[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 57 (Thursday, April 10, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2190-H2207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BEACH PROTECTION ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1083 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2537.
{time} 1404
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2537) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating
to beach monitoring, and for other purposes, with Ms. DeGette in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2537, the Beach
Protection Act of 2007. This legislation extends the authorization of
appropriations for the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act, the BEACH Act, through 2012. First signed into law in
October 2000, the BEACH Act has provided States, local governments and
tribes vital funding for assessment and public notification programs
that monitor our coastal waters.
Over the years, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
has held numerous hearings on EPA's BEACH program. In fact, the history
of the BEACH Act goes back to 1990 when Congressman William Hughes of
New Jersey first introduced the Beaches Environmental Assessment,
Closure and Health Act of 1990. I applaud his vision for effective
coastal water quality criteria and public notification, as well as the
efforts of Congressman Pallone and Congressman Bishop, the primary
sponsors of this legislation, to carry forward this legacy.
As reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
the Beach Protection Act of 2007 increases the annual authorization
level for State and local monitoring and notification grants by $10
million and expands the eligible uses for grants under
[[Page H2191]]
this program. For example, H.R. 2735 allows States to utilize a portion
of their BEACH grant funding to develop and implement pollution source
identification and tracking programs for coastal recreation waters,
which will enable interested States to locate the likely sources of
coastal water contamination.
H.R. 2537 also encourages the development and implementation of rapid
testing methods for determining where and when coastal recreational
waters exceed coastal water quality criteria. These rapid testing
methods are designed to ensure that the public is notified of potential
harmful recreational waters within a few hours, rather than days as
under the current system. This provision will have a significant impact
on efforts to protect the public from coming into contact with
potentially harmful pollutants and contaminants at their favorite
beaches.
In addition, H.R. 2537 enhances existing public notification
requirements, including making beach warnings and closures available on
the Internet. The bill clarifies that the public must be notified
within 24 hours of the authority receiving results of contaminated
water quality samples. However, because many States utilize a system
where two contaminated samples must be identified before a beach is
closed, H.R. 2537 also requires that a physical sign must be posted at
any beach where the results of a water quality sample demonstrate the
likelihood that the water may be contaminated. Again, providing more
information and notice on the condition of the Nation's coastal water
quality is essential to ensure that the public can avoid contact with
potentially harmful pollutants while visiting their favorite beach.
The bill also enhances EPA's review of individual States' compliance
with the requirement of the BEACH Act by requiring the Administrator to
conduct an annual review of implementation of the BEACH Act by State
and local governments and to take corrective action if State and local
governments are not in compliance with BEACH Act requirements. It also
requires the Government Accountability Office to audit EPA's
administration of the BEACH Act.
Finally, the bill requires EPA to conduct annual compliance reviews
of State and local BEACH programs.
Later today I plan to offer a bipartisan manager's amendment to the
bill to address several technical recommendations made by the
Environmental Protection Agency and others that will improve the bill.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and
the underlying legislation that I believe will make significant
improvement to EPA's BEACH program.
Much of our efforts are to provide additional safeguards for our
families to make sure that they do not come into contact with
potentially harmful pollutants and contaminants along the Nation's
coastlines. I believe this legislation accomplishes what we tried to
do.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I am very excited the House is moving H.R. 2537, the
Beach Protection Act of 2007. This is an example of the good we can
accomplish when we are able to work in a bipartisan manner to address
the Nation's water resources needs.
Beaches are an important part of American life. Our Nation has nearly
23,000 miles of ocean and Gulf shoreline along the continental United
States, 5,500 miles of Great Lakes shorelines and 3.6 million miles of
rivers and streams. Beaches are an important part of the coastal
watershed, providing numerous recreational opportunities for millions
of people, including fishing, boating, beachcombing, swimming, surfing,
sunbathing and bird watching.
Each year, over 180 million people visit coastal waters for
recreational purposes. This activity supports over 28 million jobs and
leads to the investment of over $50 billion each year in goods and
services. Public confidence in the quality of our Nation's water is
important, not only to each citizen who swims, but also to the tourism
and recreation industries that rely on safe and swimmable coastal
waters.
