Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. This amendment would attempt to put to an end a rule that, first of all, would increase revenues in the industry sectors that design, manufacture and install pollution control equipment by as much as $2.2 billion and increase employment in the cement industry by as much as 1,300 jobs. So, in effect, the amendment could be considered a job-killer amendment. But what it does is to prohibit EPA from implementing, administering or enforcing final rules to control air toxins from the Portland cement industry. The standards for Portland cement kilns have already been promulgated. The amendment would not relieve the industry of the obligation to meet these standards. Even though the agency would be precluded from spending funds to enforce the standards, citizens or States could bring enforcement actions against these sources of pollution that didn't comply with the standards. This amendment would also prevent EPA from providing technical assistance to such sources of pollution to assist them in understanding and complying with the rule or to the States to assist the States in enforcing the rule. The compliance date is 2013, so the regulated industry sources are now in the process of evaluating control equipment needs and preparing to order large amounts of equipment in order to be in compliance. Lack of EPA assistance and oversight at this critical time may ultimately result in a number of facilities not being prepared to comply on the compliance date. This in turn could result in numerous enforcement actions and citizen lawsuits, all of which would ultimately result in significant costs that would have to be borne by the States and regulated sources which this amendment would make avoidable. These funding limitations to stop EPA rules really have unintended consequences. They don't stop the legal requirements to regulate polluters. They really do, though, contribute to the pockets of lawyers that would litigate these issues out in the courtrooms. It seems to me that we should defeat what is really an unnecessarily costly amendment and an ill-advised and ill-timed one. So I would urge defeat of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, the scale of this reduction to EPA science shuts down EPA's STAR research grants this year and next, affecting researchers in universities throughout the Nation. The Science to Achieve Results program, whose acronym is STAR, grants money to leverage innovative, cutting-edge research with universities across the Nation. Now, I don't know about the way they have titled some of these grants, but I suspect that the gentleman doesn't know much more than I do about the specific grant itself, other than the title. What I do know is that this amendment ends funding for the Children's Health Research Centers, which focus on the study of children's environmental health hazards, including asthma and exposure to chemicals. It ends funding for research for four EPA air research centers that focus on the health effects of air pollutants on all ages of Americans, especially the most physically vulnerable and those in smog-laden communities. It ends funding for EPA's groundbreaking computational toxicology research effort, which enables us to screen literally thousands of chemicals at one time. I've seen how this works, and it's extraordinarily productive and cost-efficient. It screens chemicals for environmental health hazards, and it saves millions of dollars in the process. These innovative and cost-saving tools also offer the potential to greatly reduce our dependence on animal testing. The amendment ends funding for critical research to assess risks of nanotechnology and to develop approaches to ensure the safe development of nano materials. The amendment also wipes out EPA's STAR academic research fellowships program, affecting 350 current and future fellows and creating real economic hardship in the midst of our depressed economy. Cutting funding for the STAR fellows program eliminates the opportunity to develop the future generation of the best scientific minds to address 21st century environmental problems with new and innovative scientific and technological solutions. Now, it's not the end of the world, but it will be the end of a program that works very well--a program that recruits, trains, and integrates some of the very best minds in preserving and protecting our environment. So, for those reasons, I would urge the rejection of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to be on the record strongly agreeing with the concept of the gentlewoman's amendment, to add $200 million to State and local grants. Our congressional districts are on either side of the Potomac River. We can also see the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant from Maryland and Virginia. Now, we've made strides thanks to Federal funding in cleaning up the Potomac River, which all of us can see, and most of us cross every day; but much work still lies ahead. This bill's cuts to State and local infrastructure grants will undermine the progress that we have made on this river and will cripple hundreds of State and local government efforts throughout the country. The Republican bill slashes the clean water and safe drinking water State revolving funds by $2 billion, or 56 percent, reducing the number of wastewater and drinking water projects by about 750 nationwide. The needs of our Nation's aging water infrastructure exceed $660 billion. This would also be a missed opportunity to add thousands of engineering, construction, and other support service jobs if we cut these programs. Additionally, the bill includes an undesignated $300 million rescission to EPA already that will most likely also impact these revolving funds. So the gentlewoman's amendment does have great merit. Albeit technically it may be out of order, it should be offered because it addresses a very important problem with this continuing resolution. It should be accepted. I yield back the balance of my time. point of order

