[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 57 (Thursday, April 10, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2169-H2174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2537, BEACH PROTECTION ACT OF 2007
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1083 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1083
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2537) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act relating to beach monitoring, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII before the beginning of consideration of the
bill and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the
Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall
be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2537
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate
only.
General Leave
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1083 provides an open rule with a
preprinting requirement for consideration of H.R. 2537, the Beach
Protection Act of 2007.
The resolution provides 1 hour of general debate, controlled by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Some of our Nation's greatest treasures are the beautiful beaches
that surround our country. So many of us have spent time with our
families and friends enjoying our country's picturesque coastlines. Our
beaches not only provide a place for relaxation and recreation, they
are also a vital economic engine that draws tourists from all over the
globe.
As a mother and a grandmother, I want to ensure that our Nation's
children are swimming and enjoying our beaches that are safe and free
of any harmful contamination. Unfortunately, a recent EPA report found
that human health studies over the last 50 years have linked swimming
and polluted water with significant adverse health effects. Swimming-
related diseases can range from minor gastrointestinal diseases to more
serious illnesses such as meningitis or hepatitis.
This is extremely troubling and is a great concern to all of us.
According to the National List of Beaches, only 57 percent of the
Nation's coastal recreation areas are being monitored.
In my home State of California, 114 of our 356 beaches are not
monitored, leaving a huge amount of people at risk. That is why I would
like to thank Representative Pallone for his work on such an important
piece of legislation, legislation that builds on the ambitious vision
that the 1972 Clean Water Act set forth.
As an original author of the 2000 bill, my friend from New Jersey has
long been recognized for his efforts to clean up our Nation's beaches.
I would also like to thank Representative Tim Bishop for his
leadership and work on this issue.
[[Page H2170]]
The Beach Protection Act builds on the great effort of the original
BEACH Act and is a vital tool that will help ensure the safety of our
national coastal treasures. Under the 2000 BEACH Act, the EPA was
required to work with States to ensure they use the latest science to
test beach waters to protect the public health.
States are required to notify the public if tests showed water
quality standards were violated. The law also helps States set up
monitoring and notification programs in order to provide up-to-date
information on the condition of all public beaches.
H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection Act of 2007, advances the good work
of the original act and takes us into the next generation of water
monitoring. The bill increases the authorization through 2012 for the
EPA's beach program by $10 million to $40 million per year. This money
will be used to provide grants to States along the coasts and Great
Lakes for recreational water monitoring and notification programs.
H.R. 2537 also clarifies and enhances public notification when
coastal waters are likely contaminated. Visitors to our beaches need to
know when there is potential threat to their health. The bill clarifies
that the public must be notified within 24 hours when a contaminated
water sample is found. The bill also requires that a physical sign must
be posted at any beach where the water may be contaminated. This
information is essential for public awareness and avoidance of harmful
pollutants.
H.R. 2537 also promotes increased compliance. It requires the EPA
administrator to conduct an annual review of implementation by State
and local governments. If the public is not being protected, it
requires the EPA to take corrective actions.
Representative Pallone has shown tremendous leadership with this bill
that puts public safety at the forefront and goes to great lengths to
protect our Nation's beaches. I know he has worked closely with my
friend and colleague, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who chairs
the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment.
Later today we will debate the chairwoman's manager's amendment that
directs the EPA to complete and use a rapid-testing technology. This
type of testing is intended to shorten the period between when a water
sample is taken and when results are made public. When this testing is
in place, the period of time necessary for testing coastal waters is
likely to shorten from 24 to simply 2 or 3 hours.
Passage of the Beach Protection Act of 2007 is an important step to
promoting public health and ensuring that the millions of people who
visit our coastal treasures remain safe.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would
like to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Florida is the number one travel destination in the
world, with over 80 million visitors last year. They contributed over
$60 billion to the economy of the State.
Part of the reason so many people come to Florida is because of the
over 1,200 miles of beautiful beaches throughout the State. Florida's
great beaches provide an endless wealth of recreational opportunities.
But in order for everyone to enjoy those great beaches we have to make
sure that the waters are safe and that they are clean.
In 2000, Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act. That legislation was passed to limit and prevent
human exposure to polluted coastal recreation waters by assisting
States and local governments to implement beach monitoring assessment
and public notification programs. In addition, that act required States
and tribes with coastal recreation waters to adopt minimum water
quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators.
