Donald Beyer

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I respect the chairman's objections to this, but I would like to point out that all that this amendment does in striking the section is allow the EPA to consider future changes to the ``fill'' definitions. Clearly, the work begun in the Clinton administration and finalized in the George W. Bush administration were the best possible actions at the time. In the meantime, we have discovered that, unfortunately, much mining waste and refuse are ending up in mining streams and rivers, and it has severely affected the health of those people. We are not attempting to eliminate mining jobs or to even impact earth moving. It is only reasonable to make sure that our Environmental Protection Agency has the latitude and the freedom to evolve future definitions so as to best protect the health of our citizens. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. The amendment strikes a rider that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from updating regulations pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for purposes of the Clean Water Act. Presently, the Army Corps of Engineers issues a section 404 permit if the fill material discharged into a water body raises the bottom elevation of that water body or converts the area to dry land. The current rule allows mining waste to be dumped into the rivers and streams without an appropriate environmental review process. Given repeated instances of mining activities resulting in lakes and streams devoid of fish or aquatic life, downstream water users are rightly concerned that the section 404 process fails to protect them from the discharge of hazardous substances. The Clean Water Act section 404 guidelines are not well suited for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous waste, such as mining refuse and similar materials, into a water body or a wetland. The rider that this amendment strikes would block the EPA from making necessary modifications to these guidelines. This rider is a preemptive strike against protecting our drinking water, and it allows mining companies' interests to trump the protection of the health of our citizens. We should not short-circuit regular order through the appropriations process. We should not preclude the Corps or the EPA from considering any regulatory changes to the current definition and permit process. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike this language from the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Huffman).

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

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The sum of the harmful consequences of global climate change is the existential crisis of our generation and, perhaps, of our century. Global temperature changes are already causing prolonged droughts, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. Tens of millions of people, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable among us, are at risk unless we act to reverse the disastrous effects of climate change. Our best scientists and our Pope are warning us that unless carbon emissions are dramatically cut, we will see ever rising sea levels, ever more extreme weather, and ever worsening public health, poor air quality, the spread of tropical diseases, lung and heart and heat stress illnesses, and death. Several weeks ago, the EPA issued a comprehensive report quantifying the economic costs of a changing climate across 20 sectors of the American economy. Among the findings, the report found that, by 2100, mitigating greenhouse global gas emissions could avoid 12,000 deaths per year that are associated with extreme temperatures in just 49 U.S. cities compared to a future with no emission reductions. The estimated damages to coastal property from sea level rise and storm surge in the contiguous U.S. are $5 trillion through the year 2100 in a future without carbon emissions. The Department of the Interior also recently released a report revealing that over $40 billion of National Park infrastructure and historic and cultural resources could be at risk due to sea level rise caused by climate change. Taking acts to address climate change is particularly crucial in urban districts that border waterways, like mine, where we are already seeing environmental effects. Now is the time when the U.S. should be deepening its commitment to reducing climate change pollution. Federal agency actions, including those of the agencies named in this bill, have major impacts on our contributions and reactions to global warning. It is imperative, then, that these agencies maintain mindfulness of those impacts and that they seek to avoid actions that add significant amounts of carbon pollution to the atmosphere or actions that put people and property in the vulnerable position with respect to climate change. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to ensure that no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with the President's 2009 executive order on greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency and the 2013 executive order on climate change adaptation. These orders require agencies to take global warming into account when making decisions and will save taxpayer dollars while making our communities safer and cleaner. Our agencies need to be climate smart, because making our Federal investments and actions climate smart reduces our fiscal exposure to the impacts of climate change. It is the right thing to do to run an efficient and effective government. It is the right thing to do to return the highest value to the American taxpayer. It is simple: smarter investments up front mean we can reduce future costs. Communities across the Nation are thinking this way. We need to ensure that the same is true for the Federal Government. