Donald Beyer

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4084, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act. Currently in the United States, nuclear power produces about 20 percent of our Nation's electrical supply, and that makes nuclear power the single largest carbon-free power source in the country. However, our current nuclear fleet is growing older. Many of the plants across our country are many decades old and rely upon nuclear technology that is even older. There have been substantial efforts in the past decade to move towards constructing new nuclear generating units with more modern designs. However, these efforts have had mixed results. There have been construction difficulties, regulatory hurdles, and financing issues, all of which have conspired to delay the construction of new nuclear plants in America. Some of these hurdles, though, are unlikely to go away with our current technologies. The Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima nuclear accidents have repeatedly highlighted the necessity of ensuring our nuclear fleet runs as safely as possible. This has led to much of the cost and difficulty of building the new plants. I think the answer to these problems can be found in innovative new nuclear technologies. The Department of Energy and many different companies in the private sector are working on new forms of nuclear energy generation that hold the promise of much more effective and much safer nuclear generation stations. Some of these technologies also address the extremely important issue of the radioactive waste streams that plague our current generation of nuclear plants. H.R. 4084 takes several positive steps to help spur this innovation and deliver these very promising nuclear technologies to market. I also want to highlight one additional reason to support H.R. 4084. As the world makes commitments to move toward a lower carbon future, as evidenced by the Paris climate agreement, it presents an opportunity to American Industry to supply low-carbon power platforms like nuclear power. This bill will keep our country on the forefront of nuclear power technology, and it is my hope it will empower American Industry to be the suppliers of the next generation of nuclear plants throughout the entire world. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Weber for sponsoring this legislation, and thank Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for bringing this bill to the floor in such a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, I reserve balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER

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

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

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

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that we are certainly not objecting to reasonable attorneys' fees and to making people whole. It is the idea that law enforcement officers can be held personally responsible and can be, actually, personally sued for doing their jobs that we object to. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. BEYER. The letter expresses the Police Foundation's grave concerns with this amendment. They write that this amendment ``will have a chilling effect on the enforcement of illegal gun possession and other crimes.'' Why would Congress narrow the limited set of enforcement tools our police officers currently have to pursue suspected gun traffickers? The Griffith amendment subjects a police officer to a personal lawsuit when he or she detains or arrests someone whom the officer reasonably believed at the time of detainment was illegally trafficking or was carrying a firearm. We must respect our officers' ability to use discretion, albeit limited, when determining if gun trafficking is occurring; so subjecting them to personal lawsuits when they are simply trying to do their jobs to protect us seems a little reckless. These brave men and women should not be afraid to carry out their investigative duties due to the fear of being sued. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