The legislation being brought to the floor today with this rule would
reauthorize the BEACH Act through 2012 and increase the annual
authorized appropriation from $30 million to $40 million.
{time} 1030
Again, Mr. Speaker, the majority likes to proclaim that they have
offered yet another bill under what they call an open rule; but this is
not an open rule, this is a restrictive rule.
According to a Survey of Activities of the House Committee on Rules
from the 104th Congress, an open rule is defined as ``one under which
any Member may offer an amendment that complies with the standing rules
of the House and the Budget Act.''
A modified open rule, requiring preprinting in the Congressional
Record, is defined as a type of rule that permits the offering only of
those amendments printed in the Congressional Record. Because Members
under this rule must submit their amendments prior to floor
consideration, they are prohibited from offering amendments on the
floor as the debate progresses.
So if a Member is watching the debate and has an idea to improve the
bill, this rule prevents that Member from offering their amendment. So
by its very nature, this rule is restrictive. It is not an open rule
and the majority should stop calling it that.
I also would like to point out that once again the majority offers
even this modified open rule, or modified restrictive rule on
noncontroversial bills, bills with obvious bipartisan support. For
example, the underlying legislation passed the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee by a unanimous vote.
If the majority really wants to live up to their campaign promise of
a more open and bipartisan Congress, then they should offer a truly
open rule on this bill, and on bills where there is some controversy as
well.
On Tuesday, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), offered an amendment to the
rule which would have allowed the House to consider this
noncontroversial bill under a truly open rule. However, that amendment
was defeated.
So instead, here we are 16 months into the new majority under another
restrictive rule. Other than on appropriations bills, the new majority
has allowed only one open rule. Today they had the chance to double the
number of open rules; but instead, they decided to use a restrictive
process for a noncontroversial bill.
I don't know what they are afraid of. The original BEACH Act was
considered under a true open rule. We should have considered this bill
under suspension of the rules which doesn't even require a rule, it
just goes automatically to the floor because it is noncontroversial,
and we should have instead finished our work on bipartisan legislation
to protect Americans from international terrorism, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act known as FISA.
Or we could have considered legislation to postponed the scheduled
10.1 percent cut in Medicare payments for physicians and other health
care professionals.
Instead, what we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, what the majority
leadership has decided to do today is to make this a day of legislative
action that will live in infamy. Ever since 1974, legislation has
existed, Mr. Speaker, to permit agreements that are negotiated with
foreign governments by the United States, trade agreements, to come to
this floor under the Trade Act of 1974 that established trade promotion
authority, certainty in the rules process for when an agreement is
negotiated so that our negotiating partners, countries we are
negotiating with, know that there are certain rules. That if the United
States makes a deal, enters into an agreement, that that agreement will
be brought to the floor.
And so what the majority leadership in this Congress has done today
is to say yes, yes, yes, but for and except Colombia. Colombia, that
happens to be our best ally and friend in this hemisphere, under the
measure today being brought to the floor by the majority leadership of
this House, they are being insulted. And so our trade rules apply, yes;
but for Colombia, Mr. Speaker. That is what the majority leadership has
decided to do today.
What they have told Colombia, in the midst of a war against
narcotraffickers, financed by narcotrafficking,
[[Page H2171]]
the enemies of Colombia, what the Democratic leadership of this House
is telling the democratically elected government of Colombia today is:
We don't care; we don't care. The trade rules apply to the world, but
not to you.
Well, fortunately, there is an administration, an executive branch
that is standing with the people of Colombia and their democratically
elected government and President, President Alvaro Uribe. And there are
a lot of Members in this House, Mr. Speaker, who also stand with the
people of Colombia as they fight the terrorists, as they bravely
confront the terrorists. There are a lot of us in this House who stand
with the people of Colombia, and a lot of us in the Senate who do also.
But unfortunately, the majority leadership has said to Colombia today:
No, you're on your own.
Well, I want the people of Colombia to know that they are not alone.
We will continue to stand with the people of Colombia and their
democratically elected government despite this day of legislative
action that will live in infamy because that is what the majority
leadership has scheduled today. The exception, the legislative
exception for, in this instance, the best ally that the United States
has in this hemisphere, Colombia. And that's more than unfortunate.
Now, with regard to the legislation on beaches that is absolutely
noncontroversial, it should have been brought to the floor
automatically. Obviously we are all in support of that legislation, Mr.
Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring us back to the measure
at hand which is H. Res. 1083 which provides for consideration of H.R.
2537, the Beach Protection Act of 2007, and I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the
Rules Committee.
Ms. CASTOR. I thank my good friend and colleague from the Rules
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, oftentimes there is great irony here in Washington, and
here is another example. The House will consider today this rule and
the Beach Protection Act. The intent of the Beach Protection Act is to
protect America's beautiful coastlines from water pollution. But here
is the irony: Big oil interests have filed an amendment that puts our
beaches and America's coastlines at risk. Their proposed amendment
seeks to open up our beautiful coastlines to offshore drilling of oil
and gas. New offshore oil and gas drilling represents a real hazard to
our marine environment, especially in my home State of Florida and the
Tampa Bay area.
The beaches, the coastal environment, marine resources and our
billion-dollar tourism industry in Florida should not be sacrificed for
a small amount of oil and natural gas because the oil and natural gas
that is projected to be recovered if we open up our offshore areas to
drilling, it is projected to provide less than 1 month, 1 month supply
of oil and gas.
In addition, researchers at the Department of Oceanography at the
University of South Florida have warned that it would only take 24
hours for an petroleum spill in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to sully
Florida's panhandle beaches and then sweep through the gulf's powerful
loop current, travel through the Florida Keys and contaminate estuaries
and beaches from the Everglades to Cape Canaveral.
We only have to look back to 2005, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita,
and Hurricane Wilma ended up resulting in many oil and gas pollutants
seriously affecting the beaches in the Gulf of Mexico. The storms
caused 124 oil spills into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. During
Hurricane Katrina alone, 233,000 gallons of oil were spilled. There was
508,000 gallons of oil spilled during Hurricane Rita. A full year after
Hurricane Katrina, BP admitted that a damaged oil well valve in the
Gulf of Mexico was still leaking oil.
The knee-jerk reaction to take every opportunity, even a bill called
the Beach Protection Act, to open up our beautiful coastline to
additional oil drilling, especially in hurricane-prone waters like
Florida's gulf coast is ridiculous, not just ironic.
So let's stay true to the Beach Protection Act, fight water
pollution, strengthen our natural resources and our tourism economy and
vote down the Peterson amendment today.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just the State I am
honored to represent alone, Florida, exports are expected to jump by
over $160 million, and 1,700 jobs are to be created in the first year
alone if the agreement with Colombia is ratified. That is just the
State that I am honored to represent alone.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague bringing up the
issue of energy and the connection of energy to this bill because that
is what we intend to do here today.
The irony behind this debate is that Americans really appreciate
healthy beaches; but what they are really mad about is high gas prices.
I have three kids, 15, 13 and 8. My wife is driving them all over the
world to attend every event that kids do today, and the soccer moms of
the world are outraged over the price of gas that they are paying.
And what has this Democrat majority been doing to continue to affect
the price of gas, we just heard it, let's take more assets off the
ability to explore. We just heard it from my colleague who just said no
more exploration for oil. Where is the plan that the Speaker touted
would lower gas prices? That was over 700 days ago. We want answers. We
want this majority to do something about the high cost of gasoline.
We have truck drivers prepared to strike over the price of diesel, $4
a gallon gasoline is on the horizon, and this majority is doing
nothing, nothing.
Here is the energy plan: When you have no energy plan, you plan to
fail. When this majority took over, the price of a barrel of crude oil
was $58. What is it today, $110 per barrel. That translates into a
gasoline price of originally $2.33 a gallon to now, $3.34, $3.50,
$3.75, and $4. At $3.44, that is a $1.01 increase since this majority
took over. Where is the energy plan to lower gasoline prices? The
Speaker's plan means that you pay more in energy costs in this country.
The beaches that are affected in this legislation, Great Lakes, the
coastal beaches, guess what, if I want to take advantage of these
healthy beaches, I would have to drive about 285 miles to get to the
Great Lakes. I would have to drive a lot farther, almost 745 miles to
get to the gulf coast. Last year the cost to Chicago would be about
$53. This year the cost is $76. We lose discretionary income when we
allow gas prices to go up.
Another connection, to go to the great State of Florida to take my
family on a vacation, that would have cost me last year $138 to drive.
