Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, first of all, the letter that was sent did not request polystyrene products by any means. It was referring to another product that was corn based. Certainly Mr. Brady was not recommending dangerous Styrofoam material.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Last night, we were asked to amend the Constitution, after two-and-a-quarter centuries, in a way that will permanently limit the ability of our government to foster competitiveness in a global economy, to generate greater equality of opportunity, to treat our seniors with dignity and respect, and to defend and define this great Nation as an ever-shining democratic beacon of hope and prosperity. So I was proud to vote against the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. It is the House Republicans' vision for America's future. This is a vision in which the country turns its back on the achievements of the last century and chooses not to invest in meeting the challenges of the next century. Republicans aim to use a crisis of their own making to hamstring future Congresses, limiting our ability to make necessary infrastructure investments, to care for the poor, aged and disabled, and to respond to national and international crises. The 18 percent spending cap mandated by the bill would return the government to spending levels not seen since the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid. The impending retirement of more than 70 million baby boomers means that these spending levels are woefully inadequate, unless we condemn our grandparents to a severely diminished quality of life. The Republican Party would enshrine constitutional protections for tax cuts and loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations, requiring an unattainable two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate for the government to increase the currently unsustainably low revenue levels of roughly 15 percent of GDP. This would necessarily result in unprecedented cuts in student loans and grants, transportation, education, environmental protection, law enforcement--in other words, the physical and the human infrastructure of our economy. The only budget plan that comes close to meeting the requirements of these constitutional amendments is the Republican Study Committee budget which eliminates 70 percent of nondefense discretionary funding by 2021, contains deep cuts to Medicare, cuts Medicaid, food stamps, supplemental security income for the elderly and disabled and poor in half by the end of the decade, and raises the Social Security retirement age to 70 years of age. Yesterday's vote means that the Republican majority is demanding that in return for avoiding an economically disastrous default on our debt, we make $111 billion in immediate spending cuts. These cuts seriously increase the likelihood of a double-dip recession. It is estimated that they could cause the loss of more than a million public sector jobs just in the next year alone. Last month, the economy added an anemic 18,000 jobs; but the private sector added 57,000 jobs, while 39,000 public sector jobs were lost in addition to the 49,000 public sector jobs lost in the prior month. This is a continuing trend. Half a million public sector employees have now lost their jobs, 200,000 of them teachers, while student enrollment has increased by 750,000. Firing more government workers will only decrease aggregate demand, making it that much harder to sustain the recovery. We have witnessed this before. In 1937, President Roosevelt responded to similar conservative pressure by substantially reducing Federal spending before the Great Depression was fully in the rearview mirror. It drove us right back into economic depression. The economy wouldn't recover until the increased spending and hiring that accompanied the World War II armaments buildup got the country moving again. After the war, spending on education and housing for our GIs, the Marshall Plan for Europe, and the construction of the interstate highway system established a permanent middle class and sustainable prosperity. This is not the time for the Democratic Party to sacrifice our values, values held by a majority of the American people, even in the face of opposition that has reached unprecedented levels of ideological radicalization. We have to address our long-term deficits for the sake of future generations, but we must do so in a balanced manner, combining rational spending cuts and increased revenue. That's what has worked in the past. That's what we need to do now. We must not abandon the people that depend upon the government for a decent quality of life, but we must not let this great Nation become a second-class society and a third-rate economy. If the bill that was passed last night were to be enacted into law, that's the limited vision it would yield. That's why I was proud to vote against it.