Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, last year, I read on the House floor a letter from an active duty servicemember in Afghanistan. He shared how he and his partner of 10 years had managed the hardship that comes along with three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite their shared sacrifices, his partner received no support from the military and would not be officially informed of his death. While serving on active duty, he became aware of a number of other soldiers who were gay. In one case, it was only after a friend died of wounds from an IED, and he received a letter from the deceased soldier's partner, expressing how much he had loved the Army. Of course, this letter had to be sent anonymously because, until yesterday, its very existence could have led to the soldier's discharge. The indignity of concealing who you are and who you love in order to protect your country has ended. No longer will we subject the brave men and women who volunteer to serve our Nation to a shameful vow of silence, asking them to lie about themselves. This policy was wrong; and now it's history, and our Nation and our military are stronger as a result. To all who serve our Nation in uniform, we are so proud of each and every one of you.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act. This legislation, should it become law, would destroy a pillar of America's economic prosperity when we need it most. The bill strips the National Labor Relations Board of its ability to sanction companies that retaliate against employees seeking to exercise a basic constitutional right. The facts of the case, though often misreported or obscured by partisan disdain for working people, are clear. Under a federal statute that has been in force since 1935, workers at the Boeing Corporation complained that the corporation moved a manufacturing plant to a different state in direct retaliation for labor strikes. The National Labor Relations Board, as is prescribed in the same statute, investigated the case. As part of their investigation, NLRB investigators collected evidence from both parties. The NLRB has not yet determined whether this evidence warrants a complaint against Boeing. In short: the process which has been in place for more than 75 years is working as designed, but it has not been completed. This bill would halt the investigation of this legally introduced complaint, and it would gut the statute that governs the relationship between workers and bosses. At a time when the President and others have correctly argued that the U.S. government should not be assisting corporations to ship jobs overseas, we are gutting the U.S. government's role in ensuring that workers have a fighting chance to improve their lives, provide for their families, and keep quality jobs. We should all be in this together: workers, corporations, and the federal government. We ought to be working as a team to boost U.S. efforts to remain competitive in a tough global economy. The American middle class today faces devastating attacks on its health care, retirement security and real wages, while corporate profits and CEO salaries are skyrocketing. I strongly oppose this misguided effort to gut protections for America's workers. The fact is that under the NLRA, a corporation may outsource jobs for practically any reason, just not for an illegal reason. Under the law, due process protects corporations and workers, ensuring that both sides have their say. In fact, even if the NLRB rules that Boeing has acted illegally, a decision would not infringe Boeing's--or any corporation's--right to open manufacturing facilities anywhere. They just can't do it to punish the workers they rely on to compete. This legislation throws those critical worker protections away for the short sighted purpose of rewarding one Fortune 500 company that has been able to compete globally in a tough business environment by hiring qualified workers to build the best planes in the world. Now Republicans in the House of Representatives want to turn those workers and their families out on the street for exercising their right to bargain. In order to recover from the recession, the United States needs to address the growing disparity in wealth in our country. Despite the recession, corporations today are bringing home more profit than ever before. Tax rates are the lowest they have been in decades. What corporations need is consumers, and if we don't protect the middle class through sensible, longstanding safeguards such as those set out by the NLRA, the economy will never recover. Sadly, those on the other side of the aisle are desperate to return to policies that created the recession. They want tax cuts for the richest and deregulation across the board. We have seen this before, and we know where it leads. Future prosperity calls for a different approach. Collective bargaining is part of one of the foundational rights set out in the First Amendment of the Constitution, the right to free assembly. It has worked for America's workers, it has been essential to the creation of our broad middle class, and it is essential that we preserve it.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, today we learned that 46 million Americans are living in poverty. More people are suffering economically than at any time since the Great Depression. But we learned from an excellent article by Scott Lilly of the Center for American Progress that history may be repeating itself. In 1937, conservative Republicans succeeded in virtually eliminating the Federal jobs programs of the New Deal, so as to eliminate the Federal deficit. But the results were catastrophic to America's economy and society. Half of the 8 million jobs that had been created by the New Deal were lost, and unemployment went over 19 percent. Economists generally classified the economic reversal in 1937 and 1938 as a second depression. Not until military spending began to revive activity in 1940 did unemployment again drop to less than 15 percent. That was a long and painful experience. It would be tragic if we permitted the new conservative crowd in Washington to repeat it by killing President Obama's jobs act and sending us back into a double- dip recession. