Donald Beyer

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Currently, Native America tribes and their tribal courts use procedures and guidelines that vary significantly from tribe to tribe when placing a Native American child in a foster home. Current law does not require that the Federal Government or Indian tribe perform vigorous background checks on foster parents or foster homes in order to ensure the safety, health, and protection of Native children. Consequently, there have been appalling cases of Native American children ending up in dangerous and unsafe living conditions because they were placed in an overburdened foster care system that failed to ensure sufficient background checks of placement homes. We critically need background checks of individuals and institutions selected to foster Native youth. H.R. 1168 strengthens background checks on prospective foster care parents prior to placement of Native children into foster homes and sets forth a uniform manner in which Federal and tribal agencies serving tribes may conduct such checks. I ask my colleagues to stand with me in support of Native American children by supporting passage of Mr. Cramer's bill, H.R. 1168, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 404 would authorize landowners served by the Northport Irrigation District to prepay the remaining portion of construction costs allocated to them for the North Platte project. In exchange, the landowners who pay will no longer be subject to acreage limitations and other requirements associated with the Reclamation Reform Act. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this good bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the remarkable life and accomplishments of Mr. Albert Melvin Miller, who passed away on Sunday, May 10, at Inova Alexandria Hospital. Melvin was a well-known political and community leader in the city of Alexandria, Virginia. One of his crowning achievements was his work with the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority, protecting and expanding affordable housing programs across the city. Mel was a civil rights advocate, a mentor, and a beloved father. He was also a character: kind, interested, ever present, honest, hard- working, inspirational, and--above all--witty. Mel Miller was a person you wanted to spend time with. Mel grew up in Haddonfield, New Jersey, but his heart belonged to Raleigh, North Carolina, where his alma mater, Saint Augustine's University, is located, and to his adopted hometown of Alexandria, Virginia. Graduating from Saint Aug's in history and political science, he remained deeply involved with the school by serving on the board of trustees for 35 years and encouraging Alexandria's students to attend his beloved university. After earning his JD from Howard University School of Law, Melvin was admitted to the Virginia State Bar and moved to Alexandria in 1958. Early in his Alexandria life, Melvin begin his civil rights activism and community involvement by doing pro bono work on school desegregation issues. This work led him to join an underground association unofficially named the ``Secret Seven,'' which met to discuss possible ways to discuss civil rights and liberties in Alexandria and the surrounding areas. This early local involvement led him to become a prominent figure in Alexandria's education system and the authority and champion for affordable housing. Melvin's work for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority helped to provide housing for hundreds of Alexandria's poor. His crowning achievement was a deal by Melvin between the city of Alexandria and ARHA, which required any affordable housing that was destroyed to be matched one- for-one with new developments. That deal still stands largely untouched today. Mel was a tireless mentor of Alexandria's students and an avid high school sports fan. He could often be seen and heard giving advice to local students and cheering at high school sporting events. He also served on the Alexandria school board from 1986 to 1993, serving as board chair from 1990 to 1992. Mel is survived by his daughter, Ericka Miller; his son, Marc Miller, and wife, Mary; his grandchildren, Max, Chris, Zachary, and Bennett Miller; his daughter-in-law, Vicky McCauley; and a host of other relatives and many friends. Melvin was preceded in death by son, Eric. His wife of nearly 5 years, Eula Miller, passed away in 2011. Eula was also a tremendous advocate for education in northern Virginia, having helped create many programs supporting caregivers and young mothers in local high schools and Northern Virginia Community College. I offer my condolences to his family and all the people who have been affected by the loss of this amazing man. Mr. Albert Melvin Miller is a shining example of the effect one person can have on so many local lives. I hope his memory lives as an inspiration for local leaders to come. At his funeral yesterday, former T.C. Williams High School legendary football coach Herman Boone ended his eulogy with the call to ``Remember the Titan,'' Melvin Miller. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk for Mr. DeSaulnier and myself.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend, Ms. Bonamici, for yielding and for her leadership on this important issue. