Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

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

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

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 reserve a point of order against this amendment.

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

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

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

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. I rise in opposition to the Pompeo amendment which would basically strip all funding from EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. It's part of an effort to ignore what scientists tell us is the most serious environmental problem of our time--climate change. Some Republicans have introduced legislation that would repeal a scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health. The underlying bill we're considering says that no stationary source no matter how large should ever have to reduce its carbon pollution. This amendment goes even further. It says that we should not even bother to find out how much pollution is being put into our air. I guess you could call it the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program simply requires the largest sources of carbon pollution--power plants, refineries, and the very largest factories--to tell EPA and the public how much they pollute. If we are ever going to deal responsibly with this pollution, we need to know where it is coming from and have some idea of how much is being emitted. This amendment is yet one more example of putting profits and pollution ahead of people and public health. Americans understand that pollution is dangerous to their health. The scientists tell us that. We know it intuitively. It makes us sick. Let's allow EPA to fulfill its legal responsibility to collect this information. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pompeo amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman. This amendment would entirely eliminate funding for a successful, proven program. The National Capital Arts grant program was established in 1986 to fill a substantial funding gap affecting the major private arts groups in the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital. It now funds 23 such groups. In every other major city in the United States, major private arts groups receive Federal funds from their State arts councils, which frequently have such a major institution's funding category. That's not particularly important, but those who are involved in arts organizations understand that that's the money they depend upon. In D.C., they don't have that money to depend upon. No similar flow of government funds from any level is available to major arts groups in Washington, D.C. The 23 groups that receive this money employ thousands of people. Outreach efforts to schoolchildren is one of the principal things that is funded through this National Capital Arts grant program. If we didn't have this, those outreach programs would be virtually eliminated. They constitute almost all of the arts outreach and arts educational programs that are available to children in the D.C. schools and schools in the suburbs. It's a program that has widespread popular support. It is not a lot of money for each organization, but it's essential money to enable them to continue functioning. The fact that we are talking about such a small amount of money in the context of such an enormous deficit, it really seems wrong that children in our Nation's Capital would be denied outreach from these arts institutions that are proximate to where they live but wholly inaccessible without this program. So I would urge that we have a heart, particularly for the children in the schools in Washington, D.C. Reject this amendment and leave this very small amount of money in this interior appropriations bill. 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 last word.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties beyond what is legislatively authorized. So I now ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I can understand why our colleagues from Illinois have offered this amendment. Assertions recently surfaced about the inability of the Osprey to operate in hot conditions, high altitudes or from U.S. Navy ships. But the fact is that these charges have been disproven repeatedly in daily operations. The fact is that the Osprey provides unparalleled flexibility for Marines and Air Force Special Forces in combat operations. We have had 14 fully successful deployments to date. No aircraft in the U.S. inventory has been subjected to as extensive a series of live- fire testing as the V-22. It is the most survivable rotorcraft ever built for the Marine Corps and Air Force. When the enemy has been able to hit the V-22, the aircraft has absorbed the damage and returned to base without injuries to passengers or crew on every single occasion. Many of the initial readiness challenges stem from deploying the aircraft into combat before a supply chain and depot maintenance infrastructure was adequately in place. The reason it cost more was that the Special Forces felt they needed to bring it into combat operation immediately because it was such a successful rotorcraft. They needed it for the safety and effectiveness of our troops. The fact is that major studies from both government and industry have shown that the V-22 is more operationally effective and cost efficient than any helicopter alternative. It requires fewer aircraft, fewer personnel and support than conventional rotorcraft. That results in a reduced footprint and, what we all need to be concerned about, particularly in this context, a lower total life-cycle costs. For that reason, I think that we ought to reject this amendment and enable the Defense Department to choose its own priorities for cost cutting, and certainly Secretary Gates is in the process of doing that. I yield back.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Appropriations Committee for 17 years. Eleven of them were under Republican control, eight under a Republican President. And I'm proud of the investments that we've made in this country during those 17 years. We were stronger, more secure, a more productive economy as a result of those investments. We've improved the lives of Americans. We've cleaned up our water. We've invested in transportation, our national defense, our education system. That's why we have the strongest economy and why, in fact, we continue to be the very best place on the planet to live, to work, and to provide a better future for our children. What we are doing in this continuing resolution is targeting those programs that are called ``domestic discretionary.'' They represent about 4\1/2\ percent of the entire budget, and they have stayed pretty well even. During the Reagan administration, during the Clinton administration, during the Bush administration, which was when we had the lowest job growth ever, they were at about 7\1/2\ percent. The fact is we are not going to balance our budget by targeting that small amount of the budget. The reality is that, when President Reagan left office, tax receipts were about 18.2 percent. They went up a bit during the Clinton administration when we had the greatest expansion ever and when, in fact, people at the highest rate of income tax pocketed more money after taxes than at any time in American history. Right now, they are at 14.9 percent of GDP. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the problem is not one of not investing enough in our country, but one of the revenue being brought in and its being grossly inadequate. In a historical context, we can prove that to be the case. When revenue goes down that low, our economy shrinks; and it becomes a self-defeating cycle. Now, in the Interior and the Environment appropriations bill, some of the things we do is take out the program that uses offshore oil revenues for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which protects our Nation's precious lands. We are going to dramatically cut construction and maintenance at our national parks, refuges and forests. We are going to take the money away from the Governors and mayors throughout the country for the plumbing that goes underneath our land, what's called the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund. That's money they desperately need to ensure the public's health. We take it for granted. We won't take it for granted anymore if we stop those grants. This bill will not create a single new job. In fact, we estimate it will cut about 800,000 jobs, both public and private. That's not worthy of this Congress on either side of the aisle to be cutting jobs. What we need to be doing is investing in jobs, investing in education, and making sure that children who have been born in particularly difficult social and economic conditions have access to Head Start. Don't cut $1 billion out of Head Start. Don't cut kindergarten through 12 education, which is the seed corn of our future. Those aren't investments. Those are arbitrary cuts. That's not what we have been about, and that's not how we enable this country to be as strong and as great as it is. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when we do our budget analysis that it be done with a scalpel, like a surgeon would approach it, not with a meat ax. We should respect all of the good work that the appropriations committees have done over the years in making this a better country as a result.

Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to this amendment, in support of what the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee has said as well as Chairman Young both of whom have substantial years of experience behind them. Now, what Mr. Frank has suggested has merit, but to support this amendment is a non sequitur to that argument. As for the gentleman from Arizona, at least he is consistent. As for the gentleman offering the amendment, well, let me try to explain why it is counterproductive. It defines the phrase ``penny wise and pound foolish.'' In fact, where we have made our greatest strides within the defense budget is in small business innovation. There are half a dozen very large defense contractors. They serve our country well. They take good ideas, they hire people, they develop them, they achieve major procurement contracts with the Defense Department. But, for the most part, they don't come up with the innovations. It's the small businesses throughout the country, that more often than not, come up with those innovations. For example, the predator drone that has been the most successful weapon in Afghanistan was an earmark for small businesses with an innovative idea. An idea, incidentally, that was initially opposed by the Defense Dept. Much of our IED success in saving lives has come from small businesses. Much of the simulation training that we provide our troops so they don't have to put their lives at risk, but rather can achieve the kind of training that gives them the skill set to represent us with such courage and effectiveness on the battlefield, that comes from small business innovation. And what we are trying to do now is to put a relatively small sum of money together so that thousands of small businesses throughout the country can compete for those small grants. Now, the fact is, as much as I respect the defense contractors, it is not necessarily in their interests to innovate, to come up with cost- cutting efficiencies, because it means that you have to reduce personnel and contract costs. Oftentimes, it exposes the fact that we're paying more than we need to for innovative approaches to securing our country. It is the small businesses of this country that really provide the ability for us to find the highest level of efficiency and effectiveness within our Defense Department. For half a billion dollars, we will find more ways to save thousands of lives and we know we will save tens of billions of dollars in the long run. That's what this program is all about. It's a departure from the way we have done things. It's all about saving money, not relying upon Big Business or Big Government, but letting small businesses flourish who otherwise couldn't get the capital, wouldn't have the investors, couldn't pull the personnel together and pay them long enough to be able to adequately develop the potential of a great idea. So this small pool of innovative research money will fund great ideas, ideas that make our troops safer, that enable us to let our dollars go further, and in fact enable our Nation to be far more secure. This is just the kind of program we ought to be funding more of in the Defense Department. That's why I would strongly urge defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. MORAN