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 20th Anniversary of NewsChannel 8. This highly regarded news organization has been serving local viewers continuously for 175,320 hours, consistently providing critical local news, community information, local political coverage and emergency updates in its 20 years of existence. Established on October 7, 1991, NewsChannel 8 was the first independent local news channel in the country. Its innovative zoned delivery of news provides hyperlocal and distinct coverage to Washington, DC, Virginia, and Maryland. NewsChannel 8 programming is wired into over 15,000 Federal offices in the House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, and the White House, and has become an invaluable resource to all decision makers on Capitol Hill, many of whom are regular guests or contributors to NewsChannel 8's tireless political coverage. NewsChannel 8 has been dedicated to serving its surrounding communities, providing immeasurable service to the people of the Washington DC metro area. Serving as a critical outlet for local government officials including Congressional Representatives, Senators, Mayors, County Supervisors, Council Representatives, School Board Officials and Emergency/Public Safety Administrators, NewsChannel 8 is the leader in making sure constituents are well-informed. Additionally, NewsChannel 8 provides a unique forum for state and local political candidates to inform and educate voters. NewsChannel 8's parent company, Allbritton Communications Company, and its cable partners, including Comcast, Cox and Verizon, are to be commended for forging a local programming and distribution partnership that is the envy of the nation. In honor of their achievements, the House of Representatives shall designate October 7, 2011 as ``NewsChannel 8 Day'' in recognition of their outstanding public service. I congratulate NewsChannel 8 on their success in the delivery of informative, first-rate local news.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, tonight the President will try, once again, to restart this economy. But the problem is not with the President or his policies. It's here with the House majority who will oppose whatever he proposes. They will say that we tried the stimulus and it didn't work. But one of the reasons why the economy is slowing down is that stimulus dollars are drying up. They will say that we need to cut corporate tax rates. But corporate after-tax profits are at an all-time high. They will say that we need to deregulate the financial markets, but it was that kind of deregulation that put us into this mess in the first place. What we need is the faith to invest in this country's future. There are $2.2 trillion of infrastructure projects that need to be funded. Every billion dollars that goes into this country's infrastructure creates 47,500 more jobs and, in fact, generates $6.2 billion of additional economic activity. That's what we need to do. That will work. That will make our country stronger, will reduce the deficit and will put people back to work.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we have never cut our way out of an economic recession. We have always grown our way out. But we have never grown our way out by investing less than 15 percent of our GDP in our people's potential. In fact, the last time we cut back in the way we are about to do today was in 1937, and that sent us right back into an economic depression. But this time, we're not going to have World War II to rescue our economy. It's interesting to note that the Federal investment in homeownership and higher education for our returning GIs and the subsequent infrastructure investments and interstate highway system and the like created a permanent middle class after the war that lasted for two generations. But the middle class has never been more threatened than it is today, and this will condemn those struggling to make it into the middle class to years of struggle without the help that we could, and should be providing them. And it's not because we're a poor country. Our largest corporations are experiencing record profits. The top 25 hedge fund managers are making more than a billion a year. Our corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion of cash.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the point is I understand that this train is leaving the station, but it's going in the wrong direction. We need to be investing in this country, not taking away the resources that will enable it to grow, it is through education, training, research and development and infrastructure investment that has made our country great but this agreement will make us smaller, weaker and far less able to tap our most valuable resource, the potential of all the American people.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, this is a Republican-contrived bankruptcy. A decade ago, the majority party inherited surpluses as far as the eye could see, and then they promptly took away the revenue that enabled us to balance our budget. They crippled this country with deep tax cuts. In fact, we have the lowest revenue that we've had at any time since before Medicare and basically at any time since before the Great Depression. What this is going to do and the reason we oppose this is that if this were on the books, we never would have had the ability to rescue the world from the Great Depression in the 1930s; we never would have had the ability to win the war for democracy in the 1940s; we never would have created a permanent American middle class with the GI Bill that provided the working class with homes and higher education, we never would have won the race to space for the free world in the sixties; we never would have been able to establish Medicare and civil rights legislation in the mid-sixties. And certainly, had we been stuck in this fiscal straightjacket, President Clinton never could have raised the needed revenue to balance the budget so we never would have been able to create 20 million new jobs as we did in the 1990s, and reduce poverty, and expand the middle class, and create all those trillions of dollars of projected surpluses that the majority inherited and promptly squandered. This bill will make us a weaker, poorer and smaller country, and that's why it should be defeated.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, according to Grover Norquist, who's apparently the real Republican strategist, this is about ensuring that Democrats will never again have the revenue to govern as Democrats. But what does he mean by that? Is he talking about when Roosevelt rescued us from the Great Depression in the 1930s or when we saved the world for democracy in the forties or when we built the middle class with the GI Bill in the late forties? Or when we won the race to space in the early sixties or when we started Medicare and passed civil rights laws in the mid-sixties? Or when President Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget, generated 20 million new jobs, cut poverty, grew the middle class, passed on projected surpluses as far as the eye could see, and enabled those at the top tax rates to take home more after-tax income than in any prior time in American history? The fact is that Democrats have made this Nation great by investing in all our people and by raising the revenue necessary to meet our obligations and to secure our future. This is the alternative. This is about an ideology that lowers our sights, diminishes our stature and sells short our future. That is why it should be rejected.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. MORAN. I will yield when I'm finished. If we want to help the Great Lakes get the kind of money they need, it doesn't seem to me that we should be offering amendments that would completely defund all EPA programs for the States bordering the Great Lakes if they don't meet adequate ballast water standards, which is the amendment that the gentleman put in the bill. So I think that is a sufficient number of points to urge defeat of the amendment. Now I will be happy to yield to my very good friend from Ohio.

