Jim Moran

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.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my concerns about the Manager's Amendment to the America Invents Act, H.R. 1249. Specifically, I am troubled by language in the amendment that would weaken the ability of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to retain the fees it collects from inventors for use in improving the patent application process. As reported by the Judiciary Committee, Section 22 of the underlying bill would establish a revolving fund at Treasury to collect all user fees from USPTO and restrict their use to only funding USPTO activities. This section was necessary because Congress has habitually underfunded the Patent Office, siphoning more than $875 million over the past two decades from fees collected from inventors to fund other discretionary programs. This fee diversion has severely hampered the ability of USPTO to promptly process patent applications, leading to a current backlog of 1.2 million applications and an average pendency time of 3 years. This is entirely unacceptable and a direct result of our decision not to provide full funding to the USPTO. Delays in processing patent applications drive up the costs and risks for inventors, harm our nation's global competitiveness, and literally stall the creation of jobs. While I appreciate the efforts of Director Kappos over the past two years to reduce this backlog, USPTO will not be fully successful in this goal unless they are provided with the proper resources...resources, remember, they collect from the users of Patent Office services. That is why I have concerns about a provision in the manager's amendment that would undermine this dedicated funding source, instead leaving USPTO funding up to annual appropriations. While the amendment creates a specific fund for USPTO fees and contains promises that this funding will be made available only for activities at the patent office, there is no guarantee this pledge will be honored in subsequent Congresses. I am concerned this modified language does not give USPTO the predictability in funding and access to fees that are necessary to ensure it best serves the innovation community. Now, I understand USPTO has reluctantly agreed to support this compromise language, and I therefore plan to support the Manager's Amendment. But we cannot let jurisdictional concerns here in Congress undermine the efficient functioning of the patent process. I encourage my colleagues to support the Manager's Amendment as a necessary compromise to move this legislation forward, but I plan to remain vigilant on this matter to ensure the promises made in this Manager's Amendment are kept and that USPTO has ready access to the fees it collects.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, along with Representatives Frank Wolf, Shelley Berkley, and Alcee Hastings, the Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act of 2011. This legislation would, for the first time, authorize federal support for the prevention and treatment of problem and pathological gambling. According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, approximately 6-9 million American adults meet the criteria for a gambling problem, which includes gambling behavior patterns that compromise, disrupt or damage personal, family or vocational pursuits. Over the past decade, gaming and gambling has grown in the United States and many states have expanded legalized gaming, including regulated casino-style games and lotteries. The recent economic downturn only compounds this situation as many states consider relaxing gaming laws in an effort to raise state revenues. At the same time, the federal government and most states have devoted very little, if any, resources to the prevention and treatment of compulsive gambling. Problem gambling can destroy a person's career and financial standing, disrupt marriages and personal relationships, and encourage participation in criminal activity. Currently, no federal agency has responsibility for coordinating efforts to treat problem gambling. The Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act of 2011 would begin to address this deficiency by designating the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as the lead agency on problem gambling, allowing them to coordinate Federal action: The legislation would allow SAMHSA to conduct research, develop guidelines for effective prevention and treatment programs, and provide assistance for community-based services. While there may be disagreement over the degree to which gambling should be regulated, we should all be able to support efforts to minimize the negative effects of problem gambling on our constituents. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fairfax County Park Authority of their receipt of the 2010 National Gold Medal Award for Excellence in Park and Recreation Management. This prestigious award is the park and recreation industry's highest honor. The Fairfax County Park Authority was commended for its outstanding performance in all categories. The American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration, in partnership with the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA), presented the award to the Fairfax County Park Authority at the NRPA Annual Congress & Exposition in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Now a three-time Gold Medal Award recipient and a finalist for several years, the Fairfax County Park Authority has demonstrated excellence in long-range planning, resource management, volunteerism, environmental stewardship, program development, professional development, and agency recognition. The Fairfax County Park Authority serves a population of more than one million residents, which places the Park Authority in the Class I category, the tier for park agencies that serve a population of 250,000 and over. The Park Authority hosts a myriad of annual events, and operates indoor and outdoor athletic and recreation facilities, historic sites, and natural areas. I would like to commend the Fairfax County Park Authority for the exceptional service it provides to the citizens of Fairfax County and the entire Commonwealth. Their hard work and dedication has improved the quality of life for so many.