[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3679-H3687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1965) to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act of 
1972, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1965

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Coastal Zone Protection Act 
     of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STATE COASTAL 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Reauthorization of Program.--Section 305(a) of the 
     Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1454(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``1991, 1992, and 1993'' and inserting 
     ``1997, 1998, and 1999''; and
       (2) by striking ``two'' and inserting ``four''.
       (b) Termination of Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management 
     Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1454) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (a);
       (B) by striking ``(b)''; and
       (C) by amending the heading to read as follows:


              ``Submittal of State program for approval''.

       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 308(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1457(b)(2)(B)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in clause (iv) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (B) by striking clause (v); and
       (C) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (v).
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE FOR COASTAL ZONE 
                   ENHANCEMENT.

       Section 309(b) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 
     (16 U.S.C. 1456b(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Subject to''; and

[[Page H3680]]

       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) In addition to any amounts provided under section 
     306, and subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     Secretary may make grants under this subsection to States for 
     implementing program changes approved by the Secretary in 
     accordance with section 306(e).
       ``(B) Grants under this paragraph to implement a program 
     change may not be made in any fiscal year after the second 
     fiscal year that begins after the approval of that change by 
     the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS.

       Section 318 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 1464) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 318.'' and all that follows through 
     subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``Sec. 318. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary, to remain available until expended--
       ``(1) for grants under sections 306, 306A, and 309--
       ``(A) $47,600,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(B) $49,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       ``(C) $50,500,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(2) for grants under section 315--
       ``(A) $4,400,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(B) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       ``(C) $4,600,000 for fiscal year 1999.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b); and
       (3) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) in order as 
     subsections (b) and (c).

     SEC. 5. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FUND.

       (a) Authorization for Administrative Expenses.--Section 
     308(b)(2)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 1456a(b)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Expenses incident to the administration of this 
     title, in an amount not to exceed for each of fiscal years 
     1997, 1998, and 1999 the higher of--
       ``(i) $4,000,000; or
       ``(ii) 8 percent of the total amount appropriated under 
     this title for the fiscal year.''.
       (b) Authorization for Program Development Grants.--Section 
     308(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 
     (16 U.S.C. 1456a(b)(2)(B)(v)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(v) program development grants as authorized by section 
     305, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1997, 1998, and 1999; and''.

     SEC. 6. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

       Section 315(e)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 
     1972 (16 U.S.C. 1461(e)(3)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), financial 
     assistance under this subsection provided from amounts 
     recovered as a result of damage to natural resources located 
     in the coastal zone may be used to pay 100 percent of the 
     costs of activities carried out with the assistance.''.

     SEC. 7. AQUACULTURE IN THE COASTAL ZONE.

       The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is amended--
       (1) in section 306A(b) (16 U.S.C. 1455a(b)) by adding at 
     the end of the following:
       ``(4) The development of a coordinated process among State 
     agencies to regulate and issue permits for aquaculture 
     facilities in the coastal zone.''; and
       (2) in section 309(a) (16 U.S.C. 1456b(a)) by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(9) Adoption of procedures and policies to evaluate and 
     facilitate the siting of public and private aquaculture 
     facilities in the coastal zone, which will enable States to 
     formulate, administer, and implement strategic plans for 
     marine aquaculture.''.

     SEC. 8. APPEALS TO THE SECRETARY.

       The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:


                       ``APPEALS TO THE SECRETARY

       ``Sec. 319. (a) Notice.--The Secretary shall publish in the 
     Federal Register a notice indicating when the decision record 
     has been closed on any appeal to the Secretary taken from a 
     consistency determination under section 307(c) or (d). No 
     later than 90 days after the date of publication of this 
     notice, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) issue a final decision in the appeal; or
       ``(2) publish a notice in the Federal Register detailing 
     why a decision cannot be issued within the 90-day period.
       ``(b) Deadline.--In the case where the Secretary publishes 
     a notice under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall issue a 
     decision in any appeal filed under section 307 no later than 
     45 days after the date of the publication of the notice.
       ``(c) Application.--This section applies to appeals 
     initiated by the Secretary and appeals filed by an 
     applicant.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering 
H.R. 1965, the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996. It is certainly an 
appropriate way to show our commitment to the environment and to 
celebrate Earth Day.
  I introduced H.R. 1965 10 months ago, and 129 of my colleagues are 
now cosponsors. Certainly this broad bipartisan support shows the 
popularity of the Coastal Zone Program and the need to act on this 
reauthorization.
  In light of the enormous growth of coastal populations, Congress 
passed, and President Richard Nixon signed into law, the Coastal Zone 
Management Act--also known as CZMA--in 1972. That growth has not abated 
in the 24 years since the original Act was passed, and forecasts 
predict that significant growth will continue in coastal areas. The 
CZMA provides grants to States that develop federally approved coastal 
zone management--or CZM--plans. It also allows States with approved 
plans to review Federal actions for consistency with those plans.
  Twenty-nine of the thirty-five eligible coastal States and 
territories have federally approved CZM plans, and five others are 
working to prepare acceptable plans. These twenty-nine approved plans 
include 95,000 miles of coastline, almost 95 percent of the national 
total.

