[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.

                          ____________________