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I haven't read Ayn Rand for 45 years, so all I have as a reference point is what I've observed over the last 20 years in this body. I remember when we were trying to pull out of the last recession in 1990. George H.W. Bush called the leaders of both political parties together. They came up with a compromise. They raised revenue, they cut spending, and they started to pull us out of the recession. The economy started rebounding. President Clinton followed suit. In fact, he raised the top tax rates to 39.6 percent. Now we heard at the time all of the Republican arguments, that you should only cut spending, you can't raise new revenue because it's going to cost jobs, and so on. Not one Republican vote was cast for the tax increase, but what happened? We know what happened. Twenty million jobs were created. We had surpluses. We had the strongest economy in modern history. We reduced welfare. We grew the middle class. Homeownership increased. And we handed over a surplus, a projected surplus, of $5.6 trillion. In fact, this year we would have paid off our public debt. And what happened to those who paid at that highest rate of 39.6 percent? They brought home more after-tax income than at any prior time in American history. It worked. And now your party comes in with this attitude we've been hearing about all day, you want to drastically cut taxes, shrink government, and ensure a permanent indebtedness. In fact just this spring you voted for a Republican budget that increased the deficit by $8.8 trillion, from $14.3 to $23.1 trillion over the next 10 years. But now you don't want to pay for it. That's what happened during the last Bush administration. We didn't pay for anything. We didn't pay for tax cuts. We didn't pay for wars. We didn't pay for expansion of Medicare. That's why we're in the hole that we're in. Alan Greenspan said, ``Restore the Clinton tax rates.'' Every Republican in 2001 and 2003 voted to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011. Do it. Be responsible. Pay off our debts. Let's get back to policies that work with a government that deserves the trust of its citizens. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment by my colleague from Virginia and against this bad bill. I am troubled that the bill we are considering today seems to move us backwards to a time when some advocated states should reign supreme and could opt out of federal laws. We tried that system of government, it was called the Articles of Confederation, and it failed miserably. Each state did its own thing, and there was no mechanism by which disagreements among the states could be resolved. The issue today is whether states can opt out or even veto tougher, more stringent water quality standards to protect the public's health. This bill returns us to a time when we had no uniform national minimum clean water standard and states had conflicting policies or no policies to protect the public. That was a time when rivers were so polluted they caught fire. The problem with this reasoning and with this bill is that responsible downstream states suffered the consequences of lax or weak upstream states' policies. I am sure my colleagues, who seem so enamored with this proposition and this legislation, would raise objections if we were to apply a similar proposal to our immigration policy. Employing this same logic, states would be granted full rights to disregard federal immigration policies and opt-out or set a different policy on which immigrants to accept or reject. Water, like immigrants, crosses state lines; and immigrants like water should be governed by a single national standard. The landmark Clean Water Act provides states full flexibility for meeting the federal standards, and it also allows states flexibility to set higher standards. The amendment my colleague from Virginia is offering would at least allow Virginia and the other states that are part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and some of this nation's other great bodies of water--waters that are the primary source of millions of Americans' economic livelihood and drinking water--to proceed with their plans to reduce harmful pollutants that threaten to degrade these great waters and allow current restoration measures to proceed.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, for decades our sons and daughters have been exposed to a chemical stew in water, food, fragrances, personal care products, children's toys, and household items. Unfortunately we do not know if this chemical stew is safe for pregnant mothers, their unborn babies, young children, or for that matter, anyone else. That is why I'm pleased today, along with Mr. Maurice Hinchey, Mr. Gerry Connolly, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mr. George Miller, Ms. Laura Richardson, Mr. Raul Grijalva, Ms. Jan Schakowsky, Ms. Nita Lowey, Mr. Bobby Rush, Mrs. Lois Capps, Mr. James McGovern, and Mr. David Price, to introduce the ``Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act of 2011.'' This bill is of enormous importance because it will arm us all with the information that we need to keep our families safe from these potentially harmful chemicals. There are numerous alarming studies showing increasing disease rates unheard of generations before. Asthma rates have nearly tripled in the past three decades. The United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported this year that one of every six American children has a developmental disorder such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and mental retardation. A recent study from Korea shows that 4 percent of children have autism spectrum disorder--that is one in every 25 children! Just this week an extensive University of Michigan study confirmed the correlation of phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) to thyroid disruption. Thyroid