  For a relatively small expenditure of Federal dollars and without 
imposing any additional Federal regulatory burden, this program has 
been very successful in getting States to improve their coastal 
planning programs on a totally voluntary basis.
  H.R. 1965 reauthorizes funding for grants to States to develop, 
implement, and update their coastal zone management programs for fiscal 
years 1997 through 1999; bases authorization levels for State grants 
and Federal administrative expenses on the amounts appropriated for 
these programs; provides the States with more discretion in the use of 
their grants; and sets a time limit for final decisions on consistency 
appeals.
  This is an excellent bill. It continues the existing program with 
only minor modifications. However, those changes provide additional 
flexibility to the States, establish fiscally responsible authorization 
levels, and streamline the consistency review process. These are all 
positive accomplishments, and they deserve the enthusiastic support of 
this body.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this most important environmental bill.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation, as I did with the previous legislation, and I want to 
commend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for his work on 
getting this reauthorization of the coastal zone management legislation 
passed in our committee and to the floor.
  This is a good bill. The substitute amendment that has been suggested 
has been agreed to on a bipartisan basis and has the support of the 
administration.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this discussion today is not just abut 
coastal zone management or not just about battery recycling. What we 
went through with the presentation of the previous bill, and with this 
bill also, is that at a time when we were talking about recycling 
batteries and, therefore, removing toxics from the environment, what we 
saw is that most of the people who came and supported recycling 
batteries and removing toxins from the environment, in fact, had voted 
five out of five times against, in crucial bills, in the clean water 
bill and regulatory reform and amendments and motions to recommit, had 
voted against removing arsenic from drinking water, had voted against 
removing arsenic dioxin, lead and other cancer-causing pollutants, had 
voted to liberalize the rules on pollution.
  So it was not about recycling batteries, and I daresay if the 
speakers on this legislation have the same voting record with respect 
to coastal zone management, then we, too, will award them fig leafs to 
show that they, in fact, cannot hide behind this good and 
noncontroversial bill when, in fact, they have voted previously in this 
session against coastal nonpoint pollution control to try to regulate 
many of the pollutions that flow into our coastal

[[Page H3681]]

zones for dumping more sewage into our oceans.
  At a time when we want to regulate the coastal zone of our States and 
improve them for our citizens, they voted to liberalize how much more 
sewage we can put into the ocean. They voted against the protection of 
the wetlands in many of these same areas, an amendment that was offered 
on a bipartisan basis.
  They voted for gutting the Clean Water Act where, if we do not clean 
up our rivers and our streams and sewage and others, then it all flows 
into the coastal zone and we have an increased amount of pollution 
floating.
  So what we are saying is we cannot have it both ways, we cannot 
engage in hyprocrisy, we cannot say well, we are for coastal zone 
management because the whole Congress is for it, apparently. It is a 
unanimously supported legislation. It is a bipartisan bill. It is 
supported by the administration. But on these key issues earlier in 
this session of Congress, in this session of Congress, our colleagues 
voted five for five against the environment, just as many of the 
speakers on the previous legislation sought to support battery 
recycling, which is good, but the hypocrisy of their position when they 
voted not to remove lead and arsenic and dioxin and other materials 
from our environment.
  Those are the records. Those are the votes. those are the ones that 
are taken, and that is the record of their votes.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  So let me understand that unless every Member votes the liberal line 
on every environmental issue, then he is not----
  Mr. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, no; that is not the 
issue. the issue is whether my colleagues vote for or against the 
environment, whether they vote for or against the environment on a 
consistent basis.
  There is nothing liberal or conservative about taking arsenic out of 
the drinking water of children. There is nothing liberal or 
conservative about taking dioxin, lead, and other cancer-causing agents 
out of the environment of the children. There is nothing liberal or 
conservative about keeping people from dumping pollution into our 
oceans, about dumping sewage into our oceans that comes back to haunt 
the people who want to use the beaches, the wetlands, and the 
recreational area.
  This is not about liberal or conservatism. This is about people's 
voting records who, on the day after Earth Day, under the direction of 
the majority leader, want to present a theme to America that somehow 
the Republicans are back on the environment.
  The fact is for 16 months our colleagues have led the most 
comprehensive assault on the basic environmental laws of this country, 
and we think there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in that, and we are 
seeking to point that out. And it has nothing to do with ideology. It 
has to do with the recorded votes taken by Members of this Congress in 
the previous four sessions on dealing with these issues of nonpoint 
pollution control, on ocean dumping of sewage, on protecting wetlands, 
on the Clean Water Act, on the question of removing arsenic from 
drinking water, votes that we all remember that we had on the floor of 
this Congress where the gentleman and others, myself and others, are 
all recorded on those measures.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I cannot resist responding to my friend from California 
because it is really how he defines these votes, that somehow, if we 
happen to vote against his particular position, that happens to be 
allegedly a vote against the environment or some of his left friends 
who define it that way.
  The fact is that all of us share this same goal of environmental 
protection, but we find that there are different ways to get there, 
sometimes more effective ways, if we used the power of the market, for 
example, to do that.
  We did that in the clean air bill. My friend from California will 
remember when we provided SO2 emissions allowances that are now 
being traded by companies in Chicago. It is a very effective way to 
delay with air pollution. I think there is a different way to do it, 
and I think a better way and a more effective way and a more efficient 
way. We differ on that. We do not differ on our goals, and I think that 
is where the gentleman is in error.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California and point out how strongly I feel that what we are engaged 
in here today and what the Republican leadership is engaged in here 
today is essentially what I call a ``green scam.'' They are putting up 
the Coastal Zone Management Act for reauthorization, which is certainly 
a good bill, but they are putting it up a day after Earth Day, an 
effort to try and give the impression that the Republican majority and 
that their leadership is in favor of protecting the ocean environment. 
And, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
  The fact of the matter is, from the very beginning, this Republican 
leadership, from the very beginning of this Congress in 1995, brought 
up what I call the Dirty Water Act, an effort to essentially gut the 
Clean Water Act and many of the provisions of that bill which passed 
the House but, fortunately, has not passed the Senate, has been stopped 
in the Senate, would have turned back the clock on efforts over the 
last 25 or 26 years to protect the ocean investment.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], my colleague, has been 
very effective in trying to get this CZMA Act out of committee and 
brought to the floor, and I want to congratulate him today for the 
accomplishment of bringing it here to the floor. But the fact of the 
matter is that many times the Republican leadership fought very hard to 
have this bill not brought out of committee and to prevent it from 
coming to the floor. And they also tried to take away all the funding 
from the CZMA.
  At one time I remember specifically there was no funding for the 
bill, and if it was not for the fact that he and some of the other 
Republicans that do care about clean water were willing to take a 
stand, we would not be here today.
  But that does not take away from the fact that the Republican 
majority and their leadership has been adamant in their effort to cut 
back on the Clean Water Act.
  I just want to mention a few of those things today. I am going to 
give out 2 big leaves to two individuals: The gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young] stated before, he talked about what he was trying to do to 
protect the environment. And, of course, now the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley] was saying the same thing. But on five key votes, both 
gentlemen, the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from Ohio, 
joined with the Republican leadership five out of five times to vote 
against coastal nonpoint pollution control, for dumping more sewage in 
the ocean, something that I think is very important to me, that we not 
have ocean pollution in the dumping of sewage; against protecting 
wetlands; for gutting the Clean Water Act; and, finally, against 
allowing the EPA to enforce wetlands protection. This continues. They 
are joining with the Republican leadership on these points, and, 
therefore, I give both of them a fig leaf at this time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Fort 
Yukon, AK [Mr. Young].
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, we only get figleaves from fruit 
trees.
  Now that we have got in this debate seriously, and I have listened to 
the people on the other side of the aisle talk about the environment, 
let us talk about Congressmen that want total central control. Let us 
talk about Congressmen that want power in mighty Washington's hands. 
Let us talk about Congressmen who vote for socialized Government. Let 
us talk about Congressmen that, in reality, do not believe that private 
property rights, owners have any rights at all. Let us talk