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to ensure that Federal agencies are operating in the manner that accounts for climate change. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, the Interior Subcommittee has done its best to invest in parks, but given its insufficient allocation, this was the only meaningful way for the very obvious need for the $11.5 billion for infrastructure.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, my amendment would correct the assertion in this bill that all forest biomass is carbon neutral. The assertion is simply scientifically inaccurate. In 2012, EPA's Scientific Advisory Board directly challenged the claim that all forest biomass is carbon neutral, explaining that while some types of carbon biomass may indeed be, it is inappropriate to assume that all types of forest biomass are carbon neutral. This misperception could have serious consequences for wildlife habitat and for our ability to combat climate change in the coming years. In fact, numerous studies have underscored that using some types of forest biomass, particularly slow-growing trees, can actually increase atmospheric carbon for many decades. The New York Times this Tuesday mentioned a study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts that indicated that the climate impacts of burning wood were worse than those for coal for 45 years and worse than that for natural gas for 90 years. To know what types of biomass are truly low-carbon, scientists need to actually assess them, and treating all forest biomass as carbon neutral is risky. The Energy Information Administration has found that this will lead to a boom in the use of forest and other biomass for energy. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, the resulting logging would have dire consequences for climate mitigation and wildlife habitat. It would also drive up the price of pulpwood and other lower grades of wood for wood-product industries. In my State of Virginia, local environmental organizations are concerned that if biomass is treated as carbon neutral, it would encourage Dominion Virginia Power to burn wood from forests to meet its emission reduction obligations. Dominion has already converted three of its existing coal plants to run on biomass fuel and has a hybrid energy center that can burn up to 20 percent biomass for fuel. I share the concern of these local groups that Virginia will become known as a State that harvests forests to reduce its dependence on coal, rather than developing renewable technologies that clearly reduce emissions, such as solar and wind. More broadly, I worry about the precedent that this will set for forest management policy in the U.S. and around the world. We have already seen that under the European Emissions Trading System, where biomass has a zero emissions rating, European companies have invested billions to convert coal plants to plants that can burn wood pellets, leading to an incredible demand for wood. Earlier this month, The Washington Post reported that Europe's climate policies have led to more U.S. trees being cut down as wood pellets are being exported to meet the demand for wood fuel. More than two dozen pellet factories have been constructed in the southeastern U.S. over the past decade, along with special port facilities in Virginia and Georgia to ship the wood to Europe. Demand for wood in Europe is so robust that wood pellet exports from the U.S. nearly doubled from 2012 to 2013 and are expected to nearly double again this year. We should not create artificial demand to meet scientifically unsubstantiated goals. It is critical that we make sure that the accounting used to estimate net biogenic emissions is scientifically accurate before we implement policies that might add carbon pollution rather than reduce it. Mr. Chair, I will withdraw this amendment, but I do so urging my colleagues to support policies that are scientifically accurate, and to realize that not all forest biomass is carbon neutral, and that the EPA should take that into consideration. I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to more appropriately consider biomass. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to provide $11.5 billion to fund emergency infrastructure repairs related to the National Park Service deferred maintenance backlog. Mr. Chair, earlier this month, the National Park Service, at the recommendation of the Department of Transportation, took the precautionary measure of closing two lanes on the iconic Arlington Memorial Bridge, one of the most important entrances to the Nation's Capital and a major artery for many of my constituents commuting to work every day. The crisis of the Memorial Bridge, whose replacement will cost a startling $250 million, demonstrates the degradation of park infrastructure throughout the country. It also shows the extent of the backlog and the need to provide funds to ensure reliability for the economy as well as the safety of the public. The backlog has also grown because of a steady decline in the construction account. Over the last decade, there has been a 62 percent decline, $227 million in today's dollars. The Park Service receives only 58 cents out of every dollar needed just to keep the backlog from growing. Mr. Chair, the United States is the richest country in the history of mankind. We are the democratic leader, the military leader, the human rights leader, the financial leader of all the world. Can we not also be the investment leader? This country needs to be the country that invests in our infrastructure today for our children and our grandchildren tomorrow. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Representative Tsongas' amendment to support the National Park Service's Centennial Challenge. As a former National Park Service Ranger, I am proud to serve as a Congressional Friend of the National Park Service Centennial, and I eagerly await the centennial in 2016: Find Your Park. As the NPS approaches its centennial year, it is important to ensure they have the resources they need to enter into the second century of service to the American people. The Interior Subcommittee has tried its very best to invest in parks, given its insufficient allocation; but with the centennial approaching and the buildup of park needs, this level is not remotely enough for parks. Recognizing the serious impact of both the Budget Control Act and emergency wildfire suppression on the Interior allocation, Congress still must find a way to meet the needs of parks by securing another budget deal to get rid of the threat of sequester. There is no better time than the centennial for a robust investment in our national parks by Congress and the American people. It is time to make our national parks a national priority.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, every day, 88 Americans are killed by guns. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is 20 times higher than other developed nations. How long before enough is enough? Today, I am introducing the Keeping Guns from Criminals Act, commonsense gun violence prevention legislation that will close a loophole in current Federal law, that allows straw purchasers and gun traffickers to funnel firearms to felons, juveniles and other restricted purchasers, with little to no risk of being prosecuted. While Federal law clearly prohibits the sale of a gun to a felon or other persons deemed not eligible to possess a firearm, the standard required to prosecute violators is so high that law enforcement is rarely able to bring charges. Only if the prosecutor can prove the seller knew the buyer was prohibited from purchasing a gun are they able to successfully prosecute. So unenforceable is the current statute that, on average, only 75 such prosecutions occur every year. My bill would make it easier to prosecute these bad actors by making the sale of a firearm a strict liability. It is a crime, and the onus is on the seller to know whether the buyer is in the prohibited class of customers. No longer would a gun trafficker or irresponsible gun seller be able to claim they didn't know a purchaser was a criminal or had a restraining order against them or was on a terrorist watch list. No longer would we be tying the hands of law enforcement and preventing them from enforcing laws to protect our children. No longer would a prosecutor have to prove the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing required under current law. Mr. Speaker, no doubt, one of the arguments against this bill will be a complaint that a background check places an onerous burden upon the seller. But consider this: the seller and prospective buyer need only go to one of the many Federal Firearms Licensees, or FFL, who provide a private property transfer with a background check for only about $30. And consider that there are 130,000 FFLs in the United States. That is roughly nine times as many McDonald's as there are. Mr. Speaker, everyone, even the National Rifle Association, agrees that we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. This legislation is a step in that direction, and I encourage my colleagues to please support it.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a bill that Representatives McSally, Cardenas, Joe Heck, and I have introduced, the Humane Cosmetics Act. The Humane Cosmetics Act would phase out the use of animal-based testing for cosmetic products. It will eventually prohibit the sale of cosmetics tested on animals in foreign countries, making sure that only safe products tested with cutting-edge technology enter the American market. It is time for us to end the painful and completely unnecessary process of testing American cosmetics on animals. Safer, more cost- effective, and completely humane alternatives already exist; and the United States is in no danger of losing its competitive role as a leader in the global cosmetics industry. Now, we need to ensure our place as a moral leader. Over the last 20 years, cosmetics companies have reduced their use of animals for cosmetics testing in favor of more reliable, cost- effective, and technologically advanced methods that can more accurately predict whether cosmetics are safe for humans. Let's not stay in the past. Let's keep up with our peers. The Humane Cosmetics Act would match U.S. law to the European Union, Israel, and India and ensure that the American cosmetics industry can remain competitive in a changing global market. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to stand as tall and as boldly as I can for the American worker. Almost 10 million Americans are unemployed; middle class income wages have been stagnant for decades; almost every low-wage job that could have moved overseas has moved overseas. We have to do something different--something smart, honest, brave, bold, and based on the almost unanimous consensus of American economists. We need to tear down the trade barriers of other countries so that they will buy our goods and services. We need to establish much stronger labor and environmental laws overseas. We need to bring the rule of law to those countries so that investors will build new plants and equipment, and we need much stronger intellectual property protections around the world. We have to take globalization head on. We cannot isolate ourselves. No economy can grow from within. We tried protectionism, and we got the Great Recession. Mr. Speaker, I stand for the American worker, and I support the Obama administration's commitment to free trade and to lifting the American middle class.