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Colonel Frank K. Brooks for his 30 years of exceptional service and dedication to the United States Air Force. He retired from active duty on May 31, 2011. Colonel Brooks was born in New Roads, Louisiana. He was commissioned as a second Lieutenant in the Air Force in 1981, upon his graduation from the United States Air Force Academy. In 1982, he completed his Master of Science in Information Systems at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Following graduate school, his operational assignments included duties as a Computer Program Design Engineer at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois and as the Chief of the Data Systems Branch for the Secretary of the Air Force Special Projects Office. Over the past two years, Colonel Brooks has served as the Chief Information Officer of Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region, United States Northern Command, where he was responsible for the coordination of interoperable emergency communications with defense mission partners in the National Capital Region. His efforts have provided for robust and reliable command and control systems to enable defense support to civil authorities. He has integrated cyberspace operations and planning into the JFHQ-NCR mission, making it one of the first domestic commands to integrate full-spectrum information operations in the Air Force. His thoughtful management, aggressive integration of emerging technologies, and active engagement with interagency partners has made the National Capital Region safer and better prepared to respond to any emergency. His adherence to the highest standards of professional conduct is a credit to all that wear the uniform of the United States Air Force. Prior to his current assignment, Colonel Brooks served as the Deputy Chief, United States Military Training Mission, Riyadh, Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On behalf of the Department of the Air Force, he managed the exchange of critical military information systems and communications technologies with the military forces of Saudi Arabia. Colonel Brooks has served in a variety of staff and leadership positions both stateside and overseas. He has served in a variety of operational and staff positions in the communications and space career fields, including one group command, five squadron commands, Secretary of Defense Fellowship (Netscape/AOL), Education with Industry (Boeing), Air Force Communications Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, the Joint Staff and special operations, as well as director of communications and information systems for two major commands. I would like to give my sincere thanks to Frank, his wife Penelope, and their daughters Lauren and Nicole for their unwavering support of our country and the freedom we hold so dear. We congratulate Colonel Brooks on the completion of an exemplary active-duty career and wish him well in the next phase of his life.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. The duplicitous nature of the title itself should be sufficient reason to oppose it. This bill should actually be called the Shell Oil Exemption Act, because that is the intent and the effect of this legislation. Operating on the myth that the State and Federal Clean Air Act permits are blocking oil industry efforts to drill offshore, the legislation would grant them generous exemptions at the expense of the public's health and at needless harm to the environment. Shell, the world's second largest oil company, can't seem to get its act together. Rather than admit to its feckless effort to drill offshore in Alaska and invest in pollution control technology, it has invested in the political process to buy some regulatory relief. I guess it's cheaper. But claims it makes that its Clean Air Act permits have taken five years is simply false. EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy affirmed that and I quote, ``every time Shell has applied for a permit, a permit has been issued by the agency within 3 to 6 months of that permit application being complete.'' She also noted that Shell ``has consistently revised the request, changed the project, changed what sea they want to drill in.'' Shell also pulled is application to drill in the Beaufort Sea for two years and submitted an incomplete application. There is no rational reason why Shell or any other oil company should be able to exempt their offshore operations from the Clean Air Act. Operations in the Gulf of Mexico aren't exempt. This proposal also affects the environment in areas other than Alaska including my home state of Virginia and other areas where future drilling may occur like California, and Florida that unlike Alaska face more serious challenges of bringing their non-attainment areas into compliance with the Clean Air Act. It's my understanding that exploration drilling can result in the release of as much particulate as 825,000 carts traveling 12,000 miles; as much CO2 as the annual household emissions of 21,000 people; more than 1000 tons of NO2, a pollutant associated with respiratory illness; and more than 57 tons of particulate matter (PM)2.5, a pollutant linked to respiratory illness and climate change. Exempting offshore drilling would mean that other, land-based businesses would be subject to additional reductions to offset the pollution generated offshore. Madam Chair, this bill is bad news for the public's health, the environment and for businesses. