[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 56 (Thursday, April 22, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2282-H2294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1130
BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, CLEANUP AND HEALTH ACT OF 1999
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 145, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 145
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
[[Page H2283]]
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 999) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to improve the quality of coastal recreation
waters, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure now printed in the bill. Each section of the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. Before consideration of any other
amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, if offered by Representative Shuster or his
designee. That amendment shall be considered as read, may
amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. After disposition of that amendment, the provisions of
the bill as then perfected shall be considered as original
text for the purpose of further amendment under the five-
minute rule. During further consideration of the bill for
amendment, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 145 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental Assessment,
Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999.
The purpose of this legislation is to improve the quality of coastal
recreational waters by establishing national uniform criteria for
testing and monitoring coastal recreational waters.
In addition, H.R. 999 establishes uniform notification to the public
on the quality of those waters in order to protect both the environment
and public health.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be open for amendment by
section.
Additionally, the rule provides for the consideration of the
amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report, if offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) or his designee.
The rule further provides that the manager's amendment shall be
considered as read, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for
amendment, shall not be subject to amendment or to a division of
question, and is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided between the
proponent and an opponent.
If adopted, the amendment is considered as part of the base text for
further amendment purposes.
The Chair is authorized by the rule to grant priority and recognition
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record prior to their consideration.
The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to
5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Madam Speaker, I believe House Resolution 145 is a fair rule. It is
an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 999, the Beaches
Environmental Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act of 1999.
As I understand it, some Members may wish to offer germane amendments
to this bill, and under this open rule they will have every opportunity
to do so.
H.R. 999 establishes uniform criteria for testing coastal recreation
waters and for public notification of water quality. Indeed, as this
Nation's first and most ardent conservationist, President Theodore
Roosevelt noted upon the establishment of the Waterways Commission our
natural resources are so closely connected that they should be
coordinated and should be treated as part of one coherent plan and not
in haphazard or piecemeal fashion.
By establishing public notification, this bill will not only protect
public health, but will encourage tourism and business development
along our coastal areas.
Each year, an estimated 180 million people from around the world
visit America's coastal waters for recreational purposes, supporting
over 28 million jobs and leading to investments of over $50 billion
each year in goods and services.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 999 is not a regulatory bill. It gives the EPA no
new regulatory authorities. The bill instead offers an incentive to
State and local governments to test beaches for pathogens which are
dangerous to human health.
By establishing a grant program, H.R. 999 gives the States the
ability to monitor the safety of coastal recreational waters and to set
a deadline for updating State water quality standards for these waters
to protect the public from disease-carrying organisms.
In my own district, which includes a portion of Lake Ontario, this
bill will encourage tourism by furthering public confidence in the
water quality. By ensuring that water quality, the very integrity of
our waterways, this bill will meet President Roosevelt's challenge that
this Nation should strive to leave to the next generation the national
honor unstained and the national resources unexhausted.
I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray),
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their hard work on
H.R. 999, and I urge my colleagues to support both this open rule and
the underlying bill.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, House Resolution 145 is fair, a
completely open rule, and I urge its adoption.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds), my colleague and my friend, for yielding me the customary
half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join nearly all of my colleagues in
support of this beaches bill.
We in Massachusetts are very fortunate to have some of the most
beautiful beaches in the country. Once the warm weather hits, residents
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and tourists from around the world
head to Cape Cod, the south shore or the north shore.
This bill will help them enjoy themselves even more in keeping our
beaches clean and making sure the clean beaches do not stop at the next
State.
Madam Speaker, it will also help create and monitor public health
standards to make sure that our beaches and coastal areas are clean and
safe.
[[Page H2284]]
Each year over 180 million people visit our American beaches. Those
visits create over 28 million jobs, they generate millions of dollars
in revenue, and we need to make sure that our people can swim in our
oceans and feel confident that the water quality is what it should be.
At the moment, there are no Federal standards for testing or
monitoring our beaches. That means that one State could allow a higher
level of dangerous pathogens than its neighbor, and some of these
pathogens have names I cannot even pronounce, and I certainly do not
want to swim in them.
This bill will set the State standards more in line with one another
and if, heaven forbid, a public health risk should arise, this bill
will help inform people when the beaches are unsafe for swimming.
It will also authorize $150 million over 5 years to help States put
the monitoring programs in place and keep our clean water rules uniform
from sea to shining sea.
Madam Speaker, it is a good rule. It is a good bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
the underlying bill. I would like to congratulate first the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bilbray), my friend who has worked long and hard
on this; his fellow surfer, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher), who I know is going to be here to back him up; and the
very important chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who has
worked long and hard on this issue, too. It is very important that we
move ahead in a bipartisan way.
I would also like to congratulate the brilliant statement from my
good friend from south Boston who has not quite as many beaches as
California or Florida, but they are beautiful beaches in Massachusetts,
I will agree.
Today is Earth Day and it is a very important time to mark what is
obviously an important environmental accomplishment for us here. We all
know how enjoyable it is for people to spend time with their families
at the beaches, and as we head into the summer months obviously we are
going to see an increase in that.
Every year, in fact, over 180 million Americans spend time on our
coastal waters and that is the case, as I have said, in both California
and in many other States. However, it is important to note that clean
coastal waters are not just about fun. They really are about business,
because there are 30 million jobs and roughly $50 billion in
investments that take place and are supported by recreation along our
Nation's shores.
This bill itself is a very strong, prohealth, proenvironment measure.
It shows that environmental issues are best handled using common sense
and consensus building; and the bill's sponsors and, of course, as I
said, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, deserve a
great deal of credit for moving us in the direction of a common-sense
approach to a very, very important environmental issue.
{time} 1145
So I would simply like to congratulate my friend from New York who is
doing a superb job of managing this rule, and the authors of this
legislation, as I said, and the Surfers Caucus, which is a very
important, very, very important group in this body, and again the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work. I
look forward to seeing strong bipartisan support for this measure.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lewis of Kentucky). Pursuant to House
Resolution 145 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 999.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) to assume the Chair temporarily.
{time} 1146
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 999) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve
the quality of coastal recreation waters, and for other purposes, with
Mrs. Emerson (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today we indeed are considering the Beaches Environmental Assessment
bill, and it is a bipartisan bill that was reported by our committee,
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, by unanimous vote.
Indeed, this is legislation that is most appropriate on this Earth Day.
The distinguished members of the Committee on Rules have quite
clearly explained both the rule and the bill. I would like to focus on
a couple of specific points.
The first is to note and emphasize, this is not a regulatory bill. It
gives EPA no new regulatory authorities. After analyzing the bill, the
Congressional Budget Office concluded that it contains no
intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the unfunded
mandates act, and it would impose no costs to State, local or tribal
governments.
I also wish to allay some concerns expressed by some of the States.
The grant program established by this bill does not provide EPA with an
opportunity to micromanage State monitoring programs if a State chooses
to seek Federal assistance. I also wish to be sure that the Members
understand, particularly those Members from farm States, that we worked
out a previous concern that was expressed by the American Farm Bureau
Federation, and indeed we have an en bloc amendment which we will be
offering shortly, and we have a letter from the American Farm Bureau
which states:
``The en bloc amendment to the beaches bill addresses our concerns
about this legislation.
``The proposal to define coastal recreation waters to not include any
inland waters addresses our concerns about nonpoint source impacts. The
proposal that a State can use its criteria for human health if they are
as protective as Federal criteria addresses our concerns about unfunded
mandates. Thank you for your attention to this matter.''
So we removed any concern that the Farm Bureau might have. So we
indeed do bring a bill to the floor today which has overwhelming
bipartisan support. I urge its adoption.
Today the House is considering H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act of 1999.
This is a bipartisan bill that was reported by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure by unanimous voice vote.
H.R. 999 amends the Clean Water Act to establish a grant program for
States to monitor the safety of coastal recreation waters, and to set a
deadline for updating State water quality standards for these waters to
protect the public from disease-carrying organisms.
Each year over 180 million people visit coastal waters for
recreational purposes. This activity supports over 28 million jobs and
leads to investments of over $50 billion each year in goods and
services.
Public confidence in the quality of our Nation's waters is important
not only to each citizen who swims or surfs, but also to the tourism
and recreation industries that rely on safe and swimmable coastal
waters.
