Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) who worked in the Interior Department on this very issue and is quite expert on it.

Mr. MORAN. I yield myself the balance of my time. This is very important. We talked to the general counsel at the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Goodlatte is wrong on this. He says--his amendment says none of the funds may be intended to fund EPA. But his amendment actually doesn't mention EPA. It says no Federal funds period. That means that the farmers, the agribusiness throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, would lose about $100 million in conservation efforts if this amendment were to be approved. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that miles of the Chesapeake Bay have died, largely because of the fertilizer that washes into the bay. The vegetation at the bottom feeds on that nitrogen, and it grows like it's on steroids. When it decomposes, it sucks up all the oxygen in the water, and as a result, nothing can live in large areas of the Chesapeake Bay--no crabs, no oysters, no fish. Nothing. It's dead, even the plant life can't survive when the oxygen has been so depleted in the process of decomposition. This amendment needs to be defeated.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield the remaining 3 minutes to the very distinguished lady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. MORAN. I would ask my friend from Georgia: What's the alternative? Should we have gone into Rwanda? The U.N. was an abysmal failure, but where was the United States? And if we didn't have the United Nations, the United States would be asked to carry that themselves. We can't be the world's policeman.

Mr. MORAN. May I inquire how much time we have left?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, well, we voted to subsidize the cotton industry, NASCAR, agribusiness. You name it, we vote to subsidize it. But now we have an opportunity to correct the most egregious abuse of the Federal taxpayer. $53 billion of oil that belongs to all American taxpayers is basically being given away. It's their oil. It's being drilled offshore. We own it, but we're not charging royalties to the largest American corporations, and that's the real rub of it. These are the most profitable corporations in America. BP is the biggest beneficiary. Exxon, Shell, Conoco, you name it. Chevron. They're all at the trough. Exxon, for example, last year $383 billion in revenue, and yet we're told they didn't pay any American corporate taxes. They paid it to other countries, but not to the United States. You know, at a time when we cut $1 billion out of Head Start and then we're going to give $53 billion to the wealthiest corporations of America, take American taxpayer-owned oil? This is insane. Now, it may have made some sense when oil was at $20 a barrel, But when oil is over $80 a barrel and the American consumer is having to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas, is this really the time that we should be giving away $53 billion in oil? No. Let's stop this egregious abuse. We say we're in favor of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse? This is the worst abuse. Let's stop it. Support the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, these programs put together by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are designed to replenish diminishing fish stocks. They assign shares to individuals, cooperatives, other fishing communities, because what we have seen that has resulted in depleted fish stocks and overfishing is a race to fish where the concern is that the stock is being depleted. And so they run out to get what's left. NOAA is trying to intervene and equitably divide up what's left, what we scientifically understand is left, and try to cooperate. Now, I can understand there are many fishing communities that don't want NOAA's intervention. But NOAA has been successful in ensuring sustainable fisheries and preventing overfishing and creating more stable and lucrative fishing jobs in communities from Alaska to Florida. And they bring a lot of economic and biological benefits. They eliminate what many think are dangerous races to fish, or what are called ``derby'' conditions, and they improve safety for fishermen. NOAA seems to know what they're doing. Where they've done it, it's been successful. I think we should look to the experts and understand that we've got to have greater sustainability of our fishing stock. How much time do I have at this point, Mr. Chairman?

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

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

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

Mr. MORAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can understand where my very good friends are coming from. They represent a lot of professional and very responsible fishermen. And I know they know what they're talking about. On the other hand, NOAA does, too. And NOAA has been successful. They have been successful from Alaska to Florida in allocating assigned limits to various fishing entities that were at serious risk of losing their fishing stock.