[[Page H3682]]

about Congressmen that decide what is the environmental agenda as being 
touted by the 57 environmental organizations when they are rated 100 
percent by the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, et cetera.
  Let us talk about the Congressmen that do not care about jobs, about 
people that want to work. Let us talk about Congressmen that believe a 
kangaroo rat is more important than a man's livelihood or the homes 
that were burnt down because a person could not farm that land, and 
after they could not farm the land the rats left because there was 
nothing to eat.
  Let us talk about a Government that does not listen to the people any 
more and the Congressmen that support that type of Government. 
Congressmen have believed, in reality, that there is no freedom of 
individuals that is good for the masses, control from Washington, DC.
  And this is what this talk about the environment is all about.
  On my side of the aisle, I have said the environment must include 
man. We cannot exclude man or eventually man will destroy the 
environment. But on that side of the aisle, we cannot touch anything or 
that person is against the environment. One cannot build a house, one 
cannot drill for oil, one cannot take and build a dam. One, in fact, 
cannot catch a fish, let alone do anything else, because they are 
destroying the environment. It is part of the zealism of that side of 
the aisle by certain leaders that believe that man is the enemy and he 
is not to be included. And that is what the two gentlemen from 
California and New Jersey are talking about, centralized government 
power over the individual person.
  If I own a piece of property and it is mine, and I have an endangered 
species there and it is there because I have taken care of it, I can be 
punished because of these two gentlemen. I should be rewarded because I 
protect the species.
  But under this administration and past administrations, the agencies 
themselves have come in and told me: ``You are a sinner because you 
have the species on your property; thus, you no longer can do anything 
with your property. You, in fact, ought to be punished.''
  That is the philosophy of these two gentlemen.
  Today the House is considering H.R. 1965, the Coastal Zone Protection 
Act of 1996. This bill was introduced by Jim Saxton, and he deserves a 
great deal of credit for his efforts on behalf of this program.
  Enacted in 1972, the CZMA encourages States to regulate land and 
water uses which affect their coastal zones. The program is voluntary, 
but States receive grant money to develop a plan which, when approved 
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA], makes 
the States eligible for more Federal assistance to help manage their 
coastal program. In addition, States can review and, in some cases, 
veto certain Federal activities which affect their coastal zones and 
which are inconsistent with their approved programs. Twenty-nine States 
and territories have approved coastal zone programs.
  In fact, to use my home State as an example, the Alaska Coastal 
Management Program coordinates the permitting process between Alaska's 
33 coastal districts and local, State and Federal agencies. This 
coordination assures that localities have the opportunity to have their 
views on Federal activities fully considered, and reduces the time and 
cost of permit approvals. The coastal zone program has also funded 
development of comprehensive wetlands management plans in Juneau and 
Anchorage. These plans emphasize local decisionmaking and reduce the 
regulatory burden for low value wetlands.
  The bill before us today re-auathorizes the Coastal Zone Management 
Act through fiscal year 1999. It provides the States with more 
flexibility in program management, and it sets fiscally responsible 
authorization levels. I urge you to support this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the previous speaker, the 
chairman of the committee, brought up this job-versus-the-environment 
issue, because I think it is really crucial. The fact of the matter is 
that a good environment mean good jobs and better jobs and a better 
economy. No better illustration of that took place than in 1988 when I 
was first elected to Congress. We had medical waste, we had sewage 
sludge washing up on the Jersey shore. Our beaches were closed. 
Billions of dollars were lost to the New Jersey tourism industry 
because we had dirty water.
  The Clean Water Act made it possible for us to clean up those beaches 
and provided the funding to do so by upgrading sewage treatment plants. 
Now that tourism is back, the people are back, the jobs are back. A 
good environment and a clean ocean means good jobs, and it means a 
bigger economy.
  Do not let anybody from the other side or anybody try to kid and to 
say that there is an issue here of jobs versus the environment. The two 
go together, and a clean environment means more and better jobs.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utica, NY [Mr. Boehlert], my good friend.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in strong support of 
H.R. 1965, the Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1996.
  As we celebrate Earth Day, it is important that we remember the many 
successes we have had in improving the quality of America's waters 
since the first Earth Day in 1970. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 
1972 has been an important component of our Nation's efforts to improve 
coastal waters, and today's consideration of legislation to reauthorize 
this act is in keeping with the spirit and intent of Earth Day.