To improve the public's confidence in the quality of our Nation's
coastal waters and protect public health and safety, Congress passed
the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000,
commonly called the BEACH Act in the 106th Congress.
The BEACH Act aimed to limit and prevent human exposure to polluted
coastal recreational waters by assisting States and local communities
to implement beach monitoring, assessment and public notification
programs. The act also called on States with coastal recreational
waters to adopt pathogen-related water quality standards and directed
EPA to conduct research and develop updated water quality criteria to
protect human health. Under the BEACH Act, EPA has been making grants
to States to help them implement programs to monitor beach water
quality and notify the public if water quality standards for pathogens
are not being met.
An important indicator of progress to date is the fact that all
eligible States are now implementing the beach monitoring assessment
and public notification provisions of the BEACH Act. The number of
monitored beaches has increased from approximately 1,000 in 1997 to
more than 3,500 in 2006.
In addition, EPA has strengthened water quality standards throughout
all the coastal recreation waters in the United States. All 35 States
and territories with coastal recreation waters now have water quality
standards as protective of human health as EPA's water quality
criteria. This is an increase from 11 States and territories in 2000.
Further, EPA has improved public access to data on beach advisories
and closings by improving the agency's electronic beach data collection
and delivery systems. Moreover, EPA has been conducting cutting edge
research to support the development of new water quality criteria to
protect human health from pathogens and new monitoring methods to more
accurately and rapidly detect pathogen contamination in recreational
waters.
Faster and better decisions are good for public health and good for
the economy and beach communities. We are optimistic that this work
will help State beach managers make the best decisions possible about
keeping beaches open or placing them under advisory.
{time} 1415
Although EPA and the States have made substantial progress in
implementing the BEACH Act, there is important work left to do in the
areas of monitoring, research and updating the existing water quality
criteria.
Reauthorizing the BEACH Act will enable EPA and the States to
complete the important work they have begun so they can better protect
public health and safety and continue to improve the quality of our
Nation's recreational coastal waters so important to the economies of
our coastal communities.
H.R. 2537 passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by a
unanimous vote. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee,
Mr. Oberstar, and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and especially a thank you to
the ranking member, Mr. Mica, for all the hard work they have done put
in to allow us to bring to you a consensus bill that enjoys strong
bipartisan support.
I would also very much like to thank the staff. We have a bipartisan
amendment that will be offered by Ms. Johnson at the appropriate time.
It addresses technical and clarifying matters and other matters brought
to the committee's attention since the committee filed its report.
I urge all Members to support the legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to
yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kagen from Wisconsin.
Mr. KAGEN. Thank you to Madam Johnson and subcommittee Chair Frank
Pallone for putting together a tremendous bill.
Madam Chairman, as a Member who has the honor of representing one of
the largest States in the country that has shoreline beyond measure in
its value, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection
Act.
This critical piece of legislation will increase grant funding
overseen by the
[[Page H2192]]
EPA for water quality surveys and for pollution source tracking
programs, and it will also set a new standard for public notification.
H.R. 2537 will take important steps to address the serious threat to
public health and the economic vitality of coastal vitality of coastal
economies in northeast Wisconsin posed by beach water pollution and
human pathogens.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not also recognize the exemplary
job performed by the State of Wisconsin's Department of Natural
Resources, who has been monitoring 34 of the 35 beaches in Door County,
Brown County and Kewaunee County.
While I am also proud to applaud the beach monitoring standards
employed by the State of Wisconsin, this act will also improve upon the
quality of these observations and heighten public safety. After all,
clean water gets good health.
Moreover, it will require the EPA to commence a study, identify
potential revisions in the beach-funding distribution formula, which
currently weighs the beach season conservatively, more importantly,
than other factors such as Wisconsin's winter season not being
adequately measured. Additionally, the bill will call upon the EPA to
publish a list of pathogens affecting human health.
In closing, I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 2537.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
Madam Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 2537, the Beach
Protection Act, and I want to applaud Chairman Oberstar for his
leadership in bringing this to the floor and working with Ranking
Member Mica. Certainly our subcommittee Chair, Eddie Bernice Johnson,
has done extraordinary work on this, and our ranking member on the
subcommittee, Mr. Boozman, as well, for bringing it to the floor, I
think, in a very bipartisan way.