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the ENERGY STAR program, even though a great many American consumers rely on it to choose appliances that meet Federal energy efficiency standards, such as windows, refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes washers. The program has improved since an Inspector General report highlighted flaws with the program. In response to the IG's report, ENERGY STAR moved away from allowing manufacturers to self-certify that they comply with efficiency standards, and now it requires third-party certifiers. Well, I'm sure there's room left for further improvement in the program. As the gentleman from Louisiana has stated, many, many consumers have come to rely on this program in their everyday purchases and would, frankly, be stunned to think that this program is now being targeted. Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, saved nearly $18 billion on their utility bills last year alone and enough energy to avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 33 million cars. Isn't that a good thing? This is a voluntary program that works. We've heard so much railing coming particularly from the other side about EPA's regulations, and now the majority wants to attack a voluntary pro-consumer program. The underlying bill already contains a very substantial cut to the ENERGY STAR program, notwithstanding the fact that it has saved hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars and has enabled consumers to be much better informed as to what their appliances might cost them in terms of energy requirements. But the ENERGY STAR program has been funded in this bill at the 2008 level, 4 years ago. Since then, the population has expanded, the number of appliances and things that use a great deal of electricity, particularly computers, has expanded almost geometrically. People's bills are going up. They want to know what are the most energy- efficient products, so they rely upon the ENERGY STAR program, again, a voluntary program and one that has been improved since the IG report. They have third-party certification now as to what they are saying so that we should have some confidence now in the ENERGY STAR imprimatur, if you will, on appliances. It doesn't seem that this is the kind of thing that we should be cutting. This is a pro-consumer, voluntary effort that works. So I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. MORAN. I thank the Chair. I think a number of very good questions have been raised by the ranking member of the full committee--Appropriations Committee--and we are concerned about this precedent. We're also concerned about the safety of people who use this national preserve. We can understand Mr. Young's angst, but nevertheless we have a responsibility not to establish precedent that may come back to haunt us. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, as the amendment states, I seek to strike section 124 of this bill because section 124 prohibits expenditures for the Bureau of Land Management to carry out its lawful duties under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Secretary Salazar issued an order appropriately. It was called 3310. It stated the policy that BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, should act consistently with the law. Section 201 of the law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, requires that the Interior Department maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction and that it identify within that inventory of land the resource values including wildernesses of those lands. Now, section 101 of the Federal Land Policy Act also says that certain public lands should be maintained in their natural state. Now, that's the law, the law since 1976. Secretary Salazar is simply attempting to implement that law. Despite what some have claimed, Secretary Salazar's order does not create any de facto wilderness. One of the reasons that I would strike section 124 is that it will then return BLM wilderness policy to the way that it has operated for 27 years until it was unilaterally changed by then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 2003 in the Bush administration. Now, the order that Secretary Salazar has issued directs BLM to develop recommendations to the Congress regarding wilderness land designations. And it directs public involvement in the development of those recommendations. Now what could be wrong with that--make recommendations to the Congress and have public involvement? But section 124 of this bill removes the requirement for public involvement. Why are we afraid of public involvement? And it also removes the requirement for the Bureau of Land Management to provide recommendations to the Congress. Why does this bill want to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from making recommendations to the Congress and for having public involvement? It's not going to prevent the Congress from designating wilderness. What it does do is to prevent the Congress from being properly informed before we can consider those designations. The Secretary's order is the kind of good government process that encourages public involvement and forward thinking. As a demonstration of that forward thinking, Secretary Salazar reached out to the Congress in June, just a short while ago, and asked for Members' input into the wilderness characteristics of lands within their districts. Isn't that what we want them to do, reach out to the Congress, ask for our input? I don't know what more we can ask from the Secretary or from the Bureau of Land Management but an open, public process with congressional input. But this section that I think should be struck, this section 124, wants to foreclose that process, foreclose that open, public process with recommendations to the Congress. It was a process that the majority and the committee report applauded. Let me say further that wildlands do have real benefits. They have economic, they have environmental, and they have aesthetic benefits. It's important that we protect not only public land in its natural state but that we protect our ability to make informed decisions about which areas should or should not be designated as wilderness areas. I do think we need the secretarial order so that we can be informed so that we can make the right decisions with regard to those designations. Wilderness areas are important, but it's also important that we maintain our responsibility. The Secretary makes recommendations to us for us to make these designations within the context of a public process. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MORAN. It's possible if the language was more specific, we wouldn't have quite the trouble with it.

