[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.
____________________