Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

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

Mr. MORAN. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

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

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

Mr. MORAN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to a very thoughtful and informed expert on this issue, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia's amendment tries to prohibit EPA from carrying out section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. It's one more effort to deregulate all aspects of mountaintop mining. Section 404(c) authorizes EPA under especially serious circumstances to pull back permits for dredging and filling with toxic material if they would have a substantially adverse effect upon the quality of water, wildlife, and fishery areas. EPA has only used this 404(c) authority 13 times in the 39 years of the Clean Water Act. But this amendment and its backers don't want EPA using that authority to prevent the coal industry from polluting the contiguous waters to their mountaintop mining. We know that mountaintop surface mining removes entire mountaintops so that they can get to the coal underneath, but then in the process invariably deposits toxic mining waste in the nearby streams. And then that gets into the public's water supply. It costs substantial sums of money to subsequently clean it, and toxically polluted can be not only devastating to the environment, but devastating to local economies. Only in the most egregious instances has EPA used this authority. They should have the right to pull permits when companies carelessly and seriously harm the environment. That's EPA's responsibility. It's understandable that mining companies don't want any restriction on their mining, but it's not excusable for this Congress to prevent the EPA from carrying out its lawful responsibilities and not to heed the long-term health impacts on the American people and of the quality of the water in these regions. So I urge the defeat of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think that the body knows where we stand, on the side of responsible environmental preservation and clean water for our children to drink. At this point, in deference to the chairman of the full committee, I yield what time remains to the gentleman from Kentucky, because I see him standing, and I suspect he wants to be heard on this.

Mr. MORAN. With 30 seconds remaining, I think I should let the gentleman from California conclude his remarks. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops the Interior Department from protecting nearby streams and rivers from the toxic disposal of coal mine waste. So let me give you the top seven reasons why this amendment should be defeated. One, it will allow for the continued destruction of America's forests and native vegetation contrary to the statutory requirement to protect that vegetation. Two, it will interfere with the new requirement for the Clean Water Act and Surface Mining Act, preventing the updating of regulations based upon the best science available. Three, it will perpetuate the uncertainties that citizens and industry and State regulators are currently experiencing under outdated regulations. Four, it will continue to allow the worst of the coal mine operators to destroy and pollute America's streams and, by doing so, gain a competitive advantage over the responsible operators. Five, it will deny the State regulatory officials the ability to issue permits that would withstand legal challenge. Six, it will prevent the gathering of information needed to predict adverse impacts to land and water resources. And seven, it will prevent the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process which provides valuable information to enable an informed decision to be made as to the best alternatives to protect society and the environment while helping to meet America's energy needs. So that's why I would oppose the Johnson amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentlelady. I won't take but 30 seconds. Just to mention the fact, I've been around long enough to recall when money was requested for the Vice President's mansion when Dick Cheney was living there. That money was provided. This side didn't object when money was put into the White House when George Bush was the resident. This is kind of mean-spirited games. It's really beneath us. Let's not do this kind of stuff.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a message amendment. We love our colleagues who represent the Western States, but many of them, particularly on the other side, don't seem to show much love for the Federal Government they represent. The payment in lieu of taxes program was created to compensate counties for lost taxes, since Federal lands don't pay taxes. That's fair. Western States with lots of Federal lands get most of the payments. That's fair. But while the counties don't get any taxes from Federal lands, they don't have to provide services on those lands either. In fact the opposite occurs. The national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests and BLM lands and the staffs of all these provide very valuable services and substantial revenue and jobs to the western counties, and the public lands provide ecosystems that are worth billions. Without clean water and open space, imagine. You wouldn't have the communities, the agriculture, that we seem to take for granted. In fact, the States get fully half the mineral receipts that come from the coal, oil and gas that is owned by the Federal taxpayer. The gentlelady makes a very important point that is worthy of consideration.

Mr. MORAN. I very much appreciate the insight from the gentleman from California. At this point, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, the CR, I believe, is irresponsible, but this amendment would commit this country to an economic death spiral. It may sound like heresy, but the reality is you can't run the strongest government and the strongest economy in the world on less than 15 percent of GDP. Look back to the Clinton years when we were at 20 percent. We had the strongest economy ever. People at the top tax rates brought home more after-tax income than any time in American history. We created 23 million more jobs and we had a surplus. And that surplus is what we should be aiming for. Not only do we need to cut spending, sure, but we also need to raise revenue. We need to come to a balance. This is an imbalanced amendment. It is an irresponsible one, and our country and our people deserve better.