water for more than 117 million Americans, including 2.3 million Virginians. If we continue to block the rule to protect clean water, at least 57 percent of Virginia's streams and 20 million acres of wetlands nationwide will continue to be at risk. American businesses need to know when the Federal Government has authority and when it doesn't. Without updated guidance and the clarity it provides, businesses will often not know when they need Army Corps of Engineers' permits. This uncertainty could result in civil and criminal liability and will certainly cost them extra money. Overall, the Clean Water Act riders are part of an effort to return us to a time when we had no uniform, national, minimum clean water standards, and States had conflicting policies or no policies to protect the public. That was a time when rivers were so polluted they caught fire and when responsible downstream States suffered the consequences of lax or weak upstream State policies. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose these Clean Water Act riders and to support my amendment to strike section 110. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the chairman from Texas for adding my amendment to this en bloc. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today would require the Defense Department and FAA to study the impact of military helicopter noise in the national capital region and to develop recommendations to reduce the effect of noise on people and property. The airspace around Washington, D.C., is more restricted and more highly congested than in any other part of the country. On average, 144 helicopter operations take place here every day, 75 percent of which are military, encompassing all types of military aircraft. One recent addition to our airspace is the V-22 Osprey, a hybrid helicopter and airplane with the width of an 8-story building. It has been deployed to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, rescue missions in Haiti and the San Juan Mountains, and now the peaceful communities of northern Virginia. As most of my colleagues probably know, the Osprey can transition from a turboprop plane to a conventional helicopter, all while hovering at a low altitude. This noisy transition takes place directly over the Fairlington neighborhood in my district in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the communities in my district are realistic about the noise helicopters generate and are sensitive to the operational needs of the military, but the routes and altitude caps dictated by the FAA follow best practices for public and private aircraft, not military aircraft designed for a conflict zone. A total quieting of the skies in northern Virginia is not possible or even practical; but given the military's insistence on using such heavy, loud aircraft, it is only right that they work with the FAA to reexamine the existing route structure and offer some possible solutions. I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment en bloc.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my concern with certain aspects of the Calvert amendment that is included in part of the en bloc amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act that we will pass by voice vote. My colleague from California has every right to attempt to catalogue the quantity of civilian and contractors within the Department of Defense. But I must object to his characterization of our civilian defense employees' roles. I am lucky enough to represent nearly 80,000 federal employees, many of whom work at the Pentagon, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Belvoir, or one of the myriad Department of Defense installations around Northern Virginia. This includes ground breaking work at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, important work to keep us safe at Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the jobs supplying our military with the tools it needs at the Defense Logistics Agency. Our nation, its people, and its defenses would not by possible without the dedicated work of these individuals. Mr. Calvert's effort to categorize these civilian defense employees as disproportionate or duplicative undermines the incredible work they do every day to keep our military running. The ability to produce combat power, modernize, and keep our troops healthy and safe are critical functions at the Department of Defense. Moreover, they are critical functions performed by highly intelligent, accomplished, and dedicated civilian employees. Our civilian workforce has already weathered years of uncertain budgets, pay freezes, a government shutdown, and sequester furloughs. We should not further demean the important work they do with this amendment.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to express my opposition to the increasing use of forced or binding arbitration. Most Americans don't even know about forced or binding arbitration until it happens to them. Clauses are buried in the fine print of everyday contracts and, before they know it, they are unknowingly compelled to give up their legal rights. Quite honestly, if we just take into consideration human behavior--most Americans don't read the fine print even if they know they should. And let's assume that if they did, I guarantee you most don't have enough of legal background to recognize problem language when they read it. This is concerning and dangerous when we consider that arbitration clauses are increasingly being inserted into consumer and employment contracts. This allows companies to circumvent the courts and bars people from joining together in class-action lawsuits. And class action law suits are realistically one of the few tools citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices. Applying for a credit card, using a cellphone, getting cable or Internet service and you are likely agreeing to private arbitration unknowingly. This is concerning because arbitration is heavily weighted in favor of the more powerful party. Not only does the corporation that wrote the contract set the terms of arbitration, but it also often decides on the arbitrator. Arbitrators do not have to be trained in the law, nor are they required to follow the law. Quite simply, arbitration lacks many of the fundamental guarantees of fairness that a court provides. As a small business owner, I view binding arbitration as plainly unfair to the consumer and also unnecessary in the operation of a successful business practice. My business currently operates successfully without engaging in the same predatory practice for consumers. Lawyers can continually put together more sophisticatedly drafted agreements meaning courts routinely enforce such agreements. That means we have a legally enforceable culture that is reinforcing these one- sided provisions which unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of one party. This is a practice we must stop. I am here to say we must stop it. Let us stop this predatory practice on consumers and bid binding arbitration a farewell.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a bedrock community institution in my district, the Falls Church News-Press. The Falls Church News-Press just celebrated the 25th anniversary of the publication of its first issue. Led by founder and publisher Nick Benton, the paper has established itself as a fixture in the region over the course of the last quarter century, covering the things that mattered most to the members of this community. Founder and publisher Nick Benton's hard work has kept the paper running through good times and bad for the print journalism industry, and is a testament to the value of fostering civil discussion on the local level. It all started in 1991 when Mr. Benton presented a plan for a local paper to the Falls Church Chamber of Commerce; initially, 130 businesses pledged their support to the periodical, which has maintained its strong ties to the community with a free circulation of 10,000 copies. In today's journalistic world where major media outlets have ever increasing gaps in local news coverage the Falls Church News-Press, with Mr. Benton at the helm, has filled those gaps many times over. The Falls Church News-Press has been awarded the City of Falls Church Business of the Year, and the city's Business Contribution to the Community award. As an active partner in community affairs, sponsoring an annual food drive, an annual scholarship for high school seniors, a citywide holiday party, and other events and activities, the Falls Church News-Press manages do more than just inform the people of my district: it helps support them. I commend the Falls Church News-Press and its staff on the occasion or the newspaper's 25th anniversary. They deserve the greatest degree of credit for helping create our own Falls Church sense of community.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, America and the world lost an indefatigable champion, a distinguished gentleman, and a charismatic friend with the death of James V. Kimsey this past Tuesday. Jim was larger than life. Everything Jim touched has become part of the history and culture of our community. From Bullfeathers to AOL, from his home above the Potomac to the orphanages in Vietnam, from the Kennedy Center to the International Commission on Missing Persons, Jim Kimsey has been a transformational leader. Despite his too-short life, Jim's resume is long and deep: founder and CEO of AOL, chairman of Refugees International, Library of Congress Trust Fund Board, Executive Committee of the National Symphony Orchestra, Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, West Point Board of Visitors, an Army tour in the Dominican Republic and two in Vietnam, the Army Ranger Hall of Fame, and so much more. But for Jim's myriad of friends, he was so much more than a list of achievements. He was visionary, strategic, generous, mischievous, and always had a smile on his face. Who else could be tossed out of Gonzaga College High School 2 months before graduation, graduate from our archrival St. John's College High School, and still be a generous and loyal Gonzaga friend for decades to come? Jim's funeral will be this Saturday at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C. We will all miss you for a long time.

Mr. BEYER

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