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Richard C. Ehlke, Senior Advisor to the Director and Senior Specialist, of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress. Mr. Ehlke retired on May 29, 2015 after a distinguished career of over four decades with CRS. During his tenure, Mr. Ehlke served in many roles at CRS. He began his career as a legislative attorney with the American Law Division of CRS, and Members of Congress and staff actively sought his thoughtful, objective analyses of some of the most complex and nuanced legal issues facing the Congress. His highly regarded and much relied upon briefs often focused on potential points of friction between Congress and the Executive Branch. At the behest of his Congressional clients, he analyzed the legal intricacies of legislative vetoes, Congressional access to agency and presidential information, the interplay of the President's constitutional powers under the Appointments Clause and of Congress' legislative and advice and consent prerogatives, and the transparency in government provided for by the Freedom of Information Act. He was routinely called upon by Congressional offices to clarify the legal complexities arising out of the federal government's relationship with Native Americans. Following his many years of providing direct legal counsel to Congress as a legislative attorney, Mr. Ehlke was promoted to serve as the head of CRS' American Law Division. In this role, he guided the work of a generation of Division attorneys and paralegal assistants, instilling in them the rigorous, careful legal research and analytical skills that had always been the hallmark of his own work. He was instrumental in establishing the Division's Law Recruit Program in 1988, which has attracted new hires, contributing to a vibrant and diverse workforce of legislative attorneys. Following his tenure as head of the American Law Division, a succession of CRS Directors called upon Mr. Ehlke for his sage advice and leadership skills in the service of Congress in a number of critical roles. His accomplishments during this part of his career were significant. Mr. Ehlke played a leading role in the development of a new performance assessment system for CRS. He also advised the Director on the establishment of the position of Section Research Manager (SRM) (first-line supervisors) in the Service and assisted with the recruitment, hiring, orientation, and performance expectations of the initial cohort of these SRMs. Additionally he oversaw a complete redesign of the CRS website and served as a member of the website governance board to streamline services for our Congressional offices. Given his long-term interest in ensuring CRS' objective of providing the best service to Congress, Mr. Ehlke assisted with the Congressionally mandated CRS customer satisfaction survey. And as the Senior Advisor to the Director and as a Senior Specialist, he advised on significant legal issues relating to ethics, media policy, CRS relations with the Library of Congress, speech or debate privilege, CRS reorganizations, and personnel actions. Whatever his role, the result has always been the same--a highly competent, skillful performance for the benefit of Congress, its Members, and staff. CRS has been fortunate to have had such a person of high intellect dedicated to the institution's mission of providing objective, authoritative service to Congress in an unfailing patient and courteous manner for over forty years. We wish him the very best in his retirement, and thank him for his exceptional record of service to CRS and to the Congress of the United States.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Blumenauer amendment. In business, we are always fighting the tendency of the long term giving away to the short term, the important giving away to the urgent and the immediate. I am deeply disappointed that this budget for climate research has been cut by $30 million. Now is not the time to cut climate research. From the floods in Houston to the drought in California, shifts in climate over the next few decades will cost American companies and American communities hundreds of billions of dollars. NOAA has the ability to do advanced forecasting predictions certainly for weather- and for ocean-related phenomena, but they also have it for climate short- and long-term change. This ability is crucial to support the future of our businesses, coastal cities, and environmental health. This Congress has repeatedly affirmed that climate change is real. We may have different ideas about the cause of climate change and certainly what we can do to combat it, but it makes no sense to slash the very research which will enable us to find effective, bipartisan solutions. We must robustly fund climate science research, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my gratitude to the Congressman from Oklahoma for teaching me how to say ``Miami.'' I have been mispronouncing ``Miami'' all through my short presentation. I also want to thank him for his leadership and being so responsive. I think that there are perhaps many other laws on the books that we should look at in a very simple way to revoke the charters, as necessary. I would also like to offer my help to the Congressman from Miami with our two Virginia Senators. It sounds like, if it passed this House with only one negative vote last year, that perhaps the Senate is the place where this is being held up. If we can provide some support to him in his moving this through the Senate side, I would be delighted to do that.

