[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11561-H11567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ESTABLISHING THE TASK FORCE ON OCEAN POLICY
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 599) establishing the Task Force
on Ocean Policy.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 599
Whereas the House of Representatives is in need of a Task
Force on Ocean Policy to review the final report of the
United States Commission on Ocean Policy, entitled ``An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century'', which affects the
jurisdiction of several committees of the House, including
the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Science, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the
Committee on International Relations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is hereby established a Task Force on Ocean Policy.
SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.
The task force shall be composed of 12 members appointed by
the Speaker, of whom 5 shall be appointed on the
recommendation of the Minority leader. The Speaker shall
designate one member as chairman. A vacancy in the membership
of the task force shall be filled in the same manner as the
original appointment.
SEC. 3. JURISDICTION.
The task force may develop recommendations and report to
the House on the final report of the United States Commission
on Ocean Policy, making recommendations for a national ocean
policy, entitled ``An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century''.
SEC. 4. PROCEDURE.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2), rule XI
shall apply to the task force to the extent not inconsistent
with this resolution.
(1) Clause 1(b) and clause 2(m)(1)(B) of rule XI shall not
apply to the task force.
(2) The task force is not required to adopt written rules
to implement the provisions of clause 4 of rule XI.
(b) Clause 10(b) of rule X shall not apply to the task
force.
SEC. 5. STAFF; FUNDING.
(a) The chairman may employ and fix the compensation of
such staff as the chairman considers necessary to carry out
this resolution. To the greatest extent practicable, the task
force shall utilize the services of staff of employing
entities of the House. At the request of the chairman, staff
of employing entities of the House or a joint committee may
be detailed to the task force to carry out this resolution
and shall be deemed to be staff of the task force.
[[Page H11562]]
(b) There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of
the House $450,000 for the expenses of the task force. Such
payments shall be made on vouchers signed by the chairman and
approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House
Administration. Amounts made available under this subsection
shall be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Committee on House Administration.
SEC. 6. REPORTING.
The task force shall report to the House the final results
of its investigation and study, together with detailed
findings and such recommendations as it may deem advisable,
as soon as practicable and in no event later than on June 30,
2006.
SEC. 7. DISSOLUTION AND WINDUP OF AFFAIRS.
The task force shall cease to exist after July 31, 2006.
SEC. 8. DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.
Upon dissolution of the task force, the records of the task
force shall become records of any committee designated by the
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Matsui) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on this legislation and include extraneous
material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 599 will establish a House Task Force
on Ocean Policy with the express purpose of developing recommendations
and reporting to the House on the findings of the United States
Commission on Ocean Policy by June 2006.
This bipartisan task force will have members appointed by the Speaker
and Minority Leader who will focus on the final report of the United
States Commission on Ocean Policy entitled, ``An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century.''
While the task force will have no legislative jurisdiction, it will
put in place a mechanism to allow the House to look broadly at the
question of caring for our oceans.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) is to be commended for
his untiring commitment to the preservation of our ocean resources. We
are able to bring this resolution forward today because of his good
work and interest on this subject.
It is important that this resolution be considered quickly, so that
Members may be appointed to the task force and can begin their work and
produce a report by June 2006.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed
to control the time that I have.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hastings for helping
bring this legislation to the floor, and I want to thank him for
yielding the time. I will speak now for a few minutes explaining the
legislation, and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can have a
bipartisan vote to move this task force along so that the myriad of
issues that cover a broad range of committee assignments, both on the
House and the Senate side, and a broad array of Federal departments and
agencies can be viewed with a single entity, this task force, between
now and June to understand the comprehensive magnificent work of the
people under Admiral Watkins that put together this commission report.
The members on the commission are people who have represented and
continue to represent the oceans, aquariums around the country, the
port authorities, coastal studies, offshore oil drilling, the U.S.
Navy, shipping and marine transportation, ocean ecology and fisheries,
environmental interests and the banking industry, a broad array of
individuals that were appointed by the President, the House and the
Senate.