I actually was not in the Congress in 2000 when the original BEACH
Act became law, but I really feel this program could have been designed
with my district in mind. In Michigan, we are unbelievably blessed to
be surrounded by the Great Lakes which provide incredible recreational
opportunities for boating or fishing or swimming.
Millions of Michigan residents from all over the world come to
Michigan to enjoy our magnificent Great Lakes. In fact, there are more
than 30 million people who find their way every year to our beaches.
We also have some especially unique challenges in the Great Lakes
region in regards to quality. Unfortunately, due to inadequate
underground infrastructure, many areas suffer from combined sewer
overflows during our wet weather events. We often see sewage discharges
right into the Great Lakes, right along the beaches near big cities
like Detroit or Chicago, other populated areas.
My district faces additional challenges in that we have a very long
liquid border that we share with Canada. In fact, on the Canadian side
of the river next to my district is an area which we call Chemical
Valley, which is the largest concentration of petrochemical
manufacturing plants in North America. So we need to worry not only
about discharges on the American side, but on the Canadian side of the
border as well.
Frequent and proper monitoring is a critical tool in this area to
ensure that those who come to enjoy our State's natural beauty can do
so knowing that the waters are clean and pure.
The BEACH Act has provided resources to help State and local
governments ensure that our beaches are safe for recreational activity.
In many ways, the BEACH Act has been successful and this
reauthorization bill and the bipartisan cooperation that went into it
has improved an already outstanding Federal program, but I do believe
that we can do better.
A 2007 GAO report about the impact of the BEACH Act on the Great
Lakes noted that there were some important successes, but also some
areas where we need to improve. First, the GAO found that the formula
EPA has used to distribute the BEACH Act grants does not accurately
reflect the monitoring needs of the respective States. The EPA takes
into account three factors to determine the allocation of these grants:
beach season length, beach miles, and then beach usage.
At the current funding levels, the beach season factor has a much
greater influence than the factors of beach miles and coastal
population. Great Lakes States, which have beach seasons of little
longer than 4 months, lose out when compared to southern and western
States, of course, that have a full year season, even though the number
of people who use the beaches might be similar.
Just an example, my home State of Michigan is disadvantaged by the
minimal consideration given to beach miles. In 2006, Michigan, that has
3,224 shoreline miles, received a grant out allocation of only
$278,000. By contrast, one of our neighboring States, that has only 63
shoreline miles, received $243,000. Due in part to this funding
disparity, Michigan is only able to monitor 212 of its 905 beaches.
I am glad that this legislation helps address this problem by
requiring the EPA to conduct a study of the formula for the
distribution of grants in accordance with the needs of the States. EPA
must report their findings back to the Congress and suggest possible
revisions for a more equitable distribution of the funds.
A second recommendation from the GAO report was that Congress should
consider providing more flexibility for the grant so that they could be
used to investigate and remediate contamination sources. Because of the
increased monitoring, we are better able to predict which beaches would
be contaminated.
But most cases local officials do not know the source of the
contamination and are unable to take the action to address the cause.
If they did they would still not have adequate funds to address the
issue.
This legislation will allow States to use their BEACH Act grants to
track sources of pollution. This change will provide the valuable
information that we need to help clean up our waters and reduce
pollution before it gets into our waters.
I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to
yield to our distinguished Chair of the full committee for a unanimous
consent request.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2537,
the Beach protection Act of 2008.
This legislation, and the underlying statute that the Beach
Protection Act amends, are vital to ensuring that the public is aware
of, and protected from coming into contact with, potentially harmful
pollutants and contaminants in our coastal recreational waters.
I applaud the efforts of the primary sponsors of this legislation,
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, and our colleague on the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Bishop, for
shepherding this important legislation through the hearing process,
through Committee markup, and to the floor of the House today.
I also applaud the efforts of the gentleman from California, Mr.
Bilbray, for his efforts back in 2000 to move the initial BEACH Act to
the President's desk.
The BEACH Act that was signed into law in October 2000 authorized $30
million annually for beach monitoring and assessment programs and
public notification programs for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. It
required States and tribes to determine minimum water quality standards
that were considered ``safe.''
