Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

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

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to ask if we could see the amendment. It's pretty difficult to address it until we actually see the amendment.

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. Reclaiming my time, it's clear that's not just the waterway. That includes all of the land. The entire park on this national preserve, they can't carry out their responsibilities. We're not just talking about the water.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this is an organization that was established by President Nixon. It was Bill Ruckleshaus who was the first head of it. What it does is to coordinate the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. That act, as I recall, goes back to 1976. 1969. It was President Nixon that put it into effect. The Council on Environmental Quality does the National Environmental Policy Act reviews, and it's a critical function. In addition to that, it coordinates the environmental programs throughout the Federal Government. If you didn't have CEQ, you'd have to invent it. I know if we didn't have it, we'd be creating it in this appropriations bill because this appropriations bill is replete with requests to the administration to coordinate environmental programs, particularly those related to climate change to avoid duplication. Well, that's the role of CEQ. The Council of Environmental Quality is very inadequately funded. It's a relative handful of people. So the only thing that I can interpret from this amendment is that it's meant to be punitive. You're hardly saving any money, and what you're doing is eliminating the White House's ability to coordinate environmental programs to continue the same tradition that we have had since Richard Nixon. It's now been 40 years, and no one up till now has thought that the Council on Environmental Quality was not performing an important and valuable function. I'm surprised that the gentleman would offer the amendment, but I would certainly oppose it. It's one of these things that you're only going to realize the full value of when it's gone. And though the small amount of money to save, this is an organization that, person for person, probably does as much as any other people, even in EPA or any of the other agencies of the government in terms of maintaining a consistent, focused policy on the environment. I would really hope that this amendment would be soundly defeated. It was funded in the bill. There was no criticism registered in the report with regard to the Council on Environmental Quality. I know they have been reaching out. They're more than happy to go to any Member's office. They're one of the people that, when you have local issues or State issues, they will respond. They'll explain the intent and purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act. And they want to ensure that the administration's actions are consistent with congressional intent. This is not the kind of constructive amendment that we would expect to see, and I would really hope that this body would reject it. But I'm stunned that this amendment would have been offered. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. I do rise in opposition to this amendment because it attempts to strip half of the remaining funding for EPA's greenhouse gas registry program. This amendment is part of an effort to ignore what the scientists tell us is the most serious environmental problem of our time, climate change. Republicans have already passed a bill to repeal a scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health. The underlying bill we're considering says that no stationary source, no matter how large, or how lethal to human health, should ever have to reduce its carbon pollution. But this amendment goes even further. It says that we should not even bother to find out how much pollution is being put into the air. I guess you could call it the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment. What we should be doing is the opposite of what the gentleman is trying to do. The bill already makes a 30 percent cut to the registry program in order to cripple the efforts of EPA with regard to greenhouse gases. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program simply requires the largest sources of carbon pollution, power plants, refineries, and the very largest factories, to tell EPA and the public how much they pollute. If we're ever going to deal responsibly with this pollution that is costing us billions in health care and shortening thousands of lives, we need to know where it is coming from and have some idea of how much is being emitted. This amendment is yet one more example of putting the profits of industry, and particularly those industries that pollute the air and eventually clog the water, that poison much of our environment, to put their profits ahead of the public interest and the public's health. We all know that pollution is dangerous to our health. The scientists tell us that, certainly the reputable scientists. Let's allow EPA to fulfill its core responsibility, which is to collect this information and inform the public. I know our friends on the other side hate regulations because they believe that the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't understand the impact of those regulations on businesses and on the economy and on jobs and so on. EPA's job is to protect the public health, and in doing so, and in encouraging cleaner sources of energy, we will not only protect the public's health, but we will grow this economy, grow it in a more competitive and a healthier way and a far more sustainable manner. I oppose this amendment vigorously. At this point, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, who offered the amendment.

Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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. 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?