This year, $200 to drive. Do you think that is not going to affect the
economy of the Florida coastal areas? Do you think that is going to
halt our folks going to your State, my friend from Miami, to enjoy
these great, healthy beaches. My folks can't afford to drive to these
beaches to enjoy them anymore.
And what is the Democrat plan for gas prices? Silence. Nothing. The
only plan is the plan to fail. The only plan is higher prices. Here it
is: $58 a barrel when you came in, $110 a barrel today.
Let me give you some quotes. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on April 24,
2006, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing
gas prices.''
{time} 1045
Well, these skyrocketing prices aren't going down, folks. Speaker
Pelosi's plan is to have skyrocketing price increases for gasoline, not
decreases. We got it wrong.
It's this whole change mentality. Change is good. Change can be bad.
The change in this majority has been bad for the cost of energy in this
country.
And what are we doing? We're talking about healthy beaches. Healthy
beaches. We ought to be talking about the price of gasoline. We ought
to be talking about the price of diesel fuel. We ought to be talking
about the price of electricity generation, nuclear power, clean coal
technology. But no, healthy beaches. I hope my folks can enjoy and
benefit by these healthy beaches.
[[Page H2172]]
It's been days since Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``Democrats
believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling
to deal with high gas prices.'' Mr. Majority leader, what did you do?
You raised prices. You didn't decrease prices. You raised prices.
Everyone knows that prices have gone up.
Truckers are going to strike over record diesel prices. Diesel this
week was at an average of more than $4 a gallon in Oregon and
Washington, and nearly $4.12.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has
expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. In California, according to the American Trucking
Association, if a trucker is filling up a 300-gallon semi, that bill
could top $1,200.
We want to talk about competitive nature. We want manufacturing jobs
in this country. Energy prices are killing our ability to compete in
the world economy. It's killing our ability to get or product to the
ports to ship them overseas to be competitive. It's killing our ability
to manufacture the goods using innovation and technology, because that
requires energy.
No energy plan is a plan to fail. Change is not always good. This is
a change that the Democrat majority has brought us. $58.31, the price
of a barrel of crude oil upon the assumption of the leadership here in
this chamber. Current price today, $110.61. I have those on Velcro tabs
so I can just keep following that price as it keeps going up.
Sometimes a barrel of crude oil is hard to follow. People don't know
what it translates into. Well, I translated it earlier, from $2.33 a
gallon, to, on average, $3.34 a gallon, and we know it's going to hit
4. We know it's going to hit 4. And when it hits 4, who are they going
to call? They're going to call us. And what are we going to say? We're
going to say, ``Oh, the Democrats promised a plan in 2006 to lower
prices.'' They're in the majority now. Let's see their plan.
A failure to plan is a plan that fails. You have no plan. We're
increasing our costs. The economy is hurting, and we bring healthy
beaches to the floor. Healthy beaches. High energy costs.
And my colleague who just followed me talked about excluding
exploration of energy. She tied this debate to energy. She understood
the importance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has
again expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 2
additional minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Democrats have voted, not once, not twice, but four
times to raise energy taxes on the 110th Congress.
There's a debate in the State of Illinois to lower our gas tax. Why?
So the average American citizen can afford to do the job. In rural
America, when we have to drive long distances, this directly affects
the pocketbook of every citizen in rural America. Every citizen.
They're going to drive 20, 30, 40 miles just to go to work.
Talk about the inner cities and the traffic congestion, the people
who are idling, they're going to end up paying more.
Four times the Democrats have said we're going to change the gas
price debate here in America and we're going to lower prices. We know
that that hasn't worked. Not only have they added insult to injury,
they said not only aren't we paying enough in gas prices now, but we
want to put more taxes on gasoline. Shoot, $3.50 is not enough. Let's
get to 4. Let's pay $4.50 a gallon. Let's pay higher energy costs.
And what do we see? The periodicals and newspapers, the print media
are starting to understand. In the Buffalo News, April 9: $4 Gasoline
Seems Possible This Summer.
There used to be a time when Americans got outraged at $3 a gallon.
Well, we've sensitized them to over $3 a gallon. They were promised by
the Democrat majority they would lower gas prices. They've increased
gas prices. Now we have to get prepared for $4 a gallon.
What's next?