The scientists that represent the Ocean Commission Report that worked
to develop the recommended policies are scientists from universities
all across the country. Their expertise and diverse fields are in
marine economics, coastal and estuarine issues, atmospheric issues,
Gulf of Mexico issues and the whole array of problems with hurricanes,
fishery science, coastal development, physics of ocean currents,
oceanography. The list goes on and on and on.
They presented this report to the U.S. Congress in September of 2004.
In this report, there are 31 chapters. Seven of the 31 chapters come
under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee on
Resources. Seven of the 31 chapters come under my jurisdiction in this
Ocean Subcommittee. We have held hearings on our part of the Ocean
Commission Report. But 24 chapters lie outside the jurisdiction of that
Fisheries Subcommittee. And it is important to get this task force so
that all those other committees in this House can view this commission
task force from the specific recommendations that the task force will
assume from the ocean commission report.
What I would like to do is explain to my colleagues, the ocean
commission task force makes recommendations in the following areas,
which are outside the jurisdiction of the Ocean Subcommittee. Those
are: The Congress should establish for better leadership and
coordination a national ocean council and a non-Federal ocean council
of advisors to view the full range of issues in the departments, the
agencies and the executive branch and what goes on in the States and
the tribes and the international arena regarding oceans.
They make recommendations to improve NOAA, EPA, the Corps of
Engineers, the Department of Interior, USDA and the States in their
regional coordination. Right now it is severely fragmented. They make
recommendations to clarify offshore responsibilities as far as leasing
oil and gas, aquaculture, bioprospecting, wind energy, fisheries, just
to name a few. They recommend structural changes in NASA, the Corps of
Engineers, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, the National Science
Foundation, Aquaculture, Health and Human Services, Department of
Justice, Department of State, Department of Labor, Department of
Transportation and the United States Agency for International
Development. Can all of this be done with one subcommittee or
fragmented throughout the course of this Congress? Promote lifelong
ocean education, ocean stewardship, science literacy, future ocean
leaders, helping to bridge the gap between scientists and educators, a
need for qualified ocean science in the classroom, bringing the ocean
to the vast array of students across this country. This is the
Committee on Education.
Better financial technical institutional support for watershed
management initiatives through existing Federal and State laws linking
coastal and offshore ecosystems. Better financial technical
institutional support for all these issues. Something that is dear to
our hearts right now as a result of this past hurricane season, several
chapters dealing with guarding people and property against national
hazards such as hurricanes and floods. And a year ago, a year and a
half ago, in the commission report they predicted, right down to the
letter, what could and eventually did happen to New Orleans, to coastal
Louisiana, to Mississippi. A vast array of information.
Managing sediment flows: 30 States contribute sediment in the
Mississippi River that eventually goes through Louisiana, Mississippi
and the Gulf of Mexico.
{time} 1630
How do we manage those sediment flows?
Techniques for cost benefit analysis is in this report. Marine
commerce and transportation across the oceans, the estuaries, and the
rivers in this country. Addressing coastal and water pollution, three
major laws, statutes. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, Total Maximum Daily Load Program, Clean Water State Revolving
Loan Fund, those are outside the jurisdiction of resources entirely.
Their recommendations are for dealing with wastewater treatment plants,
septic tanks, industrial facilities, agriculture, urban and suburban
runoff.
Addressing the atmospheric deposition problem: the single biggest
issue
[[Page H11563]]
with many estuaries including San Francisco and the Chesapeake Bay is
air deposition. Thirty percent of the problem with degrading the
Chesapeake Bay is air deposition.
Watershed monitoring: in 1974 we had 500 stations across the country
that monitored the quality of water. Today there are 32, from 500 down
to 32. The lack of coordination between the State, the Federal
Government, and the institutions is appalling.
Limiting vessel pollution and improving vessel safety: that is the
EPA, the Coast Guard, and the International Maritime Association. How
to deal with invasive species with ballas water, marine organisms,
major problems in the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and many
estuaries around the country.
Connecting the oceans and human health: biomedical research, marine
bacteria, contaminated seafood, harmful alga blooms, recommendations
that can be gleaned from a single perspective with a single entity such
as this task force and then legislative recommendations to the myriad
committees that deal with these issues.