                              {time}  1545

  The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was signed by President Nixon 
and was one of his many environmental initiatives, which included the 
creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the enactment of the 
Clean Air Act, and the establishment of the Endangered Species Act. I 
am proud that a Republican Congress is forwarding legislation to 
reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  Before I go further, I would like to thank the leadership of the 
Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. This bill is an excellent 
example of a bipartisan commonsense approach to protecting the Nation's 
coastal resources.
  The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 responds to this 
environmental need with a Federal-State partnership intended to 
encourage wise coastal resource management. The program consists of 
limited Federal funding, planning requirements, and tools for the 
States to ensure consistency and coordination in their management 
efforts. In general, it has worked well and has helped to supplement 
other important programs, such as the Clean Water Act.
  Today the needs for a strong partnership for coastal perfection are 
greater than ever. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has 
documented that 97 percent of the Great Lakes shoreline miles surveyed 
have water quality that is impaired. In addition, many estuaries are 
not meeting their designated uses due to excessive loadings of 
pollutants. This can be devastating to not only our environment but our 
economy as well.
  For example, most of our Nation's fish and shellfish industry relies 
on bays and estuaries and their adjacent wetlands as a breeding ground 
for the species they harvest. The future of America's multibillion 
dollar recreational fishing industry also depends on clean, healthy 
coastal waters.
  Because of this connection to water quality, the Clean Water Act, and 
coastal protection, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
has a significant interest in the Coastal Zone Management Act and H.R. 
1965. This is particularly true for the Subcommittee on Water and Power 
Resources in the Committee on Resources.
  At the outset of the 104th Congress, the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure acquired jurisdiction over marine affairs, including 
coastal zone management, as they relate to oil and other pollution of 
the navigable waters. This is in addition to our existing jurisdiction 
over pollution in coastal waters. The Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure also has jurisdiction over natural resources damages 
programs under the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and 
Superfund.

  Section 6 of H.R. 1965 has provisions relating to natural resource 
damages.

[[Page H3683]]

It is our understanding, however, that nothing in the bill expands or 
affects authorities under those acts.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee 
in a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey, as he 
knows, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries 
Act, and the Oil Pollution Act authorize natural resource damages to be 
used only to restore, replace or acquire the equivalent of such damaged 
natural resources.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that section 6 of 
this legislation does not in any way alter the determination and use of 
natural resource damages collected pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the 
Oil Pollution Act, the Natural Marine Sanctuaries Act, or the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 
is that correct?
  Mr. SAXTON. If the gentleman from New York will continue to yield, 
Mr. Speaker, that is also correct.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If we could follow up with a hypothetical, for example, 
natural resource damages might be paid to a Federal, State, or Indian 
tribal trustee for the restoration, replacement, or acquisition of 
equivalent resources in order to compensate for those resources that 
are damaged at a specific location or site. Is that correct?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, that too is correct.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, some 
have raised the issue that section 6 could be used to facilitate the 
development and use of regional restoration plans. Is it your 
understanding that under this legislation, NOAA would have no authority 
to create regional restoration plans?
  Mr. SAXTON. That is correct, under this legislation. However, I do 
want to point out that they could have such authority under some other 
existing law. This provision will not give them any such authority.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for participating in this colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say this: Pollution knows no 
political affiliation, it knows no artificial geographic boundary. 
There are those on the right and those on the left who are trying to 
get this into a heated battle on the floor of the House of 
Representatives to lead the American people to believe that one party 
or another has exclusive concern about the environment.
  Let me tell the Members, Republicans care about the environment just 
as Democrats care about the environment. We are concerned for our 
families and we are concerned for future generations. I urge passage of 
this important bill, and I urge us to go forward in the spirit of 
bipartisanship to do what is good for America for generations to come.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate the wonder and 
beauty of the Earth. As we celebrate, I feel especially grateful for 
the area I represent. I am privileged to represent Marin and Sonoma 
Counties in California, the two counties just north of San Francisco, 
across the Golden Gate Bridge. The diversity of nature is prominent in 
this area where the rolling hills, redwood forests, and rugged 
coastline meet.
  I am privileged to represent 140 miles of the northern California 
coastline. Each year, numerous visitors come to Marin and Sonoma 
Counties to see one of our Nation's most picturesque scenes: Our 
coasts. It is hard for visitors to the area to even imagine that there 
are troubled waters off our beautiful coasts, but there are. Due to 
extensive recreational and commercial use, a serious toll has been 
taken on our coasts, a toll that threatens the health of our marine 
resources and of our coastal economies.
  If California's coast is to be utilized by future generations, Mr. 
Speaker, as it is today, it must have strong protection now. Passing 
this legislation to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act will 
help meet this need and the needs of all America's coasts. Coastal zone 
management programs offer tremendous opportunities for conserving and 
maintaining this country's most outstanding marine resources. Mr. 
Speaker, coastal programs are not only successful, they are also cost 
effective.
  H.R. 1965 will assist in the effort to be good stewards of our 
coasts. Let us pass this bill and continue the vital work of the 
Coastal Zone Management Act. Let this not be a figleaf. Let this not be 
a Band-Aid, but let it be a precedent for future meaningful legislation 
to protect our fragile environment.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring forth to the body 
here that we want to protect the environment, and we also want to 
protect private property, the basis of our Constitution.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] had a zero, a zero rating 
for private property. He does not believe in private property. The 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] did a little better. He had 7 
percent. He slipped up; I do not know what happened. I think the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], he has not spoken as yet, he 
also got a zero.
  What we are saying is private property and the environment, together 
we can prevail. We ignore private property, we destroy the 
Constitution.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1965, the 
Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1995, and in particular, 
the manager's substitute, which has incorporated an important provision 
on aquaculture. Also I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] for their 
support of this important provision.
  This provision was originally part of H.R. 2046, a bill I introduced 
this year to authorize States to formulate, administer, and implement 
strategic plans for marine aquaculture. Indeed, H.R. 2046 was based on 
previous legislation sponsored in the last Congress by myself and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  This provision will foster economic growth and create jobs by 
encouraging aquaculture development in our lakes and coastal areas. 
Aquaculture represents a promising economic development opportunity for 
the State of Rhode Island. At the turn of the century, Rhode Island's 
shellfishermen harvested so much shellfish from Narragansett Bay that 
this harvest would be worth almost $1 billion in today's dollars.
  This provision would enable States like Rhode Island that have no 
comprehensive plan for aquaculture development to get started in the 
process of creating jobs and economic development through aquaculture.
  It is important to recognize that development of a marine aquaculture 
industry will not be easy. Difficult issues such as private use of 
public resources, conflicts with other coastal user groups, and the 
development of streamlined regulatory and permitting requirements will 
have to be addressed.
  However, other nations around the world have already recognized the 
potential of aquaculture and the important role government can play in 
developing this industry. The Governments of Japan, Norway, and Chile 
are supporting aquaculture development programs and giving their 
citizens the opportunity to reap the accompanying economic rewards. In 
fact, these countries are exporting their aquaculture harvests of fish 
and shellfish to America.