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that this continuing resolution eliminates all funding for the very successful, bipartisan- sponsored North American Wetlands Consersation Fund. It cuts $48 million. My amendment simply adds $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The offset is the EPA Diesel Emissions Program which, in fact, has been eliminated in the budget just proposed by the President. Now, both Houses unanimously reauthorized what's called NAWCA. That's the acronym for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. We authorized it unanimously in 2006. The appropriation authorization for NAWCA was increased to $75 million for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. It's wildly popular with all sportsmen and those who value our wetlands. So I'm surprised that H.R. 1 would eliminate it. This, frankly, shows what a meat axe approach has been taken here today by some in the Republican majority. The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund conserves our waterfowl, fish and wildlife resources while, at the same time, generating environmental and economic benefits. This is a successful partnership involving Federal, State and local governments and especially nonprofit organizations like Ducks Unlimited. The current CEO of Ducks Unlimited, Dale Hall, who incidentally was President George Bush's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director, wrote, and I quote, ``If these cuts and actions take place, waterfowl, waterfowl hunters and wetlands conservation would lose in a big way. In short, these actions would adversely affect all of us who care about and have funded wetlands and waterfowl conservation. We should remember, conservation in America pays for itself through the economic return from hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts.'' I could not have said it better than the spokesperson, the CEO of Ducks Unlimited, who served in the Bush administration as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director. Every Federal dollar provided by NAWCA must be matched by at least $1 from non-Federal sources. Because the program is so effective, NAWCA funds are usually tripled or quadrupled on the local level. In short, this is both a highly popular and very successful program. Since its inception in 1989, more than 1,600 NAWCA projects have contributed to the conservation of more than 25 million acres of habitat across North America. The offset we use, the Diesel Emissions grant program, is a good program. But sometimes we have to make hard choices. The President's fiscal year 2012 request also eliminates the Diesel grant program so as to encourage the truck industry to increase its own diesel R&D. I ask the Members to support this amendment to protect our wetlands and wildlife and support the people who enjoy it.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. MORAN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. MORAN. I greatly thank the Chair of the full committee. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. MORAN. I oppose the gentleman's amendment that reduces the Fish and Wildlife Service by $7.5 million. The gentleman says that it is aimed at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, although it doesn't say so. But whether it is or not, it's still a bad idea. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation raises private funds with minimal Federal seed dollars. It should be encouraged, not eliminated. Last year, the foundation leveraged $40 million in Federal funds into more than $180 million for on-the-ground conservation projects. That's a leverage ratio of 4\1/2\ times. The Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be the best financial investment of public dollars to leverage private funds that pay for Federal priorities. In 1984, a quarter century ago, during challenging budget times, as well as we have today, the Foundation was created by a bipartisan group of Members of the House and Senate to leverage taxpayer dollars with private dollars. This amendment would affect more than 400 conservation projects this year in most U.S. States and territories. These programs are nonregulatory, community driven; they promote working landscapes and foster innovation. In this critical time of constrained budgets, you would think we would want the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation more than ever. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself strongly with the remarks of the gentlelady from Minnesota, and strongly urge rejection of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman. The NEA has already been cut by $22 million in this continuing resolution. The NEA's contribution to deficit reduction is really infinitesimal, but its elimination would not be. It would be very costly. Mr. Chairman, the NEA represents less than 1/100th of discretionary spending. The economic dividend this Nation receives from the Endowment for the Arts, however, far exceeds the investment we make. It seems to me that, when there are too many issues that divide this Nation, and when there remains too much harshness and rancor, the arts have an even more important role to play because they remain a powerful medium through which we can all transcend our common differences, appreciate beauty, and empathize with all of humankind. This is what the arts are all about. This is what the NEA enables all Americans to more greatly appreciate. The NEA budget is small, but it is such an important catalyst in helping to create and sustain the arts. Last year, actor Jeff Daniels spoke at an Interior Appropriations subcommittee hearing as to how the NEA had supported the revival of a theater in his hometown in Michigan. It was a small grant, but in his case, it restored the theater and its productions so that neighboring owners could then restore their homes and turn them into bed and breakfast places. Restaurants and antique shops saw boosts in their businesses. In fact, the State of Michigan just built an exit ramp off the State highway to serve the increasing numbers of cars that are flocking to his hometown, which otherwise would be a virtual ghost town. The NEA is a magnet for businesses in every place to which they locate, and it searches out those opportunities. There are 668,000 businesses involved in the creation and distribution of art, and there are millions of jobs. I have two examples in Virginia. Actually, to save time, I'll just give one example: Signature Theatre in Shirlington, Arlington, Virginia, received NEA grants for its nationally recognized artistic and education programs. I would suggest that all of our Members go there some time. They will invariably see an extraordinary good performance, one that has generated economic activity throughout that community and one that could not have gotten on its feet without the help of the National Endowment for the Arts. When you cut that budget, you will see a dramatic adverse impact on the national arts community and on specifically the arts education programs that are developing throughout community centers and in our schools. We do need to invest in the cultural lives of our citizenry and in our children's future. I can't help but fathom how a Nation as rich and prosperous as ours could not find it in its heart to provide $167 million for the Endowment for the Arts. The arts and humanities will survive, but they will not be accessible for the large majority of our citizens who couldn't otherwise afford the expensive tickets that too often are charged at those performing arts places where frankly the financially elite are only able to afford to go. What the NEA does is to expand artistic achievement, to give people an opportunity to fully appreciate and for us to appreciate their talent. Denyce Graves, who grew up in Washington in the Anacostia area, said that The Kennedy Center could have been a world away. She never would have seen it had it not been for a National Endowment for the Arts grant. That enabled her to then pursue a career that ultimately resulted in one of the finest operatic performers in America, in the world. The chair of the National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman, a Broadway producer, extraordinarily effective, active leader, he has suggested reform, that we probably have too many arts venues. Let's consolidate them. Let's make sure that all of them are of the highest quality. It has started a discussion that needs to be done, but what shouldn't be done is to cut the National Endowment for the Arts even further than this continuing resolution does. I would urge rejection of the amendment, Madam Chair.

