Floor Statements

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

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. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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. 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. 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. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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. 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. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of this amendment to restore funding to the Environmental Justice program within the EPA. This program enables the agency to better assist frontline communities that are disproportionately impacted by pollution.

Low-income and minority communities face disproportionate levels of hazardous pollution and environmental contaminants due to where their members live and where they work.

The harms are real. For instance, higher levels of air pollution result in members of minority groups having higher death rates and higher numbers of emergency room visits and hospital stays.

As the cofounder and co-chair of the United for Climate and Environmental Justice Task Force, it is my mission to combat these environmental injustices and ensure frontline communities no longer bear the unequal burden of environmental, economic, and health harms.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is so important.

The Environmental Justice program leverages Federal funds to greatly improve health and quality of life in our most vulnerable communities. Since the establishment of the program, communities have been better able to revitalize neighborhoods, build health centers, expand affordable housing, and create new green spaces and recreational areas.

I urge my colleagues to show low-income and minority communities that we care about their health, housing, and overall well-being by supporting the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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. Chairman, what is the balance of my time?

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just briefly, of course, I was not here at the time, but it was my understanding that this is nothing unlike what the other side of the aisle did during the Obama administration. So what this amendment seeks to do, in many cases, is not that unusual.

And while the gentleman is correct, the size of the payments that BP had to make were because of a certain type of conduct: What we want to do is just freeze things where they are.

While I acknowledge that there is a possibility that somehow someone wanted to slow down the process, I don't believe that this administration would do just that.

Again, millions of dollars have been spent. Much time has been spent in developing this plan. I think we just need to leave it in place.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church was founded in 1867 by the Reverend John Jasper in an abandoned confederate horse stable on Brown's Island, along the shores of the James River. Credited as the first church in Richmond organized by an African- American preacher, it relocated to its current space in downtown Richmond in 1869.

Jasper's charismatic ministry drew increasingly large crowds, and his sermon ``De Sun Do Move'' became well-known both in the United States and internationally. His speaking talents and powerful faith brought flocks of black and white Richmonders alike to the church, listening and celebrating together.

Six more pastors have led Sixth Mount Zion during its long history, including Dr. Augustus Walter who served for over forty-three years until his death in 1967. Greatly admired for his leadership and faithful dedication, Dr. Walter was instrumental in defending the church from destruction when Interstate 95 was built in downtown Richmond in 1957.

Sixth Mount Zion is one of the nation's pioneers in the field of religious historic preservation, and opened its John Jasper Memorial Room and Museum in January 1926. It contains bibles, books, paintings, clothing, ceremonial artifacts, and furniture from the church's rich history. Among these items are a golden bust of Jasper made in 1904, a rare stone from Mount Zion in Jerusalem, and a quilt commemorating the church's 130th anniversary.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has recognized the church's rich history with two highway markers--one at the church site and another in Fluvanna County near John Jasper's birthplace. Residing within the historic Jackson Ward District, the church is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register. In 2004, the Richmond City Council honored the church with a special designation as a local ``historic district' encompassing the 3 acres of land on which it stands, the only black church in Richmond to receive this distinction.

For 150 years, Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church has been a central institution in Richmond and Virginia, supporting its members and the wider community through growth and hardship. It has addressed the social concerns of the city's residents, and was one of the first black churches to have an organized charity with a staff social worker to administer to the indigent of the city. It continues to assist individuals and families with the resources necessary to overcome obstacles that prevent them from achieving personal, social, and economic goals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a pillar of the Richmond community. This year, Richmonders and parishioners celebrate the 150th anniversary of Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church.

Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church has been a central institution in our community since its founding in 1867 by Reverend John Jasper. The church was founded in an abandoned Confederate horse stable on Brown's Island and, since then, has been a pillar of our community.

The long history of supporting the community has continued under the leadership of six distinguished leaders, including the current pastor, Reverend Tyrone Nelson.

Reverend Nelson is a fellow alumnus of Virginia Union University's Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology, a member of Henrico County Board of Supervisors, and a longtime friend.

Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church has addressed the social concerns of the city's residents and was one of the first Black churches to have an organized charity with a staff social worker available to help our community.

Mr. Speaker, Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church continues to assist community members with resources necessary to overcome life's obstacles.

I pray that Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church will thrive in our community for another 150 years.