It is important to note that H.R. 999 is not a regulatory bill. It
gives EPA no new regulatory authorities. After analyzing the bill, the
[[Page H2285]]
Congressional Budget Office concluded that ``H.R. 999 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on State, local,
or tribal governments.''
The legislation that we are bringing up today has been carefully
crafted to balance the concerns of States, EPA, the environmental
community and other interested parties.
This is a bipartisan bill that uses incentives, not mandates, to
improve public health and safety by monitoring the quality of our
Nation's coastal waters.
I urge you to join me in supporting this legislation.
I wish to allay one outstanding concern expressed by some States. The
grant program established by this bill does not provide EPA with an
opportunity to micro-manage State monitoring programs if a State
chooses to seek Federal assistance.
Under this legislation, EPA is to establish a level of protection for
monitoring programs, which will be used to determine if a program is
eligible for a grant. But each individual State program determines how
that level of protection is reached.
By providing grants this legislation provides incentives to all
States to develop monitoring programs that protect public health and
safety. This does not mean uniform monitoring programs. This does not
mean that EPA may impose a Federal template on States.
I also wish to allay some concerns I have heard that the Farm Bureau
may have. As I stated earlier, this is not a regulatory bill. It does
not address control of pollution from point or nonpoint sources. It
imposes no new mandates, unfunded or otherwise.
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of our subcommittee, be authorized to
manage the balance of the time on this bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I first want to commend and congratulate the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my friend, the distinguished
subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, on his leadership. He has dealt with us in a fair and
bipartisan manner, which is the way he always treats us and we
appreciate it very, very much.
This simple but important legislation aims at protecting our Nation's
beachgoers from unhealthy ocean water quality conditions. Whether it is
swimming along the Great Lakes, surfing off of southern California, or
vacationing at the Jersey shore, beachgoers everywhere have the right
to know that the beaches they choose to visit are safe for themselves
and their families.
Madam Chairman, this legislation is the product of work conducted
over the past few Congresses. Originally introduced by our friend and
former colleague, Bill Hughes, in 1990, this issue has subsequently
been picked up by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and by the chief sponsor of
this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). I want
to commend these gentlemen for their dedication and tireless efforts to
protect the public from unhealthy water conditions at our Nation's
beaches, and I hope that this time we can have it signed into law.
The BEACH bill advocates three simple principles:
First, beach water quality should be monitored. We cannot know
whether waters are safe unless the waters are adequately tested.
Second, water quality criteria should be uniform. Just as we provide
assurances to the public that water supplies will be safe for drinking
no matter which State a person happens to be in, the public should feel
confident that the public health standards at our Nation's beaches meet
minimum consistent health requirements.
Finally, if a health problem is discovered at a beach, the public has
the right to prompt, accurate and effective notification so that they
may protect themselves and their families.
To accomplish these principles, this legislation authorizes over $30
million in funding for Federal, State and local partnerships for water
quality monitoring and notification. Under this legislation, States and
localities will be given the flexibility to tailor their monitoring and
notification programs to meet local needs, so long as these programs
comply with EPA's minimum requirements for the protection of public
health and safety.
In addition, the BEACH Bill directs the EPA to periodically review
and develop revised water quality criteria for coastal areas to ensure
we are using the best scientific information available. The public
deserves no less.
Finally, this legislation requires EPA to maintain a publicly
available database of our Nation's beaches, listing those beaches that
comply with water quality standards and those that do not. This
information will be very helpful to many Americans for summer vacation
planning, so that they will know whether the waters at their favorite
vacation spot are safe and will choose accordingly.
Every year, over 180 million individuals vacation along our Nation's
coastal waters. As another summer season rapidly approaches, let us
make sure that we take the appropriate steps to protect our Nation's
beachgoers from unnecessary threats to their health and safety.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Chairman, the American Oceans Campaign, in a communication sent
to every member of this body, pointed out the following:
``The current approach to beach water testing is a mixture of
inconsistent criteria and practices. Passing the BEACH bill will wipe
out the inconsistencies and improve public health protections
nationwide.''
As one of America's favorite actors, Ted Danson, who is president of
the American Oceans Campaign has said, ``A day at the beach should not
end with a visit to the doctor's office.''
I have to give great credit where great credit is due, to the
gentleman from southern California (Mr. Bilbray). This bill will set
minimum standards for beach water quality, and it will require EPA to
establish performance criteria, and it will require the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish a national beach water pollution
database that will let the public know where monitoring programs are in
place and where beach waters are impaired.
Madam Chairman, the en bloc amendment improves upon the bill, H.R.
999, that we reported out of committee by unanimous voice vote.
This package includes noncontroversial technical, and clarifying
items and has been worked out with the ranking minority Member.
In summary, the en bloc:
Clarifies that State criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators
for coastal recreation waters must be as protective of human health as
EPA's criteria.
This does not mean that States must adopt criteria that are identical
to those that have been published by EPA. States adopt water quality
criteria under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act and continue to
have the flexibility, provided under that section to change EPA's
criteria based on site-specific conditions, or to adopt different,
scientifically-justified criteria.
Thus, if a State can demonstrate that the pathogen indicators that it
is using are as protective of human health as the criteria for pathogen
indicators that EPA has published, a State may continue to use its
existing criteria.
As a result, if no appropriations are provided to EPA for this
purpose, EPA does not need to take funds away from other clean water
act Programs to provide grants for monitoring and notification
programs.
Clarifies that the information provided to the public in the
information database authorized under section 406(c) is intended to be
information on exceedances of water quality standards in coastal
recreation waters only. This database does not address other matters.
Clarifies that EPA implementation of a monitoring and notification
program will occur only in situations where a state is not implementing
a program that protects public health and safety.
The bill does not provide for partial EPA implementation and partial
state implementation of a monitoring and notification program.
In addition, EPA's duty to conduct a monitoring and notification
program is subject to the same conditions as a state program
implemented under section 406(b)(2). This means that EPA has the same
flexibility that states
[[Page H2286]]
are provided under that section to target available resources to those
waters that it determines are the highest priorities. EPA's duty to
implement a monitoring and notification program is no more expansive
than a State's duty.
Clarifies that the term ``coastal recreation waters'' includes only
the Great Lakes and waters that are adjacent to the coastline of the
United States. ``Coastal recreation waters'' is not synonymous with the
``coastal zone'' as defined under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The
geographic scope of this act does not include any inland waters and
does not extend beyond the mouth of any river or stream or other body
of water having unimpaired natural connection with open sea.
Clarifies that Indian tribes with coastal recreation waters are
eligible for grants for monitoring programs.
Clarifies that Federal agencies are to implement monitoring programs
for federally-owned beaches, such as national seashores.
Finally, the amendment changes the short title of the bill to refer
to ``awareness'' rather than ``assessment.''
Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the person most
responsible in this whole United States of America, out of 250 million
people, for bringing us to this point today, the author of the bill.
(Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I would first like to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our
full committee chairman, along with our ranking members, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Borski), for all the help. Their bipartisan effort has really shown
that we cannot only protect the environment, but we can do it together.
This bill is a good example of not only talking about working
together here in Congress to help the public and to protect the
public's health, but actually having States and counties and health
officials and the EPA and the Federal Government all working together
for this goal.
I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Kuykendall), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw),
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and many
others for their encouragement and their help in bringing this
together.
I want to really thank the people that helped bring this bill to
reality because so often our good intentions here in Congress do not
reflect the reality out in mainstream America, and out in the waters of
our Nation. I want to thank the San Diego County Environmental Health
Department and the Surfrider Foundation, specifically, Chris Gonaver of
the County of San Diego, and Gary Sirota and Darryl Hatheway of the
Surfrider Foundation for their instrumental work on the development of
this public health measure.
Additionally, I want to join the chairman in thanking the San Diego
County Medical Association for its support, the Center for Marine
Conservation, and specifically, the American Oceans Campaign, led by
Ted Danson, whose son is also a surfer. I want to thank them for their
critical help on this item.
Madam Speaker, roughly 60 percent of Americans live within 30 miles
of a coastline. I happen to have had the privilege of growing up a
block from the beach and I live nine blocks from the beach now, and
sometimes we wonder, we might as well live in Kansas when we are that
far away from the ocean!
But this bill, the Beach Environment Awareness Cleanup and Health Act
of 1999, is a bill that I think all of us that use the beaches of
America will recognize has been a long time in coming. We all know
about and we can talk about the problems that affect people with
certain health aspects for long-term exposure. We worry about what
happens to our children if they live 20 years next to a hazardous waste
dump. We are worried about our senior citizens if they drink certain
water for over 40 years.
