A. McEachin

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Senate's version of tax reform would increase the deficit by $38 billion in 2018. By 2027, the debt would increase by a whopping $1.4 trillion. I stand here today calling for tax reform legislation that would help my constituents and millions of other Americans. Mr. Speaker, the GOP tax plan is irresponsible governing. Many of my constituents say that their families have yet to recover from the great recession, and I hear them loud and clear. I cannot stand by silently while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rush through a bill for which it will take years for our economy to recover. This bill raises taxes on 82 million middle class households solely to create giveaways for the wealthy few. We have only 9 legislative days left this calendar year. It is time to focus on legislation that will give Americans a better deal. We need commonsense, reality-based legislation that will create opportunities for all Americans, not just the select few.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise against H.R. 1, the so- called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and its effects on our veterans. H.R. 1 would cut the successful work opportunity tax credit, a Federal credit available for employers to incentivize them to hire veterans. In 2016, there were 453,000 veterans that were unemployed nationwide--16,000, alone, in Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, on their behalf, I call on my Republican colleagues to find solutions that do not sacrifice those who have sacrificed enough. House Republicans have suggested that the work opportunity tax credit, at a cost of $1 billion, is simply too expensive to keep in place. However, I cannot help but wonder why the same is not said about repealing the estate tax, a $269 billion tax cut for the wealthy. My Democratic colleagues and I are taking a different approach by founding the Reinvesting in Our Returning Heroes Task Force. Instead of hurting, we are helping veteran businessowners and veterans who need jobs. Mr. Speaker, my father is buried in Arlington. He was a Korean war veteran. He said that the American GI only asked of his country what he was prepared to give, and that is his best. Mr. Speaker, this tax cut is not our best.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on the importance of reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, commonly referred to as CHIP. In my home State of Virginia, there are 66,000 children and 1,100 pregnant women who rely on CHIP. Almost 6,000 of those children and pregnant women live in my district. They need a clean reauthorization of CHIP. Instead, this week, we are expected to vote on a bill that will put my constituents at risk. As reported from committee, this new version of CHIP, the so-called HEALTHY KIDS Act, is loaded with poison pills that would undermine the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. According to the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, CHIP with Medicaid boosted the rate of children's health coverage to more than 95 percent. Mr. Speaker, why tamper with such success? I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring a bill to the floor that reauthorizes CHIP and supports our constituents.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the goal of forest management should be to make our forests more resilient--more resilient to the impacts of climate change, drought, and wildlife--but contrary to its title, H.R. 2936, the so-called Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, does not achieve these goals. This bill includes exemptions from analyses required under the National Environmental Policy Act, restricts judicial review of certain forest management activities, amends the Equal Access to Justice Act to limit payment of attorneys' fees, and scales back the wildlife conservation efforts of the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Chairman, this bill desperately needs improvement, and I am disappointed that my commonsense amendment--offered both in committee and again to Rules, this time with my colleague, Mr. Beyer from Virginia--is not being considered by the House. My amendment would have struck two sections of this bill that are designed to allow approval of timber projects without adequate consideration of the impacts to some of the most vulnerable living creatures on Earth: those listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The first offending section would put the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on a 90-day shot clock to complete consultations required under section 7 of the ESA. Such a provision is both unnecessary and deeply harmful. The second section my amendment would have struck is designed to prevent ESA consultation from happening altogether when FWS lists a new species or designates critical habitat for a listed species. This simply defies logic. Getting ESA consultation right--and ensuring that it happens in the first place--is a small price to pay for preserving irreplaceable parts of our natural heritage. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2936 attacks responsible forest management policy and promotes commercial logging at the expense of sound environmental review. Instead of giving gifts to special interests, Congress should be addressing the effects of climate change, working to reduce the risk of wildfire, and fixing the wildfire budget. Mr. Chairman, this bill takes us many steps in the wrong direction, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. McEACHIN