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. I do rise in opposition to this amendment that would allow horse slaughtering to resume in the United States. The language that the gentlelady's amendment would strike was put into the bill as a bipartisan amendment by two Republicans and a Democrat--Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Spratt. What it did is to restrict funding for Federal activities involved with meat inspection. Thereby, it stopped horse slaughter for the purpose of human consumption in any facility in the United States, and it stopped new facilities from opening. It passed this body by an overwhelming vote: 269-158. Now, every year since, the language has been retained in the Agriculture appropriations bill. There are six very good reasons for doing this. One, it's money badly spent. Only foreign corporations which deal in horse meat for consumption in foreign markets would benefit from the Federal inspection of U.S. horse slaughter plants. So we are using American taxpayer money to inspect meat so that foreign corporations can send it overseas so that people living in foreign countries can consume it. There is a $37 million cut below last year's levels in the Food Safety and Inspection Service. So here you are cutting $37 million in food safety inspection. Yet you would be adding this additional burden onto the Food Safety and Inspection Service, an additional responsibility to inspect horse meat. Remember, this is meat that will be exclusively consumed in foreign countries. Before the ban, most meat was exported to France, Belgium and Japan. We should be using our resources to focus on meat consumed by our constituents. Secondly, the American public overwhelmingly does not support the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Three-quarters of our constituents across the country oppose the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Thirdly, American horse meat invariably contains harmful chemicals because horses are not raised for human consumption. A recent FDA toxicity report found any number of substances that could cause adverse effects in humans. One example is phenylbutazone. It's known as ``bute.'' It is the most common anti-inflammatory given to horses. It is difficult to know every substance given to every horse in the United States. Because they're not intended to be raised as food, they're given different chemicals. The only way to ensure that such harmful substances don't make it into the food supply is to prevent horse meat from entering the market. Fourth, most horses sent to slaughter are, in fact, healthy. Sometimes it's framed, as my friend from Georgia suggested, as a way to dispose of unwanted horses. The facts don't support this claim. When horse slaughter was allowed in the U.S., 92 percent of horses sent to slaughter were healthy and could have continued to have been used as productive animals. They weren't old and infirm, because sick and old horses aren't used as a food source. People don't want to eat meat from sick, old horses. So we are talking about primarily healthy horses. Fifth, other, more humane options are available. A licensed veterinarian can humanely euthanize a horse for $225. That is not cost- prohibitive. I want to underscore, too, that my very good friend was complaining that there was too much emotion in this argument. What's wrong with emotion? I mean, the horses inspire us. That's why most of the statues around the U.S. Capitol are of horses and of heroes riding on horses. Horses were critical to the expansion of the West. They aided in the development of agriculture. They provide entertainment and recreation similar to dogs and cats. They are treasured and loyal companion animals, and we revere them. That's why the American public rejects slaughtering them for human consumption. So let's just summarize here. A vote for this amendment is a vote to overturn established policy that was enacted under Republicans and supported by the American people to prevent horse slaughter to resume in this country. It would be diverting inspection funding, which is being cut substantially, to inspect meat that foreign corporations will be able to sell to foreign consumers. That's not something this body should support. With that, I can argue against every claim that was made, but I don't think I will take up the time to do that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. We must always bear in mind that we live in a world that wants more than anything to shine as brightly as the beacon of freedom and hope that we represent. We should always bear in mind that we have the privilege of representing and burnishing ever brighter that beacon in a time of crisis when there is clear cost and consequence to our actions. This is when we show the courage and the constancy that must define us. Once again, we are called upon to be equal to our history to the legacy of those who have gone before us. This may not seem like a terribly critical vote in the scheme of things; but to all of the Libyans who have chosen to put their lives on the line for the values that define us as Americans, it is a big deal. It is everything. It is their lives. It is their hope. It is their future. That's why this resolution should be defeated. Because this is about us and a world that looks to us for its moral leadership.

Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, this resolution is not as much about Libya as it is about us. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could control events around the world, determine the way that people see us and always accurately predict the consequences of our actions? But that's not what life is all about. The best we can do is establish the values and the principles that define us individually as citizens and collectively as a Nation. This resolution is not about whether we should be involved. We are always going to be involved in what is taking place around the world, because we are the world's economic, military and moral superpower. To choose not to act, particularly at a time of such crisis and transformation that is occurring throughout the Arab world, is, in fact, to choose. In this case, it would be to choose to define us as a people who has decided to look the other way, to choose not to hear the cries of desperate help from the Libyan people who have chosen to put their lives on the line in the cause of democracy, of individual liberty and of freedom from oppression. These are the values that define us as a people and as a Nation. They are the values, frankly, that give hope to a world of repression and despotism that will, in fact, continue to exist and, in fact, will gain strength if we do not stand up, speak out and ``have their back'' at such a time as this. That's why we should defeat the Kucinich resolution, because it is really about who we are as a people and whether we still have the courage and the constancy to defend the moral high ground. As long as the rest of the world has to look up, not down and not sideways as this resolution would place us, we will, in fact, be advancing our own security and prosperity and the integrity of our moral force as a Nation of principled people.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion. The War Crimes Tribunal is about to prosecute Ratko Mladic--16 years later, but they've finally gotten him. Why? Because he masterminded the massacre of over 8,000 innocent civilians in Srebrenica. Serbia is now a democratic ally, thanks to President Clinton's taking action against congressional resistance. We took the lead in the Balkans. It was a NATO effort, but I think we all know that NATO could not have put an end to those massacres, that genocide, had we not taken the lead. We had to act responsibly, and we had to act in a timely and forceful manner. Now, more recently there have been more than a dozen times since 2000 when the President has had to use American troops to intervene for humanitarian reasons against terrorist threats, against whatever endangered American civilians and troops. To tie the President's hands in such situations, whether it be a Republican or Democratic President, is wrong. We should not be doing this. Of course we should be advising the President, working with the President, whoever that President might be. And through our committee leadership, we have any number of opportunities to do that. But to pass legislation that is designed to tie the President's hands at a time of military crisis is inconsistent with the legacy of this body, which is to do what is necessary to protect America's interests at home and abroad.

Mr. MORAN. With regard to Libya, we don't know what the outcome is going to be in Libya. We do know that Muammar Qadhafi is a bad guy. He's not an ally. He's not even reliable in terms of working with us in any economic or foreign policy measure. This is an opportunity to establish a government that we can work with. We can't control that government, we're not sure of the outcome, but we know the people putting their government together today want to work with the United States. But they need American support, obviously under the umbrella of NATO--that's NATO's purpose--but none of us should be so naive as to think that NATO can operate independent of United States leadership. That's just not the case. We have made the investment in our military capability, we have established ourselves as the world's superpower, and with that role comes a concomitant responsibility to use it when and wherever necessary for the advancement of world peace and security. Let's defeat this resolution.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Arlington Food Assistance Center's (AFAC) Permanent Home Capital Campaign, and Keller Williams, Arlington, both of which are located in Virginia's Eighth Congressional District. AFAC's Permanent Home Campaign was launched in 2008. The goals of the campaign are to pay off the mortgage of their new building, establish a capital needs fund, and pay back AFAC's modest endowment fund from which the downpayment on the building purchase was borrowed. The Arlington Food Assistance Center has many generous and faithful friends who have assisted them in the campaign effort. They have raised $760,000 so far, moving closer toward their $1 million goal. No community partner has worked as tirelessly on this effort as the Community Outreach Committee of Keller Williams, Arlington. Keller Williams has graciously hosted fundraisers for AFAC and their Permanent Home Campaign, and is now the largest donor to the Campaign--having raised over $100,000 in 3 years. I would like to commend the Arlington Food Assistance Center for their work on behalf of the less fortunate in Arlington County and recognize Keller Williams, Arlington, for partnering with them in support of their Permanent Home Campaign and overall mission to feed the hungry in our region.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I support this en bloc amendment, but I would like to speak on behalf of one of the amendments included in it. I greatly thank the chairman and the ranking member for including it. This fall, 6,400 Department of Defense employees are scheduled to occupy an office complex less than 5 miles from the U.S. Capitol. It is known as the Mark Center. It is on U.S. Route 395 and Seminary Road. According to five separate transportation studies, including the Army's own Transportation Management Plan and a highly critical Department of Defense Inspector General report, this location was improperly chosen and inadequately designed to handle the traffic it will create. It will, thus, result in severe congestion on 395 and on all of the roads surrounding the site. The problem is that about 200,000 commuters use 395 every day. We estimate it will cause a 1- to 2-hour additional delay for those commuters. The National Academy of Sciences looked at it. They said, if this goes through in the fall, it will compromise the military mission that is the responsibility of the Washington Headquarters Services people who would occupy the building, and it will cause severe damage to the regional economy. What this amendment does is to simply limit the number of vehicles that can come to this site to no more than 1,000 until traffic mitigation measures are in place. The Department of Defense has finally reprogrammed $20 million for some of the needed improvements. Governor McDonnell of Virginia has allocated $80 million for a ramp that would come off the HOV lanes onto the site. But, the Pentagon's money won't be in place for another couple of years. Governor McDonnell's project will not be completed for 5 years. This limits the number of vehicles that can drive to this site until these improvements are in place. It needs to be included on behalf of those 200,000 commuters, and the surrounding residents. Again, I want to greatly thank the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee and the ranking member for including the amendment.