No energy plan is a plan to fail. The Washington Times: Price at the
Pump Likely to Reach $4. Fox News, Denver, Colorado: $4 Per Gallon
Creeps Closer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has
again expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1
additional minute, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Friends, healthy beaches are important. We all want to
benefit from them. I'd like to take my family to a beach. A lot of my
constituents like to go there. But if they can't afford the gasoline in
the minivan to get them to appreciate these healthy beaches, for what
benefit?
The Democrats, when they were in the majority, promised us, I've got
the quotes, they promised us lower gas prices, lower gas prices. I read
the quotes. Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, I've got one from
Jim Clyburn. Lower prices.
What do we have? Higher prices? And it's about time you started
accepting responsibility and do something about these high prices.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were doing a rule and not
special orders right now.
We are working on the rule for the beaches, and we want to keep
Americans safe from water pollutants.
I want to say we have an obligation to ensure Americans are safe and
healthy, and this act would do it.
I reserve my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would understand my colleague would be
upset about speaking. I would understand why you would be ashamed about
talking about healthy beaches and not addressing the real concerns of
America which is high energy costs.
I've been on the floor numerous times, motions to recommit over the
past year and a half to talk about energy crises. One the big things
I've talked about is coal to liquid technologies.
You know what? It was your colleague who stepped on the floor and
talked about we don't want oil exploration off the coast. We don't want
more crude oil supplies.
Well, I have a solution that would help keep our beaches healthy.
Let's use coal to liquid technologies. Let's mine our vast abundant
resource of coal right here. Let's build a coal to liquid refinery. In
fact, Sasol, the South African energy company, just announced that the
Brits are going to buy synthetic aviation fuel.
You know, we had all these aviation industry folks just go bankrupt,
these low cost airlines that could get to these healthy beaches. You
know one reason why they went bankrupt? The high cost of aviation fuel.
Those are jobs gone. Those are the inability of me and my family on a
low cost airline to appreciate these healthy beaches.
Well, I have a solution. They've been to the floor on motion to
commit coal to liquid technology. Get our coal, refine it in to liquid
fuels, put it in a pipeline and ship it to our commercial and military
aviation.
I've been using this chart for a year and a half. Has this majority
moved on decreasing our reliance on imported crude oil? Negligibly.
Zip, zero. Maybe on the RFS. I voted for it. I appreciate that.
But doing anything to expand our ability to get our own resources,
no, we're here talking about healthy beaches. We don't want to talk
about crude oil exploration. We want to talk about pristine beaches. We
don't want to talk about that we're paying $110 per barrel of crude oil
when it was $58 when you all came into the majority. Translates to a
dollar more in gas. It's going to reach 4.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has
expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. So we have some options. We can be here spending all day
talking about healthy beaches while our businesses and industries fall
further behind, fail to compete because of high energy costs.
I haven't even got involved in climate change. Climate change is
going
[[Page H2173]]
to bring additional cost to your gas tank, to your electricity. In
fact, the only one who's been intellectually honest about this is
Chairman Dingell. What does he say? Fifty cents a gallon more to comply
with climate change.
Now, if we want to do that, then let's vote on it. But you know what?
You won't do it because it'll take that $4 a gallon a gas and move it
up to $4.50.
Guess what? People are going to say, let's re-evaluate this. Let's
understand if all the world nations are going to comply. Do we want all
this pain, all that job dislocation, all these higher energy costs and
no benefit?
If India and China do not comply, we get no benefit. All pain, no
gain. All pain, job dislocation, higher energy costs, no gain. We ought
to insist, before we go into any climate change agreement, that India
and China sign on the dotted line verifiable that we know they're going
to comply.
You know what? I've talked to them. They're not going to do it. They
are not going to do it.
So why assume these costs? Why burden the American consumer? Why
deplete our hotel and tourism industry by people not being able to get
there, either through airlines who have failed or the ability to drive
the long distances to get there.
This majority has had no plan to address. Well, they have. They've
promised, lower gas prices, 2006. This Democrat majority promised lower
gas prices, lower gas prices. What do we have? Higher gas prices. And
no plan to mitigate.
You know how you mitigate it? You bring on more supply. And you all
won't do that.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman if he has
any remaining speakers.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes. We have an additional
speaker.
Ms. MATSUI. I reserve.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a deep
concern. We, as a country, will be a second-rate nation in the next
decade if we don't have an energy policy. America needs an energy
policy. We need to have a plan of how we're going to have available,
affordable fuel for everybody to run our companies, to heat our homes,
to drive our cars.