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

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to be debating two doctors on one amendment. I do think that one of the dilemmas here is that this amendment, like so much of H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act, continues the essential idea that we should be turning over decisions that have been made at the Federal Government level by the National Park Service, by the Bureau of Land Management, and by the Forest Service to State governments and even to local governments. This is not a debate on UTVs. I respect that automobiles and all kinds of transportation continue to evolve. Rather, it is the idea that we are setting a damaging precedent with regard to our conservation laws and regulations that again and again we are saying that, rather than taking a national perspective, we are turning to the local folks to decide what works best for the country. This amendment allows the State of Louisiana, not the Forest Service charged with managing the Kisatchie National Forest for the benefit of the American people, to determine where and whether it is permissible to chase down deer with motorized vehicles. These are thoughtful rules established through an open, public process. They seek to balance multiple uses and prevent abuses in our national forests. The fact that this amendment focuses on off-road vehicles brings to mind the illegal 2014 ATV ride through Recapture Canyon in Utah. That is the last thing we want to happen in Kisatchie National Forest. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and the precedent that it would set. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to let Representative Newhouse know I completely appreciate the dilemma that he is in and appreciate the motivation for this amendment. My one concern is that it will require the chief of the Forest Service to publish notice in the Federal Register, along with a justification, any time a national Forest Service road is closed, and there may be some unintended consequences which we should at least think about. For example, the amendment will require the Forest Service to publish the Federal Register notice to close a road that is being engulfed by wildfire, or a road that is covered with debris after a tornado or in jeopardy of being swept away after a landslide, a power line down on the road, or even one that is closed to prevent militants from coming and going, as we have recently seen. I certainly am sympathetic to the idea that there should be a justification for anything that closes a public road that people have used for many, many years, but I also don't want to hamstring them from closing roads that are necessary for the public safety. I tepidly encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to emphasize that the Forest Service doesn't prohibit hunting right now in the Mark Twain National Forest. It simply prohibits hunting deer with dogs. It does this because of complaints from private landowners, not from the environmentalists and not from bureaucrats. This is literally respect for the public input that comes from that. I continue to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am opposing this amendment, first and foremost, because it, like so many provisions already in the bill, seeks to prevent U.S. public lands from being managed for the benefit of all Americans. National forests are lands of many uses, including hunting and fishing. But how those uses are balanced should be decided by expert land managers at the Forest Service through a process that is open to the public and consistent with our national conservation laws, not by a few well-connected hunters and their allies in Congress. Furthermore, the practice that this section of the bill is trying to protect is using dogs to hunt deer. Not only is this an ethically questionable hunting tactic, it is wildly controversial in the States listed in this title as well as in my State of Virginia. Its opponents, Mr. Chairman, are not who you might think. These are not what was described yesterday as radical leftists. In fact, it is the complaints from private landowners and not overbearing bureaucrats, not environmentalists, that led the Forest Service to ban deer hounding in Louisiana's Kisatchie National Forest in 2012. Don't take my word for it. A 2014 column in Louisiana Sportsman stated: The boot that finally stamped the life out of deer hunting with dogs in Kisatchie National Forest was trespassing on private property . . . homeowners reported people standing on the public roads in front of their homes with guns, waiting for deer to appear. They reported dogs on their property sometimes attacking their chickens or other livestock. And, worst of all, the homeowners reported belligerent and insolent behavior by these people standing on the roads and entering their property to retrieve their dogs. Missouri's Mark Twain National Forest, the subject of this bill, was the scene of a major law enforcement action that found 46 people guilty of illegally hunting deer with dogs in 2013, this in spite of the fact that the practice had already been banned in Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in response and with respect to my friend, the representative from Florida, Biscayne Bay National Park is 164,800 acres. These are Federal lands. This is a national park, Federal waters. She mentioned that only they are going to close 30 percent of the reefs. It is very important to note that the reef that existed 100 years ago is down to only 6 percent that is left. So the 30 percent that is going to be closed is 2 percent of the original reef. The whole purpose is to actually serve that special interest, the fishing interest of Florida, who desperately need the revival of the fish. We found at the public hearing that at least half of the fishermen there were for closing it, and all the fishermen pointed out that the water was so far away, it was rarely fished at all. The worry was the precedent, not the specific part that is closed. We point out that Biscayne Bay itself is only less than 2 percent-- 1.4 percent--of all Florida's waters. So this is a very tiny part. But the point here is not for any special interest, but to revise, because study after study after study have shown that where these marine sanctuaries are created, the fish recover much faster even than scientists expected. This is for the long-term benefit of the fishing community, for anglers throughout the world, especially serving the larger interests of the American public. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important amendment. We resist giving veto power over Federal decisions to State governments and territorial governments. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, with respect to my colleague and friend from California, I don't think that is the way the system works. In fact, right now fishing limitations are developed in coordination with their respective States and territories. They are just not given final, blanket veto power. The Park Service and the States benefit from cooperative fisheries research and management and full participation. My only personal experience is with the Biscayne Bay where there were many, many public hearings. The public was fully involved. The fishermen, pro and con, were fully involved in it. The idea is not to eliminate the close coordination of partnership with the States and with the territories, but, rather, to avoid giving the States and territories the ultimate veto power over what essentially are national decisions. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.