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, let me give this body the top 10 reasons to defeat this amendment. Number one, these are not really taxpayer dollars. The money comes from oil drilling receipts. Number two, this amendment represents a complete elimination of a bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years. The third reason is that this amendment will eliminate all the land and water conservation funding, even the few dollars remaining under the continuing resolution for management of these programs. The fourth reason is that this amendment would force land management agencies to end all the work on congressionally approved projects that are now underway using previous-year appropriations. It will hurt willing seller landowners by preventing agencies from finishing out commitments that are already in place. The fifth reason is that many landowners, ranging from elderly widowers and family trusts to ranchers and forest owners, have pressing financial needs that now depend on completion of these ongoing land and water conservation projects. The sixth reason is that by eviscerating the Land and Water Conservation Fund, you are going to cause severe impacts on many others as well, including schoolchildren in the State of Wyoming. The amendment will bring to an immediate halt the negotiated agreement between the State of Wyoming and the National Park Service to transfer $107 million of school trust lands to Grand Teton National Park. Without the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the State can't meet its mandate to sell those lands and generate revenue to support its educational system. The seventh reason is that the amendment would frustrate land exchanges that are currently in process, many of which have been years in the making and are important for local private economic development and public land management. The eighth reason, under this amendment, the staff wouldn't be in place to even accept and process donations of important natural historic and other properties from the public. The ninth reason is that, without staff, right-of-way work to provide or maintain access for key public needs would be rendered impossible. The public would be unable to secure critically needed routes for fuel and wildfire management, watershed management, and access for sportsmen and other recreational use. The tenth reason is that the amendment would exacerbate an already draconian cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that is already paid for using a very small percentage of oil drilling receipts. This amendment should be rejected. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, in addition to its being a point of order, I think it should be noted that what we are talking about, nature and culture visitation, are huge industries, responsible for more than 3 million jobs. The Park Service has a backlog in deferred maintenance of at least $6 billion. We can't be cutting construction. In fact, these funds enhance national parks, wildlife refuges, public lands, and create thousands of new jobs.

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

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, I object to the modification.

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MORAN. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment that would eliminate funding for the Presidio Trust. The Presidio was in continuous use as a military post from 1776 until 1994. An Army installation, the post was closed in 1994 as part of the BRAC process and transferred to the National Park Service. In 1996, Congress established the Presidio Trust to govern this unique national park site and to ensure its preservation by making it financially self- sustaining. And that's exactly what has happened. Over the past 12 years, appropriations as a percentage of the overall trust budget have been reduced from over 95 percent Federal funding in fiscal year 1998 to less than 20 percent in fiscal year 2010. The current ratio of private investment in the Presidio to Federal appropriations is already greater than 4:1. Appropriations, though, are authorized through fiscal year 2012. That was the deal. After 2012, the trust itself, by itself, alone, is responsible for long-term operations and maintenance of the Presidio. Since it took over management of the Presidio in 1998, the trust has rehabilitated and leased 97 percent of the Presidio's housing units and rehabilitated 75 percent of the Presidio's 433 very historic buildings. I've been there. I've seen it. It's phenomenal what the trust has accomplished. Eliminating funds just 1 year short of its goal violates the spirit of the 1996 law, and it undermines the trust's ability to achieve self- sufficiency. This would result in higher future obligations, as the Federal Government might have to assume full responsibility to maintain the historic properties. It also sends a terrible signal to communities across the country that may also have innovative solutions in partnering with the Federal Government. They are time-controlled; in other words, it's not forever. But they say for a certain period of time, if you'll partner with us, we'll take this responsibility off your hands. The $23 million appropriated for the trust in fiscal year 2010 has created 860 jobs. Federal appropriations in this current fiscal year will help expedite rehabilitation of historic buildings and take advantage of favorable construction costs that exist today. At a recent oversight hearing, the members of our Appropriations subcommittee received assurances that the trust will accomplish its financial stewardship and public use goals. That was the deal. They said, We'll meet our part of the deal, assuming that the Federal Government will meet its obligation. As one of the Nation's oldest and most important military posts, the trust has had some unique extraordinary challenges since the Defense Department closed out its installation, but the trust is well on its way toward meeting its legislative objectives. It should not be undermined by this amendment. This has worked well. It's an example for the rest of the country. Let it serve as an example. One more year to go, and then it will be off our books. The trust will take over responsibility, and we will point out that this is the way to do it, in partnership, where we will not be perpetually responsible but, in fact, the private sector will come in, let the market work and have a national gem, really, a national asset for everyone to visit and appreciate and learn from. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time and strongly urge opposition to this amendment.