This bill is addressing something that we have overlooked, and that
is the fact that our children and our families can enter coastal waters
on one day, for one moment, and contract diseases such as hepatitis,
encephalitis, and different related illnesses related to pathogens. I
have had surfers in my district actually get inner brain infections and
almost die from one exposure. These are things that we need to address.
I want to point out that H.R. 999 is really aimed not at finding
fault, but at finding answers. It is a way to include, first of all,
our public health directors in the formation of criteria for this
country, not from Washington on down, but from America's communities on
up, and have the Federal Government work as a partner in the formation
of the criteria to protect our families' health.
{time} 1200
Also, H.R. 999 understands and recognizes the unique differences in
these regions. When I come back to this coast and see these coastal
waters and surf with my children, it is totally different than what we
see in the West Coast.
H.R. 999 has the type of flexibility that we have only talked about
for so long, that allows the local communities to address their local
environmental concerns and do that with the aid of the Federal
Government, rather than what we have seen so often, sadly, where we
have seen local conflict with the Federal strategies.
The bill requires the development of updated criteria, in cooperation
with public health agencies. It does not require the local States to
take action if they choose not to. It does require the EPA to address
the public health problems with this issue in every region, but in
cooperation if the local communities want it.
H.R. 999 creates a uniform level of protection, so that when any
parent goes to any beach that is being used anywhere in the United
States, that parent can feel with some level of confidence that the
water that their children is entering is safe to have contact with.
That situation does not exist now.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for H.R. 999, not just for those of
us who use the water, and not just for those of us who like to look at
the water. I would ask that H.R. 999 also be passed because it is the
beginning of a new way to fulfill our responsibilities, not just to the
environment but to our citizens and to ourselves.
The cooperative effort of H.R. 999, Democrats and Republicans, local
and Federal and State people all working together, really shows that to
care for the environment, we must care about the community and every
community, not just Washington, D.C. H.R. 999 sets an example to
protect the public health, and do it in a fair and reasonable and
effective way.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do not find excuses
to oppose this bill. Look into the future and see what this bill can do
for our public health and for our processes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 999, the BEACH bill. I
have some supporting material here, which I would ask to be included in
the record along with my statement.
I want to first thank the chairman of the Transportation Committee,
Mr. Shuster, and the chairman of the Water Resources Subcommittee, Mr.
Boehlert, for all their hard work, and that of their staffs, on this
bill, and for making this important public health issue a priority. The
ranking members on the committee, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Borski, have
worked with them hand in hand to help advance and strengthen this bill,
and their bipartisan collaboration has been key to the bill's progress.
I also want to acknowledge and thank all my colleagues that have rolled
up their sleeves and worked with me on the BEACH bill, both this year
and in years past.
I am also very grateful for the input and assistance that I received
during the drafting of this bill, and in the subsequent discussions on
its progress, from the county of San Diego's Department of
Environmental Health Services, which administers one of the best ocean
testing programs in the world, and from the Surfrider Foundation, which
has also been instrumental in helping to improve public education on
water quality issues. Input from local
[[Page H2287]]
health agencies and from organizations like Surfrider have been key in
identifying existing problems and shortcomings which make this bill so
essential. In particular, Mr. Chairman, Chris Gonaver at the County's
Environmental Health Department and Gary Sirota of the Surfrider
Foundation have provided critical advice and input to me and my office
on this bill since its inception, and deserve a great deal of credit
for its development.
I would also like to thank the San Diego County Medical Society for
taking an advocacy role on this issue by endorsing H.R. 999, and the
American Oceans Campaign and the Center for Marine Conservation for
their continuing support and efforts in helping to move this bill
along. This is an exceptional range of support--public health
officials, medical professionals, and the environmental community--and
it further underscores both the merits of and need for H.R. 999.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, is a matter of significant importance not
only to myself and my San Diego district, but to all Americans who live
near or love visiting our coastal areas. As someone who has grown up
and lived in and near the ocean all his life, surfing, swimming, and
sailing in it, it is quite simply an integral part of my life. Most
importantly, as a father of five children who share my passion for the
sea, I want nothing more than for them to be able to spend their lives
enjoying it in a clean, safe, and health risk-free environment.
I was with this in mind that I worked closely with my colleague from
New Jersey in the 105th Congress to develop a ``precursor'' of this
legislation, then H.R. 2094, as a means to work toward establishing
reasonable national criteria for coastal water quality. While certain
parts of the United States (led by my hometown of San Diego) have
already developed and implemented comprehensive and progressive coastal
testing and monitoring programs at both the state and local level,
there are needs which up to this point have not been met, and problems
which have not been fully addressed. This lack of consistency in the
levels of protection provided by such monitoring and notification
nationwide puts at risk beachgoers from coast to coast.
Roughly 60 percent of all Americans live within 30 miles of a coast,
and far too often, surfers, swimmers, and others who enjoy using the
water serve as inadvertent ``canaries in the coal mine''. These are the
people, particularly children, who are susceptible to and develop the
ear, nose, and throat infections, fevers, and respiratory or stomach
ailments that can and do occur as a result contact with pathogen-
contaminated water. There is a clear need, both for people who live on
the coastlines in places like San Diego and Rehobeth Beach and surf or
swim every day, and for people who live inland and bring their families
to the shore once or twice a year, to be able to understand and be
provided with information as to whether the water is safe for them to
enjoy before they enter it. This is where consistency in the levels of
protection provided by monitoring and notification at coastal areas is
necessary.
This is the basic focus of H.R. 999--to be a first step towards
identifying where problems exist and where there is a need for
monitoring, recognizing the science and capacity we have to respond to
them, and providing the tools, incentives, and flexibility to states
and communities that they need to create programs and implement them
appropriately. Most importantly, the bill provides the ability to
develop and administer these programs in a ``bottoms up'' fashion,
while moving away from outdated ``command and control'' strategies
which may have served us well in the past, but are too cumbersome and
unwieldy to provide useful solutions to today's challenges.
The en bloc amendment which will be offered shortly will be carefully
explained, but I'd like to speak to one of the seemingly minor aspects
of the amendment. In the short title of the bill, ``assessment'' is
changed to ``awareness''. While this may seem insignificant, I wanted
to make this change at this time to help underscore the entire point of
the bill. Increased awareness is what this bill seeks to achieve,
starting at the community level, and is what will lead to better
protection of the public health and the environment at our coastal
recreational water, both within and without the scope of H.R. 999.
The whole concept of this bill is to encourage nationwide monitoring
of coastal recreation waters where it is needed to protect the public
health, and public notification of the results--but from the community
on up, not the top down. By empowering local health officials and
communities to work directly with state and federal officials, H.R. 999
provides the opportunity and incentive to develop monitoring plans that
will protect public safety on a regional or beach by beach basis.
It is important to recognize that H.R. 999 is not an expansion of
regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act--it provides no new
regulatory authority to any federal agency, and the bill language and
accompanying congressional intent in the Committee report makes it
clear that it may not be interpreted to do so. Its scope is limited to
the monitoring of coastal recreation waters for pathogens or their
indicators which are harmful to public health; it does not provide for
source identification or regulation (specifically, at present non-point
sources are not regulated under the Clean Water Act, and H.R. 999 does
not change that).
H.R. 999 creates no unfunded mandates. States or local governments
which may already have a robust monitoring program in place, as in
Florida, California, or New Jersey--are not required to submit or
develop a ``new'' program under this bill. The intent of the bill is
not to lead to ``dual monitoring'' by the EPA in areas where
appropriate monitoring is already taking place; it is to serve to
encourage the development of monitoring programs in areas where none
exist and where there is a need to protect the public health. Further,
the updating and review of science-based criteria which will occur
under the bill will be an asset to both new and existing monitoring
programs, and lead to better levels of protection across the board.
The bill clarifies that state criteria for pathogens or pathogen
indicators must be at least as protective of human health as previously
published EPA criteria, which date back almost 14 years to 1986, and
the incorporation of these new or revised criteria into state programs
will also help to ensure that the scientific information on which the
criteria themselves and individuals programs are based is kept current.