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

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment which seeks to reduce H.R. 469's adverse effects on public health and environmental quality. More specifically, my amendment would exempt from the terms of this bill consent decrees and settlement agreements pertaining to the maintenance or improvement of air and water quality. Mr. Chairman, litigation empowers our constituents to hold Federal agencies accountable when they fail to take required actions by congressionally mandated deadlines. In many of these cases, agencies' failures are not in serious dispute. A missed deadline is a missed deadline. Litigants' goals are simply to ensure that the law is followed quickly and in full. In such cases, it is not unusual, and certainly not unreasonable, for lawsuits to conclude with consent decrees or settlement agreements. As reported, this bill would introduction duplicative requirements and unnecessary barriers into the process by which the consent decrees and settlement agreements are reached. As a result, both tools would be used less often and less effectively. Across the board, that change would be a mistake, but would generally be disastrous with respect to pollution. Air and water quality are matters of public health. When they fail to meet certain levels, people get sick and potentially die. The World Health Organization says that unhealthy environments kill more than 12 million people annually. In the United States, multiple studies have shown that tens of thousands of deaths every year are attributable to air pollution alone. These figures, of course, do not begin to contemplate nonlethal effects of health and quality of life. We all know that justice delayed is justice denied--and that is especially true when lives are at stake. When regulators fail to take mandated actions to maintain or improve air or water quality, that is an injustice. When they sincerely intend to take those actions, but fail to do so in a timely way, that is also an injustice. If we make it harder for citizens to hold regulators accountable, if we take away tools that empower Americans to make their voices heard, and hold agencies to account, we are compounding those injuries. Let me be clear: consent decrees and settlement agreements do make a real difference in people's lives. They do this not by changing the substance of the agencies' actions as a formal rulemaking would do, but by ensuring that the planned or required actions are actually taken. I invite my colleagues to look at the Chesapeake Bay and the settlement agreement in Fowler v. EPA. Back in 2010, the EPA was under both congressional and executive mandates to improve water quality in the bay, but the agency was not on track to implement necessary standards within the required timeframe. Citizens and public interest groups filed suit, and the case concluded in a settlement agreement that established a concrete deadline for actions that the agency was already working towards-- notably, the imposition of the total maximum daily load, a binding limit on pollution in the watershed. The result has been a small but very promising improvement in the health of the bay. Were it not for the agreement, we might still be waiting on the EPA to take the actions necessary. We would have lost a significant amount of time, and, instead of improving conditions, conditions might have worsened, and the problem we faced would have grown correspondingly greater. So, again, Mr. Chairman, justice delayed is justice denied; and, again, consent decrees and settlement agreements prevent avoidable, unnecessary delay. Contrary to what my friends on the other side of the aisle have said, consent decrees and settlements do not and cannot take the place of formal rulemaking. Existing Federal regulations prevent agencies from using either tool to make commitments in excess of what relevant statutes provide. The GAO has explored whether deadline litigation affects the substance of agencies' actions; overwhelmingly, they concluded it does not. So the only function of this bill would be to stymie citizens'--our constituents'--efforts to ensure that our laws are faithfully executed to protect our air and our water, and, therefore, our health, in court. My amendment would fix that problem in at least one area, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but actually having been a trial lawyer and actually having practiced law in the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia and elsewhere, there is no more transparent process than the litigation process. I would submit that the notion that somehow these actions are brought by someone other than our constituents, someone other than citizens of the United States, is not well taken. So, Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by simply asking that my colleagues support this amendment, that we move forward in that regard, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the 100th anniversary of the United States Army's Fort Lee in Prince George County, Virginia. The fort that we know today began as Camp Lee in 1917. Camp Lee served as a training base for hundreds of thousands of our country's bravest as they prepared for service in World Wars I and II, a tradition that has continued ever since, often in pathbreaking ways. In the late 1940s, Camp Lee became the home of the Women's Army Corp Training Center, which established a high-quality training facility for women who wished to serve their country. Mr. Speaker, Fort Lee continues to prepare men and women for their service as the home to the Combined Arms Support Command, the U.S. Army Ordnance School, the U.S. Army Quartermaster School, the U.S. Army Transportation School, and roughly 20 other organizations and units. Today and every day, we are grateful to all who have served at Fort Lee for a combined 100 years of dedication and honorable service.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to share Denise's story. Already a mother of two young children, Denise was expecting her third child. Until her 20-week scan, all her tests had come back perfectly. Her entire family was eagerly awaiting a baby boy. The scan revealed that her son's brain had several severe deformities. He was also showing signs of other complications. It was the most painful and devastating day of Denise's life. She spoke to numerous doctors and specialists. She spoke to her family and sought the guidance of counselors and professionals. Ultimately, she and her husband decided to end the pregnancy. But finding a provider and arranging for the procedure was very difficult. There was not a single doctor in Virginia she could go to. Denise, as a grieving mother in the middle of an absolutely emotional crisis, found herself desperately calling doctors and hospitals all over the country to access the medical care she needed. Thanks to a family friend, she was ultimately able to find a provider in a major city within driving distance. H.R. 36 would have denied her that chance. On behalf of Denise and others like her, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. We must stop the bans.

