[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.

                          ____________________