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, despite a slow recovery, despite millions suffering on the unemployment rolls, the Republican leadership has failed to bring a jobs bill to this floor during the first 100 days. Now we learn that one in name only is under consideration. It is called the Jobs Opportunity Benefits and Services Act, which of course cleverly has the acronym JOBS, but it is not going to create jobs. It is actually designed to cut off emergency unemployment benefits, eliminating the guarantee of Federal payments for temporary extended unemployment benefits, on July 6. It is kind of a cruel hoax to call a plan that cuts aid to working people a jobs bill. It enables States to divert more than $32 billion in Federal unemployment funds that is intended for unemployment benefits into block grants that can be used to cut taxes for businesses, pay off State's debts, or backfill their own State unemployment funds, but not necessarily to pay out benefits to those on the unemployment rolls. In fact, it grants some States permanent waivers to divert future unemployment funds from the people they were intended to help. Our unemployment rate has gone from 10.6 percent when President Obama took office to 9 percent, but it is still too high. We ought to be in the business of creating new jobs and not forcing breadwinners to foreclose on their mortgages and to default on their loans, but to provide for their families. That's the congressional agenda that we ought to be about.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Inova Alexandria Hospital on the 50th anniversary of the ``Alexandria Plan.'' The Alexandria Hospital plan resulted in the first 24-hour emergency room staffed by dedicated emergency physicians and served as the national model for emergency medicine. During the 1940s and 1950s many hospitals around the country began providing emergency room services, mostly staffed by medical residents and nurses who were usually backed up by doctors on call from their homes. By the early 1960s, Alexandria Hospital and its medical staff decided that the inadequacy of the care model in the emergency department needed to be addressed. In the late 1950s, Dr. James Mills, Jr., a family physician on the medical staff of Alexandria Hospital, had a demanding private practice as well as serving as an ``on call'' physician covering the emergency room, both of which required many hours of his time. In 1961, as a result of the foresight of Alexandria Hospital, Dr. Mills, together with three other physicians on the medical staff, gave up their private practices to become full-time emergency physicians in an arrangement that became known as the Alexandria Plan. The Alexandria Plan provided for full-time staffing of emergency rooms 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It was quickly adopted and became the standard of care used by hospitals around the country as they began to confront increasing numbers of patients needing such emergency care. In addition to staffing the emergency room full time, the physicians also became the moving force behind the development of a medical specialty that called for specific training in emergency medicine and eventually resulted in the creation of the American College of Emergency Physicians. Next month, on June 24, 2011, Inova Alexandria Hospital and the American College of Emergency Physicians will jointly celebrate the 50th anniversary of the inception of the Alexandria Plan, recognizing the incredible significance that this plan has had for the delivery of quality care to patients throughout the country. On behalf of the 8th district of Virginia, I commend Inova Alexandria for the Hospital's commitment to quality patient care and medical excellence.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, lax regulation and reckless pursuit of higher oil company profits resulted in 11 deaths, 200 million gallons of oil dumped into our gulf waters, tens of thousands of marine and aquatic life lost, and a damaged fishing and tourism industry. A panel of experts showed us how we can learn from past mistakes and implement regulations to ensure that this disaster doesn't happen again. Yet over the last 2 weeks the Republican majority has passed legislation to create an even more lax regulatory environment than existed before the BP oil spill disaster. Opening our shores to drilling and returning to pre-BP oil spill regulations won't reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it won't reduce the price of gas at the pump. The United States holds less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves while we consume more than 22 percent. Even if all restricted areas in the U.S. could somehow be brought into production at this moment, the oil they would yield under the best scenario is about a million barrels of oil a day--5 percent of our daily consumption. Those bills shouldn't get any further than the House. The Senate should reject them. The American people should better understand the real cost of giving the oil companies everything they want.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend from Virginia. I would remind my good friend from Alaska that the U.S. Atlantic Fleet is based at the Norfolk Naval Base, and operates in the same waters that this legislation proposes to sell for oil and gas development. Filling this area with drilling rigs is a bad idea. Now, we have been told verbally and in writing that there should be no lease sales in 72 percent of this lease area because it's in direct conflict with the operations of the Navy. Five percent, in addition, would interfere with aerial operations and should not host permanent surface structures like drilling rigs. There is another 1 percent that would have site-specific stipulations. Then you're left with 22 percent, and much of that 22 percent is dedicated to the shipping lanes for the country's two busiest commercial ports: Hampton Roads and Baltimore. There are other areas offshore, I'm sure, that are also important to the Armed Forces, but we are responsible for Virginia. We know the situation there. We are not going to jeopardize those jobs. I would say that national security interests ought to trump oil and gas development.