hormones play a vital role in many human physiological processes including fetal and child growth and brain development, as well as energy balance, metabolism, and other functions in the nervous, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and reproductive systems of children and adults. The study confirmed previous reports associating phthalates and BPA with altered thyroid hormones. Phthalates and BPA are high-production chemicals commonly used in plastics and other applications, including fragrances in perfumes, children's toys, and body-care products. Exposure to these chemicals among Americans is widespread, according to the CDC. Recent studies show a decline in brain development related to phthalates and BPA exposure. Chemically-induced altered thyroid function may also be involved in increased waist circumference, insulin resistance, and diabetes among adults. Cancer, after accidents, is the leading cause of death among children in the United States. Primary brain cancer increased by nearly 40 percent and leukemia increased by over 60 percent among children 14 years and younger in the last 30 years. Childhood obesity has quadrupled in the past 10 years. Type-2 diabetes has increased drastically. There is an increase in sexual abnormalities, particularly in newborn boys. An analysis of the umbilical cords of a test group of newborns found over 200 chemicals in the blood--chemicals to which the mother had unwittingly transmitted to her fetus. But these problems do not end with children. These chemically-induced changes linger into adulthood. Forty-one percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from that cancer. When we look at these trends, it becomes glaringly obvious that something in our environment is making us sick. There is mounting evidence suggesting that these alarming public health trends are the result of chemicals in the environment that disrupt the endocrine system. Small amounts of these chemicals, or mixes of these chemicals, it has been shown, can have a huge impact on our health and ultimately American healthcare costs. As a result, health groups including the Endocrine Society, The Endocrine Exchange, and renowned scientific authorities like Dr. Fred S. vom Saal have all endorsed this bill. The Endocrine Society, the world's oldest and largest professional organization devoted to endocrine research, found that ``endocrine disruptors have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology.'' Based upon these findings they recommended that we increase ``basic and clinical research.'' In addition to these troubling human diseases, we're also seeing chemically-induced changes in wildlife. In parts of the Potomac River, 100 percent of the studied male small mouth bass are intersex--meaning that they are carrying both male and female reproductive organs. We are eating these fish and we are drinking the water that they swim in. Because of this, Trout Unlimited, one of the largest fisheries conservation organizations in the country, also endorsed this bill. As I said years ago when intersex fish were first reported, this discovery should serve as our early warning telling us that something is gravely wrong. Close to 14 years ago, Congress enacted legislation requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish an Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. To date that endeavor has focused primarily on pesticides, to the exclusion of other chemicals. The agency has been hamstrung by its use of old science and interference by the chemical industry. This bill will facilitate increased study and regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals. It will require that the government focus on the chemicals of most concern, to which people are exposed through drinking water, food, household items, toys, and personal care products. It will empower federal agencies with jurisdiction to consider a range of peer- reviewed scientific sources of information on toxicity, and to act quickly in regulating substances found harmful to human health. Finally, for those chemicals that scientists overwhelmingly agree are the most hazardous, the bill will restrict them only to uses that ensure they cannot get into human bodies. Twenty-four months after scientists find that a chemical is an endocrine disruptor, that chemical will be banned unless the industry using that chemical can ensure that it will not enter our food, our water, or our bodies. It is time to take action. It is time we increase research on these chemical impacts. And it is time for the most dangerous chemicals to be controlled. The Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act of 2011 will do just that.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN. I would underscore what the distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee has said: This amendment prevents guidance and rulemaking. It's that comprehensive. What EPA and the Corps of Engineers have tried to do is to clarify where Federal jurisdiction extends and where it ends. There is clearly confusion on what constitutes navigable waters. The Supreme Court recognized that, even Justice Scalia said it's not just navigable waters; it's waters that are contiguous. And there are any number of water sources that are under the surface that you can't see. Most of the water in this country is under the surface. It can be under land; it's under water.