Creating a national strategy for increasing scientific knowledge in
ocean science, technology, and understanding the oceans' ecosystem.
Collaborating with the international community and funding
recommendations for how long this is going to work.
The Ocean Subcommittee under the Resources Committee does not have
the time or the resources or the people or the jurisdiction to do this.
We have dealt in that ocean subcommittee with our jurisdiction
regarding the Ocean Commission Report, which is marine debris,
fisheries management, marine mammals, coral reefs, agriculture, ocean
observing system, coastal habitats, and so on.
This report by Admiral Watkins and many scientists around this
country deserve to have the United States Congress, this institution,
take a comprehensive view of this report, study it for several months,
and then make legislative recommendations to this body.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the task force.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, strange things happen around this place when
we are getting ready for recess. Legislation just seems to come out of
the woodwork sometimes, like the resolution on the Suspension Calendar
today.
The bill before us today would spend $400,000 of taxpayer money to
establish a House Task Force on Ocean Policy. Quite simply, it is
duplicative and wasteful. There is already a standing House committee
to deal with ocean policy that professional staff already have in
place.
The Rules Committee has not met to consider this resolution. In fact,
no action, at least none that I am aware of, has been taken beyond the
simple introduction of this measure. This resolution just appeared on
the schedule at the last minute with no explanation, no details, and no
reason for its urgency.
So I am a bit puzzled about why this task force is needed at all.
Generally, task forces are created when there is an issue that crosses
the jurisdictional lines of several different committees, all of whom
claim primary jurisdiction. In that circumstance, there may well be a
need to coordinate efforts in an efficient manner. However, in this
case, the primary issues fall within the jurisdiction of the Resources
Committee. In fact, there is a Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
chaired by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). That is where
this issue belongs.
Let me be clear: our Nation's ocean policy is a worthy project, but I
believe that this issue should be taken up by the Resources Committee.
That is where the expertise is.
I hope that the resolution's sponsors and other Members speaking here
today will shed some light on the need to move so quickly on this
measure.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be
controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in 2003 the Pew Ocean Policy Commission put out a
comprehensive report telling us that our oceans were in serious
trouble. The Republican leadership quickly ignored the report, saying
they wanted to wait for the results of the congressionally appointed
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. And lo and behold, last September that
commission came to the same basic conclusion: that our oceans are in
peril from degraded waters, compromised resources, and conflicts
between man and nature, and that immediate action is needed. They laid
out some pretty pointed recommendations for Congress, and I would like
to show this book, which is their recommendations. Over 500 pages at a
cost of $10 million. It took them 3 years. They did a comprehensive
report at a cost of $10 million.
Well over a year has gone by and still the House Republican
leadership has sat on its hands and done virtually nothing for our
oceans. At the end of 2004, the Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee, on
which I am the ranking member, held exactly one hearing on the U.S.
Ocean Commission's recommendation. This year our subcommittee and the
full Resources Committee have done nothing to comprehensively consider
or address the commission's recommendations despite my repeated
requests.
What we have done instead is to hold a random assortment of hearings
on a few areas that are mentioned in the commission's report, but
without getting into any of the commission's recommendations. We seem
to be highlighting the status quo rather than using the commission's
recommendations to move forward.
Now, today in the face of the Republicans' consistent refusal to
comprehensively address ocean issues, we are now handed the emptiest of
promises that this oceans task force would mean real progress in
dealing with the commission's recommendations. We are not going to fall
for that, Mr. Speaker. Democrats are going to oppose this task force
because it does nothing. Its task will literally be to write a report
on a report that itself is already quite prescriptive in its
instructions to Congress.
We don't need to study what is wrong with the oceans. We don't need
more reports. What we need now is action, real action, not this task
force.
I would point out that the resolution says we are going to spend
$400,000, that is on top of the $10 million that the U.S. Oceans
Commission has already spent. That is taxpayer dollars. That does not
count the Pew Commission. That, I think, was mostly private funds. And
this is at a time when I keep hearing from the House Republican
leadership about how we do not have any money and we have to cut
expenses and we do not want to waste our money. Well, why are we
wasting another $400,000 in taxpayers' money on a task force that does
not even have any legislative responsibility?
