Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop a very careful planning process that determines what routes off-road vehicles can use through our national forests. Now over the past few decades, we know that the availability and capability of off-road vehicles has increased tremendously. That means more Americans are enjoying access to, and recreational opportunities in, their national forests, but the resulting proliferation of random routes results in severe impacts, particularly on the quality of our water supply and the physical safety of national forest visitors. The national forests are spectacular lands. There are 193 million national forest acres all over this Nation. Oftentimes, we take them for granted and fail to realize that the national forests are the headwaters for much of our Nation's surface waters. The clean, pure water produced on a national forest is a national treasure and the economic resource that supports industry and agriculture nationwide. In fact, half of the American West gets their drinking water from national forests, while in many rural communities, it is 100 percent. The proliferation, though, of random trails created by off road vehicles, increases erosion and pollution into water sources with no possibility for mitigation by culverts or other measures that would be available to land managers on designated routes. This amendment is poorly considered. The amendment would stop a reasonable, locally oriented planning process that has been going on for 6 years to allow recreational access to our forests, but to do so in a way that also protects the sustainable production of water, timber, wildlife, and other natural resources. The Forest Service has been called upon to designate which motorized routes are appropriate in the eyes of inclusive groups of local community leaders, with particular consideration to visitor safety and the ability of the Forest Service to comply with its other mandates. It is practically impossible to maintain trail conditions without designated routes or to avoid accidents to hikers, damaged equipment, or even visitors getting lost in the back country. Route designation enables land managers to guide motorized users away from sensitive wildlife habitats at appropriate times of the year, helping to maintain quality herds. In summary, the planning process that this amendment would repeal is local, driven by longstanding productive partnerships among local, State, and federal agencies; Indian tribes; and a diverse array of commercial and noncommercial interests. Halting this planning process would squander those investments and rebuke the sincere commitment it reflects on the part of so many citizens to protect their public lands. All who love and use our national forests should oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentlelady. This is the 21st century. We have to live with our neighbors. If the United Nations didn't exist, we would have to create it. The fact is that even the Government Accountability Office estimates that a U.N. peacekeeping force is eight times less expensive than funding a military force. We're going to have to move to more smart power in the 21st century. We can't do it all alone, whether it be establishing democracy, securing peace or promoting human rights. We can't keep putting our own troops at risk, trying to put out the flames that erupt all over the world. The U.N. does that. They don't do it perfectly, but they are largely an international reflection of our American values. We've got to find a way to secure peace in the world. And ever since Woodrow Wilson came up with the League of Nations, the United Nations continues to evolve, continues to reflect our values and promote our most fundamental foreign policy. This is not the time to be pulling the rug out from under such an important ally. The U.N. represents every nation in the world. We don't agree with all of them, but we have more influence in the United Nations than does any other nation in the world. This amendment is not in our national interest. It should be strongly rejected.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. We all agree that we all need to be financially responsible with regard to the Federal budget, but this continuing resolution already substantially reduces funds for every single agency of the government. A freeze in civilian pay for Federal employees is already in effect for 2 years. It prevents cost of living and locality pay increases for the entire Federal workforce, including civilian employees of the Defense Department, although uniformed employees can get raises. If you're a political appointee you can get an increase but not if you're a civil service employee. Mr. Chairman, a little over a majority of the Federal workforce is eligible for retirement over the next 5 years. We are going to make their lives far more difficult with the restraints on program funding we're putting in this bill, and then we're going to say they're not going to be able to get compensated when we tell them they have to do more with less funding for their agencies? We are going to lose our best and brightest people in the government, and as a result, the American people are going to lose the quality of service they've come to trust and expect. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, the point is, NOAA's objective is to sustain the fish supply so that these fishermen will continue to have jobs--not just now but in the future and for their children and grandchildren. That's NOAA's objective. That's why I think we should reject the amendment.

Mr. MORAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop EPA from identifying coal ash as hazardous waste and, therefore, prevent any regulation of that waste. The fact is that coal ash contains dangerous contaminants, such as mercury, cadmium, and arsenic, and we know those can be dangerous to public health. Without further guidance by EPA, this ash will continue to be stored onsite at many large power plants, where it leaches into the groundwater and into nearby streams. EPA has found a number of communities across the country where coal ash has contaminated drinking water sources poisoning people and wildlife. Through its public rulemaking process, it's been developing a rule. In fact, it has received more than 450,000 public comments. It's had Web-based seminars. It's done everything to get opinion on both sides of this issue. It's currently conducting risk and economic analyses of the options available. Suspending work on a final regulation isn't going to satisfy anybody. But it will ensure that you're going to continue to have the coal ash at risk of contaminating drinking water, you are going to create uncertainty for power companies that burn coal, and you are going to eliminate potential markets for coal ash reuse. Potential users are not going to buy it if they think some day it might cause liability. The final EPA rule would eliminate that uncertainty, allow for coal ash to be properly stored and used, and eliminate the risk for health and the environment. That's why the amendment should be defeated. At this point, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. MORAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MORAN. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MORAN