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

Mr. MORAN. Only 3 percent of the water on this planet is freshwater, but that's the water that we depend upon for drinking, for agriculture, and for much of our fishing and wildlife habitat. If my amendment to strike section 109 of this bill is not accepted, critical headwater and wetlands, which ensure the quality and the quantity of our freshwater supply, will be lost--lost to the dumping of sewage, to toxic mining materials, and to unregulated in-fill for residential, commercial and industrial development. Over the past decade, Mr. Chairman, two Supreme Court rulings have caused confusion about which waters and wetlands should receive protection under the Clean Water Act. As a result, important fish, wildlife, flood protection, and filtering waters now lack clear protection under the law, and businesses and regulators face uncertainty and delay as to which waters should fall under Federal protection. The Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency developed draft guidance this spring to clearly show which waters should be protected, and this guidance does provide clear and predictable guidelines in accordance with the Court's direction, but this bill prohibits that guidance from moving forward this year and every subsequent year. The Supreme Court did remove some waters from Federal protection, but it left a great deal of confusion over which waters and wetlands should be protected. The EPA and the Corps of Engineers are using an open, public process to develop the guidance. Published in May and open for comment through July, the public, businesses and States have over 3 months to let the Federal agency know their views. All comments will be considered and made publicly available. It is important to understand what the guidance does not do. This new guidance doesn't change any existing agricultural exemptions. All clean water exemptions for normal agricultural, forestry and ranching practices continue to apply. The guidance also clearly describes waters that are not regulated under the act, including isolated wetlands, artificially irrigated areas, stock watering ponds, construction- related ponds, swimming pools, and washes and gullies. Failing to update the guidance, which is what this bill would do unless my amendment passes, is not only bad for the environment, but it's also bad for business. American businesses need to know when the Federal Government has authority and when it doesn't. Without updated guidance, developers have little certainty regarding permits. This uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal penalties, and surely will cost them extra money. Some also claim that Federal regulation is unnecessary because States will protect the same waters under their authority. But State authority to regulate waters of the United States derives directly from Federal law. When Federal law is unclear, State authority based on that law is also unclear. States are still required to implement the law, but they need clarity to be consistent and to avoid lawsuits. Some States may adequately protect clean waters on their own, but not all do. The Corps and the EPA must be able to protect water quality irrespective of whether individual States do. Sixteen different sportsmen's groups oppose the prohibition in this group, as do over 100 conservation groups. When wetlands are destroyed and streams are polluted, sportsmen are often the first to be directly impacted. The economic benefits of hunting and fishing contribute more than $65 billion to the economy, breathing life into rural communities and supporting millions of jobs across the country. But these benefits are in jeopardy with this bill. Since 2001, safeguards for headwater streams and critical wetlands have steadily eroded. Wetlands and tributaries that provide clean water for iconic systems like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes that recharge aquifers, help retain floodwaters, and provide important fish and wildlife habitat are now endangered. These economic and environmental benefits will be lost without updated guidance and rules. If this bill language stands, some critical waters will be subject to sewage dumping, to mining contaminants, and to industrial pollution. Some will be filled in for development. Bear in mind, much of the fresh water we depend upon is under the ground, but contiguous to rivers and streams that our fiscal health and the health of our economy is dependent upon. That's why I urge a vote for my amendment to strike section 109.

Mr. MORAN. Yes.

Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from Washington. I am not going to belabor this, but I do think for the record we should clarify. Some of what the gentleman said is accurate except for the material. This was not sewerage. This was filtered silt that came from a drinking water reservoir at Dalecarlia that is operated by the Corps of Engineers. They did put it into the Potomac, after verifying that it would not jeopardize the health of the fish or any of the vegetation. And they did seek an exemption. They lost. And now that silt is put in a landfill.