Mr. MORAN. May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining?

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I thank my good friend and colleague. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Atlantic fleet is based at the Norfolk Naval Base and operates in the same waters that this legislation proposes to sell for oil and gas development. Does the Republican majority really want to jeopardize those thousands and thousands of jobs that are identified with that naval base? According to a report issued by the Secretary of Defense, there should be no lease sales in 72 percent of the proposed lease area that this bill directs be sold to oil and gas companies because it is in conflict with live ordnance, air-surface missile, and gunnery exercises, shipboard qualification trials, carrier qualifications, and development and operational follow-on testing and evaluation, and an additional 5 percent would interfere with aerial operations and should not host permanent surface structures such as drilling rigs. In other words, more than three quarters of the area that this legislation directs be sold to oil and gas companies is in conflict with our national security interests, and a good deal of the remaining 22 percent is within shipping lanes of the country's two busiest commercial ports, Hampton Roads and Baltimore. Mr. Chairman, our coastal waters are a shared resource that host a number of competing and sometimes incompatible uses. Clearly, direct national security interests should be weighed at least alongside the indirect benefit of unproven oil and gas developments that won't occur for many, many, many years to come. This amendment would ensure national security interests would prevail. But it also underscores the point that the majority seems too anxious to dismiss: The interests of our coastal fisheries and the tourism industry. Those industries generate billions in income and sustain the livelihood of millions of Americans. Their future is placed at risk when Congress passes laws that disregard the lessons past disasters have taught by mandating shortcuts to more drilling. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and reject the underlying bill.

Mr. MORAN. Well, we certainly know that our constituents are paying too much at the pump, but we also know where that money's going. Almost $30 billion, just in the last 3 months, went to the top three oil companies, Exxon, Shell and BP. Remember BP? Over $7 billion just this quarter in profit, not revenue, pure profit. And that's after the American taxpayer, which we say we're so concerned about, shelled out $5 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas companies. That's profit of more than $100 billion on an annual basis. That's where the money's going. And within that profit, not revenue, profit, we're talking about, what do they do with it? Ninety percent of it is used for stock buybacks and dividends to enrich the executives and the shareholders and to spend on TV advertising to convince the American public they're spending on just the opposite. Ten percent is going for drilling exploration. Now what this legislation would do is to bring us back to a period of even weaker regulation than we had before the gulf oil spill. Imagine, it just happened, 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf Coast waters, and now we want to make the governing regulations weaker than they were before the spill. And then we want to open up the area off the shore of Virginia where thousands and thousands of jobs are dependent upon the naval operations that take place in those waters which would not be able to be conducted if we go ahead and drill in these waters. Plus much of the remaining 22 percent is devoted to shipping lanes for two of our busiest commercial ports, Hampton Roads and Baltimore. Do we really want to jeopardize those thousands of jobs, not to mention the thousands of jobs in fishing and tourism in places like Virginia Beach? We should be about creating jobs, not jeopardizing jobs and protecting our environment, not despoiling it. Defeat this bill.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, one thing we do know is that our constituents are paying about $4 a gallon for gas. What they have to ask is: Where's all this money that they're paying going? Well, as you have seen, it's going in profits to the biggest oil companies. In fact, almost $30 billion went just in the last 3 months to the top three oil companies-- about $11 billion to Exxon, about $9 billion to Shell, and over $7 billion to BP. Remember BP? And that's after they've taken $5 billion in subsidies from the taxpayer and as in the case of ExxonMobil paid zero corporate taxes. Well, what are they doing with that profit? What they're doing is spending 90 percent of it on stock buy-backs so that, of course, the remaining stock outstanding becomes even more valuable, thus enabling their executives to become even wealthier, and to stock dividends for their shareholders. And the remaining 10 percent goes to oil and gas exploration and to TV advertising so they can convince the American public otherwise. What this bill will do is to enable those who own oil company stock and run oil companies to grab up our last remaining oil reserves at a cost of $30 to $40 a barrel so that they can then sell it at $100 a barrel to make more profit. The motivation for this bill is more about scoring political points and currying favor with the oil and gas industry that the current House majority can't seem to coddle enough. And they're betting that the next oil spill disaster that this legislation could enable through a return to weaker regulation--weaker regulation than we had before the gulf oil spill disaster, will not occur on their watch. That oil spill disaster that spilled 200 million gallons into the Gulf Coast waters occurred at a time of even tougher regulation than this bill will create. They are counting on the oil companies remembering and the consumers and taxpayers forgetting. This bill should be defeated.