EPA is required under the bill to develop these criteria through a
public process, which includes collaboration with appropriate local,
state, and federal officials. This will include criteria for
determining what areas of coastal recreation waters do not need to be
monitored to protect the public health. The bill does not require, nor
does it expect, that monitoring and notification programs will be the
same in all states for all recreation waters where it is needed. Here
is where the flexibility of the bill is essential, to allow for
specific needs to be addressed on a regional basis.
Again, the goal of H.R. 999 is to create uniform levels of
protection, not uniform monitoring programs, as might have been the
case under previous incarnations of this bill.
The information database which will be established under the bill is
an important asset to maintaining and improving measures for protecting
the public health at coastal recreation waters, and pains have been
taken to ensure that the databases will be used effectively for that
specific purpose. I should clarify at this point that such a database
was considered an essential tool for public health purposes by both my
County Department of Environmental Health and by the Surfrider
Foundation, and I think the dialogue which we have had in developing
H.R. 999 has reinforced this view.
The bill specifies that this database will consist only of
information on exceedances of water quality standards for pathogens
that are harmful to human health, not to sources of causes. To address
concerns which were expressed over potential misuse of the databases,
the bill language was strengthened to clarify that only information on
water quality standard exceedances for pathogens or pathogen
indicators, from reliable water quality monitoring programs, may be
included in the database. Access to important scientific information is
what is intended and will be derived from the development and use of
this database.
In sum, this is very much an incentive-based process; the bill
provided that availability of federal grant funding to state and/or
local governments which have established or are encouraged to establish
an adequate monitoring program. The list which H.R. 999 requires to be
maintained of area which do and do not have monitoring programs in
place will serve as an additional incentive to state and local
governments to develop and implement a monitoring program which best
meets their own specific regional needs. It will also demonstrate to
both residents and tourists alike that there is a system in place to
make sure coastal recreation waters in question are safe and protective
of human health, and give them a means by which they can understand and
be aware of water conditions in a given area, and make their own
decisions as a result.
By providing financial and public incentives rather than the threat
of punitive action, H.R. 999 creates a fair process by which to
establish means to effectively monitor coastal waters, and to make the
public aware of those results and conditions.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, thank you again for this opportunity
and your support. Together we can make sure that the American people,
whether they live on the coast or in the heartland, are never again
accidental ``canaries in a coal mine'' at our nation's beaches. Let's
pass H.R. 999 today, and see it signed into law this year.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following material:
[[Page H2288]]
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
H.R. 999--Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup, and
Health Act of 1999
Summary: H.R. 999 would amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to require states to adopt water quality criteria
for coastal recreation waters consistent with those developed
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the purpose
of protecting human health in coastal recreation waters
(beaches). The bill would authorize EPA to provide grants to
states of $30 million annually over the 2000-2004 period to
implement programs to monitor the quality of coastal waters
and to notify the public of any conditions where beach water
does not meet the established standards. In addition, the
legislation would require EPA to issue new water quality
criteria for recreational coastal areas based on studies of
potential human health risks in these areas, make available
to the public a database of the water quality at coastal
recreational areas, and report to the Congress on the efforts
under this program.
Becuse the bill would not affect direct spending or
receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 999
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would
impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 999 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\...................................... 3 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 3 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level......................... 0 34 34 34 34 34
Estimated Outlays..................................... 0 19 28 34 34 34
Spending Under H.R. 999:
Estimated Authorization Level \1\..................... 3 34 34 34 34 34
Estimated Outlays..................................... 3 19 28 34 34 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year.
Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that the bill will be enacted before the start of
fiscal year 2000 and that the full amounts authorized will be
appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are
based on historical spending patterns of similar EPA
programs.
The bill authorizes the appropriation of $30 million a year
for grants to states to implement programs to monitor and
report on beach water quality. Based on information from EPA,
CBO estimates that the agency would incur additional costs of
about $4 million annually over the 2000-2004 period to study
health hazards in coastal recreational waters, establish new
criteria for monitoring water quality for these waters,
develop a national database on pollution of beaches, and
report to the Congress on the effectiveness of this program.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 999
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
While the bill would require states to establish acceptable
water quality standards for coastal areas within three and a
half years, if states choose not to establish these
standards, the EPA would do it for them. The bill would
authorize $30 million annually from 2000 through 2004 for
states and local governments to implement eligible monitoring
and notification programs. If they choose not to implement
these programs, the EPA would be directed to use remaining
money authorized by this bill to provide those programs for
them. Any costs incurred by state and local governments to
implement these programs would be voluntary and conditions of
receiving grant assistance.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Kim Cawley. Impact on
State, local, and tribal governments: Lisa Cash Driskill.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
____
Press Release: March 4, 1999.
From: American Oceans Campaign.
American Oceans Campaign Hails Congressman for His Commitment to the
Public's Right To Know About Beach Water Quality
Washington, DC.--Representatives of American Oceans
Campaign (AOC) voiced their strong endorsement of legislation
introduced today by Representative Brian Bilbray (R-CA). The
Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act of
1999 (the B.E.A.C.H. Bill) addresses the problems of
inconsistent beach water quality testing and public
notification practices across the nation.
``From coast to coast, surfers, children, and others are
becoming ill after swimming in beach waters contaminated with
disease-causing microorganisms,'' said Ted Danson, President
of American Oceans Campaign. ``All recreational beach waters
should be tested consistently and the public should be
informed when waters are unsafe.''
``Beach goers have a right to know that the waters they
choose to play in are safe for recreation. A fun day at the
beach should not make you sick the morning after,'' said
Danson.
``Gastroenteritis and various eye, ear, nose, and throat
infections can develop after contact with waters contaminated
with bacteria and viruses,'' explained David Younkman, AOC's
Executive Director. ``The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has recommended water quality criteria for beach
waters; however, many states either use weaker standards or
do not regularly test their waters for the presence of
bacteria and viruses. Shockingly, many states that do test
their waters do not always alert the public about unhealthy
water conditions.''
``The current approach to beach water testing is a mixture
of inconsistent criteria and practices,'' said Younkman.
``Passing the B.E.A.C.H. bill will wipe out the
inconsistencies and improve public health protections
nationwide.''
``The B.E.A.C.H. bill will make certain that whether a
person chooses to surf in San Clemente or snorkel in the
Florida Keys, she enters the ocean with greater confidence
about the quality of the water,'' said Danson.
``Representative Bilbray and other members of Congress who
have introduced similar measures are to be congratulated for
their leadership on this environmental and public health
concern. American Oceans Campaign looks forward to
energetically working with them to pass a strong B.E.A.C.H.
Bill in 1999.''
____
[From the San Diego Union Tribune, Mar. 5, 1999]
End Polluted Beaches
Bilbray bill would require national testing
San Diego County instituted an aggressive testing program
for its coastal waters year ago. Now it has begun DNA
screening of polluted runoff to find out exactly why our
beaches are sometimes polluted.
And what have we gotten for this effort? Nationwide
scrutiny and criticism for having dirty beaches.
But the fact is, our beaches aren't dirtier than other
places. (They're actually cleaner than many others.) We've
been singled out only because we test more vigorously and
close beaches when bacteria levels are too high. Most coastal
areas in other states don't maintain effective testing
programs. And some places never tell the public when they do
find high pathogen levels.
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Imperial Beach, introduced
legislation yesterday that would put all coastal regions on
an equal plane. Endorsed by several environmental groups,
including the Surfrider Foundation, Bilbray's Beaches
Environmental Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act (with the
clever acronym BEACH), would establish uniform national
criteria for testing and monitoring recreational coastal
waters. It also would require public notification when those
waters endanger public health.
This is a very good idea. Now, the standards for beach
water cleanliness are very loose. Some coastal states use
very weak standards. Others have a policy of silence even
when they do test, probably because of concerns about scaring
away tourists.
Bacteria and viruses in coastal waters can sicken bathers,
causing gastroenteritis and ear, eye, nose and throat
infections. People in states that don't test properly could
be getting sick from polluted water and never know the cause.
The BEACH bill would develop standards with the help of
local health officials. Also, since some coastal areas have
different problems or conditions, individual monitoring
programs tailored to certain regions would be allowed.
Federal grants would be available for local monitoring
programs.
Bilbray's legislation doesn't include a strong enforcement
mechanism for beach areas that don't comply. However, the
federal Environmental Protection Agency would keep a list of
such areas and make it available to the public. Compliance
must be addressed at some point after water quality standards
and monitoring programs are developed.