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this commonsense amendment to allow the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to continue working together to develop biofuel options for our Nation's military. DOD's reliance on a single source of fuel deepens dependence on foreign oil, threatens our national security, and contributes significantly to spending. Why would we not want the Department of Energy with their deep technical expertise in this area to assist DOD to create alternatives for petroleum-based fuels? It makes no sense, and I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak in support of our amendment, which would restore the ARPA-E goal of developing energy technologies that result in reductions in energy-related emissions, including greenhouse gases. I believe this is an important and urgent area of research and that it should remain explicitly stated in the statute as a goal for ARPA-E. When I look at the existing statute, it says: The goals of ARPA-E shall be reductions of imports of energy from foreign sources; reductions of energy-related emissions, including greenhouses gases; and improvement in the energy efficiency of all economic sectors. These are the three goals which have been removed from the current bill. Global carbon dioxide concentrations have risen more than 120 parts per million since preindustrial times, half of that arrived just since 1980. The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas is driving the acceleration of greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere. Just 2 weeks ago, NOAA reported that the monthly global average of concentration of carbon dioxide has surpassed 400 parts per million. The last time this happened was over 1 million years ago. We must look to develop alternative energy sources that will reduce manmade emissions. ARPA-E is a unique agency that can help us with this mission. Since 2009, it has funded over 400 potentially transformational energy technology projects. A number of these projects have spurred follow-on private sector funding, and a number of ARPA-E awardees have formed startup companies or partnered with other parts of the government and industry to advance their technologies. Reducing energy-related emissions, including greenhouse gases, is an important component to our Nation's economic and energy security. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to reinstate these three goals for ARPA-E, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding and for her leadership on this important issue. I especially enjoy being on the same side of this issue with the chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my voice to Representative Esty's voice in support of her amendment. I-Corps is a revolutionary partnership that helps maximize the economic impact of taxpayer-funded research by connecting the brilliant minds at NSF to the brilliant minds in the private sector. This amendment offered by Representative Esty today ensures that we foster all of the brilliant minds by supporting female entrepreneurs. Gender diversity makes good business sense. Research conducted by Dow Jones on venture-backed companies found that successful ones had twice the number of women on the founding teams, and there is more research that shows that women-owned firms outperformed those owned by male counterparts. Despite this and despite the fact that women earn more college degrees than men, they comprise only 5 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs and only 19 percent of corporate board seats. Clearly, something is wrong. For us to fully realize our economic potential, we have got to do a better job of supporting female entrepreneurs. That is why I strongly support her amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the rebuttal of the alternative argument from my friend, Mr. Loudermilk, and I found myself agreeing with almost everything that he said, but misunderstanding why retaining these three goals somehow played favorites, how they created arbitrary limits on innovation, and how they opposed efforts to find our economic and energy security. The purpose of the amendment is to recognize that reducing dependence on foreign oil, that trying to find ways to limit greenhouse gases, and improving the energy efficiency of all economic sectors are worthy goals. Perhaps what we need to do is add a fourth one, which I would be happy to place first if the chairman would agree, that says the goals will be, first, to develop any breakthroughs in innovation that help the economic and energy security of the Nation so that there is no playing of favorites and there are no arbitrary limitations. If we could work that out, that would be great. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment as offered, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. As I slowly develop my mastery of this parliamentary procedure, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. BEYER. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank two Texans, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson, for their leadership on this important issue and remind them that Samuel Houston and Stephen Austin were both born in Virginia. I also would like to thank my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) for cosponsoring. The 2010 COMPETES reauthorization granted all Federal agencies the authority to hold prize competitions as an incentive for scientific and technological innovations. This authority supports agencies' increased use of prizes to incentivize more high-risk, high-reward research and reach out to a new audience of researchers and innovators across all areas of science and technology. Prize competitions go back at least 300 years, to the 1714 Longitude Prize offered by the British Government to develop a practical method to precisely measure a ship's longitude. The 1919 Orteig Prize spurred Charles Lindbergh to make the first transatlantic flight. Of course, it took 8 years from the prize to the flight itself. In more recent years, prize competitions have accelerated technological development for space exploration, public health, automobiles, lighting, and much more. Many of these competitions have been privately sponsored, but several have been sponsored by our Federal agencies, including NASA, DARPA, and the Department of Energy. Prize competitions have also proven to be an effective tool to invigorate our Nation's brightest innovators from all corners. They allow our science agencies to case a wide net to draw in new talent. I think one of the most interesting facts is that NASA found that over 80 percent of NASA prize competitors have never before