Mr. McEACHIN

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

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2937, introduced by Representative LaHood, is a step forward for communities looking to address abandoned coal mines in their backyards by partnering with Good Samaritans seeking to help. The Commonwealth of Virginia, my home State, estimates that it will need over $400 million to clean up all of its remaining abandoned coal mines and, while this bill is no substitute for a long-term reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Land fund, every little bit helps. Each project funded by a Good Samaritan through this bill will help one more community make their economy stronger and their environment healthier. A hearing on a discussion draft of this bill brought a number of problematic issues to light, but I greatly appreciate the willingness of the bill's sponsor and the majority staff of the Natural Resources Committee to reach across the aisle and work with us on a bipartisan agreement that was able to achieve unanimous consent in the Natural Resources Committee. I thank the sponsor for his diligent and collaborative work on this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2937. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2316 is nearly identical to a bill that passed the House last year with overwhelming bipartisan support. The intent of the bill, according to the sponsor, is to ensure that owners of mineral rights in the Allegheny National Forest are allowed to drill for their oil and gas within the boundaries of that national forest. In the Natural Resources Committee last Congress, the majority accepted an amendment by Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Ranking Member Lowenthal that clarified the intent of the bill and ensured that the Forest Service would still receive advance notice of any oil and gas operations and that no other national forest would be affected. So this bill is a bipartisan compromise that protects the private property rights while also protecting the rights of the Forest Service, and I thank the sponsor for working so cooperatively on this. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2316, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1547 transfers the reversionary interest associated with Udall Park to the city of Tucson, Arizona. The land was transferred to the city back in the 1980s under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, a program that authorizes the conveyance of Federal land to local governments and nonprofits. These conveyances include what is known as reversionary interest, which stipulates that the land must permanently remain in use for a public purpose or ownership reverts back to the United States. Typically, if a recipient wants to convert the land to a nonpublic purpose, they have to compensate the Federal Government. However, this is not the typical situation. In 1989, Tucson came to an agreement with the Bureau of Land Management. In exchange for the title to Udall Park, the city gave the Bureau of Land Management a 297-acre parcel known as the Freeman Road property. A letter from the BLM State Director at the time indicates that the agency supported elimination of Udall Park's reversionary interest in exchange for the Freeman Road property. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Congress never followed through on that promise. This bill honors the Federal Government's long forgotten commitment, which is why we support it and encourage its swift adoption. The unique circumstances of Udall Park justify transferring the reversionary interest without further consideration or compensation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 965, introduced by Representative Kuster of New Hampshire, redesignates a site in her State as the Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park, a critical name change that recognizes the cultural and historical importance of that landscape. Augustus Saint-Gaudens was a keystone figure in the 19th century American Renaissance of art and architecture. Since 1977, the home, studio, gardens, and artwork of this American icon have been managed and preserved by the National Park Service as part of the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site in Cornish, New Hampshire. One of Saint-Gaudens' most well-known creations is the Shaw Memorial in Boston. This sculpture memorializes the bravery of Robert Gould Shaw, who led the first regiment of African-American soldiers recruited from the North during the Civil War. However, this is just one of the many public monuments credited to Saint-Gaudens, many of which are preserved and managed by the National Park Service at the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site. In 2010, however, the National Park Service acquired the adjacent Blow-Me-Down Farm, an important meeting place for the Cornish Art Colony led by Saint-Gaudens. The acquisition of the farm allows the site to fulfill its vision as a national park for the arts. The expanded physical size and historical scope is better defined as a National Historic Park rather than a National Historical Site, which is usually reserved for a single building or other stand-alone structure. Importantly, this redesignation will not change any laws or policies affecting the site and will only require changes in signage, maps, and handouts. Therefore, redesignating this area as Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park conforms to naming standards used by the National Park Service and further honors the legacy of Augustus Saint-Gaudens. In addition to preserving Saint-Gaudens' legacy, the site also protects a variety of important ecosystems. The site is bordered by two streams that feed into the Connecticut River, and it contains a large forest and pond where visitors can observe wildlife. Representative Kuster introduced H.R. 965 with the support of the entire New Hampshire delegation, and I would like to thank her for her dedication to protecting the historic areas important to her State and our national story. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), the author of this fine piece of legislation.