While Congress considers monitoring beach pollution
nationwide, San Diego County is taking an advanced step in
cleaning up its coastal waters. After local environmental
advocate Donna Frye pushed the idea for a year, the county is
set to begin DNA testing
[[Page H2289]]
to find the origins of bacterial pollution at our beaches.
This scientific monitoring should tell us exactly where the
pollution originates, so we can take steps to stop it at its
source.
Monitoring beach pollution isn't expensive. But most
coastal regions neglect it because they're afraid of what
they might find. It's time to stop ignoring coastal
pollution, and start doing something about it, as San Diego
County does. Congress should approve Bilbray's BEACH bill.
____
[From Inside EPA, Mar. 19, 1999]
Legislation Would Require New EPA Standards for Beach Quality
(By Jean Wiedenheft)
Legislation requiring EPA to establish water quality
monitoring standards for recreational beaches may pass this
year as environmentalists and states appear to be on the
verge of an acceptable compromise, observers agree.
In previous sessions, bills have been introduced into both
houses of Congress that would require certain baseline
monitoring of water quality, followed by notification of the
public if the water does not meet set standards. But the
language has always been shot down by states concerned over
its implementation.
Under the new legislation introduced by Rep. Brian Bilbray
(R-CA), EPA would set monitoring standards for beaches,
though states would not be forced to implement those
standards. Instead, EPA would publicize states that failed to
meet the federal standards. If states still do not implement
a monitoring program, under the legislation EPA would monitor
the beaches in the state. EPA already has guidelines in place
for states, suggesting contaminants to monitor for and
contaminant levels at which the public should be notified of
possible danger.
States are saying the new version of the bill--H.R. 999--is
much closer to being acceptable to them, with one source
adding that the bill's sponsors are ``serious'' about working
with them to see the bill pass. Environmentalists are
endorsing the measure.
As the bill is written, states would be required to monitor
beaches for certain pollutants and pathogens, and make that
information available to the public through the Internet and
local newspapers if there is a threat.
Such legislation is necessary, environmentalists and bill
supporters say, because only some states monitor their
beaches, and even fewer post warnings or close beaches when
water contaminants reach unsafe levels.
It is difficult to get a handle on how many coastal areas
are actually being monitored, sources say, because often it
is through a local initiative, not a state program.
The bill provides $7.5 million a year, from 2000 to 2004,
in grants for states to implement the programs. But a state
source says that while the funding is an increase over last
year's proposal, it is still too low. There are over 30
states that have coastal areas and would need funding to
implement and maintain a monitoring program, this source
points out, and any one state can only apply for half of its
costs.
Some state sources also say the structure of the proposed
law would need to be modified to allow them more flexibility.
Any legislation should focus on meeting performance
objectives, one source points out, not on procedural
monitoring requirements.
The timeliness proposed in the legislation, for example,
may need to have more flexibility for gathering and reporting
data. In some cases, one source points out, it takes several
days to get laboratory analyses back before knowing whether
the public should be warned about swimming at a particular
beach.
The legislation can also only reasonably apply to public
beaches, one source points out, because the states do not
have the resources--or the authority--to impose such
regulations on private citizens.
But several state sources say Bilbray's staff have been
open to their suggestions, and are willing to negotiate in
order to get the legislation through.
A similar House bill has been introduced by Rep. Frank
Pallone (D-NJ), and Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Frank
Torricelli (D-NJ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Joseph Lieberman
(D-CT) are cosponsoring the beach bill in the Senate.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), the original cosponsor of the bill.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 999. I want to thank my
fellow Californian (Mr. Bilbray) for his leadership on this issue.
Today is Earth Day, and I want to wish all Members a happy Earth Day,
and I want to encourage them to do something about this being Earth Day
by supporting this legislation.
Most of us do not think about how the oceans and coasts are important
to our lives, but they really are. A beautiful coastline is important
to each of us in each of our districts. We are a Nation that travels
and visits relatives, we visit beautiful places. An awful lot of those
places are coastlines, because 70 percent of America's population lives
within 50 miles of the coast.
Americans love the oceans. According to the 1997 SeaWeb and Melman
poll and a 1999 USA Today poll, more than half of Americans have
observed that the conditions of our coasts are worsening, especially
due to pollution and overfishing, and they want us, Members of
Congress, to do something about it.
We are critically dependent upon the ocean for ocean resources for
tourism purposes, for travel dollars. Eighty-five percent of the
tourist revenues spent in the United States are spent in the coastal
States. Over 180 million people visit our coastal waters nationwide
each year. In California alone the ocean-related tourism revenue
exceeds $38 billion.
Yet, our oceans are imperiled. Most of the major fish stocks in the
world are overfished. Seventy-five percent of the endangered and
threatened mammals and birds rely on coastal habitat. This will only
get worse. Americans are moving to the coasts and exploiting them more
than ever. By the year 2010, 75 percent of the U.S. population will
live within 50 miles of the coast.
What are we going to do about this? What are we going to do to care
for our coasts, to ensure that our coasts can support this intensity of
habitation? We have not demonstrated our commitment yet to the oceans.
We have not passed the Oceans Act, but we have this, and we can do
something about it.
We have created national marine sanctuaries, which are essentially
national parks in the ocean. We have 12 of those, yet with less than 1
percent of the funding that we give to our national parks. We have 378
national parks, 155 national forests, but only 12 national marine
sanctuaries.
We need to make our coasts safe for everyone, including swimmers,
surfers, fishers, and even the sea life, the fish themselves, the
plants and the smallest of plankton organisms that they rely on. This
bill is a step in that direction.
I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 999, and I wish my
colleagues a happy Earth Day.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert) and all those who have put a lot of hard work and
effort into this piece of legislation.
I especially want to tip my hat to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Brian Bilbray). Before Brian got here, I was the best surfer in the
House of Representatives. Unfortunately, Brian was elected, and seeing
that there is another surfer, he is the best surfer in the House, even
though sometimes he is a wave hog.
Let me say this, that this bill is a terrific piece of legislation.
The gentleman has put a lot of effort into it. There are some
conservatives with a few apprehensions, and the fact is that we do
believe that the States should play a major role.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sherry Boehlert) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Brian Bilbray) have made sure that this bill
represents a cooperation with the States, and not a domination of the
States by the Federal Government.
The oceans, both as a recreational resource and an economic resource,
are perhaps the most valuable asset we have in the United States of
America. We have scuba diving, we have people like the gentleman from
California (Mr. Brian Bilbray) and myself who do a lot of surfing in
the ocean, and we also have fishing and other recreational uses that
add a tremendous value and are a tremendous asset to our people.
I am very pleased that this bill is the very first time where surfing
is actually identified as a federally-recognized recreational activity.
Whether when you are a surfer or a scuba diver, which I am also a scuba
diver, but when one is in the ocean, one is experiencing one of God's
most awesome gifts to humankind. It is a living force, and it is also
in itself an entity of tremendous power and energy.
Those of us who surf and use the ocean know this, and it is like
skiing on a mountain, except the mountain is going right with you. It
is this tremendous, awesome power that you are with. The ocean
represents this to all of humankind, this potential.
[[Page H2290]]
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to realize that this
bill, H.R. 999, is officially recognizing the ocean and recognizing
this asset as a valuable asset in which we all in the States and in
local communities and in the Federal Government will cooperate with in
order to maintain this asset, and make sure it is available to those of
us who use it. So many millions of Americans use this asset.
Let us also remember when we talk about the ocean, our bodies are
made out of water. God made human bodies out of water, just like he
made the world mainly out of water, so we are caretakers for God's
gift.
Finally, my colleagues who have any thought of opposing this bill
should know and be advised that if the amendment fails, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bilbray) and I will double the number of surfing
videos that are played in the Congressional Gym.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), another sponsor of the bill.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Beaches
Environmental Awareness Cleanup and Health Act, the BEACH bill. I am
fortunate to represent and call home one of the most beautiful
districts in our Nation, the central coast of California. People come
from all around the world to visit the area, and they are especially
attracted to our spectacular coastline and incredible beaches, where
fishing, all kinds of tourism, and indeed, surfing go on on a regular
basis. We had surfboards outside my family home all through the growing
up years of my children.
Sadly, an increasingly familiar blight on these majestic beaches is a
bright yellow sign reading ``Advisory'' or ``Closure.'' Santa Barbara
County issues beach advisories to warn the public of harmful elevated
bacterial levels in the surf. Unfortunately, during the past years, and
in 1997, a record 199 days saw this bright yellow beach sign in front
of beaches on the Santa Barbara coastline.