I listened to Mr. Hastings, who sponsored this resolution. He said
that there is no legislative jurisdiction in this task force. And I
have heard my colleague, whom I respect greatly, the gentleman from
Maryland. He is my chairman and I respect him greatly, but he goes on
to say that there are so many committees that have jurisdiction over
this that we don't have the time to deal with it.
Let me tell you, the House Republican leadership has no problem even
ignoring committees and writing a lot of legislation in the Rules
Committee when they want to get something done. I respect my colleague,
but don't tell me that this Republican leadership needs another task
force to write a bill, because I have seen bills written in the Rules
Committee and come to the floor directly without even going to
committee. I just don't buy it.
The truth is the real obstructionists are the Republican leaders and
the Republicans on the Resources Committee, not all, but most, who have
refused to allow a comprehensive consideration of major ocean issues
this entire year.
[[Page H11564]]
And I mean not just haphazard hearings, but actually doing something
that is meaningful.
The majority proposes to ignore this issue for another 6 months by
creating a task force that has no legislative authority and comes with
no guarantee that we will be any closer to serious action than before
we started.
I want to say that my Democratic colleagues have specific
recommendations that they have put in legislative form, and some of
them are here on the floor. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr)
has put together the Oceans 21 bill that has most of the government's
issues that come out of the U.S. Commission report.
He is a cochair of the Oceans Caucus. The gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen) has put forward the Fishing Quota Standards Acts, again adopting
a lot of these recommendations. We also have the reauthorization of the
Coastal Zone Management Act.
Democrats have been out there with legislation that we would like to
move through committee that adopt the recommendations of the U.S.
Oceans Commission's report. We have alternatives. We do not need
another task force.
And I would point out over and over again I am getting very
frustrated, and it may be obvious, with the fact that there is no
action on the Republican side. The oceans are a tremendous resource for
this Nation. The fishermen, the beach-goers, the coastal business
owners in my district, they know this. They expect us to be working on
problems facing our oceans. They would be quite disappointed to hear
that the House leadership continues to ignore these problems and
instead is choosing to avoid real action by studying this problem for
another year.
Again, the Pew Commission, U.S. Oceans Commission, they have sounded
an alarm; and it is time to do something to save our oceans and what is
in our oceans. Let us reject this unnecessary task force and get down
to some real work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just like to respond to my colleague on the other side of the
aisle. This issue did not pop up out of thin air. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle know full well that we have been working on
this. We have had numerous, numerous conversations since last May on
this particular task force. Leon Panetta, who headed the Pew Ocean
Policy Commission's report, is in favor of this task force. Admiral
Watkins, who worked on the Oceans Commission's report, is in favor of
this task force. As a matter of fact, both of those men, Leon Panetta
and Admiral Watkins, are urging my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to vote in favor of this.
Now, as far as my subcommittee that Mr. Pallone serves on dealing
with these issues, this is a commission report that did cost a few
million dollars, and it is worthy of our close scrutiny, not having
staff make up a bill that we do not know the substance of that bill.
This commission report is worthy of our attention, of our observation,
of our analysis, of our critical understanding of it.
My subcommittee has been dealing with the issues that have come under
our jurisdiction. We are working on the marine mammal recommendations,
marine debris recommendations, coral reef recommendations, Magnuson Act
recommendations. We are doing that and passing that through the
subcommittee. But 24 chapters are outside those issues. They deal with
the Science Committee, the Transportation Committee, the Agriculture
Committee, the International Relations Committee, the Education
Committee, the Financial Services Committee. We think, instead of
fragmenting this all over again because 30 and 40 years ago we went
through this with the Stratton report and there was not any single
entity in the House of Representatives that took a critical and
analytical view of the Stratton report, we want to do that now. Now is
the time to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to create a
House Ocean Task Force.