[[Page H3684]]

   Mr. Speaker, this provision will go a long way in helping States 
like Rhode Island become competitive in this growing global industry. 
Again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] for his 
strong support of this provision, and I urge my colleagues to join with 
me in support of the passage of this bill.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], who, as Mayor of that community, helped to 
initiate and found Florida's coastal zone management program.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this 
bill because it is a solid, responsible piece of bipartisan 
environmental legislation, and by the by, a great bill for Florida.
  I want to commend the tremendous work done by my good friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], who has put this thing together 
and moved it to the floor in a timely fashion. This should be held up 
as model environmental legislation. It is a rare example where we 
finally got the Federal Government doing a program that is both 
effective and voluntary. I think its success can well be measured by 
the fact that since its creation in 1972, 34 out of 35 of the eligible 
States in this Nation have become involved in the program. Twenty-nine 
have approved programs, and five more are working towards that goal.
  The CZMA is a cooperative effort that recognizes States as full 
partners, sharing the costs and the responsibilities for setting 
standards geared towards protecting local coastal environments. The 
good thing about it is the flexibility. Michigan can do what is best 
for the Great Lakes, Florida can do what is right for the situation 
along the Gulf and the Atlantic coast in Florida.
  Specifically I would like to single out two other aspects of the CZMA 
because of their importance to my State of Florida. One is the question 
of consistency, and the other is the question of the National Estuarine 
Reserve System. Consistency simply says that the Federal Government 
cannot come along and do something that the State of Florida does not 
think is good for the State of Florida.
  We have seen this work and help us in our protection of our Outer 
Continental Shelf and in the oil and gas exploration issues we have 
faced in the State of Florida throughout the years. Without these 
consistency provisions, we would not have been able to succeed, and we 
are in fact relying on them today.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to us. Florida has lots of tourists, 
many visitors. Many in this body go there at this time of year and 
enjoy themselves. We want to keep it that way, at a place where you 
will continue to go back. This act will help us do that.
  With regard to the reserve areas, the estuarine research reserve 
areas here are areas where we are protecting pristine estuaries, while 
at the same time we are opening up the area for public study and 
education. This has had an extraordinary residual benefit for the 
people of this country. This is a good bill, and it deserves Members' 
support.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] made the 
point that we are making. That is, there are those individuals who seek 
to come to the floor to support this legislation and try to hide an 
atrocious environmental record where they have voted 5 for 5, in some 
cases 15 for 10, against very important environmental protections: the 
removal of arsenic from drinking water; the removal of dioxin from our 
environment, from our drinking water; the removal of lead, to protect 
children; those kinds of measures. The gutting of the Clean Air Act, 
they supported it.
  The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has a perfect record on that. 
He needs a fig leaf, because he is trying to hide that record by 
supporting this legislation. The gentleman would say that the last 
three speakers in fact do not need a fig leaf, because their 
environmental records have been consistent. They have been consistent 
because of the tough environmental bills they have supported true 
environmental protection, and on this legislation they are supporting a 
good piece of legislation.
  That is not what is going on here. That is because of the fact that 
under a directive from the caucus they are putting this measure 
forward. The gentleman from Alaska has always found some reason why he 
could not support environmental legislation. He does not like the 
Federal government. He does not think we should be able to have some 
kind of national standards for clean air or clean water.
  But as I think one of the previous speakers said in support of this 
legislation, the environment knows no geographic boundaries. If you 
have dirty air, if you have dirty air in California, people in Nevada 
and Arizona end up breathing it.

                              {time}  1600

  If we put dirty water into the Mississippi River at the top, the 
people down in Louisiana and elsewhere end up having to contend with 
that dirty water. That is because we need those standards, and before 
we had those standards, that was a problem.
  Coastal zone management: What moves up and down the coast between the 
Carolinas and Virginia and Florida has to be somehow managed in a 
fashion to protect all coastal communities. That is true on the West 
Coast and others.
  That is what we are talking about, that there is some consistency 
between people's records. You cannot just trot out unanimous bills that 
there is complete agreement on and therefore say that somehow you have 
created the environmental record when for 16 months, when given the 
opportunity, people have voted and earned themselves a zero rating. 
That is the point being made.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say, we were talking about fig 
leaf awards as well. We were talking about seaweed awards. We had a 
number of gimmicks we were thinking about. I think it might be a 
question of approach.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Seaweed?
  Mr. GOSS. For the Coastal Zone Management Act, we thought seaweed 
might be appropriate. You can drape it around yourself in certain ways 
and get the same result as with a fig leaf. It is really heavy, though.
  The reason we thought it was appropriate, I recall the gentleman 
actually caused us a great deal of problem with our Outer Continental 
Shelf protections back in 1992. The gentleman is well known as a 
champion of the environment. It is just we had a different agreement on 
how to protect our Outer Continental Shelf. I am glad we have done a 
better job of doing that, and I am glad to see the gentleman's support 
for this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. And the point made by the gentleman is in 
fact historically we have worked on a bipartisan basis on most of these 
measures.
  Mr. GOSS. We have.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The Outer Continental Shelf was passed on a 
bipartisan basis, as was Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species 
Act, all of the other great environmental laws.
  Mr. GOSS. We have.
  Mr. MILLER of California. What we have seen is unfortunately people 
like the gentleman from Alaska apparently prevail in the caucus, rather 
than the gentleman himself.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, the California coast is one of the world's 
natural treasures, and Californians know that they must preserve these 
wonderful shores so that not only will Californians enjoy them but 
people from all over the world will enjoy them.
  The Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1996 will help 
California meet this responsibility. The bill's annual grant program 
will ensure that the wisest protections and the best usage of the 
coastal areas are maintained.
  California's coast belongs to the generations yet to come. This 
legislation