In many ways, the BEACH Act has proven successful in making the
public aware of the presence of potentially harmful water contamination
at local beaches, and has brought about a revolution in terms of States
creating and implementing coastal recreational water monitoring and
notification programs. The benefits we have seen over the last 8 years
include uniform standards for coastal recreational water quality, and
increased monitoring and notification of such waters.
However, inasmuch as the BEACH Act has been successful in providing
more information to the public, the Bush administration's track record
on utilizing all of the tools contained in the BEACH Act to protect
human health has been far less successful.
For example, the EPA was given authority to promulgate standards for
States that did not have sufficient standards as compared to
[[Page H2193]]
those in the 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA was
given further direction to continue to study the impacts of waterborne
pollutants and bacteria to human health, and to revise the criteria
every five years as needed.
Unfortunately, EPA failed to complete this task, as demonstrated by a
lawsuit by advocates for safe beaches, and more recently, in a report
of the Government Accountability Office (``GAO'').
This GAO Report, entitled ``Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made
Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could
Improve Public Health Protection,'' established that more work could be
done to ensure the safety of our beach waters.
Just this week, a Federal District Court judge in California ruled
that EPA, again, violated its ``non-discretionary duty'' to complete
required studies on revising coastal water quality criteria and
standards. Even after losing a similar lawsuit in 2006, EPA continues
to argue that the statute gives the Agency the discretion to ``conduct
the studies as it sees fit.'' This is contrary to the law, and has once
again been dismissed by the Federal District Court judge.
Similarly, the Bush administration has failed to utilize the
authorities and direction of the initial BEACH Act to ensure the public
has the best, most accurate, and timely information on the condition of
their favorite beaches. For example, the BEACH Act called for a
creation of a ``National List of Beaches'' that would provide the
public with information on which beaches had in place monitoring and
notification programs, and which did not. EPA was given the direction
to periodically revise this list, based on the availability of new
information.
I can assure my colleagues that latest list, published in 2004, is
not the most up-to-date assessment of the condition of the Nation's
beaches. Again, the administration has failed to utilize the tools
provided by Congress to ensure the protection of human health and
safety.
Despite the current administration's track record, the BEACH Act is
an important law for protecting the public from the presence of harmful
pollutants and contaminants in the Nation's recreational waters.
The Beach Protection Act, under consideration today, will further
enhance these authorities by working towards real-time, same-day
information on the condition of local waters to safeguard against
unintentional contact with contaminated waters.
Again, I strongly support the efforts of our colleagues in drafting
this important piece of legislation, and urge its adoption.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey, who is the author of the bill.
Mr. PALLONE. I thank the subcommittee Chair, the gentlewoman from
Texas.
Let me say I appreciate the bipartisan support that this legislation
has, and certainly the efforts, not only of Mr. Tim Bishop of New York,
but of our chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and the
subcommittee Chair, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, for moving this
legislation today.
Madam Chairman, our Nation's beaches are vital, not only to residents
of our coastal States, but also for countless visitors who come to
visit each year. America's beaches are a tremendous resource for those
who come to enjoy them, and they are a huge economic engine for our
coastal States.
In New Jersey alone, beaches are the primary driver of a tourism
economy that provides nearly 500,000 jobs and generates nearly $36
billion in economic activities to the State each year. All summer long
thousands of people flock to the beaches.
It's my intention to assure that these beachgoers that are there in
New Jersey and elsewhere, that not only are they visiting clean
beaches, but they are also swimming in safe waters.
Thanks to the BEACH Act, a law that I helped to author back in 2000,
we have made major strides over the last 8 years. The BEACH Act of 2000
helped us improve water quality testing and monitoring of beaches
across the country, which is critical to protecting the health of
beachgoers.
The act has three provisions: one, requiring States to adopt certain
EPA water quality criteria to protect beachgoers from getting sick;
two, requiring the EPA to update these water quality criteria with new
science and technologies to provide better, faster water testing; and,
third, to provide grants to States to implement coastal water
monitoring programs.
In New Jersey we used some of this grant money to become the first
State in the Nation to launch a real-time Web site that notifies
beachgoers of the state of our beaches. Essentially, this bill is a
right-to-know piece of legislation.