During the more than 20 years I have been here in the Congress, I
have made it a priority to promote protection of our oceans and
effective conservation and management of the living marine resources.
From protecting coastal wetlands to cleaning up our estuaries to
promoting sustainable fisheries to preventing ocean pollution, each has
been a priority.
We have accomplished a great deal. But as highlighted in the more
than 200 recommendations contained in the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy report released last year, much remains to be done. And as Mr.
Gilchrest just pointed out, a bipartisan group to coordinate this
activity is necessary, given the fragmentation that has existed in the
committee system as it relates to ocean issues for more than 50 years.
As a chief sponsor in the House of the legislation to establish the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, I feel it is important to follow
through and ensure the recommendations are effectively implemented.
{time} 1645
We need to build on the momentum generated last year by the release
of both the U.S. and the Pew Ocean Policy Commission reports and
accomplish a true sea change in the way we utilize and manage our ocean
resources. Given the scope and sheer number of recommendations from
both commissions, it is also clear that we need to prioritize our
efforts.
The U.S. commission recommendations to Congress include a range of
issues that cannot be addressed by any single committee. This task
force will develop a number of recommendations that will be forwarded
to the relevant standing committees and work with those committees to
see that the recommendations are implemented.
I feel it is time that we recognize that in order to make progress,
we need a coordinated Congressional focus incorporating policy
justifications of each of the standing committees to draft a
comprehensive national oceans policy. This task force will enable us to
do that, and I might say that the Republican leadership and I hope the
Democrat leadership is committed to help in this effort in a very
direct way.
It took more than 10 years to implement the recommendations of the
Stratton Commission. We cannot wait 10 years. The first U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy was an important one, but 10 years is just too long to
wait. We need to work together to ensure implementation does not take
that long this time.
We need to capitalize on the enthusiasm and momentum generated by the
commission reports and their recommendations. I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to support this House Ocean Task Force
resolution so that we will better be able to deal with ocean issues.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I want to put this debate in some perspective.
It was a year ago this week that the commission that the United States
Congress created gave their report to us, after spending approximately
$10 million of the taxpayers' money to put the report together, a year
ago. This debate is about how we spend another year before we do
anything, and that is wrong.
What is lacking here is leadership. The ocean issue goes back
generations. It goes back to the last administration. President Clinton
had the first White House Conference on the Oceans out in California in
1997. That was where all the ideas were created that we needed to
upgrade all the oceans. President Bush signed into law and appointed
members of the committee which gave us this report.
What is happening is that this task force that is before the House
today is just a way of delaying, stalling and not getting anything
done. Everybody that is speaking here today loves the oceans. Everybody
is a supporter of it, and there is not a greater supporter than Mr.
Gilchrest. But, unfortunately, there is a lack of leadership behind Mr.
Gilchrest.
Where, Mr. Speaker, is the leadership? There is a bill in his
committee, it has been there for almost a year, and
[[Page H11565]]
they say, We need more time. That bill was put together with a
coalition of Democrats and Republicans and Sea Grant Fellows, the
staff, the Ph.D.'s and MAs to come here and work together. They are on
it a year with Members and other staff.
There has been all the work done, and it has been put in a bill. It
is a bipartisan bill. It has all the cosponsors of the Oceans Caucus,
three Democrats and three Republicans. That bill is H.R. 2139 and the
leader of that bill is Mr. Weldon from the Republican Party. We have
not even been able to have a hearing, not even scheduled a hearing.
That bill could pass, and it is the ocean policy. It is the sum total
of the parts of those two commissions. We do not need to spend more
taxpayer money and more time in our House trying to decide what to do;
we just need to do it.
Now, we created a commission after 9/11, and after the
recommendations came back, yes, there was debate on it, but in the same
year we adopted it, and we took the recommendations. This is not being
done.
Mr. Gilchrest is not getting the support. What they are giving him is
a bone and saying, Here, go out and use the bureaucracy of the House to
have another task force. I ask, what date are we going to have a
hearing for our bill? If we want to have some leadership on this, can
you give us a date when the Oceans-21 bill will be heard in your
committee?