[[Page H3685]]

ensures that this great treasure will remain for a very, very long 
time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the previous speaker is 
supporting this bipartisan noncontroversial bill to reauthorize the 
Coastal Zone Management Act, but this is really again just a fig leaf 
to hide the fact that Republicans have consistently voted against 
protecting the environment and the health and safety of the American 
people.
  On five key votes that I mentioned before, the gentleman from 
California who previously spoke four out of five times joined with the 
Republican leadership: first against coastal nonpoint pollution 
control; second, for dumping more sewage into the ocean; third, against 
protecting wetlands; and, finally, for gutting the Clean Water Cat, the 
dirty water bill that we mentioned before.
  So for the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), I give him his fig 
leaf.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I am bemused and amused by my colleague from 
New Jersey. The same reason that some have said these are not really 
environmental votes stands in that case. They were private property 
votes, most of them.
  I believe that if you are going to save the environment, you have got 
to follow the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
just as the Supreme Court said you have to follow it with reference to 
the California coast. You cannot take people's property and say, 
``Well, sorry, you lived there for five generations and you are going 
to give it up to the State at no cost.'' That is nonsense, and I will 
continue to vote for private property.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said, 
because I think it harks back to what the gentleman from Alaska said 
before when he talked about the ratings from this private property 
group and said that I had received a zero. He, on the other hand, the 
gentleman from Alaska, received a zero from the League of Conservation 
Voters for being antienvironment.
  If we track the votes that the League of Conservation Voters used and 
the private property rights group used, they basically used the same 
votes. If you get a zero on private property, you get 100 percent from 
the league, and vice versa.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vineland, NJ [Mr. LoBiondo].
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Coastal Zone 
Protection Act.
  This legislation reauthorizes the Coastal Zone Management Act, 
established by Congress in 1972. Intense use of the coastal zone--
defined as the coastal waters and adjacent shorelands--has significant 
impacts on water quality, the abundance of wildlife, coastal 
ecosystems, and shoreline erosion.
  Over 60 percent of all Americans live within 50 miles of the 
Atlantic, Pacific and Great Lakes coasts, and this population is 
expected to grow by 15 percent in the next 20 years. As such, it is 
important to have protective measures in place for the fragile coastal 
ecosystem.
  I support this bill and urge all Members to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, that is to say, those who want to not only have a fig 
leaf to hide behind, as the gentleman from California just earned by 
his voting record, but those who now want to suggest they were hiding 
behind property rights, I do not know what the property right is that 
allows you to take pollution from your land and dump it into the 
streams and the bays and the waterways of this Nation. I do not know 
what that property right is that allows you to take non-point 
pollution, pesticides and toxics, and dump them into the bays and the 
rivers and eventually end up in our coastal zone. There is no property 
right that gives you the right to pollute the public waterways and to 
diminish the resources available to other Americans.
  I know the gentleman came on the floor a little late, and so maybe he 
got caught up in the rhetoric of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] 
about private property. That had nothing to do with the voting records, 
on whether or not you voted to dump sewage into the oceans or control 
nonpoint pollution, or voted for the Clean Water Act or allow EPA to 
enforce wetlands protections.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Santa Barbara, CA [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1965 to 
reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
  Coastal zone management has been a significant priority for my home 
State of California for over 30 years now. Since the establishment of 
our Federally Approved Program in 1976, we have attempted to take full 
advantage of assistance offered to States through the Coastal Zone 
Management Act. I feel that the accomplishments of the California 
coastal management program indicate how worthwhile, efficient and cost 
effective State management can be.
  Now, in the absence of the Coastal Zone Management Act, our State 
participation would not be possible. Californians recognize that our 
robust economy and superior quality of life depend on a healthy and 
scenic cost, especially true on the central coast of California, Santa 
Barbara and San Luis Obispo County, and they strongly support sound 
management of the State's coastal zone.
  Eighty percent of Californians live and work within 50 miles of our 
coast. Millions of other people from all over the United States and the 
world come to California for business and pleasure. Coastal and ocean 
dependent industries generate $17 billion for California's economy each 
year, and nearly $10 billion of that comes from recreation and tourism. 
It is clear that State coastal management programs advance the national 
interest in healthy coastal economies, necessary infrastructure and the 
protection of vital natural resources.
  Since 1981, the California Coastal Zone Management Program has used 
$20 million to leverage another $100 million from both public and 
private sources. We have applied for these funds to over 60 coastal 
projects, such as establishing networks of coastal parks to improve 
public access to our coastlines, constructing docks and marine berths 
to assist the commercial fishing industry, and building public piers 
and fishing wharfs to restore our urban waterfronts.
  Also under the direction of the Coastal Zone Management Program, the 
State of California and Vandenberg Air Force Base have become partners 
in water conservation planning, in the creation of miles of shoreline 
access trails, and in the protection for endangered and threatened 
species. Again, after thorough Federal consistency reviews by our State 
program, billions of dollars worth of Federal projects have been 
allowed to proceed, all while protecting the environment, enhancing 
communities, and increasing recreational access to coastal resources.
  Clearly, the Coastal Zone Management Act deserves to be reauthorized. 
In California, and in coastal States across the Nation, coastal zone 
management programs have long demonstrated that the delicate balance 
between responsible coastal development and sound environmental policy 
can be achieved.
  I applaud the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for his 
leadership on this, and I encourage an ``aye'' vote on this bipartisan 
bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, I am glad the previous speaker, the 
gentlewoman from California, is supporting this reauthorization of this 
CZMA.
  Again, she has earned her fig leaf and she cannot hide behind it, 
because she consistently voted against protecting the environment and 
the health and safety of the American people on five key votes. The 
gentlewoman joined with the Republican leadership five out of five 
times to vote against coastal