Now, despite the actions New Jersey and other States have taken since
the BEACH Act was signed earlier in the year 2000, this act must be
improved. That's why I have introduced the Beach Protection Act of
2007.
This bill not only reauthorizes the grants to States for 2012 but
adds to the annual grant levels from a total of $30 million to a new
level of $40 million annually.
We also expand the scope of BEACH Act grants from water quality
monitoring and notification to also include pollution source tracking
efforts. The bill requires that beach water quality violations are
disclosed not only to the public but all relevant State agencies with
beach water quality authority.
I want to mention the rapid testing methods. This act calls for the
use of rapid testing methods by requiring the EPA to approve the use of
rapid testing methods that detect bathing water contamination in 6
hours or less. This is something that I have been advocating for the
last couple of years.
Current water quality tests, like those used in New Jersey, only test
for bacteria levels and take 24 to 48 hours to produce reliable
results, during which time many beachgoers can be unknowingly exposed
to harmful pathogens. More immediate results would prevent beaches from
remaining open when high levels of bacteria are found.
The legislation also requires prompt communication with State
environmental agencies by stating that all BEACH Act grant recipients
make decisions about closures or advisories within 24 hours in order to
ensure coordination in response to activities.
We are also requiring each State receiving grants to implement
measures for tracking and IDing sources of pollution, creating a public
online database for each beach with relevant pollution closure
information posted, and ensuring the closures or advisories are issued
shortly after the State finding that coastal waters are out of
compliance, so, again, right to know, information to the public.
We are also holding States accountable by requiring the EPA
administrator to do annual reviews of grantees' compliance with BEACH
Act process requirements. The Beach Protection Act will strengthen
current law by requiring States to use expedited testing.
This is a right to know for our beachgoers. It's very important, and
I want to thank everyone on a bipartisan basis for supporting it.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, things that we do in this Chamber have
consequences, and the things we don't do in Chamber also have
consequences. Quite frankly, there are a lot things that we are not
doing that are having immense consequences, things like renewing the
FISA bill, the war supplemental, long-term issues like Social Security
and Medicaid. We had another one today, the Colombia Free Trade
Agreement, which are things that will have consequences because we have
not dealt with this on the floor.
The internal combustion engine will be used for a long time to power
pleasure craft on our lakes and beaches and waterways. The public
policy decisions that we are taking in here and have taken in here make
that use of those boats and jet skis much more expensive.
Public policy decisions that are specifically aimed at increasing the
energy costs to all Americans are things like raising taxes on energy
companies so that they are no longer able to use that money to explore
for and produce additional crude oil and natural gas, restrictions on
where we can drill for these additional sources of crude oil and
natural gas, and the gasoline that results from that to power our water
crafts and jet ski, added regulations on the production of crude oil
and natural gas, added regulations on the refining of crude oil and
natural gas and the gasoline that can be used to power jet skis and
motor boats and others, and even new regulations that are coming that
will increase the cost of electricity to American consumers and
American businesses.
[[Page H2194]]
{time} 1430
All of these public policy decisions that we make in this House and
have made in this House are specifically designed to raise the
operating costs of all these vehicles to consumers in America. It is
the elephant in the room that none of us want to talk about as we go
forward with the energy policy that is put forth by the leadership of
the current House. That is, they specifically want Americans paying
higher gasoline prices because when you reduce supplies, as these
policies do in the face of increasing demand, then the law of supply
and demand works, in spite of our best efforts, and costs go up.
As we have seen, gasoline prices are at an all-time high. This
weekend, which will be a wonderful weekend to be on our beaches and
lakes, using those watercrafts, the gasoline that will be purchased to
pay for that recreational use this weekend will be much higher than it
otherwise would have been than if we had taken rational steps with
respect to energy policy in this country.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation
which would reauthorize the Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act, or the BEACH Act.
My district has over 1,600 miles of beach frontage on the Great
Lakes, and the BEACH Act has been instrumental in providing funding to
protect beachgoers from bacteria and other dangerous pathogens.