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. I will tell you this, Mr. Farr: The aspects of Oceans-
21 in your bill that is subject to the jurisdiction----
Mr. FARR. I just want to know the date. What month? January?
Mr. GILCHREST. The parts of your bill that comes under my
jurisdiction--
Mr. FARR. Can we have a hearing on it?
Mr. GILCHREST. We have held hearings on those issues. We have. And we
have developed from your bill legislation that is moving through the
subcommittee, that many of them have already passed the subcommittee
and the full committee and are awaiting floor action.
Mr. FARR. I have not seen any of that, and I am one of the cosponsors
of that bill.
The Oceans Blueprint for the 21st Century is the report that we spent
$10 million on. The bill to implement that is called Oceans-21. This
task force, the caucus, have all been bipartisan, have been equally
split. But if you want to look at it, this task force is not only a
delay tactic, it is also a very partisan tactic. The task force, for no
apparent reason, will have seven Republican members and only five
Democratic members. This is the first time in any of the debates we
have not been an equal number in leadership and work.
This is a cynical attempt to just delay, to stall. Although you have
quoted Mr. Panetta and Admiral Watkins, I know they want more than
anything legislation to pass, not creation of another task force.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the first paragraph, because there
has been a lot of mention around here about delay and the cost of the
ocean commission report. I want to read the first paragraph of the
ocean commission report: America's oceans and coasts are priceless
assets, indispensable to life itself. They also contribute
significantly to our prosperity and overall quality of life. Too often,
however, we take these gifts for granted, underestimating their value
and ignoring our impact on them. Then our use of the oceans becomes
abuse and the productive capacity of our marine resources is
diminished.
In 6 months, June 30, this bipartisan task force, made up as a
reflection of the ratio of Democrats and Republicans in the House,
which is standard practice for all committees, will issue its
comprehensive report, legislative recommendations, so that each one of
the fragmented committees will not have to deal with these issues that
they have very little expertise with in any way.
This is a bipartisan task force that is funded with its own staff
separate from any other committee or influences from any other
committee to deal with the issue of oceans, which determine the
climate, determine the weather, determine the air we breathe, the food
source for billions of people. This is an issue that we can get
together on, have a bipartisan working relationship and put aside our
partisan bickering, because the oceans are priceless. We have some work
to do, and we can accomplish that by June 30.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this resolution for many of the reasons that my colleagues have cited.
The fact of the matter is, we have the blueprint for what needs to be
done on the oceans. $10 million was spent developing it. We have
another one from the private sector, from the Pew Foundation, led by
our former colleague Leon Panetta. I think they spent over $4 million.
The Resources Committee has a budget of $14 million. If there are five
other committees, most of their budgets are larger than ours, so you
are approaching almost $100 million in public moneys that are available
to deal with this issue. And yet we are going to create a task force to
study a study and spend another $400,000. Either the place is so
terribly bureaucratized that it cannot respond or it does not want to
respond.
The fact of the matter is, we can do this through a select committee
and end up with a legislative product, or we can do this through a task
force and end up with a study of a study recommending to the
committees, that have not shown any interest to date, that they should
do something about the oceans.
You are right, the oceans are far too important to be left to that
mechanism. But the fact of the matter is, this task force does not take
this any further down the road.
This is about action. As Mr. Farr said, it is about leadership. We
have the expertise in the committees. When we did the energy bill, the
Speaker told us that the energy bill would be on the floor by a certain
date. The Commerce Committee did their part, the Ways and Means
Committee did their part. Transportation did their part. Resources did
their part. We saw the bill on Monday. We talked about it on Wednesday,
voted on it on Friday. It was on the floor the following week. Not a
great process, but they obviously wanted to do something to have an
energy bill on the floor.
We have done that in other cases. Here they simply do not want to do
it. They really just do not want to do this to protect the oceans,
because it requires a commitment of resources. It requires a national
commitment to protect the oceans, and the Republican Congress is not
interested in doing that. If they wanted to do it, they would do it.
They simply do not want to do it.