[[Page H3686]]

nonpoint pollution control, for dumping more sewage into the ocean, 
against protecting wetlands, for cutting the Clean Water Act, and 
against allowing the EPA to enforce wetlands protection, and she earned 
a zero voting record from the League of Conservation Voters. So I 
present her with this fig leaf.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side 
of the aisle for yielding the time. I would just say I am one of those 
freshmen that came here to Washington, DC, to take care of the 
bureaucrats here in this city and to make sure that the people on the 
central coast of California got what they wanted for their tax dollar: 
cleaner water, cleaner air, and to make it a better place.
  They realize that the bureaucrats here can usurp a lot of those tax 
dollars and not accomplish what we truly want on the central coast of 
California. They want to do away with the regulations, the duplicity of 
laws, and they want to get on with it.
  So I would just say that I am proud of my voting record that I have 
had here and I will continue to do so.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Eastern Long Island, NY [Mr. Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act.
  This is an important tool for America. It is important to my own 
State of New York, in which we have some of the most pristine beaches 
in the world and some of the most beautiful coastline, obviously, in 
the world. A good, healthy environment obviously is a good economic 
environment.
  On Long Island, where tourism is a key industry, we believe the 
Coastal Zone Management Act has been a wonderful, wonderful tool. I am 
pleased to have played a role last year in the funding of the Coastal 
Zone Management Act, in making sure that that very important law was 
fully funded.
  My own State of New York benefits to the tune of $2 million to have 
adequate planning, to provide for the future safety of our estuaries, 
our bays, our creeks. In Nassau and Suffolk County, the Coastal Zone 
Management Act is an incredibly important device. One million dollars 
goes to the good planning efforts. I rise in support of this very 
important measure.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from New Jersey 
has 8 minutes remaining and the gentleman from California has 12 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. We have no further speakers, but I reserve 
the balance of my time, given what happened on the last bill.
  Mr. SAXTON. Does the gentleman intend to yield back the balance of 
his time?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it depends on how many 
speakers the gentleman from New Jersey has. If I can say to the 
gentleman, at the moment, I would not yield back my time. Does the 
gentleman have additional speakers?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, we have three additional speakers, I would 
prefer at this point that the gentleman alternate on time as we go 
along.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have pending no further 
requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  The gentleman wants to close, I assume. I will yield back the balance 
of my time to allow the gentleman to close.

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
speak for a moment with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Speaker, the problem is that much of the debate on the 
gentleman's side has been about matters other than the bill, and I 
suspect that one of the strategies that you could have would be to save 
your 12 minutes to continue the same kind of rhetoric which I do not 
think is helpful to the debate. That is why I am reluctant at this time 
to yield time.
  I would further point out that the gentleman has missed a couple of 
turns here, and I think it would be prudent for the gentleman to use 
whatever time is available at this time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire of the 
Chair, am I correct in my understanding that the gentleman has the 
right to close and I have the right to reserve my time? I have no 
pending requests at this moment. He has additional speakers. I 
obviously at some point will yield back my time, when the gentleman is 
ready to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from California is 
correct. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has 12 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1965, a 
bill to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  Mr. Speaker, summer is rapidly approaching, marking the start of a 
time when an estimated 94 million people a year enjoy boating and 
fishing along the coast.
  Soon much of the Washington, DC, population as well many other people 
across the country and throughout my State will head to southern 
Delaware to enjoy our many beaches and beautiful coastline.
  I think the Delaware beaches truly are one of this region's most 
treasured assets, as many people enjoy fishing in Lewes, surf boarding 
at Indian River Inlet, swimming in Dewey Beach, and walking on the 
boardwalk in Rehoboth.
  The Coast Zone Management Act is one of the reasons why Delaware's 
inland bays, wetlands, estuaries and dunes have been protected 
throughout the years, thereby helping our environmental areas as well 
as providing a tremendous boost to tourism in the Delmarva region.
  This bill, which reauthorizes the Coastal Zone Management Act, 
assists Delaware and 28 other coastal States in developing management 
programs to preserve our beaches and natural areas.
  This bill is voluntary for States, and provides grants to those 
coastal States which develop programs protecting natural areas, under 
several Federal parameters. I am pleased that most of our coastal 
States participate in this program.
  This bill is a good example of how Federal State and local 
governments and communities can work together to protect the 
environment and ensure an environmental legacy for our future 
generations.
  This bill will help preserve the dunes, keep the water clean, safe 
and pollution-free, and protect coastal wildlife--all of which will 
make our beaches and natural areas more enjoyable for many Americans.
  I am proud to cosponsor this important environmental initiative, and 
I am pleased to see a bipartisan commitment to reauthorize and fund 
this important program.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Palm Beach, FL [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, representing 42 miles of ocean coastline, I 
strongly support H.R. 1965.
  Many States such as Florida depend on a healthy coastline for 
commerce, transportation, fishing, and recreation. In fact, over half 
of our Nation's population live in coastal areas and this population is 
expected to grow by 15 percent in the next 20 years.
  Under this voluntary program, States receive Federal matching grants 
to implement a plan to protect coasts and prevent ocean pollution.
  This program also extends to our Nation's estuaries. In my community, 
the St. Lucie River Initiative, a group of concerned citizens, 
businesses and local community leaders, have worked together to protect 
the St. Lucie Estuary, the largest tributary to the Indian River 
Lagoon. This once vibrant body of water and habitat for plant and 
wildlife species is in serious decline today due to federally built 
canals that have disrupted the natural flow of water into the river.
  Today, we have an opportunity to continue the Federal-State 
partnership in protecting our Nation's estuaries and coastlines.