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

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this is the second of three amendments designed to kill regulation of mountaintop mining. The amendment would prevent EPA from working with other Federal agencies and mining companies to ensure that mountaintop mining is carried out in a manner that protects public health, the environment, and the economy using the best available science. Mountaintop surface mining removes entire mountaintops to access the coal underneath but then deposits toxic mining waste in nearby streams. Practices not carried out carefully and responsibly can be devastating to the environment and to local economies. There's been longtime uncertainty regarding what laws applied, uncertainty about which Federal agencies to work with, and uncertainty about potential liability. This uncertainty was eliminated when Interior, EPA, and the Corps of Engineers agreed to work with mining companies and implement a common procedure for reviewing permits. And it was with the goal of--and I quote--to strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and to lay out common procedures on mountaintop mining. This memorandum of understanding brought clarity for all the parties--States, mining companies, environmentalists, and Federal agencies--so that mining could move forward. But what we have here is an effort at good government punished by legislators with an ax to grind. Agencies are punished for not working together. Then when they do, we punish them for working together. Permit reviews will just take longer and the process will be more confusing to companies because this amendment won't change the law. This amendment could extend the mining company's permit process for years and cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in delays. That's why this amendment should be defeated. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remaining 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. MORAN. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the Noem amendment would prevent the EPA from updating air pollution standards for dangerous soot pollution. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA revise the limits on this type of harmful pollution when new science tells us it's necessary to protect human health. EPA hasn't changed this standard since 1987. The amendment would tell EPA though--it would require EPA--to ignore the science. If new science has emerged in the last 24 years that shows that soot pollution is more dangerous than we knew 24 years ago, EPA would have to ignore any new scientific findings. This amendment applies to one dangerous pollutant, coarse materials. They're so small that they get past the respiratory system's natural defenses and they lodge in our lungs. Scientific studies have linked these particles to a variety of serious health problems, including increased respiratory symptoms in children and premature death in people with heart and lung disease. Why is the majority party so afraid of science? I don't know as much about particulate matter as the scientists at EPA, but I don't really think you do either. It seems to me we ought to defer to the scientists and respect the public's health. EPA is charged with protecting the public health. They're doing a pretty good job and we ought to let them do it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act. This is the sixth time I have introduced legislation that would grant federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia: the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan, and the Nansemond. Similar measures passed the House and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee during the 110th and 111th Sessions of Congress. Unfortunately, both measures were ultimately defeated when the objections of a few Senators were not overridden. The impasse in Congress and the demeaning and dysfunctional acknowledgement process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs only compound the grave injustices this legislation seeks to redress. It also compels me to continue this cause and reintroduce this legislation today. The injustices extend back in time for hundreds of years, back to the establishment of the first permanent English settlement in America at Jamestown. For the Members of these tribes are the descendents of the great Powhatan Confederacy who greeted the English and provided food and assistance that ensured the settlers' early survival. Four years ago, America celebrated the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown. But it was not a celebration for Native American descendents of Pocahontas, for they have yet to be recognized by our federal government. Unlike most Native American tribes that were officially recognized when they signed peace treaties with the federal government, Virginia's six Native American tribes made their peace with the Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and King Charles II. This treaty has been recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia every year for the past 334 years when the Governor accepts tribute from the tribes in a ceremony now celebrated at the Commonwealth Capitol. I had the honor of attending the one of what I understand is the longest celebrated treaty recognition ceremony in the United States. The forefathers of the tribal leaders who gather on Thanksgiving in Richmond were the first to welcome the English, and during the first few years of settlement, ensured their survival. Had the tribes not assisted those early settlers, they would not have survived. Time has not been kind to the tribes, however. As was the case for most Native American tribes, as the settlement prospered and grew, the tribes suffered. Those who resisted quickly became subdued, were pushed off their historic lands, and, up through much of the 20th Century, were denied