But what they want to do now is just throw some additional money at
it to kind of kick the can down the road. The emotions are too
important to be kicked down the road. This should be addressed by this
Congress. We have had a year, and nothing has happened. So now we are
going to spend another 6 months and the ball is not going to get
advanced very far, other than politically, and then we are going to be
back telling the committees they should do something about the oceans.
We just spent $15 million telling the committees they should do
something about the oceans.
So this is about whether you have the will to do something about the
oceans, whether you have the political ability to do something about
the oceans and the leadership to do something about the oceans, or you
do not. It just does not make any sense.
This system, I guess, should become more flexible to deal with,
because almost all of the tasks now that the Congress deals with cut
across committee jurisdiction lines. So we ought to become more
flexible to deal with it. We should not just be throwing more money at
it to pretend like we are doing something to advance this incredibly
important, incredibly urgent oceans agenda. This task force does not
deal with that. I urge my colleagues to vote against this.
[[Page H11566]]
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, as one point of clarification regarding the claim made
by the gentleman, our chairman, that no select committee was formed to
consider the Stratton Commission recommendations, I believe that the
gentleman from Maryland was in fact wrong on that. The Senate
specifically established a National Ocean Policy Study in the Commerce
Committee for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, it is time for a lot
less talk and a lot more action. The other side of the aisle talks a
good game on protecting our oceans, but they control the Resources
Committee. They control the House floor schedule. They control this
Congress. And what have they done? At any time, they can use the House
Resources Committee to bring up legislation to protect the oceans, but
they have yet to have hearings or move legislation on marine protected
areas, regional governance or coastal management. Instead, they have
continually tried to open up our coasts to offshore drilling.
I have introduced H.R. 1712 to protect the coast of Sonoma County,
California, as part of the National Marine Sanctuary Program, but there
have been no hearings on this bill or any other bill to protect our
oceans. Let us be clear with the American people: This task force that
this bill creates will have no ability to truly affect policy.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that instead of talking a good game, that
they start bringing up bills, such as H.R. 1712, that would truly
protect our oceans.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
{time} 1700
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my friends
on the other side of the aisle that Mr. Gilchrest has spent a great
deal of time in working with leadership on this issue, recognizing that
there is a process problem here in that the Oceans-21 bill that we all
want to see passed is in the jurisdiction of quite some number of
committees.
For example, the Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction with regard
to issues involving runoff. The Armed Services Committee has obvious
jurisdiction over issues involving the Navy. The Transportation
Committee is where the Coast Guard subcommittee is housed. The
Resources Committee, obviously made up of Interior members I might add,
has great jurisdiction here, as does the Financial Services Committee
and the Education Committee.
What Mr. Gilchrest is attempting to do here, and I support his effort
very much, is to have a bipartisan commission made up that can work
with leadership to work it through this morass, this maze of standing
committees. If we do not do that, the sure bet is that this bill in
this term is going nowhere.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is very important that we vote no on
this resolution. Essentially, it is going to accomplish nothing. I said
before that, when Mr. Hastings, who is the sponsor, first spoke earlier
today, he said that the task force will have no legislative
jurisdiction. If you read section 3, Jurisdiction, under the
resolution, it specifically says: The task force may develop
recommendations and report to the House on the final report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy making recommendations for a national oceans
policy entitled, An Ocean Blueprint For the 21st Century.
So, again, it says in the resolution, this is nothing but a report on
another report which is already 500 pages, and $10 million of
taxpayers' money has been spent on it. Why should we spend another
$400,000 to come up with another report on the report with no
legislative action? My democratic colleague Mr. Farr says he has a
bill, Oceans-21. He is the co-chair of the Oceans Caucus, bipartisan
legislation. He asked the gentleman from Maryland, when is there going
to be a hearing on that? No answer. When is it going to be reported
out? No answer. Why? Because this Republican Congress does not want to
take any action on the ocean commission's recommendations. They just
want to do another study, another report, another 6-month delay,
another $400,000, $500,000 spent. It is ridiculous. We had the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) she said, why isn't her bill
being reported?