[[Page H3687]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1965.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again I am pleased that the previous 
speaker, who said that he represents part of the ocean coastline in the 
great State of Florida, which practically the whole State is along the 
coast, is supporting this Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization. 
But he deserves a fig leaf. He earned a fig leaf and he cannot hide 
behind it. He cannot hide the fact that Republicans and he have 
consistently voted against protecting the environment and the health 
and safety of the American people.
  On five key votes, the gentleman from Florida has joined with the 
Republican leadership four out of five times to vote for dumping more 
sewage into the ocean, against protecting wetlands, for gutting the 
Clean Water Act, and against allowing the EPA to enforce wetlands 
protection. So I give him his fig leaf that is duly earned.
  Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. I 
appreciate it. It is a great honor.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1965, 
the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996, and I look forward to its 
passage today.
  The Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] is a voluntary, incentive-
based program which protects coastal States, such as Massachusetts by 
giving States the authority over Federal activities that affect the 
State's coastal resources. The Federal CZMA has a strong track record 
of successes and bipartisan support because it is voluntary. CZMA 
enables States to protect their rights while protecting and promoting 
important coastal dependent industries such as shipping, fisheries, 
tourism, and recreation. CZMA continues to play an important role in 
Massachusetts promoting environmentally sustainable economic 
development.
  In 1978, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program [MCZM] 
became the first on the east coast to receive Federal approval. Since 
that time the Massachusetts program has played an integral role serving 
as liaison among local, State, and Federal agencies providing technical 
review and assistance in marine policy, law, and the sciences.
  Today, it works to reduce water pollution from point and non-point 
sources thereby enabling hundreds of acres of commercially important 
shellfish beds to be reopened. Last year, over 400 acres were reopened 
and predictions are 1,000 acres will be reopened in the next year.
  Currently, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management is assisting 
important ports and harbors throughout Massachusetts to assess their 
dredging needs and develop cost effective and environmentally safe 
disposal solutions. At the request of Governor Weld, Massachusetts is 
leading the development of a State strategy for aquaculture. These 
initiatives are expected to assist in the economic revitalization of 
Massachusetts ports hard hit by the New England fisheries collapse.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1965.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on my 
side.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
thank the gentleman for yielding back the balance of his time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points. First, Mr. Speaker, 
I believe that inasmuch as this bill has made it to the level that it 
has in this debate, and inasmuch as I think Members on both sides of 
the aisle understand how important it is to protect the environmental 
ecosystems in all coastal areas around our state, that the bill 
certainly deserves the full support of all Members of the House. I hope 
it will pass unopposed.
  I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in states like New Jersey, where 
the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Pallone] and I come from, this bill 
take on enormous importance, because in highly populated areas like our 
State, east of the Garden State Parkway and to the Atlantic ocean, the 
people who reside in those areas and the wildlife that reside there and 
the wildlife that reside in the ocean, for that matter, participate in 
a unabashed way in being able to use those ecosystems which are 
protected through this act.
  I must also say, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed by the 
tenor of this debate, because we have tried to approach this matter 
from the beginning, in the subcommittee and thereafter, as a bipartisan 
issue. As a matter of fact, I think many members of the subcommittee on 
both sides are proud to have participated in the various debates that 
have led us to today.
  So, Mr. Speaker, without further ado, I ask that the vote be 
considered at this point, and again I ask for the affirmative support 
by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 1675 because it will reauthorize the 1972 Coastal Zone 
Management Act. There are many reasons to champion the CZMA. But one 
reason stands above all others: This law saved our coasts. Back in the 
late sixties and early seventies we all saw runaway urban sprawl eating 
up some of our most precious coastlines at breakneck speed.
  And my own home State of California led the race. At the development 
rates of the time, we thought that the entire California coast would be 
an unbroken chain of housing tracts, hotels, and condos by the turn of 
the century. The entire burden of planning and coping with this coastal 
development was left to local counties--which didn't have the resources 
or expertise to deal with the problem. They also only focused on their 
stretch of coast and could not see the forest through the trees.
  Then came the CZMA. It said to the States ``If you come up with a 
plan to manage your State's coastal resources, then the Federal 
Government will provide funding to help you implement the plan.'' 
California and 28 other States took up the offer and designed and 
implemented coastal plans.
  In California, voters passed the Coastal Act which created the 
California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Conservancy. 
These twin State agencies have worked over the past 20 years to manage 
growth along California's coast and to preserve the coast's most unique 
and valuable resources.
  These State agencies have used the CZMA to help stem the runaway 
sprawl along the California coast and we are the only statewide land 
use planning body in California.
  And that kind of planning has helped protect California's economy. My 
friend Doug Wheeler, California's Secretary of Resources, recently 
released a report on the role of California's coastal resources in its 
future. The report found that coastal dependent industries contributed 
over $17 billion a year to California's economy and supported over 
370,000 jobs. Coastal tourism alone contributes $10 billion a year to 
the State's economy.
  In closing I want to thank Jim Saxton, chairman of the Oceans and 
Fisheries Subcommittee, for his leadership and hard work in getting 
this bill passed. It has been a hard up-hill fight for him. Although 
reauthorization of the CZMA now seems noncontroversial, the chairman 
had to fight against his own party's leadership which held up this 
legislation for over 1 year.
  In fact, one of the assumptions of the failed 1995 budget resolution 
was the termination of the entire Coastal Zone Management Program. So I 
think that any credit claimed by the Republican leadership for the 
passage of this bill belongs solely to Jim Saxton.
  H.R. 1965 is crucial to the environment and economies of all 35 
coastal States. I urge its passage.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1965, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________