responded to NASA or other government requests for proposals. We are bringing in our best and brightest to solve these problems. If we are to continue leading the world in science and technology, we must draw up on all of our Nation's talent, whether they are researchers in a university lab, owners of a technology start-up, or independent innovators working in their own garages. Imagine if more of our Federal science agencies took full advantage of the potential of prizes to address some of our Nation's most pressing technological challenges. How might the world be changed in 2025 from a prize offered today? Private organizations have spent years perfecting the design of prize competitions to address big challenges. We hope that our science agencies will see this same success, and we must continue to support Federal agencies as they implement this authority. The legislation we are considering today addresses some real and some perceived hurdles in the 2010 authority that were identified once agencies began to implement prize competitions. It also aligns the terminology with the industry standard to eliminate any confusion in the interpretation of the law. These are technical amendments, which should make it easier for all agencies to make full use of the 2010 authority. In trying to rebalance our Federal budget, we have had to make very hard choices about where to cut funding, including in R&D programs. While prize competitions should never be used as an excuse to cut our investments in R&D, prizes do allow the Federal Government to continue to fund high-reward research with minimal risk to the taxpayer. They are another valuable tool for agencies to deploy to meet their critical mission responsibilities. I am proud to cosponsor this bill and ask my colleagues for their support. I am very grateful for the chairman for his bipartisan leadership on this issue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I believe I misspoke. I would love to acknowledge my colleague from Illinois.

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

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Hultgren and Mr. Perlmutter for their leadership on this important issue. This bill helps foster opportunities for entrepreneurs to more easily access technologies coming out of the Department of Energy and connect the brilliant minds to the equally brilliant minds in the private sector who can then commercialize this technology. Federal R&D is responsible for many of the industries and technologies that now drive our national wealth--the most earth- shattering example, the Internet, developed by government scientists at DARPA. Federal research spawned the biotech and semiconductor industries; gave us tools like the laser, GPS, and MRI; and, through the World Wide Web and the Internet, has entirely changed the way we find a restaurant, talk to our children, and sell cars. The role of the private sector in developing technology is vital, and government must lead the way in innovation, providing the patient capital necessary to perform research without any known commercial application or concern for profit. I am reminded of the fascinating idea that mathematicians who develop things in their heads, in their offices, with no application to anything, so often, within weeks, will find that that mathematical new idea applies to real-life situations. Einstein marveled at the power of pure mathematics, and he said, ``How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?'' In 1959, the physicist Eugene Wigner described this problem as ``the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.'' H.R. 1158 helps bring these pieces together, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and technology; and I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Mr. Hultgren, and Mr. Perlmutter.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply strike section 105. As it stands, section 105 would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from finalizing its proposed regulation clarifying the limits of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. This language is not new. I understand we have seen it a number of times. The difference is that the conversation has since progressed, and almost everyone agrees that clarity is needed. Calls for the EPA to issue a rule even came from such notable organizations as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Western Business Roundtable, and the National Association of Manufacturers. Prohibiting EPA from finalizing the rule, as section 105 would direct, would perpetuate this confusion, and there are countless cases that reiterate this point. For example, the EPA acknowledged enforcement difficulties in a case in which storm water from construction sites carried oil, grass, 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 only flow 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.'' We need to end the confusion and, through a public comment process and appropriate congressional oversight, allow the administration to move forward and complete a formal rulemaking. It also needs to be said that the opponents of the Clean Water rule have it wrong. The proposed rule respects agriculture and the law by maintaining all of the existing exemptions for agricultural discharges and water. 