Michigan residents rely on BEACH Act funding to protect them. In my
district, residents on Sugar Island near Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan,
depended on this important funding to monitor water that had been
contaminated with E. coli, coliform, and other bacteria. Without the
support of BEACH Act grants, the Chippewa County Health Department
would not have been able to determine that the pollution was
originating from a wastewater treatment plant in Canada.
This legislation would improve the BEACH Act program to ensure a
fairer distribution of funds. In July of 2007, the Government
Accountability Office released a report at the request of myself and
several other Great Lakes colleagues. This report found that the EPA
was using a funding formula that prioritizes States with warmer
climates, ignoring other important factors such as beach miles and
beach use. This formula put Great Lakes States like Michigan at a
distinct disadvantage, making it more difficult for these States to
protect their beachgoers.
This legislation addresses this problem by instructing EPA to revise
its funding formula to take factors such as beach miles and beach use
into consideration.
While monitoring water quality and tracing the sources of pollution
to its origin are important steps to keeping our beaches clean,
knowledge is only half of the battle. The July 2007 GAO report also
found that while the BEACH Act has helped protect beachgoers from
polluted waters, States still do not have the resources they need to
clean up the pollution and prevent future problems.
The latest survey by EPA has estimated that an additional $181
billion is needed nationwide for infrastructure projects eligible for
funding under the State revolving fund. I look forward to working with
Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
later this year to address our water and wastewater infrastructure
needs and provide resources for the State revolving fund.
I appreciate the work of Mr. Pallone and Mr. Oberstar on this
important legislation, and look forward to working with them as we
continue to address important Great Lakes issues.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I rise to express my deep disappointment
with today's debate in the House. With our Nation facing record high
gas prices, the majority leadership in the House has chosen to debate
legislation not on securing reliable and affordable energy, but on
beaches.
I suggest a better use of our time and the American people's time
would be to have a serious debate about energy. How are we going to
make energy more affordable in the short term? How are we going to make
energy more affordable as the Nation needs to be more independent in
the long term? What will be our primary fuel source in the future, and
how do we get there?
Instead, in recent months we have periodically debated shortsighted
and fatally flawed legislation that purports to fix our energy problems
simply by raising taxes by billions of dollars on domestic energy
companies and hoping for the best. That is not an energy policy, that
is a tax increase on every American family. Energy companies will
inevitably pass on their additional costs to consumers at the pump.
We should be debating legislation to streamline the Federal
permitting process that has stifled construction of new oil refineries.
We haven't built one in 32 years. We could be talking about benefiting
consumers by simplifying our Nation's fragmented gasoline supply. The
number of regional boutique fuels restricts the movement of our fuel
supply and raises costs on Americans at the pump.
We could be debating the merits of opening Alaska's Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, and the Outer Continental Shelf for energy
exploration. We know that combined these areas have nearly 100 billion
barrels of oil. Previous Congresses, urged on by their radical
environmentalist allies, made the decision to keep these vast reserves
off-limits. As a result, we see oil now at $110 a barrel. It is time we
revisit the very important issue of being able to go after resources we
have available to us in Alaska and in the Outer Continental Shelf.
What about encouraging the construction of nuclear power plants? We
began that process in 2005 with the passage of the Energy Policy Act.
But as we stand here today, we haven't built a new plant in decades.
European and Asian nations are building them by the dozens. India has
nine new plants under construction. Japan is building five more. And
China has plans to build 30 reactors. We in this country have plans for
exactly zero on the way.
Let's talk about how we intend to compete with China, which is
canvassing the globe in its quest to ensure a reliable supply of oil.
Reports indicate that the Chinese are forming energy partnerships with
rogue nations like Iran and Cuba. And Cuba is purportedly planning to
allow the Chinese to drill for oil off the Florida Keys, off our
Florida Keys.
Shouldn't we be talking about boosting domestic production simply so
we wouldn't have to rely on the mood of Third World dictators like Hugo
Chavez? Wouldn't it be nice if prices didn't spike at your neighborhood
gas station when terrorists decide to blow up a pipeline half a world
away, or when there is instability in Nigeria?