The public should be able to enjoy their beaches without worrying
about their health. We cannot tolerate people getting sick from
swimming in the ocean.
Santa Barbara is blessed with a vibrant local citizen group which was
formed as a public outcry to these polluted beaches. It is called Heal
the Ocean. It is a grass roots group. I am proud to be a supporter.
Heal the Ocean conducts testing of our coastal waters, and is engaged
in a significant public outreach campaign to educate the community on
this important issue. This group enjoys tremendous and well-deserved
local support.
The bill we are debating today will provide critical Federal support
to groups around the country, such as Heal the Ocean in Santa Barbara.
We all share a common goal, to protect and improve the quality of our
coastal waters, and to ensure public safety. By establishing national
recreational water quality standards and empowering local communities
to develop monitoring plans, the BEACH bill represents a strong step
forward. This legislation will not only protect the health of our
beaches, but also the health of our economy.
My district, like so many other coastal communities around the
Nation, depends on recreation and tourism for its economic vitality.
The cost of beach water quality monitoring is minuscule compared to the
revenue that is generated by coastal tourism.
I do appreciate the hard work of my colleague, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) and my friend, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Bilbray) in establishing this bill.
I would like to recognize the efforts of my colleague, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been a leader on this issue for
many years and has introduced critical beach legislation in the 105th
Congress as well as the 106th Congress.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
supporting this important bill to protect public health, our beaches,
and our coastal communities.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, today we celebrate Earth Day. It is
only fitting that we take up this piece of legislation today as it
deals with one of the most significant components of our environment,
the coastal and recreational waters.
Each year millions of tourists flock to our beaches, and in Los
Angeles County alone our tourism industry is worth about $13 billion in
average revenue. The beaches in that county generate most of that, and
three or four of those beaches are in my district: Hermosa Beach,
Manhattan Beach, household names in our area. They play a significant
role in generating that revenue.
There are real economic consequences that stem from protecting our
environment, particularly the water resources. Helping build the
public's confidence in the quality of this water will ensure its
protection in the future.
The BEACH bill will help build this confidence in beaches across the
country by establishing a uniform national standard. The bill will also
allow local communities to tailor the monitoring and notification that
meet their unique regional needs, and it provides incentives, not
mandates, to meet the national criteria, incentives that take the form
of grants from the Federal Government to implement monitoring and
notification programs. In other words, instead of dictating to each
jurisdiction how to meet a national standard, the Federal Government
will give them flexibility and help cover part of the cost. This is
unprecedented environmental regulation.
Finally, several people say, why should we do this if California
already has good monitoring? My constituents, when they go other places
in this country, and Members' constituents all over the country,
deserve to have good quality water to play in when they go to surf or
swim in our recreational waters. If we standardize that monitoring, we
all know, whether we are from California or from Michigan, whether the
water is safe to be in.
I urge Members' support of the BEACH bill. It is solid national
environmental policy. It brings together flexibility and incentives
instead of mandates. It has local control instead of force-fed Federal
policy. It is a good example of environmental policy supplementing
economic policy. I urge Members' aye vote.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
As a representative of a Florida coastal district, I rise today to
applaud my colleague, the gentleman from California, (Mr. Bilbray) of
San Diego for bringing this legislation to the Floor today.
In addition to being some of the nicest in this country, the beaches
in my district are already clean and safe, and I am proud of that fact.
I am a supporter of the BEACH bill because rather than taking a command
and control approach to protecting our Nation's beaches, it utilizes a
far more powerful approach, the power of information.
The BEACH bill establishes mechanisms that will let the public know
where and when beaches are safe.
{time} 1215
If coastal communities choose to risk the quality of their water,
they will risk losing valuable tourist dollars. Floridians know this
firsthand. When we improved the health of the local environment, we
also improved the health of the local economy. Tourists are smart.
Armed with information, they will spend their money where they know the
beaches are clean and safe.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), for the long
hours he has spent on this bill and his personal dedication and
commitment in bringing it to this point of achievement; and to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the subcommittee,
who has a long and distinguished record in the protection of the
environment, and for his concern that we fashion a bill that will be
useful and meaningful and effective and
[[Page H2291]]
for bringing it to the floor on this Earth Day; and of course to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the full
committee, who already spoke quite pointedly of his support for this
legislation.
But I rise today, not only in support of this legislation, but to
recall for our colleagues my very dear friend and classmate, the class
of the 1974 election, 94th Congress, Congressman Bill Hughes, who made
this issue his cause during the time that he served in the House.
It is the culmination of years of effort, but culmination of a very
deep-seated, genuine, ardent, vocal effort by Congressman Bill Hughes
during his service in the Congress.
Together we served on the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. I recall both in committee and in one-on-one conversations
with Bill Hughes his deep, genuine concern about the deterioration of
the quality of water in the ocean that bordered on his State of New
Jersey, his accounts of hypodermic needles washing up on the beaches,
bringing some of the debris with him to our committee meetings and to
one-on-one member meetings, the numerous health warnings that disturbed
us so greatly, the beach closings, and the health effects on users of
the New Jersey coastline; and that brought him to other coastlines in
other parts of the country, and he really made this a great concern.
I will recall his statement on introducing essentially this bill, his
version, which was a predecessor to today's legislation, ``This bill is
a great improvement to the policies that currently exist in beach
testing and monitoring. It provides a public health stamp of approval
for States proudly to show people who live and vacation along the shore
that the coastal waters are safe for swimming and other related
activities.''
Following Bill Hughes' retirement from Congress, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a successor, not particularly from that
district, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), directly
from that district, championed the cause along with the later arrival
in the House of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who has
been persistent and vigorous and single-minded in his purpose of
getting this legislation through the committee and to the House floor.
Great advocates. The torch really has been passed from Bill Hughes to a
new generation of advocates for quality of life along our freshwater
and saltwater beaches.
This bill attempts to assure American families that the only concern
they will have when going to the beach is how much sunblock they have
on, not what rashes or illnesses they may have developed after an
outing to the beach.
When we consider, as our colleague from California (Mrs. Capps) a
moment ago cited, 199 days of beach closings in areas of her district,
there were 22,746 beach closings in the decade from 1988 to 1998, that
is not acceptable. We have to do a better job of monitoring, of
stewardship for these great resources of the Nation's freshwater and
saltwater beaches.
The idea of a monitoring bill is good. This bill has two public
health goals, to have uniform monitoring of coastal recreational waters
and uniform means of notification to the public of unhealthy water
conditions.
The partnerships between the Federal Government and the coastal
States and the local communities that this bill brings about are good.
They are good steps in the right direction, $30 million for grants to
States and communities to establish monitoring programs.
But I just want to make it clear that, and no one should
misunderstand the purpose of this bill, this is for monitoring and for
notification. It does not go to cleanup. It does not address the upland
issues of nonpoint source runoff, of discharges by cities and other
entities into those rivers and estuaries that discharge on and lay
their debris upon the beaches.
It will be argued that there are other programs, other means, other
ways of doing this. But because I have heard from people who say, oh,
we are going to do something about cleaning up the beaches, no, we are
going to do something about notifying people about unsafe conditions.
We are going to do something about monitoring those conditions with
this legislation.
I also note repeated references to giving the States their
responsible authority to undertake this role, and that is true. This is
a Federal-State partnership. But I do want to remind my colleagues that
the thin line of sand or pebbles that are the beach is the dividing
point between the ocean and the land.
It is the ocean that is the common heritage of all mankind. It does
not belong to a State or a Nation. As a Nation, we have a greater
responsibility than any individual State does for the quality of that
ocean and the littoral, the linkage between the land and the water.
This is a good step in the right direction. It will be a step, I
hope, that heightens our awareness of the individual responsibility
each of us has, that the responsibility to each State has and that this
Nation has toward that greater body of water, the ocean, the common
heritage of all mankind and, in the case of the Great Lakes, one-fifth
of all the freshwater on the face of the Earth.
So I urge our colleagues to support this legislation and that we move
it along to signature by the President as quickly as possible.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by once again thanking the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray), all those who worked so hard to make this day
a reality. Let me compliment the House of Representatives on this Earth
Day 1999. On a bipartisan basis, we have Democrats and Republicans
working constructively to develop responsible public policy that will
protect the families health and well-being.
Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bilbray) for a closing word.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank both the ranking
members and the chairmen for their work on this bill.
Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, this bill has had a lot of
people who have worked on it for a long time who are not here today.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) worked hard with me at
trying to figure out how to get to this point to where we can get the
Federal Government working with the States, and now with H.R. 999 we
will be able to do something that, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) pointed out, is getting the information to the local
community so that they are empowered to know there is a problem, which
is the first and most critical step of knowing how to respond to it.
I would say in closing, personally, back in 1970 on the first Earth
Day, I was a high school senior and I wore the green and blue armbands,
and I was protesting the pollution of my beaches in south San Diego.
Sad to say, almost 30 years later, our beaches are still polluted by
the Republic of Mexico, and that is something that we need to and are
working to address.
But this bill does something that we said back in 1970, and it was a
big battle cry that we had in the environmental movement, ``Think
globally but act locally.'' This bill empowers the local community to
have the local information so that they can address their problems in
their neighborhood, in their community, and have the Federal Government
as an ally in the local effort to act locally, to be able to take care
of the global problem.
I thank this body, and I thank the chairmen and the ranking members
for the chance to be able to bring this bill up for action.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
bill shall be considered by section as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment, and pursuant to the rule each section is considered read.
Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to
consider the amendment printed in House Report 106-103 if offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) or his designee. That
amendment
[[Page H2292]]
shall be considered read, may amend portions of the bill not yet read
for amendment, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
After disposition of that amendment, the bill, as perfected, shall be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
During further consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record.
Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Amendment Offered By Mr. Boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
An amendment made in order by House Resolution 145 offered
by Mr. Boehlert:
Page 2, line 5, strike ``Assessment'' and insert
``Awareness''.
Page 3, line 8, strike ``If a State'' and all that follows
through ``paragraph (1)(A),'' on line 10 and insert the
following:
If a State has not adopted water quality criteria referred
to in paragraph (1)(A) that are as protective of human health
as the criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators for
coastal recreation waters that the Administrator has
published under section 304(a)(9),
Page 6, line 13, after ``State,'' insert ``tribal,''.
Page 7, line 9, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is authorized
to''.
Page 7, line 10, after ``States,'' insert ``Indian
tribes,''.
Page 7, line 14, after ``State,'' insert ``and tribal,''.
Page 7, line 16, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is
authorized to''.
Page 7, line 16, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian
tribe''.
Page 7, line 23, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian
tribe''.
Page 7, line 25, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is
authorized to''.
Page 8, line 1, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian tribe''.
Page 8, line 9, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian tribe''.
Page 8, line 14, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian
tribe''.
Page 8, line 19, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian
tribe''.
Page 10, line 17, after ``State'' insert ``or tribal''.
Page 11, line 8, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is
authorized to''.
Page 11, line 17, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is
authorized to''.
Page 12, line 15, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian
tribe''.
Page 12, line 17, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian
tribe''.
Page 13, after line 20, insert the following:
``(c) Federal Agency Programs.--Each Federal agency shall
develop, through a process that provides for public notice
and an opportunity for comment, a program for monitoring and
notification to protect public health and safety that meets
the performance criteria established under subsection (a) for
coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches (or other
points of access) that are open to the public and subject to
the jurisdiction of the Federal agency. Each Federal agency
program shall address the matters identified in subsection
(b)(2)(B)(iii).
Page 13, line 21, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 14, line 5, strike ``The Administrator'' and all that
follows through line 10 and insert the following: ``The
Administrator may include in the database other information
only if the information is on exceedances of applicable water
quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators for
coastal recreation waters and is made available to the
Administrator from other coastal water quality monitoring
programs determined to be reliable by the Administrator. The
data base may provide such information through electronic
links to other databases determined to be reliable by the
Administrator.''
Page 14, line 11, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 14, line 12, after ``States'' insert ``, Indian
tribes,''.
Page 14, line 16, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 15, strike lines 8 through 19 and insert the
following:
``(g) EPA Implementation.--With respect to a State that has
no program for monitoring for and notification of exceedances
of the applicable water quality standards for pathogens and
pathogen indicators in coastal recreation waters adjacent to
beaches (or other points of access) open to the public that
protects public health and safety, after the last day of the
3-year period beginning on the date the Administrator
identifies, on a list required pursuant to subsection (f),
discrete areas of coastal recreation waters in the State that
are not subject to a monitoring and notification program
meeting the performance criteria established under subsection
(a), the Administrator shall conduct, subject to the
conditions of subsection (b)(2), a monitoring and
notification program for such discrete areas using the funds
appropriated for grants under subsection (b), including
salaries, expenses, and travel.
Page 15, line 20, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
Page 15, line 21, after ``States'' insert ``, Indian
tribes,''.
Page 16, line 7, insert ``coastal'' before ``estuaries''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), as the designee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster), and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This will be very quick. The en bloc amendment deals with
noncontroversial bipartisan amendments, technical and clarifying. They
have been worked out by the ranking minority member. I would like to
give special credit to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who
helped with the agriculture community to get us to this point. I urge
their adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as the author of the bill, I support the
en bloc amendment. I would like to also take this opportunity to thank
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for his cooperative effort
and willingness to work with me in addressing the concerns that the
agricultural community had initially expressed, and which are addressed
by the en bloc.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
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 ``Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
AND STANDARDS BY STATES.
Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1313) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Coastal Recreation Water Quality Criteria and
Standards.--
``(1) Adoption by states.--
``(A) Initial criteria and standards.--Not later than 3\1/
2\ years after the date of enactment of this subsection, each
State having coastal recreation waters shall adopt and submit
to the Administrator water quality criteria and standards for
such waters for those pathogens and pathogen indicators for
which the Administrator has published criteria under section
304(a).
``(B) New or revised standards.--Not later than 3 years
after the date of publication by the Administrator of new or
revised water quality criteria under section 304(a)(9), each
State having coastal recreation waters shall adopt and submit
to the Administrator new or revised water quality standards
for such waters for all pathogens and pathogen indicators for
which the Administrator publishes new or revised water
quality criteria.
``(2) Failure of states to adopt.--If a State has not
complied with paragraph (1)(A) by the date specified in
paragraph (1)(A), the Administrator shall promptly prepare
and publish proposed regulations for the State setting forth
revised or new water quality standards for coastal recreation
waters for the pathogens and pathogen indicators subject to
paragraph (1)(A). If the Administrator prepares and publishes
such regulations under subsection (c)(4)(B) before the date
specified in paragraph (1)(A), the Administrator shall
promulgate any revised or new standard under this paragraph
not later than the date specified in paragraph (1)(A).
``(3) Savings clause.--Except as expressly provided by this
subsection, the requirements and procedures of subsection (c)
apply to this subsection.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
[[Page H2293]]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute is as follows:
SEC. 3. REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.
(a) Studies.--Section 104 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(v) Studies Concerning Pathogen Indicators in Coastal
Recreation Waters.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this subsection, and after consultation and
collaboration with appropriate Federal, State, and local
officials (including local health officials) and other
interested persons, the Administrator shall conduct, in
cooperation with the heads of other Federal agencies, studies
to provide additional information for use in developing--
``(1) a more complete determination of potential human
health risks resulting from exposure to pathogens in coastal
recreation waters, including effects to the upper respiratory
system;
``(2) appropriate and effective indicators for improving
detection in a timely manner in coastal recreation waters of
the presence of pathogens that are harmful to human health;
``(3) appropriate, accurate, expeditious, and cost-
effective methods (including predictive models) for detecting
in a timely manner in coastal recreation waters the presence
of pathogens that are harmful to human health; and
``(4) guidance for State application of the criteria for
pathogens and pathogen indicators to be issued under section
304(a)(9) to account for the diversity of geographic and
aquatic conditions.''.
(b) Revised Criteria.--Section 304(a) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(9) Revised criteria for coastal recreation waters.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, and after consultation and
collaboration with appropriate Federal, State, and local
officials (including local health officials), the
Administrator shall issue new or revised water quality
criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators (including a
revised list of testing methods, as appropriate) based on the
results of the studies conducted under section 104(v) for the
purpose of protecting human health in coastal recreation
waters.
``(B) Reviews.--At least once every 5 years after the date
of issuance of water quality criteria under this paragraph,
the Administrator shall review and, as necessary, revise the
water quality criteria.''.