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, having no one else to speak on this issue, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2582 authorizes the Bureau of Land Management to process the State of Utah's land claims without amending existing planning documents. The Utah State Enabling Act of 1894 authorized the State of Utah to select certain lands to support schools and other public purposes. Approximately 2,000 acres of authorized grants are unfilled. In 1998, the State started the application to acquire 440 acres of land in Utah County, Utah, to support Utah State University. BLM eventually rejected the application because the lands are identified for disposal by exchange, which only allows BLM to convey the land under certain conditions. This bill allows the agency to process these specific claims without updating the underlying planning documents, something that would take a significant amount of time and money. BLM testified in support of this legislation but requested an amendment to clarify that the lands will be used for Utah State University and the addition of a legislative map. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), the State of Utah, and the Republican Committee staff for working with us to address these concerns. Thanks to their consideration, we were able to amend this bill in markup to address these concerns. There are many fights over public lands in this country, but this does not have to be one of them. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentlewoman from Utah that the only reason that she can suggest that Utah is the greatest State in the Nation is because Virginia is a Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers to speak to this issue, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an earnest effort to improve the availability of recreation permits on Federal lands. Public lands support the thriving outdoor recreation economy, and many small businesses partner with the Federal Government to provide a range of visitor services. The stated purpose of the bill is to reduce permitting time and administrative hurdles faced by permit applications. We are open to the idea of approving the permit process to ensure timely and transparent access to public lands for recreation activities and other special events. However, we are concerned that some of the methods used by the bill could lead to more problems than they solve. For example, section 2 creates a categorical exclusion for permits related to activities that have been previously considered through the National Environmental Policy Act process. Categorical exclusions are reserved for types of activities that are determined to have limited environmental impacts. They are most commonly developed through a rulemaking process which provides for public comment and provides the agency with the flexibility to determine when they are appropriate. The Forest Service already stresses the use of existing categorical exclusions for special recreation permits and does what it can with available resources to speed up permit processing times. It is unclear why this section is necessary or appropriate. If current categorical exclusions are insufficient, Congress should encourage a rulemaking process to address the inadequacies. While we have some concerns, this bill is a good first step, and we would hope our concerns can be addressed in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Virginia Institute for Pastoral Care, also known as VIPCare. In 1967, 12 concerned citizens founded VIPCare and built a unique, unprecedented organization that continues to serve our community, and several Virginians, today. VIPCare is a not-for-profit, interfaith institution that provides marriage, family, and substance abuse counseling, as well as training and support for the clergy. They are the oldest pastoral counseling center in the United States. VIPCare proudly serves more than 900 children, teenagers, adults, older Americans, families, and couples every year at their two locations in Richmond and the six other locations throughout Virginia. VIPCare does not turn people away, regardless of the cost. For 50 years, they have provided thousands with a community space for compassion, hope, and comfort. Madam Speaker, today, and every day, I am so proud of VIPCare and the work they do to care for Virginians.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, today, I am joined by my colleagues from Virginia. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday marked the 1-month anniversary since we lost three Virginians in Charlottesville. Today, my colleagues and I stand here to observe a moment of silence in honor of Heather Heyer of Charlottesville, Virginia; Lieutenant H. Jay Cullen of Midlothian, Virginia; and Trooper-Pilot Berke M.M. Bates of Quinton, Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House now observe a moment of silence.

Mr. McEACHIN

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would prevent the Department of the Interior from preparing a new 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program that schedules leases before the year 2022. Mr. Chairman, offshore drilling carries real consequences, from the industrialization of our coasts to the inescapable risk of another BP Deepwater Horizon-like disaster. Those risks can not be eliminated. As Deepwater Horizon made clear, accidents can inflict damage of an almost unimaginable scale. BP has spent billions of dollars responding to that disaster. That figure reflects liabilities that arose from massive and irreparable damage to our environment, permanent harm to economically essential industries, and countless other impacts on the Gulf Coast residents' quality of life. We have to make sure that other regions are never exposed to those kind of harms. That is why my amendment is important. In the event of a drilling accident, thriving coastal economies could be decimated. Industries that rely upon a healthy marine environment-- everything from the tourist trade to our fisheries--could disappear overnight. If a spill were big enough--and we have seen that they can be enormous--the economic consequences would ripple throughout the national economy, hurting millions of Americans who live many miles from the sea. Again, we cannot afford such economic risks. It is equally foolish to risk the natural beauty, fragile habitats, and irreplaceable species for the benefit of a few massive oil and gas companies. Our coasts are home to some of our most iconic and unique wildlife. Healthy oceans are critical to traditional ways of life, having provided subsistence resources for many generations. Those places, those species, those customs are part of why we live in the greatest country on Earth. No other place could match the richness and diversity of the United States of America. We must not endanger the incredible heritage in a quest for dirty energy, especially the kind of fuels that can drive catastrophic changes to our climate, with grave and permanent consequences for our society. It is important to note that prohibiting the preparation of a new leasing program does not stop any of the currently scheduled lease sales until 2022 from happening. My amendment just puts us back on the regular schedule for writing the next plan. Prohibiting the preparation of a new leasing program, however, does ensure that millions of taxpayer dollars are not spent reworking a plan that was just completed this year. Restarting a new 5-year leasing process would throw away 2\1/2\ years and tens of millions of dollars of effort, ignore overwhelming bipartisan opposition from millions of people up and down our coasts, and eliminate the protections that President Obama provided for the fragile Arctic. Mr. Chairman, the risk of a new 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program are simply too high and the consequences are too severe. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, what is the balance of my time?