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strongest opposition to H.R. 3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' Not only is this bill taking up valuable floor time, but it is redundant and goes beyond a woman's right to control her body by tinkering with the tax code and private health insurance plans. It is a mystery to me why we keep wasting time on legislation that addresses abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, and there are established policies that prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion services except in very narrow circumstances. The President has announced he will veto this bill should it actually reach his desk. Almost 9 percent of Americans are out of work, yet the House of Representatives has not taken one step to address this pressing national concern. My Republican colleagues--who are strong advocates for less government--consistently want the federal government to oversee a woman's reproductive rights. This legislation jeopardizes the health of pregnant women who may be suffering from cancer or another devastating disease, by limiting their ability to obtain adequate insurance in the private market. House Republicans are manipulating the tax code to make sure abortions are out of reach for low income and in some cases, even middle class women. This legislation would also take away benefits that women insured in the private market currently have by imposing tax penalties on individuals and small businesses whose insurance plans include any kind of abortion services. And if all this weren't enough, H.R. 3 would once again tell the District of Columbia how to spend its own money. It would codify policy included in the CR usurping the city council's authority to use locally raised revenue to provide abortion care for its low-income residents, an unfair restriction which Congress lifted in 2009 and reimposed this year. Why should the District of Columbia be constantly used as a Petri dish for Republican policy experiments. It just isn't right. Abortion is a hard choice for any woman. It is a decision that should be made by her, her family and her physician--without the federal government restricting access to services. Let's move on to legislation that will help grow our economy and get people back to work. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, as my friends from Texas well know, the potential recipients of this money have already shown that they have the operations and maintenance money available, but they can't establish a school-based health clinic without this funding. The other thing that I'm sure they are well aware of, is that the need is many times more than the money that is being made available. 25 years ago, when I set up a school-based health clinic across the river in Alexandria, Virginia, people said that it's not needed and we can't afford it. But we now have 25 years' experience throughout the country, and we've found just the opposite. It's absolutely needed, and we can't afford not to have school-based health clinics. Adolescents have to have accessible, affordable health care. Otherwise, they don't go to hospitals or doctors until it's too late. In fact, we have more than 1,000 students who use our Alexandria school-based clinic. And we're told by the nurses, 80 to 90 percent of them would have to be going to the emergency room if that clinic were not available, at far greater cost. This saves money, but it also saves lives. Like the young woman who convinced her friend whose leg kept bothering her to have the leg checked, since the clinic was so close. Turned out she had bone cancer. It would have gotten through her whole body. She wouldn't have gone to a doctor. She would have put it aside. That's what adolescents do. That's what we did when were adolescents. They go in for the flu. While they're in for the flu, they get checked for sexually transmitted infections. They oftentimes get their physicals. There are hundreds of students, well, actually around the country there are hundreds of thousands who don't have the opportunity to play athletics because they have to have a physical fitness exam, and it's 75 bucks normally to go to a doctor to have a physical exam. They don't get it. But they can afford to go to a school-based health clinic where they get the exam free and then they can fully participate. A lot of children tell the doctors and nurses in these school clinics things that they couldn't tell their parents. We're saving lives with this. We're saving money. We're preventing diseases from spreading. We're doing the right thing by the American people, particularly adolescents. They need accessible and affordable health care. This provides it. Let's defeat this amendment.