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. The administration has a strong, commonsense plan to make clean water a priority by protecting the sources that feed the drinking water for more than 117 million Americans. If Congress blocks this proposal to protect clean water, 20 million acres of wetlands nationwide will continue to be at risk. Stopping this proposal will also impact the small businesses and communities that rely on clean water. American businesses need to know when the Federal Government has authority and when it doesn't, and without updated guidance, businesses will often not know when they need Army Corps of Engineers permits. This uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal liability and will certainly cost them extra money. The clean water rule will largely restore but not expand historic coverage of the Clean Water Act at no direct cost to the public. EPA estimates that the clean water rule would provide up to $514 million annually in benefits to the public. Updating the rules and guidance is essential. We need to allow EPA and the Corps to do their job and clarify their rules and guidance. If they fail to do it in accordance with existing law, more lawsuits will ensue. Overall, these anti-Clean Water Act riders are part of an effort to return us to a time when we had no uniform national minimum clean water standard and States had conflicting policies or no policies at all. That was a time when rivers were so polluted, they caught fire, and responsible downstream States suffered the consequences of lax or weak upstream States' policies. Today we have cleaner, more drinkable waters precisely because of the Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this clean water rider and support our amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very simple. It strikes section 104 of this bill. Section 104 would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from updating regulations pertaining to the definitions of ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, and for nearly 35 years after its passage, the law kept America's lakes, rivers, and streams safe from mining pollution, protecting our wildlife and our drinking water. That is no longer the case today. My amendment would remove this anti-Clean Water Act rider. Current and future administrations should have the flexibility to change the definitions of ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' should they wish to. When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, the 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. Under a 2002 rule change, the definition of ``fill material'' was broadened to include: ``rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, and 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 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, and 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 the existing definitions 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 is a preemptive strike against protecting our drinking water, and since there is no time limit on the provision, it would not only block the current Obama administration, but any future administration from considering changes. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to strike section 104 from this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring our attention to an increasingly urgent problem: ocean acidification. About 25 percent of manmade carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by our oceans. This is the great carbon sink, which helps buffer the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This absorption is making our waters more acidic, which has a damaging effect on the ability of shellfish to build their shells. Ocean acidification has already cost the United States shellfish industry millions in lost profits and jobs. I am deeply concerned because the Chesapeake Bay has been identified as a main hotspot for rapid ocean acidification. Nitrogen pollution from agricultural and sewage runoff into the bay are key culprits exacerbating the effects of acidification. The clearest solution to address this problem is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions entering our waters. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to stand with the Safe Climate Caucus in supporting efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We need to support the EPA's proposed carbon rules for power plants, and we need to protect our ecosystems, and we need to protect the long- term viability of our coastal economies.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute. H.R. 5 lacks essential protections for our kids. It is our responsibility to make sure our kids are safe at school. Too often, dangerous and abusive techniques are used to discipline our students, disproportionately subjecting minority students and students with disabilities to seclusion and restraint in the classroom. The Democratic substitute would protect our students by developing appropriate national standards on the use of seclusion and restraint. We cannot reduce the Federal oversight role for the very reason that our kids need to be safe in order to be educated.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, in 3 short days, absent congressional action, funding for the Department of Homeland Security will lapse and the Department will be forced to shut down. Should this be allowed, the vast majority of the DHS workforce will be required to work without pay until a funding agreement is reached. The remainder--more than 30,000 dedicated individuals--will be furloughed with no guarantee of backpay. Congress must act immediately to enact legislation that would fully fund the Department and allow these men and women who live and work in every district in every State to continue to carry out the critical message of keeping our Nation healthy, safe, and strong. But in the absence of such action, with time running dangerously short, DHS employees, at the very least, must be assured that there is an agreement in Congress that they will receive their full pay in a fair and timely manner. That is why I, along with my friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), have introduced the DHS Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. This bipartisan proposal ensures that all Federal DHS employees receive retroactive pay for the duration of any shutdown, regardless of furlough status. Madam Speaker, as we wait for Congress to do its job, we should not stop the men and women of DHS from doing theirs. We must guarantee they receive pay and that they not become collateral damage of Congress' refusal to reach an agreement.