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, you've heard it. I will explain: I rose previously to claim the time in opposition, now I am rising to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, if this was not such a late hour, we would have had five or six times as many Members rising in opposition to this amendment. And I trust they reflect the general sentiment of the country. Winston Churchill, at the height of World War II, was told by his budget director that to conserve money for armaments, they needed to cut the arts. And he turned to him and said, If we do that, what is it that we're fighting for? The arts reflect the highest aspirations of our humanity. And in fact, in this country, they're a reflection of the true American spirit--our talent, our ability to communicate, our ability to relate to one another. Now, let me be specific about what this amendment would do, because every single Member of this body has a direct grant from the National Endowment for the Arts going to that congressional district. If this amendment were to pass, more than $100 million in non-Federal matching funds for NEA awards would be lost. The number of Americans reached as a result will decline by 36 million compared to the number of Americans reached by NEA this year. The number of children and youth will decline by 3.6 million, and in fact there will be a near-17 percent decrease in State and regional partnerships. I think if the Members fully consider the impact of this, they will realize this is one of the most effective Federal Government programs that we have. We have a gentleman whose name is Rocco Landesman. He could be making considerably more than he's making today in income, but he has chosen to devote his time and attention to leading the National Endowment for the Arts. In fact, he has suggested that, given the fiscal situation that confronts us, perhaps we should reduce the number of platforms for artists so as to save money. But he is determined not to reduce the quality of artistic performance in this country. We have so many talented people, so much potential, and it is the NEA that reaches out and finds that potential all over the country. This is a fully national program. Every single congressional district benefits from grants from the NEA. And those grants expand the economy, the focus of the grant, multiple times--I'm trying to recall the number, I think it's five or six times at a minimum, many times 10, 20 times--the amount of money that is contributed to a particular artistic focus when the NEA decides that it's worthy of getting a grant. They have maintained their credibility. In fact, when they were under attack in the 1990s, they made sure that every grant passes a very high level of scrutiny. Even though I think most of us don't believe in censorship, they understand all the competing political pressures. They have navigated those political waters. The Our Town program that the chairman of the subcommittee referred to is a terrific program. It really develops the best of what America is all about. This has been a long night. We have tried to fight the good fight over here against any number of efforts to cut programs, to repeal legislation; but this is one of the most important. I would urge this body to reject this amendment, to show our support for the National Endowment for the Arts, and really for the phenomenal artistic talent that it underscores and generates in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I think we have a problem in the amendment, itself, because it would specifically designate a study that might be interpreted as some type of earmark, which I don't think it really is. I like what the gentlelady is trying to do. I think it's important. I think we ought to have a consideration by the Park Service of whether they are sufficiently flexible in dealing with local communities. There was a recent article written in The Washington Post talking about some of the opportunities that exist to bring the community into local parks, urban parks, where far more people could be involved, people could participate, people could enhance the enjoyment of things that take place. For example, if there is a large soccer event at a park that is controlled by the National Park Service, you could bring the whole community in to watch it on a large screen. There is no question but that we could find ways to discourage automobiles and encourage bikes--have bike sharing, for example, on The National Mall so that people could rent bikes and bike around The Mall. It wouldn't cause any environmental damage; in fact, it would preserve some of the lawn on our National Mall. Some people would enjoy it more and they would get a little exercise. Just all kinds of ideas that might be proposed by communities. I remember being out in Washington State, San Juan Island. This was a little place. It's a national park because there was a bizarre military conflict that occurred out there. I won't go into the whole military conflict, but the people there love the bunny rabbits that are there. Well, the Park Service decided that they're really not a native species, there are too many of them, so the Park Service decided they're going to use the method they use at other places. First of all, they thought they would gas them, which the community was shocked by. Then they decided, well, we'll shoot them and so on, reduce the population. You know, if they had just sat down with members of the community, they could have figured out how to keep these bunnies that the community wanted, avoid a whole lot of negative attitude with regard to the Park Service, and in fact enhance the enjoyment of this little national park at San Juan. I'm sure there are examples all over the country, in fact, all over the world, because the National Park Service has any number of parks outside the physical boundaries of our North American continent. We've got the Virgin Islands and so on. I don't know what the local neighborhoods might suggest, but I do know that they have a lot of good ideas, ideas that the National Park Service ought to consider thoughtfully. And some will be rejected, but some might well be accepted. But the process of that kind of community input, it seems to me, would generate even more support for the National Park Service. It's a great institution. Our parks are iconic assets to our Nation. But I do think that the local community could enjoy them more and appreciate the National Park Service's role more if we had the kind of dialogue with the Park Service that Ms. Norton is suggesting. I don't see any harm in having that kind of study. I think we ought to be able to work with the gentlelady, maybe put together some report language, at least a letter to the head of the National Park Service suggesting that this is an area that the Congress itself, in a bipartisan way, thinks ought to be explored.

Mr. MORAN. Not only were they there but Team 6 that had just dealt with Osama bin Laden in a fairly definitive manner, SEAL Team 6 was there. We couldn't identify them, but we all applauded for them, and they couldn't have been more overjoyed. The gentleman makes a very good point. Colin Powell was basically the master of ceremonies. Now, this is what we want to eliminate? This is what is such a threat to our budget as taking so much money? It's not taking that much money, and whatever money it's taking, it's giving back far more in return.