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, our 308 million American citizens throw away nearly 496 billion pounds of trash each year, a staggering amount by any analysis. And a sizable contribution is from disposable items, including plastic and paper bags. That's why today I am introducing the ``Trash Reduction Act of 2011'' along with my co-sponsor, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. We're asking for your support in moving this bill favorably through the House. Just how bad is the problem? According to the U.S. EPA, the average American throws away about 4.4 pounds of trash each day or 1,600 pounds per year. That's nearly 248 million tons of American garbage each year. To put that in perspective, it's enough trash to fill a football-field- sized hole over 93 miles deep. Or create a similar-sized stack of garbage that reaches low earth orbit. This amount of trash could cover the state of Texas two and half times or fill enough trash trucks to form a line to the moon. We consume an estimated 12 million barrels of oil and copious amounts of natural gas annually to make plastic bags that are used once or twice, then tossed into the garbage. The U.S. International Trade Commission reported in 2009 that 102 billion plastic bags were used in the U.S. Much of the oil and natural gas used in those bags comes from foreign countries and it's all non-renewable. Once it's used for plastic bags and thrown away, that energy is gone forever. Disposable paper bags are no better. In 1999, 14 million trees were cut to produce the 10 billion paper grocery bags used by Americans that year alone. Paper and paperboard products made up 20.7% of the municipal waste discarded in 2008--more than any other type of refuse measured by tonnage. According to the Environmental Paper Network, the pulp and paper industry is the fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases among manufacturing industries, contributing 9% of total manufacturing-related carbon dioxide emissions. Most of energy use comes from powering paper mills. There is no doubt that disposable retail plastic and paper bags are bad for the environment. Both paper and plastic bags consume valuable natural resources, generate profuse waste, and pollute the environment. They keep us dependent on nonrenewable resources like foreign oil and impose burdens that Americans bear in the form of higher garbage costs, visual blight, and the destruction of wildlife. Millions of animals are entangled in or ingest plastic waste. That same waste leaches toxins into the ground and our drinking water. While recycling efforts should be applauded, recycling rates are dismally low. Only between one and three percent of all plastic bags are recycled, with a slightly higher ten to 15 percent paper-bag- recycling rate. Plus, the recycling process uses energy, water, and generates additional greenhouse gasses. But we can do something about this gargantuan garbage nightmare. We can reduce the number of bags we use with market-based incentives. Requiring shoppers to internalize the costs of disposable bags has been shown to dramatically reduce their use and substantially increase reusable bag utilization. For example, after placing a fee on plastic bags, Ireland reportedly reduced consumption by 90%. China, after banning the use of ultra-thin plastic bags, is estimated to have eliminated 40 billion bags in the first year. Critics have called this a regressive tax that falls on poor communities. This is simply untrue. Wealthy Americans consume substantially more resources and disposable shopping bags than the poor. Additionally, Americans of all incomes can purchase or be given a reusable bag and avoid this fee altogether. Plus, this fee is good for business. Business will be able to recoup their investment of time and effort through a tax credit and profits from reusable bag sales. One need look no further than the District of Columbia to measure success. In 2009 the District imposed a five-cent tax on plastic bags that led to spectacular reductions in disposable bag use. The number of plastic bags dropped from the 2009 monthly average of 22.5 million to just 3 million per month by the end of 2010. River cleanup volunteers reported over a 60% decrease in the volume of plastic bags they collected during cleanup activities--and this was only three months after the fee took effect. DC businesses approve of the fee as well. 78% of businesses interviewed report either a positive or neutral impact on their business. People keep shopping and keep buying. 58% of DC business owners say the law has not affected their sales. And it's those dire predictions of falling sales that were used to scare business owners into opposing the fee. It's one of the many false predictions of bag- fee opponents. While we can be proud of our environmental achievements and landmark laws, we need to do more to reduce our mountains of trash madness. Nothing is more fitting for this year's Earth Day celebration than helping reduce garbage. This small disposable bag charge helps people understand that paper and plastic bags are not without cost. They impact the environment, support foreign dictators, and make Everests of trash. Our bill begins to shift America away from its current disposable culture back to a simpler time when Americans understood the value of reusing what they bought.