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

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, similar to the Small Business Innovation Research, this is actually one of the very most important things we can be doing within the defense budget, not just for national security, but equally for our national economy. This is the line item that funded the Internet. The whole concept of the Internet came from DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is funded in this category of the defense budget RDT&E, Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation. Imagine what the Internet has meant to the American economy, let alone the world. Look what just happened in Egypt, ultimately because of the Internet. The GPS system that we have in our vehicles, we take it for granted now. Where did it come from? The RDT&E account in the Defense Department. This is what we want to cut out? We can't afford to. The unmanned aerial vehicles, the drones, the most effective warfighting weapon we have right now, a weapon that doesn't put our soldiers' lives at risk but is maximally effective at targeting the enemy, RDT&E. Defense research. Precision targeting was a result of research innovation within this account. That is what gives us our cutting edge. That is why we have the most effective defense capability in the world. But it is also one of the reasons why we have the strongest economy in the world. There is no other area of research that means as much to this economy, and, frankly, it means a great deal to the entire world's economy. The National Institutes of Health, we do wonderful research there, but, notwithstanding the lives we save, the spinoff to the private sector is not as extensive as the spinoff from the research we do within the Defense Department. I guess it is a good thing we get these amendments because it gives us an opportunity to explain to the American people, particularly the taxpayer, what they are getting for their money, where these ideas come from. Many of them come from the Defense Department, and it is because of the investment we have made in research, development, testing, and evaluation. So I obviously would urge rejection of this amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I can understand that there are a lot of jobs at stake, there's politics, there's regional economies, and so on, to be considered in this issue. I don't particularly have a dog in the hunt, but I'd like to share with you why I disagree with the amendment, why I think it's in the national interest to have an alternative engine. The experience that we had in the 1980s with the F-16 engine, it seems to me, should inform this debate. We had a sole source contract, basically; with the same manufacturer to build a single engine for the F-16. It was way over budget and outside of--any reasonable production schedule. Production was substantially delayed. And we had little leverage until we brought in an alternative contractor. We brought in competition. All of a sudden we got right on schedule and on budget. I think this situation is analogous. We're talking about a $100 billion contract for the principal jet fighter we're going to have for the next generation. And we have one engine manufacturer that we're going to be reliant upon. It's also going to be one of our most substantial exports to other militaries around the world. It's going to be a very substantial source of jobs and revenue, and in fact, I have to say, military dominance. What we are talking about is having competition to ensure that we get the best bang for the buck for the taxpayers. In fact, the Government Accountability Office has estimated, over the long run, we will save money through this competition. That's why the majorities of the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Committee have decided, after a great deal of deliberation, that we need competition in this program. If it were not such a major program, if it were not so expensive--a $100 billion sole-source contract--maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but it was basically the consensus of the authorizing and appropriations committees that we should look to two manufacturers to compete against each other and to give the American taxpayer the greatest bang for the buck in producing the most effective and most efficient jet fighter in the world. I think we all agree that we believe in the principle of competition. When you have monopoly control--invariably, you slack off a little bit. It's okay to bump your numbers up a little bit, perhaps. But when you have to compete with somebody else, you're always looking at the bottom line, always wanting a higher quality, a less expensive product. That's what this debate is all about. It's about a basic fundamental principle of the American economy--competition. For that reason, I would oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, both sides of the aisle agree that the top three priorities for this Congress are jobs, jobs, jobs. But when you look at what the new majority wants to do with the Federal budget, you really have to wonder, are they serious? Now in the private sector, we've actually seen job growth for the last 12 months, 36,000 more jobs last month. But we've lost hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. And what should be of most concern to all Americans is that since 2008, more than 200,000 public sector jobs in the education arena--primarily teachers--have been lost; and at that very same time, student enrollment has gone up by 750,000 students. So you lose 200,000 educators while student enrollment goes up 750,000? That's our seed corn for our future. And what's going to happen with this new budget that we will be debating next week is that it is going to be far worse than anything we could have imagined, and that will hurt the future of this great country.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor today to introduce a resolution acknowledging the 100th year anniversary of the passage of the Weeks Act. This little-known act marks a significant conservation achievement in the annuls of this nation's conservation movement. John W. Weeks, a Republican Congressman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was relentless in his efforts to pass this legislation, which authorized the federal purchase of cutover and denuded forestlands in the headwaters of navigable streams for the purpose of conserving the flow of streams and rivers and to restore lands for future timber production. It took close to two years of fierce battle with his colleagues before he succeeded as the Weeks Act cleared Congress on March 1, 1911. Few of my colleagues may be aware, but at the turn of the 19th century, vast amounts of private forested land in the eastern United States had been ravaged by clear cut logging. In the absence of trees, vast areas of the East were prone to flooding and soil erosion, as well as destructive forest fires. No longer productive, these lands were often abandoned and came into state and local ownership for nonpayment of taxes. To bring these lands back from the ecological brink, Rep. John Weeks introduced legislation directing the federal government to offer states and localities the opportunity to relieve themselves of these nonproductive lands and at federal expense restore them to their former condition. Today 26 eastern states are home to 52 National Forests encompassing almost 25 million acres. These forests provide significant economic benefits. Not only are the forests recreational sanctuaries, they are also a major contributor in keeping America's drinking water clean. Many eastern municipal water supplies depend on National Forest watersheds and currently $450 billion in food and fiber, manufactured goods, and tourism depends on clean water and healthy watersheds. In addition, the timber supply managed by the Forest Service provides a significant monetary benefit. The timber resource was almost nonexistent when the federal government purchased the land, but today these lands host an estimated 42 billion cubic feet of growing stock and about 210 billion board feet of saw timber. With this resolution we recognize and commemorate the vision of John W. Weeks and his contribution to the conservation movement. Both Republicans and Democrats recognized the importance of federal government in conserving the forests and the water supply for long-term environmental goals. Today I encourage both Congress and the Forest Service to begin a centennial celebration commemorating this major bipartisan accomplishment. Our 52 National Forests in 26 eastern states would not exist today were it not for passage of the Weeks Act of 1911. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.