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

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

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

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, equal access to our Nation's courts for all Americans is a hallmark of our democracy and our system of justice. Providing attorneys' fees to successful plaintiffs, which is what the Equal Access to Justice Act does, ensures that the government is held accountable when it overreaches its power. These fees are only available when a party prevails on the merits of a lawsuit and only then after careful consideration by the presiding judge as to how deserving each plaintiff is. Attorneys' fees are available to individual citizens, local communities, small business, tribal entities, nonprofits, all regardless of where they stand on any particular issue. Providing attorneys' fees ensures that powerless, less wealthy individuals who wouldn't otherwise have a voice as a result of their not being wealthy or representing a corporate interest can nevertheless be heard by our government, by our court system; otherwise, they wouldn't have the means. We already suffer under a system where too often big money, as was discussed in the last amendment, crowds average people out of our political system, squeezing them out of this political process here on Capitol Hill. Now you want a system where big money squeezes average people out of the courthouse as well, out of our justice system? Awarding attorneys' fees makes it possible for environmental groups-- I acknowledge that--to bring court actions to protect our environment. I happen to think that's a good thing, but it also allows small business owners, farmers, ranchers, timber workers to ensure that their rights are protected as well when they believe that the Federal Government is in the wrong. It works both ways. This Republican zeal to target every program that protects natural resources is just difficult to comprehend. You're proposing an amendment that would slam the courthouse doors closed for any average citizen plaintiff, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. Instead of finding practical solutions that protect the environment and create jobs, this amendment would do nothing more than financially punish citizens who want and need, and deserve to have their voices heard. That's why this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. MORAN. This amendment would attempt to put to an end a rule that, first of all, would increase revenues in the industry sectors that design, manufacture and install pollution control equipment by as much as $2.2 billion and increase employment in the cement industry by as much as 1,300 jobs. So, in effect, the amendment could be considered a job-killer amendment. But what it does is to prohibit EPA from implementing, administering or enforcing final rules to control air toxins from the Portland cement industry. The standards for Portland cement kilns have already been promulgated. The amendment would not relieve the industry of the obligation to meet these standards. Even though the agency would be precluded from spending funds to enforce the standards, citizens or States could bring enforcement actions against these sources of pollution that didn't comply with the standards. This amendment would also prevent EPA from providing technical assistance to such sources of pollution to assist them in understanding and complying with the rule or to the States to assist the States in enforcing the rule. The compliance date is 2013, so the regulated industry sources are now in the process of evaluating control equipment needs and preparing to order large amounts of equipment in order to be in compliance. Lack of EPA assistance and oversight at this critical time may ultimately result in a number of facilities not being prepared to comply on the compliance date. This in turn could result in numerous enforcement actions and citizen lawsuits, all of which would ultimately result in significant costs that would have to be borne by the States and regulated sources which this amendment would make avoidable. These funding limitations to stop EPA rules really have unintended consequences. They don't stop the legal requirements to regulate polluters. They really do, though, contribute to the pockets of lawyers that would litigate these issues out in the courtrooms. It seems to me that we should defeat what is really an unnecessarily costly amendment and an ill-advised and ill-timed one. So I would urge defeat of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this entire bill, this CR, is replete with amendment after amendment targeting the public's health and the environment. This is one of the worst, at least in its intent. As a practical matter, it's not clear why this amendment is being offered, really, as it appears to duplicate section 1746 of the underlying bill. But both section 1746 and this amendment are truly radical attempts to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job of protecting the health and welfare of every American. This particular amendment would bar EPA from addressing carbon pollution, period--pollution which seriously endangers public health and the environment. It not only guts the Clean Air Act, but it also imposes a job-destroying construction ban in many States. According to the National Academy of Sciences and the premier scientific organizations of all the world major economies, man-made carbon pollution is changing the climate and is endangering the public's health and the environment. The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and thousands of doctors, nurses, and other public health professionals support EPA's action on this public health threat; but this amendment bars EPA from acting, from carrying out its legal responsibility. Under the Clean Air Act, companies building large new facilities like power plants and refineries need to make sure that they have taken reasonable steps to reduce their carbon pollution because it's easier to control pollution from the beginning, the point where a facility is being built, rather than waiting and trying to retrofit it after it has been constructed. All EPA is asking is that these large new facilities be energy efficient. They can meet the standard if they simply meet energy efficiency standards. The Poe amendment, though, would prevent EPA from implementing this commonsense requirement to protect the public health from the largest and