full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia tribes survived, preserving their heritage and their identity. Their story of survival spans four centuries of racial hostility and coercive state and state-sanctioned actions. The Virginia tribes' history, however, diverges from that of most Native Americans in two unique ways. The first explains why the Virginia tribes were never recognized by the federal government; the second explains why congressional action is needed today. First, by the time the federal government was established in 1789, the Virginia tribes were in no position to seek recognition. They had already lost control of their land, withdrawn into isolated communities and stripped of most of their rights. Lacking even the rights granted by the English Kings, and our own Bill of Rights, federal recognition was nowhere within their reach. The second unique circumstance for the Virginia tribes is what they experienced at the hands of the Commonwealth government during the first half of the 20th Century. It has been called ``paper genocide.'' At a time when the federal government granted Native Americans the right to vote, Virginia's elected officials adopted racially hostile laws targeted at those classes of people who did not fit into the dominant white society, and with fanatical efficiency, altered and destroyed the records of Virginia's Native Americans. Virginia's political elite sought to expunge the records of anyone other than themselves who could hold the claim that they were the descendent of Pocahontas. Pocahontas' marriage to John Rolfe created an uncomfortable circumstance for John Rolfe's descendents who populated Virginia's aristocratic elite and who maintained that all non-whites were part of ``the inferior Negroid race.'' With great hypocrisy, Virginia's ruling elite pushed policies that culminated with the enactment of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act directed Commonwealth officials, and zealots like Walter Plecker, to destroy Commonwealth and local courthouse records and reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' It targeted Native Americans with a vengeance, denying Native Americans in Virginia their identity. To call oneself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up to one year. In defiance of the law, members of Virginia's tribes traveled out of state to obtain marriage licenses or to serve their country in wartime. The law remained in effect until it was struck down in federal court in 1967. In that intervening period between 1924 and 1967, Commonwealth officials waged a war to destroy all public and many private records that affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. Historians have affirmed that no other state compares to Virginia's efforts to eradicate its citizens' Indian identity. All of Virginia's state-recognized tribes have filed petitions with the Bureau of Acknowledgment seeking federal recognition. But it is a very heavy burden the Virginia tribes will have to overcome, and one fraught with complications that officials from the bureau have acknowledged may never be resolved in their lifetime. The acknowledgment process is already expensive, subject to unreasonable delays, and lacking in dignity. Virginia's paper genocide only further complicates these tribes' quest for federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating state and official documents and aggravating the injustice already visited upon them. It was not until 1997, when Governor George Allen signed legislation directing Commonwealth agencies to correct their records, that the tribes were given the opportunity to correct official Commonwealth documents that had deliberately been altered to list them as ``colored.'' The law allows living members of the tribes to correct their records, but the law cannot correct the damage done to past generations or to recover documents that were purposely destroyed during the ``Plecker Era.'' In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly adopted a resolution calling upon Congress to enact legislation recognizing the Virginia tribes. I am pleased to have honored that request, and beginning in 2000 and in subsequent sessions, Virginia's Senators and I have introduced legislation to recognize the Virginia tribes. There is no doubt that the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Monacan, the Nansemond, the Rappahannock and the Upper Mattaponi tribes exist. These tribes have existed on a continuous basis since before the first European settlers stepped foot in America. They are here with us today. But the federal government continues to act as if they do not. I know there is resistance in Congress to grant any Native American tribe federal recognition. And I can appreciate how the issue of gambling and its economic and moral dimensions has influenced many Members' perspectives on tribal recognition issues. The six Virginia tribes are not seeking federal legislation so that they can build casinos. Under this legislation they cannot engage in gaming. The bill prohibits gambling on their lands. They find gambling offensive to their moral beliefs. They are seeking federal recognition because it is an urgent matter of justice and because elder members of their tribes, who were denied a public education and the economic opportunities available to most Americans, are suffering and should be entitled to the federal health and housing assistance available to federally recognized tribes. To underscore this point, the legislation includes language that would prevent the tribes from engaging in gaming on their federal land even if everyone else in Virginia were allowed to engage in Class III casino-type gaming. In the name of decency, fairness and humanity, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and bring closure to centuries of injustice Virginia's Native American tribes have experienced.