Some may argue, and they might well be right, that oil isn't the
long-term answer. It is a finite resource that may be scarce in the
near future as developing nations like China and India continue to
expand and industrialize; maybe so. But shouldn't we consider boosting
our oil and natural gas supplies, increasing our energy independence
that might just buy us the time necessary to develop the next fuel
source? Maybe hydrogen fuel cell technology will take us into the next
century. Maybe it is some other renewable resource. It could be a
combination, or maybe something we haven't even discovered yet. We
don't know. We do know that America has substantial reserves of oil and
natural gas that we have locked up, we have placed off-limits. These
resources could be the bridge that allows America to cross over the
choppy waters of OPEC and Third World dictators to the secure footing
of affordable and secure energy sources of tomorrow. Let's talk about
these important things. Let's not talk about beaches.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Beach
Protection Act. This bill will increase protections for the Nation's
beaches and the public health. I commend Mr. Pallone, Mr. Bishop, and
the Transportation Committee leadership for bringing this important
bill to the floor in a bipartisan way.
Despite having one of the most comprehensive beach water quality
testing
[[Page H2195]]
programs of all the coastal States, my home State of California has by
far the most beach closures and advisories of all of the States. The
State reported over 4,600 closing and advisory days statewide in 2006.
This legislation builds on the progress made since the passage of the
BEACH Act in 2000 to reduce the number of these closures which threaten
public health.
First, the legislation increases the funds available to the States,
and expands the uses of those funds to include tracking the sources of
pollution that cause beach closures, and supporting pollution-
prevention efforts.
It will also require the EPA to develop methods for rapid testing of
beach water, so results are available in hours, not days.
Second, the legislation strengthens the requirement for public
notification of health risks posed by water contamination. These
measures will improve the public's awareness of health risks posed by
contamination of coastal waters and create additional tools for
addressing the sources of pollution that cause beach closures,
including leaking or overflowing sewer systems and storm water runoff.
I know some of my colleagues are trying to make this debate into one
of energy and our economy. This is a bill to help protect the health of
our beaches and the health of our economies. Safe and healthy beaches
are strongly tied to our local economies. So I urge my colleagues not
to be distracted by extraneous arguments.
Clean water is an economic and public health necessity for California
and for all coastal States. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
H.R. 2537. Let's take good care of our beaches.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall).
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I am of course pleased to support
H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection Act of 2007, and appreciate the efforts
of Mr. Pallone to advance this legislation.
It is my understanding that this bill will receive overwhelming
bipartisan support. It is going to be a totally green board, which I
applaud. But it seems to me that the House has other, more critical
issues to consider, such as the rising cost of energy which affects the
success or failures of the traveling public to even reach the beaches
of the world.
Oil and gas prices are at an all-time high with national averages
topping $3.25 a gallon. A year ago we feared a time when crude oil
could reach $100 a barrel, and now oil has reached $110 a barrel for
the first time in history.
Unfortunately, energy analysts are saying that prices at the pump are
not likely to decrease any time soon, and could rise as high as $3.75,
maybe $4 a gallon this year.
My constituents in the Fourth District of Texas, as well as all
Americans, are very concerned about the ever-increasing cost of
gasoline and diesel, combined with the escalating prices at the grocery
store. It is costing them more to travel to work, and more to provide
food for their families. They are looking to Congress for some
immediate relief and some long-term solutions.
The Energy Security Act that the majority passed and the President
signed into law has some good provisions; but, unfortunately, none that
will provide Americans the relief they need from high energy costs. Not
one barrel of oil was provided in that entire act. There was no mention
in the Energy Act of an increase in domestic production, which is one
way to help bring down energy costs.
This year marks the culmination of a research and development product
which I have worked on and passed, I think four times as a Democrat and
one time as a Republican, and it is the Ultra-deepwater and
Unconventional Onshore Hydrocarbon Resources Act that was signed into
law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Nuclear energy has also seen a surge in recent years as people
realize it is a clean and safe source of energy. But as with building a
new refinery, the permitting and construction process is extremely
expensive, and there are still significant risks to venture capitalists
who would otherwise invest.
Congress needs to reduce uncertainty in the regulatory process for
permitting and construction of new nuclear plants, as well as oil
refineries, by streamlining the process and requiring the Environmental
Protection Agency to issue its rulings within a realistic time frame.