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I've explained what this amendment does. I believe that it is critically important to protect the headwaters and the wetlands of America. Two Supreme Court rulings cast considerable doubt on what is to be considered navigable water. Clearly, some waters that may have been protected in the past are not now protected, but there is a great deal of confusion as to which waters do need to be protected. That's why more than 100 environmental groups, and more than 16 major sportsmen's groups have urged adoption of this amendment, which strikes section 109 because section 109 precludes the Corps of Engineers and EPA from issuing regulations that would clarify what waters do fall under Federal protection. The original idea was that you would define waters that are contiguous, that you can see on the surface, that you can navigate across from one State into another as falling under Federal protection. The problem is that there are a lot of waters that part of the year may run under the ground but are still contiguous and supply water to navigable streams and to rivers that are absolutely important to our economy and to our environment. So which of those waters should EPA and the Corps of Engineers regulate? During part of the year, the water flows under the surface, but it's still there; it's still important. If we don't enable our Federal agencies to clarify which waters are to be protected, many wetlands will be filled in, many habitats will be destroyed, many streams that run alongside mines will be filled with toxic material that will then subsequently run into rivers and water supplies that people need for their drinking water. Some bodies of water will be filled in with sewage. Some wetlands will be filled in for industrial, commercial and residential development. Some of that doesn't need to be protected, but much of it does. And all of it needs to be clarified. There's no way we can clarify what can be used and what needs to be protected unless the Corps of Engineers and EPA are allowed to go forward with regulations and guidance that they issued this spring. Now, there's still comments coming in. They're still listening to all the parties involved. But once they issue these regulations, private interests will know what can be developed and what can't; mining firms, farms will all know what water is under the jurisdiction of the Corps and what water isn't. I believe that was the intent of the Supreme Court. Two very important decisions, SWANCC and Rapanos, certainly said some waters are not under Federal jurisdiction, but they clearly left open a vast amount of room for the Federal Government to then clarify which waters are under Federal protection. So this legislation--and not only does it apply to this fiscal year, it applies to all subsequent years--this legislation is going to cast enormous doubt. It's going to generate millions of dollars of lawsuits all over the country. That's why I oppose it, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's in our economic interest or in our environmental interest for us not to clarify by allowing the normal guidance process to go forward. I know that there is concern on the part of some farmers and miners and businesses, but the fact is the right thing to do is to move forward and strike section 109 of this bill.

Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend, the ranking member of Energy and Water Appropriations. Let me first address the points that were made by my very good friend from Montana. First of all, there was a suggestion that there was sewerage dumped into the Potomac River. I think that's pretty much a quote. That's not accurate, I would say to my very good friend. It was not sewerage. It was clean, filtered silt that came from a drinking water reservoir that was put into the Potomac without any threat to the quality of the water or the habitat. The Corps of Engineers understood that. They don't now put it there. But I don't think it's quite accurate to describe it in the way that it was. With regard to the Supreme Court ruling, even Justice Scalia made it clear that waters that are adjacent to navigable waters should be federally regulated and protected. So the statement that was offered in the debate is not entirely accurate. I would also mention that EPA does have an office in Montana. And, in fact, the people who were adversely affected by the oil pipeline of late that put a considerable amount of oil into the Yellowstone River, they are saying that EPA was wonderful, tremendously helpful to them. That's what EPA wants to be now, not only to individual communities adversely affected, but to the businesses, to the mining interests, to the farming interests that need clarification on what waters are appropriately under Federal jurisdiction.

Mr. MORAN. They did that.

Mr. MORAN. Bill Ruckelshaus.

Mr. MORAN. There is no question that the Clean Water Act is responsible for the health, such as it is, of the Potomac River. There was a time when you could almost strike a match and light the Potomac River on fire, there was so much pollution in it.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to mark a great day in the history of democracy, a great day for Africa, and a great day for the United States. On Saturday, July 9th, the Republic of South Sudan becomes Africa's 54th country and the world's newest nation. This is an outcome that would likely have been inconceivable for most Sudanese only a few years ago. South Sudan's declaration of independence is a testament to their resolve and determination to be free. The United States should also be proud of this momentous achievement, and I would like to congratulate the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration for maintaining the vision and unwavering commitment to stand with the people of this great new country through their struggle. I am thrilled that the White House has sent a high level delegation, led by Ambassador Susan Rice, to the burgeoning new capital of South Sudan, to celebrate with our newest ally. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell will accompany Ambassador Rice. I'm pleased that our colleague Congressman Donald Payne, a leader of the Sudan Caucus and a forceful advocate for Sudanese self determination, will be with the delegation, as will the senior diplomats Johnnie Carson and Princeton Lyman who have worked to make this day possible, and Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of the U.S. Africa Command. Underscoring our past and future commitment to human rights and economic opportunity and development in Sudan, Donald Steinberg, Deputy Administrator of USAID and Ken Hackett, of Catholic Relief Services, are also part of the White House delegation. As in so many struggles for democracy, the final joy of liberation emerged only after many seasons of pain and loss. We join the South Sudanese in honoring those who struggled, suffered and died over decades of conflict in the effort to celebrate this great democratic achievement. Two million of their brothers and sisters died in the struggle, and twice that number were forced from their homes. This loss is felt today, and will take a generation or more to recover from. Indeed, we must recognize that our new ally faces serious challenges. South Sudan holds oil wealth, but is still extraordinarily poor. The new capital, Juba, is expanding at a fast pace, but the country is bereft of an infrastructure that can support commerce and development. This huge new country of more than 250,000 square miles has less than 50 miles of paved roads. On average, a family in South Sudan must spend 30 minutes just to secure their water for cooking and bathing, and their water is often not safe to drink. This is no doubt one reason why South Sudan suffers a rate of infant mortality that is among the highest in the world. And Sudan is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a mother. In fact, a girl in Sudan is more likely to die in childbirth than to receive a primary education. We must recommit ourselves to a new independence for Sudan: independence from poverty. And we must also recognize today that the people of both the new republic and the state from which it split continue to suffer the cruel and indiscriminate evil of conflict. Even now, so soon after the referendum in which nearly 99 percent of South Sudanese voiced their intention to be free, we have witness to a vicious armored assault on Abyei that displaced some 100,000 people in May, while destroying homes, churches and businesses. And in June, the Khartoum government unleashed a further assault on Sudanese civilians, this time in south Kordofan State. The people of this region largely identify with South Sudan. And so we also must recommit ourselves to Sudan's independence from war. I know that the Obama Administration intends to stand with our new ally in these other, critical liberation struggles. I ask my colleagues to join me as we remind Juba and Khartoum that we are still watching, and we remain attentive to the cause of peace with justice in both countries, including in Kordofan, Blue Nile, Abyei and, not least, Darfur. And as we learned with the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan, let us not abandon them after we worked so hard to help them secure their freedom.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, it is time to tell the story of all of the American people. Earlier this week we celebrated of our nation's 235th birthday. Here in Washington hundreds of thousands of people visited the National Mall, watched fireworks, took pictures of the monuments, and toured our national museums. The story of our country's founding to our current status as the world's beacon of democracy and freedom, were on display. But the full story of who we are as a nation and the many, vibrant ethnicities that make up the fabric of the American experience, remains incomplete. The story about the making of the American people--of all of the people--is missing and it needs to be told in the heart of our nation's capital. That's why I am introducing a bipartisan resolution that calls for a Presidential Commission to study the establishment of the National Museum of the American People. A commission is the first critical step in the path toward the creation of a national museum that will highlight the diversity and richness of the cultures from which our ancestors came and will foster a sense of belonging to the nation by the waves of people who made us the leading economic, military, scientific, and cultural force in the world. The Museum's central theme takes its inspiration from our original national motto: ``E Pluribus Unum''--From Many We Are One. The Museum will be America's only national institution devoted exclusively to telling the full story of how the world's pioneers interwove their diverse races, religions, and ethnicities into the strongest societal fabric ever known to modern mankind. Both Canada and Mexico have major national museums in their capitals telling the story of their peoples and they are the most visited museums in those nations. People from every ethnic and minority group will come to see their own story and learn how they joined together with ``the others'' in pursuit of a more noble national purpose. Foreign visitors will come to learn how natives of their countries helped create our nation. I fully understand the current fiscal realities of the day. This proposal will involve no authorization of federal funds and will not require the need for any taxpayer money. It does, however, already enjoy broad support having been endorsed by more than 130 organizations representing virtually every major ethnic and nationality group in the nation. For the different groups who became Americans, the Museum will tell who, where, when, why and how transformed our nation. Today's technology makes all of this possible. The Museum of the American People will be like walking though a dramatic documentary delving into these grand movements of peoples. It will follow in the tradition of some of today's most successful story- telling museums such as the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The goal will be to tell our peoples' compelling story with force and clarity. While there should always be room for other national museums in our nation's capital devoted to all manner of art, cultural and scientific accomplishments, this Museum, covering accurately and adequately each group's story in the context of every group's story should help stem the trend of groups having their own individual, specific museums such as the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Museum of the African American History and Culture, and the National Museum of the American Latino. All of their stories should be told, but the list is nearly infinite while the space, money and political will is not. In telling everyone's story, the National Museum of the American People would recognize the important differences that set us apart while celebrating the common purpose that has brought us together--E Pluribus Unum. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, there is insufficient time to lay out the other side to what has been presented. I don't particularly have strong disagreement with many of the points that have been made, but I do think there is another perspective to this. It ought to be advanced in this body. I thank my good friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from California for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, the Middle East peace process is at risk of collapse, and I believe that only American leadership can save it. Both sides can and should do more to restart negotiations. House Resolution 268, despite the fact that it has virtually unanimous support from this body and includes a laudable reaffirmation of the United States' commitment to a negotiated solution to the conflict, in fact falls short of the kind of leadership that I believe is needed. This resolution chastises the Palestinians for seeking to bridge the divide in their own community and for pursuing recognition of their state at the United Nations. On the first point, I think we should give the Palestinian Authority, which has done an impressive job of developing institutions and its economy in the West Bank, some credit. They have tried to provide the leadership to pursue the goals that we have encouraged them to do; and they have, I think, done so in terms of developing democratic institutions in a way that we should be proud of because we had a role in that, a major role. There is no indication they have any inclination to allow Hamas to jeopardize those gains that have been achieved in the West Bank. And thus far the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah has yet to yield any progress on a unity government. In fact, at this point it is unclear that it really will. So in many ways, the purpose for bringing forth this resolution is moot. Should Hamas be invited to join a Palestinian unity government without accepting the conditions of The Quartet, the European Union, the United Nations, United States, Russia, those are the internationally designated bodies that have come forward with an agreement we have agreed to, if they invite Hamas to join a coalition government without accepting the conditions that we insist upon, it will have very serious implications for our relationship. And that should be the reason why we should cut off financial aid. In 2006, Palestinian elections, which in fact were advanced by the Bush administration, are what brought Hamas into power. In reaction, the United States, as well as The International Quartet, suspended assistance to the Palestinian Authority. And the Obama administration is continuing that policy. There is no aid going to Gaza. We need to recognize that Palestinian unity is crucial to a long-term peace. Gaza's separation from the West Bank, though, has made it impossible to advance meaningful negotiations with Israel. Madam Speaker, there is insufficient time to lay out the other argument.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Imagine if, just 2 weeks after Secretary Gates excoriated some of our NATO allies for skimping on their commitments to the global security infrastructure that is a key to our economic system and the open societies that safeguard our prosperity and our way of life, imagine if now we turned our backs on NATO. What a global embarrassment. Now is the time to stand together against a murderous dictator to give democracy an opportunity in a part of the world that has not experienced it, a part of the world which is vital to America's security. That's why I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we were asked to come into Libya by Libyans, by the Arab League, by the Gulf Cooperation Council, by the European Union, and by the United Nations Security Council. Today we are standing where we should be standing, with those who believe in freedom, in human rights, and in the rule of law. But also today, as we debate this issue, Muammar Qadhafi's forces continue their merciless assault against civilians and combatants alike, not just in Misratah but in the western mountains and cities throughout central Libya. The Libyan Transitional National Council, which needs our support, is extraordinarily short of weaponry, money, and training. But they are the boots on the ground, fighting and dying to dislodge Qadhafi, who is a bad guy, who did oversee the killing of 189 innocent passengers on PanAm 103. We need to be on the other side, not giving comfort to Qadhafi so that he can thank us for the resolution and this vote as he thanked Speaker Boehner for his resolution last week. We need to make clear we don't support him. We do support people who are fighting for the same values that define our country; 38 of those people were killed just this week. To cut off operational funding for the NATO operation is to side with Qadhafi against the forces who are fighting for those values which define us. And, you know, the idea that this hasn't been explained sufficiently by the President is a bogus one. We have minds of our own. We know the facts. We can make a judgment. The right judgment is to side with the President and to continue this support to the Libyans until America shows all the people of the Arab world that it's true to its own values and principles.