Mr. MORAN. I must agree with the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee and object to this amendment. I want to make a number of points. One is that the amendment adds funds for what are called geographic programs. That is a pretty broad category. It includes the Chesapeake Bay, the Puget Sound, the Great Lakes, and other water bodies that need restoration projects. So if the amendment passes, I trust the gentleman understands that the funding will be and should be divided up amongst all of those programs. Now, I do support the efforts of the Congress to clean up the Great Lakes and to deal with these invasive species. Clearly, it is a very serious problem. Asian carp is horribly destructive. But I think it is worth pointing out that it was during Democratic leadership in the Congress that the Great Lakes Restoration Project received its largest increases. In fiscal year 2010, the program received $475 million, and this current year they're getting $300 million. With all due respect, it would seem that the funding level of $250 million, which is in this bill, that cuts far more dramatically many other programs, would be seen as something of a success. I think if anything, Mr. Simpson should be thanked for protecting this program. I will let Mr. Dicks speak about Puget Sound--but the Chesapeake Bay was funded at $17 million below the request, and it's only getting $50 million. Now, I understand the gentleman's frustration that more could not have been done in this bill for all of the geographic programs. But the reason why we are in this position of underfunding these admittedly critical water programs is because of two actions. I know the gentleman will remember those two actions because he supported them. One was the so-called Ryan Republican budget resolution that the gentleman voted for; and the second was the 302(b) allocation to the Interior Department. I think that set the stage. It really set parameters that were far too tight to be able to provide the kinds of funds for many programs, including Great Lakes restoration, that are needed. Now, another point that needs to be made is that the GAO reported to the committee, and I quote: ``Progress remains slow as the program has delisted only one of the 31 areas of concern.'' EPA officials said that the program set less ambitious goals for fiscal year 2012 because it has had such trouble in meeting past goals. The agency did set lower goals in 2012, and so it does seem to make some sense that reduced funding might be appropriate in view of those lesser goals. But I also want to point out that the offset is really untenable. It reduces EPA's science account and environmental programs with what I think is the express intent of cutting additional climate change and clean energy programs. Now, I also want to point out, and I know that the gentleman offering the amendment may not be excited about this, but it does seem a bit hypocritical, the gentleman offering this amendment, to add funds for the Great Lakes restoration also offered language which was put in the bill to defund the Great Lakes restoration over the ballast water standards. That amendment would save----

Mr. MORAN. I do think that it's important that we make this nominal investment in the cultural lives of our citizens and in our children's futures. I can't imagine how a Nation as rich and prosperous as ours would not consider it a priority to provide funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. There's too much that divides us as a Nation. This is something that should be uniting, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. Everyone can appreciate the arts because it inspires us all. It inspires us to look past the parochial, the small-mindedness to see the big picture and to appreciate greatness. This amendment should be defeated, and in it we should send a message that we understand what's important to the lifeblood of our national community. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. You have this deep-seated concern about why we did not ask for a vote; so I can clarify that. The reason is we were overwhelmed with more than 40 amendments and we were trying to look to the welfare of the rest of the committee. There's only so many of these issues that you can call a recorded vote on, so we tried to be reasonable.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. If the Committee does now rise, an amendment has been offered, would not the body, the Committee of the Whole, take up the conclusion of that amendment when we reconvene on the same bill the next time the bill is brought up, whether it be tomorrow, Friday, or Saturday?