Mr. MORAN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. I am not necessarily rising to oppose this, but to point out some deficiencies in the amendment itself. The claim is that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the National Park Service prioritizes its construction of law enforcement centers on national park lands, on the southern border in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security. First of all, there is some feeling that national parks not have basically prison sites on them because what happens is that when people are rounded up by the Border Patrol, they are taken to these law enforcement centers and detained until they--I don't know whether they are adjudicated or not, but then eventually they are moved to another place. But they are temporarily detained at these law enforcement centers, and there is some feeling that national parks are not an appropriate location for that purpose. But the very wording of the amendment doesn't really do that. It increases money, then it decreases the same amount of money. If it did it, it would be an earmark. And, of course, we don't do earmarks in this bill. So as I say, I don't rise in opposition because I'm not sure what the amendment does, but I think it is helpful to be informed as to what it doesn't do.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want our side to go on record in support of what Mr. Tonko and Mr. Dent are proposing. We have worked with them on this amendment. This is the kind of program that really ought to have unanimous support in the House. I mean, we're talking about very small amounts of money that are distributed throughout the country; oftentimes $150,000; sometimes it gets up to $700,000. But they are relatively small amounts of money. And what they do is to bring local community leaders together. Local communities love it and, of course, it draws tourism. It gets into the newspaper, oftentimes into metropolitan newspapers suggesting this is a terrific day trip for families to go on. They follow the Heritage Trail. It has that kind of national recognition and credibility that only the Federal Government oftentimes can provide to a National Heritage Area, because many people claim it. But when the National Heritage Program identifies it as one of the true assets of our country and places that should be protected and preserved and explained to the public, then more people come. And it generates jobs; it generates economic activity. Mr. Wolf just put in an authorization. He probably won't get the full amount of money that's authorized, but it will get some for the Civil War Battlefield Crossroads Trail, and that's drawing people up with the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. All over the country. The Hudson River, there was a gentleman on the other side that opposed it when Mr. Hinchey put it in, had it designated. And then when he saw how successful it was, he said, Let's get my part of the Hudson River included. This is a really good program. It was funded at about $17 million, 50 percent cut though. What are we doing? Talk about being penny-wise and pound-foolish, really. A 50 percent cut in it. It hurts the economies of any number of areas around the country. So we think that this is a very reasonable amendment, and we congratulate the caucus for coming forward and suggesting that the money be restored, and we hope that it will be. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. First of all, I'm not sure why you want the Beach Boys to be the issue here. We were just discussing Mr. Watt's tenure as Secretary of the Interior. That was not so successful when he came after the Beach Boys. But be that as it may, what we're really talking about here are a number of nonprofit organizations, and these are national memorials. Ford's Theater, Wolf Trap. I guess because the Beach Boys performed at Wolf Trap they are an issue. Actually, I would recommend to the gentleman that he watch them perform. I guess it's more my age than yours that can relate to them, but it was a pretty good performance. But I digress. We're talking about Ford's Theater, Wolf Trap, Carter Barron, all part of the National Park System. The Kennedy Center is a national memorial. These are performing arts right here on the Capitol grounds as well. Now we're talking about nationally significant sites, and the performances that occur, in fact, are part of the mission of these sites. They were authorized for members of the public, the taxpaying public, to come to a nonprofit venue and, in fact, be entertained. The national parks do that. They entertain the public that pays for them, sometimes by seeing iconic sites, sometimes by hiking and camping, sometimes it's by performances. So the National Park Service is in keeping with its mission to interpret the purpose of these national sites. These performances are seen by citizens, in fact, all over the country. Many people who visit our Nation's Capitol attend these performances as part of their trip to the District of Columbia. And the crowds that fill the West Lawn of the Capitol on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July are testament to the public's support for this program. In fact, if you were there on Memorial Day or the Fourth of July and turned to see the crowd, there are people as far as the eye can see, people representative of this vast, diverse country, and every single one of them had a smile on their face. Every single one of them was delighted, overjoyed that they were able to participate and appreciate and enjoy the performance that was put on on the Fourth of July and Memorial Day. That's part of our Nation's heritage. It's a proud part. This amendment would do real harm to programs enjoyed by millions of Americans. I would also suggest that this line item has already suffered a virtually devastating cut. It was funded at about $10 million. It's been cut to about $2 million. I mean, it's just barely hanging on. And now this amendment would eliminate it? I mean, think about this. I know that some of the Members, at least as many Members of the majority side as the minority side, were there for the Memorial Day concert. I saw them. I was sitting with them. The chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the chairmen of the subcommittees, the leadership of the House and Senate were all there honoring our troops.

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

Mr. MORAN

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