We don't have an energy policy, folks. We have a policy where we've
locked up our resources and we're going to let the rest of the world
produce. Our dependence on foreign oil has increased 2 percent a year
every year for 20 years.
{time} 1100
We are on that path of maybe going to 3 percent a year. Because when
we don't produce, they do and we pay. We have the rest of the world
consuming greater and greater amounts of energy making us now bid for
our energy.
I find it interesting. They like to say it's the six big American oil
companies, or I guess it's five, that are the cause of our energy
prices. The fact is, this Congress and the last three administrations
are the reason we have high energy prices. This Congress locked up.
This map right here shows we're the only country in the world that's
locked up the outer continental shelf, the best and safest place to
produce energy. Every country in the world produces there. Cuba will
soon be producing energy 50-some miles off our coasts where we
prohibit.
We need to have an energy policy. We need to open up our midwest. We
need to open up our offshore. I have the bill. I heard talk in here a
little bit ago about how we are going to savage the beaches. My bill
opens up for natural gas only. The first 25 miles are locked up. The
second 25 miles are only open if States choose to. The second 50 miles
are open; States can still close it with the legislation. And the
second hundred miles are open.
I ask for some Member of this Congress to show me a natural gas well
that has ever polluted a beach. Natural gas bubbles up under the ground
all over the country from gas pressure in the earth. Natural gas comes
out of the ground naturally, and if we put a 6-inch hole in the ground,
it comes out in a commercial way that we can heat our homes.
America has had the highest natural gas prices in the world. Natural
gas is not a world price. Oil is a world price. Natural gas is not a
world price. For 7 years now, soon going on 8, we've had the highest
natural gas prices in the world, and our fertilizer companies are
leaving because they use so much of it. Our petrochemical manufacturers
are leaving, our polymers and plastic companies are leaving. People who
have bend metal, treat metal, cook food are going to do it in other
places where natural gas is a fraction than it is here. Clean, green
natural gas is what America ought to be running on until we have viable
renewable.
I met with wind people this morning. I'm for all the wind we can get.
But if we double wind and solar, which so many people are counting on,
in the next 5 years we will be less than three-quarters of 1 percent of
our energy needs.
I find it unexplainable that we have the highest fuel prices for
trucks and cars, the highest heating home costs on record, and this
Congress doesn't even talk about it. We don't have a plan. We are doing
stimulus packages because energy is taking the life out of our economy.
We're going to need to do a stimulus package every 6 months, because
as soon as we inject another $220 billion in, the energy policies of
this country are going to suck it right back out because Americans are
going to spend more and more. We have $3.40 gasoline, soon to be $4,
and if we have a storm in the gulf this summer, we will be looking at
$5 gasoline. $5 gasoline will sink our economy.
We must have an energy policy.
Ms. MATSUI. I reserve.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. We have no further speakers, Mr.
Speaker, and I appreciated the debate. Obviously, the legislation is of
importance, the subject is of importance. We do need to preserve,
protect that great treasure that our beaches are, but there are a
number of issues that do need to be discussed that are not being
discussed.
Unfortunately, one issue that should not be discussed is going to be
discussed today which is to single out and discriminate against
Colombia, our best friend in this hemisphere, in a shocking way,
ultimately an unfortunate way.
We have no further speakers on this legislation, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and I
yield myself the balance of my time.
First, let me say that there is no need to open up more sensitive
natural areas to drilling. The United States has 3 percent of the
world's resources but 25 percent of the demand. It is obvious that
there is no way for us to drill our way to energy independence.
If we are really concerned about lowering energy costs and reducing
dependence on foreign oil, we need to invest in renewable resources,
and we have passed legislation to do just that.
The open rule before us today is a fair rule that allows for debate
on the important issues that face our country, from water pollutants to
public health concerns. It is Congress' responsibility to set high
standards and assert proper oversight of these issues.
The underlying bill, H.R. 2537, takes huge steps to promote public
health throughout the great beaches of our country and ensure that our
beaches will be preserved for future generations to enjoy and benefit
from.
Congress has a distinct obligation to future generations to keep our
water clean and preserve our beaches. This bill increases funding for
States to effectively monitor the coasts, ensure swift public
notification and takes us into the next generation of water monitoring.
We have a commitment to keep the millions who visit our beaches safe
and informed. This bill does just that, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on
the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
[[Page H2174]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________