Mr. BEYER. I would be happy to take some if the chairman wouldn't mind.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, H.R. 533 simply revokes a corporate charter issued to it by the Federal Government. Under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act and the Indian Reorganization Act, many tribes were issued corporate charters in the 1930s and 1940s that were aimed at enabling them to better manage their own affairs and pursue business relationships with private entities. For some tribes, these corporate charters have proven unnecessary and end up hindering their business opportunities, as they will inevitably come up in negotiations with private entities and are looked upon with suspicion. The charter must be revoked by an act of Congress, and Mr. Mullin, on behalf of his constituents, is simply being a good Congressman and complying with the tribe's request through this bill. Similar legislation has passed over the years without event, and I ask my colleagues to stand with me in support of Mr. Mullin's noncontroversial bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak in support of the Huffman-Sablan substitute amendment. This amendment would complement, rather than overhaul, the fishery management process in place under the Magnuson- Stevens Act, MSA. While the current MSA may not be perfect, we have heard from many groups again and again that it works. We have made incredible gains since the last reauthorization in 2007. In its annual report issued in April, NOAA reported that the number of domestic fish stocks listed as overfished or subject to overfishing has dropped to an all-time low since 1997. Three more fish stocks were rebuilt to target levels in 2014, bringing the total number of rebuilt U.S. marine fish stocks to 37 since 2000. This amazing progress is a result of the combined efforts of NOAA, the regional fishery management councils, the fishing industry, and other stakeholders. NOAA currently has pending proposals to tweak the implementation of MSA. That process should be allowed to continue. What is needed now are updates to the MSA that address specific issues that keep the law current, not a weakening of the law and rollback of conservation measures such as those proposed in H.R. 1335. H.R. 1335 would undermine the great improvements we have made to make our fisheries economically and environmentally sustainable, without addressing some important factors impacting our fisheries today. For example, I had hoped to offer an amendment to H.R. 1335 that would have product councils with a way of taking the effects of climate change into account when establishing annual catch limits and rebuilding timelines, but the Rules Committee declined to allow me to offer it on the floor today, despite the critical need for us to deal with the very real impacts that climate change is already having on our oceans and our fisheries. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Huffman-Sablan amendment, which would modernize the data collection and management of fisheries data, improve recreational fisheries data collection and reporting, and provide a way for NOAA to accept outside funding to support cooperative research efforts between scientists and fishermen.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 979 will designate a mountain peak in the John Muir Wilderness of the Sierra National Forest in California as Sky Point in recognition of fallen Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Sky Mote. Sky served our country honorably as a U.S. marine for 9 years. He had one tour of duty in Iraq and two in Afghanistan. As a member of the 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion, he was deployed to Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. However, on August 10, 2012, Sky's battalion received heavy gunfire from an attacker dressed as an Afghan police officer. Jumping into action, Sky exposed himself to the gunfire in order to distract the shooter and draw his attention away from his fellow Marines. In his final act of valor, he engaged the attacker in the open, allowing his comrades to find safety. For his heroic actions, Sky received the Navy Cross, a Purple Heart, the Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal, a Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal, two Combat Action Ribbons, and three Good Conduct Medals. The mountain peak this bill seeks to name in his honor was very special to him. Every year, creating lasting memories, Staff Sergeant Mote and his family would set up camp beneath its point on hunting trips to the area. By designating that mountain peak ``Sky Point,'' we will honor Sky Mote's memory and ensure his selfless sacrifice for his country and fellow Marines is not forgotten. I just hope that the many hunters, mountaineers, and backpackers who visit Sky Point have an opportunity to learn of the man for whom the peak is named. I yield back the balance of my time.