SEC. 4. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND
NOTIFICATION.
Title IV of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1341-1345) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 406. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND
NOTIFICATION.
``(a) Monitoring and Notification.--Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this section, after
consultation and collaboration with appropriate Federal,
State, and local officials (including local health
officials), and after providing public notice and an
opportunity for comment, the Administrator shall publish
performance criteria for--
``(1) monitoring (including specifying available methods
for monitoring) coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches
(or other points of access) that are open to the public for
attainment of applicable water quality standards for
pathogens and pathogen indicators and for protection of
public safety from floatable materials; and
``(2) promptly notifying the public, local governments, and
the Administrator of any exceedance of applicable water
quality standards for coastal recreation waters described in
paragraph (1) (or the immediate likelihood of such an
exceedance).
The performance criteria shall provide for the activities
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) to be carried out as
necessary for the protection of public health and safety.
``(b) Program Development and Implementation Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall make grants to
States and local governments for the purpose of developing
and implementing programs for monitoring and notification, as
provided in paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(2) State programs.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall make grants to a
State for developing and implementing a program for
monitoring and notification to protect public health and
safety that meets the performance criteria established under
subsection (a) for coastal recreation waters adjacent to
beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the
public and are subject to the jurisdiction of the State.
``(B) Requirements.--The Administrator shall make grants
for implementation of a program of a State under subparagraph
(A) only if the Administrator determines that--
``(i) the program has been developed through a process that
provides for public notice and an opportunity for comment;
``(ii) the program meets the performance criteria under
subsection (a), based on a review of the program, including
information provided by the State under clause (iii); and
``(iii) the program--
``(I) identifies coastal recreation waters within the
jurisdiction of the State;
``(II) identifies those coastal recreation waters adjacent
to beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the
public and subject to the jurisdiction of the State and that
are covered by the program;
``(III) identifies those coastal recreation waters covered
by the program that would be given a priority for monitoring
and notification if fiscal constraints prevent compliance at
all coastal recreation waters covered by the program with the
performance criteria established under subsection (a);
``(IV) identifies the process for making any delegation of
responsibility for implementing the program to local
governments, the local governments, if any, to which the
State has delegated or intends to delegate such
responsibility, and the coastal recreation waters covered by
the program that are or would be the subject of such
delegation;
``(V) specifies the frequency of monitoring based on the
periods of recreational use of such waters and the nature and
extent of use during such periods;
``(VI) specifies the frequency and location of monitoring
based on the proximity of such waters to known point and
nonpoint sources of pollution and in relation to storm
events;
``(VII) specifies which methods will be used for detecting
levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful
to human health and for identifying short-term increases in
pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human
health in coastal recreation waters, including in relation to
storm events;
``(VIII) specifies measures for prompt communication of the
occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent
of such an exceedance (or the immediate likelihood of such an
exceedance) to the Administrator and a designated official of
a local government having jurisdiction over land adjoining
the coastal recreation waters covered by the State program
for which an exceedance is identified; and
``(IX) specifies measures for posting of signs at the beach
(or other point of access), or functionally equivalent
communication measures, sufficient to give notice to the
public of an exceedance (or the immediate likelihood of an
exceedance) of applicable water quality criteria for
pathogens and pathogen indicators for such waters and the
potential risks associated with water contact activities in
such waters.
``(3) Local programs.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall make a grant to
a local government for developing and implementing a program
for monitoring and notification to protect public health and
safety that meets the performance criteria established under
subsection (a) for coastal recreation waters adjacent to
beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the
public and subject to the jurisdiction of the local
government.
``(B) Requirements.--The Administrator shall make grants
for implementation of a local government program under
subparagraph (A) only if the Administrator determines that--
``(i) the State in which the local government is located
did not submit a grant application meeting the requirements
of paragraph (2)(B) within one year following the date of
publication of performance criteria under subsection (a);
``(ii) the local government program has been developed
through a process that provides for public notice and an
opportunity for comment;
``(iii) the local government program meets the performance
criteria under subsection (a), based on a review of the local
government program, including information provided by the
local government under paragraph (2)(B)(iii); and
``(iv) the local government program addresses the matters
identified in paragraph (2)(B)(iii) with respect to such
waters.
``(4) List of waters.--Following receipt of a grant under
this subsection, a State or local government shall apply the
prioritization established by the State or local government
under paragraph (2)(B)(iii)(III) and promptly submit to the
Administrator--
``(A) a list of discrete areas of coastal recreation waters
that are subject to the program for monitoring and
notification for which the grant is provided where the
performance criteria under subsection (a) will be met; and
``(B) a list of discrete areas of coastal recreation waters
that are subject to the program for monitoring and
notification for which the grant is provided where fiscal
constraints will prevent compliance with the performance
criteria under subsection (a).
``(5) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
developing and implementing a monitoring and notification
program under this subsection shall be not less than 50
percent nor more than 100 percent, as determined by the
Administrator. The non-Federal share of such cost may be met
through in-kind contributions.
``(6) Delegation.--If a State delegates responsibility for
monitoring and notification under this subsection to a local
government, the State shall make a portion of any grant
received by the State under paragraph (2) available to the
local government in an amount commensurate with the
responsibilities delegated.
``(c) Information Database.--The Administrator shall
establish, maintain, and make available to the public by
electronic and other means a national coastal recreation
water pollution occurrence database that provides information
on exceedances of applicable water quality standards for
pathogens and pathogen indicators for coastal recreation
waters using information reported to the Administrator
pursuant to a monitoring and notification program that meets
the performance criteria established under subsection (a).
The Administrator may include in the database information
made available to the Administrator from other coastal water
quality
[[Page H2294]]
monitoring programs determined to be reliable by the
Administrator. The database may provide information through
electronic links to other databases determined to be reliable
by the Administrator.
``(d) Technical Assistance.--The Administrator shall
provide technical assistance to States and local governments
for the development of assessment and monitoring procedures
for floatable materials to protect public health and safety
in coastal recreation waters.
``(e) List of Waters.--Beginning not later than 18 months
after the date of publication of performance criteria under
subsection (a), the Administrator shall maintain a list of
discrete areas of coastal recreation waters adjacent to
beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the
public and are not subject to a program for monitoring and
notification meeting the performance criteria established
under subsection (a) based on information made available to
the Administrator. The list also shall identify discrete
areas of coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches (or
other points of access) that are open to the public and are
subject to a monitoring and notification program meeting the
performance criteria established under subsection (a). The
Administrator shall make the list available to the public
through publication in the Federal Register and through
electronic media. The Administrator shall update the list at
least annually.
``(f) EPA Implementation.--After the last day of the 3-year
period beginning on the date the Administrator identifies a
discrete area of coastal recreation waters adjacent to
beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the
public and are not subject to a monitoring and notification
program meeting the performance criteria established under
subsection (a), the Administrator shall conduct such a
monitoring and notification program for the discrete area
using the funds appropriated for grants under subsection (b),
including salaries, expenses, and travel. The Administrator's
duties under this paragraph shall be limited to the
activities that can be performed using such funds.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for making grants to States and local
governments under subsection (b), including implementation of
monitoring and notification programs by the Administrator
under subsection (f), $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2004.''.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(21) Coastal recreation waters.--The term `coastal
recreation waters' means the Great Lakes and marine coastal
waters, including estuaries, used by the public for swimming,
bathing, surfing, or other similar water contact activities.
``(22) Floatable materials.--The term `floatable materials'
means any foreign matter that may float or remain suspended
in the water column and includes plastic, aluminum cans, wood
products, bottles, and paper products.
``(23) Pathogen indicators.--The term `pathogen indicators'
means substances that indicate the potential for human
infectious disease.''.
SEC. 6. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and within the succeeding 4-year
period and periodically thereafter, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall transmit to Congress a
report including--
(1) recommendations concerning the need for additional
water quality criteria for pathogens and other actions needed
to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters;
(2) an evaluation of Federal, State, and local efforts to
implement this Act, including the amendments made by this
Act; and
(3) recommendations on improvements to methodologies and
techniques for monitoring of coastal recreation waters.
(b) Coordination.--The Administrator may coordinate the
report under this section with other reporting requirements
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out
the provisions of this Act (including amendments made by this
Act) for which amounts are not otherwise specifically
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no amendments, the question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
{time} 1230
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bliley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 999)
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve the quality
of coastal recreation waters, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 145, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bliley). Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________