Now, I know my colleague from Maryland said, Well, we can't do this
because this goes across so many committees' jurisdictions. That is
really not a legitimate argument.
The bottom line is that this House Republican leadership has taken
bills, as I said many times, written them in the Rules Committee. The
notion that they cannot get their act together and report out some of
these bills, it just does not make any sense. I think that what we are
seeing here is a delaying tactic. If you think about it, once this gets
started, another 6 months, we will be halfway into the last year of
this Congress, and we will basically see absolutely nothing happen. The
only way that we are going to see action on the Ocean Commission's
recommendations, the only way that we are going to see anything happen
here is if we eliminate this task force and we demand and build
pressure on the Republican leadership to report out legislation that
has already been introduced that would enact the U.S. ocean
commission's report. That is the main reason I believe why we must vote
no on this legislation. It will accomplish nothing. It is simply
another delay.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this task force creates an opportunity to bypass,
eliminate the bureaucracy and fragmentation of the myriad of
jurisdictions of this body. This task force creates a new dynamic. It
brings people in, Democrats, Republicans. It brings the public into the
process. It brings scientists into the process. It brings people who
work in all the various marine industries into the process to evaluate,
to analyze in a very clinical manner the ocean commission
recommendations.
This is about specific recommendations coming out of a bipartisan
task force with the idea that we eliminate bureaucracy; we eliminate
the committee jurisdiction problems and hand to these various
committees the specific recommendations that we have evaluated over
this 6-month period of time.
The subcommittee is moving legislation with the recommendations from
the ocean commission report and the Pew Commission report on oceans. We
are dealing with what to do about sanctuaries, marine protected areas,
coral reefs, marine debris, Magnuson issues, ecosystem management of
the fisheries. All of these things subject to our jurisdiction and the
rules of the House are being moved through that subcommittee. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of the task force.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to this
resolution.
This Ocean Policy Task Force resolution, while well intentioned by
its sponsor, is misguided. Its effect would be to deceive the American
public into believing that the House of Representatives is actually
working to advance the recommendations of two comprehensive ocean
policy reports when the opposite is true.
As the Ranking Democratic Member on the Committee on Resources, I
staunchly support efforts to restore our ocean and coastal environment.
But what we have before us today smells fishy and I urge Members to
oppose this ill-advised resolution.
Last September, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy sent up to the
Congress a comprehensive report that included over two-hundred specific
recommendations to guide the development of a new national ocean policy
for the 21st Century.
That report--the first of its kind in over thirty years--handed the
Congress an action agenda to finally address the degraded condition of
our ocean and coastal resources. The Commission was filled with highly
credentialed professionals with expertise in policy, economics,
science, technology and resource management drawn from both the public
and private sectors and academia.
No one, absolutely no one, questions the caliber of the Commission.
For the Congress to assert that it can do a better job in six months
time than the experts appointed to the Commission did in three years is
absurd.
[[Page H11567]]
Moreover, the Ocean Commission's report echoed similar findings and
recommendations to those made in the 2003 report released by the
independent Pew Oceans Commission, chaired by our former colleague, the
Honorable Leon Panetta.
If there was anything that these reports conveyed, it is that this is
a pressing national problem.
Unfortunately, rather than rolling up our sleeves and working in a
bi-partisan fashion to begin a process of genuine oversight to evaluate
the merits of the Ocean Commission's work, months have been allowed to
lapse with little, if any, meaningful oversight; without the
development of any joint strategy; and absent any leadership by the
Republican majority.
I, along with Members from both sides of the aisle, have introduced
legislation to implement several of the Commission's recommendations.
My legislation, for example, addresses fisheries management, including
how the various fisheries management councils can perform in a more
transparent and effective manner.
But instead of debating these substantive proposals, the majority
leadership trots out a resolution to create a toothless Task Force on
Ocean Policy which will only waste precious time.
This is a classic stalling tactic of government--to study an issue to
death. Sadly, our oceans could be on life support before this
Republican-led Congress acts to implement the Commission's
recommendations.
I urge members to support true oversight of the Ocean Commission's
recommendations and to oppose this misguided resolution.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 599.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________