most dangerous sources of carbon pollution. EPA has also indicated it plans to set minimum Federal standards for the two largest sources of carbon pollution, which are power plants and oil refineries. This amendment would prevent EPA from even proposing these standards. Those standards are really a limitation on what they could and I think should be doing in terms of regulating pollution throughout the country. But they're going to stick to the two largest sources. Ironically, given all of the rhetoric we've heard about environmental regulations hurting the economy, this Poe amendment is a job-destroyer. Under the Clean Air Act, a company wanting to build or expand a power plant or other facility has to get a permit for that facility's carbon pollution before beginning construction. The Poe amendment does nothing to change that. What it does do is take away EPA's authority to issue those permits. So that basically amounts to a construction ban. This is more than a paperwork problem. In essence the Poe amendment will impose that de facto construction ban on jobs in all or parts of at least 13 States. And without the needed permits, construction cannot proceed. So a vote for the Poe amendment would be a vote not only against the Clean Air Act, it is a vote for a de facto construction ban. Thousands of jobs lost in States across this country. That's why we very strongly oppose the Poe amendment. We do support EPA's authority to cut carbon pollution and allow the construction of energy- efficient power plants, refineries and other facilities to proceed as planned. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, there are actually a couple of points that I would share with the gentleman who had been the ranking member and who is now the senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The committee could pass legislation if they chose. I don't think this is the correct vehicle, a continuing resolution on funding activities, to be making law with regard to the Clean Air Act. Secondly, as Mr. Inslee informs me, the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court said if you can show that there is an adverse health effect, then EPA is required by law to address that. That's what EPA is trying to do. That's what this amendment would prevent EPA from doing. Now, it is not theory. Climate change is fact. It is real. Future generations will look back upon this generation and will wonder, how could our parents and grandparents have been so unmindful of the health effects that our families are experiencing.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Mr. Jay Inslee, one of the House's premier experts on the issue of air pollution. (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment stops funding for--and I will quote--the Environmental Appeals Board to consider review, reject, remand, or otherwise invalidate any permit issued for Outer Continental Shelf sources located offshore of the States along the Arctic coast. Now, the gentleman has shared with us a specific situation, but his amendment goes considerably beyond that. The appeals board is the final decisionmaker on administrative appeals under all major environmental statutes that the Environmental Protection Agency administers. It's an impartial body, independent of all agency components outside the immediate office of the administrator. To support this amendment is to take away people's right to petition their government. This is an impartial board that looks out for the regular citizen. In fact, they just took great care and ruled on the side of Alaskans and courageously ruled against EPA's issuance of a permit to Shell Oil. I thought the gentleman and his side of the aisle would take sincere joy in any decision ruling against EPA. But that's not the case, apparently. I guess EPA is okay as long as it doesn't use any Federal funds and rules exactly the way that you want them to. And, in fact, EPA did rule the way that the gentleman wants, it's just that we have an appeals board. That appeals board is there for good reason, has been for some time. I don't have to tell the gentleman, but I think the other Members of this body should know that the Environmental Appeals Board found that EPA's analysis of the effect on Alaskan Native communities of nitrogen dioxide emissions from the drilling ships was too limited, ordered the agency to redo the work. It doesn't mean that they can't drill. The analysis is incomplete. We should let that legal process work and stop interfering in long-standing regulatory and administrative processes. The amendment will be seen as an assault on the environment and an affront to the Alaskans who engaged in this case. I'm disappointed that the gentleman's position would appear to favor Big Oil over the small Alaskan villages that are being protected in this reconsideration. It doesn't mean that there won't be drilling; it simply means that the analysis to enable that drilling needs to be full and complete. I urge defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would underscore some points previously made. Number one, we are not taking a position on the merits of this case. It may very well be, I would not be surprised, in fact, personally, that ultimately the drilling off the Arctic coast would be approved. But this is like taking a case to the district court. The district court agrees with you, and then the plaintiff appeals, goes to the appeals court. The appeals court disagrees or says that there needs to be more information. That's exactly what this appeals board did. Now, presumably, that information is being gathered. It will be presented. And when it is, I don't know why the appeals board would not agree with the EPA decision. The problem with this amendment is we're setting a precedent to say, if we don't like the appeals board, we like the district court decision, which is in this case EPA's decision, then we accept EPA's decision, ignore that appeals process. That's what we're opposed to. It seems to me we ought not be legislating that kind of judicial decision that affects many people's lives and incomes, clearly, and the environment without a full hearing. What's going to happen if this legislation were passed is that the decisionmaking process that allows this drilling will be suspect and a permit will not be able to be fully issued without reservation. So for that reason, I would suggest that the right thing to do is to defeat this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time on each side?