America needs relief at the pump now more than ever. Congress needs
to jump start efforts to bring down energy costs in the short term and
build on comprehensive energy policies that recognize the importance of
all energy sources in the long term. Providing Americans with
affordable energy is an important issue.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the
Water Resources Subcommittee for yielding to me, and for her great work
on the legislation, as well as the bill's sponsor, Mr. Pallone.
Madam Chairman, I rise today to enthusiastically support the Beach
Protection Act of 2007. With over 75 miles of shoreline along Florida's
well-renowned Gold Coast on the Atlantic Ocean, my congressional
district relies heavily on its beaches to support both our economy and
our unparalleled quality of life.
But keeping our beaches open and thriving requires us to vigilantly
fight pollution in our waters. According to the Natural Resources
Defense Council, almost 2,700 beach advisory or closure dates were
issued due to pollution for the State of Florida in 2006. Although the
number was down from the previous 2 years, 2006 represents a record
high for closing or posted warnings with over 25,000 such notices
across our country.
Madam Chairman, the causes for beach pollution are well known. It
often originates from contaminated storm water or inadequately treated
sewage, and the effects can be wide ranging and devastating, ranging
from ear infections and respiratory ailments, to hepatitis and
dysentery. For senior citizens, small children and people with weak
immune systems, the results can even be deadly.
That is why this act, the Beach Protection Act, is important. The
legislation will reauthorize the BEACH Act of 2000 and increase annual
funding from $30 million to $40 million, enabling more beaches to
receive Federal grants to support State-monitoring efforts.
{time} 1445
It will also allow States to use the funds to track and clean up the
sources of beach water pollution so that we can prevent future closings
and advisories from happening.
H.R. 2537 will also speed up notifications of water quality. The
unfortunate truth is that many beach managers are using outdated
testing methods that are incapable of providing immediate, same-day
results of water quality. This means that beachgoers sometimes don't
even find out until a day or two after they return from the beach that
the water they were swimming in was hazardous.
This delay must stop. Our constituents have a right to know right
away if the water is unsafe. And now that we have rapid test methods
that can provide results in as little as 2 hours, the EPA must approve
them and States must implement them, and this bill will require them to
do that.
The Beach Protection Act is critically important for our coastal
communities and the millions of Americans who enjoy and visit them each
year.
I thank the chairwoman again for her work on it, and look forward to
the passage of this bill.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member
of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, Mr. Upton from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I must say, when I saw the whip notice
this last week, I saw some good things and some bad things. One of the
bad things that I didn't see was that we're not addressing what my
constituents are talking about, and that is gas prices.
Yes, this is a good bill, beach nutrition. It has water monitoring
there, Great Lakes are now part of it, and I want to thank particularly
the Members from the Great Lakes area who
[[Page H2196]]
were able to include that, particularly my friend who represents the
east side of Michigan, Candice Miller, on that committee.
But as far as I know, this bill passed without dissent. Frankly, it
could have been under suspension of the rules. I bet we would have
passed it on a voice vote, two-thirds voting in favor of it. After the
Flake amendment, maybe there are some that wish that it did come up
under suspension so that they wouldn't deal with the Flake earmark
amendment. We'll see.
But, you know, my constituents back home, they're complaining that
we're doing things that aren't maybe on the top of their agenda. We're
talking about steroids, we're talking about a whole number of things
that don't impact the economy or, in fact, their pocketbook. They're
talking about gas prices.
On Tuesday when I left to come back from Michigan, diesel prices were
$4.11 a gallon. Gas prices, unleaded regular, $3.35 a gallon. I can
hardly wait till I go back this week and see what they might have gone
to.
What have we done on this? That is their question. What are we doing
about supply and demand?
Well, I'll tell you some of the things we've done. We've raised taxes
on them. Thank goodness we've got the Senate saying no so far because,
of course, if you raise taxes on energy production here, those costs
are just going to be passed along to the consumer and they'll go up
even higher. Go talk to the French or the British and those folks. They
tax gas a lot and they pay a lot more per gallon.
There's some things that we haven't done. I know some in this body
have advocated for raising the gas tax by as much as 50 cents a gallon.
We haven't done that. Maybe, certainly I believe that's a good thing.
But we've blocked using oil shale from Canada. You know, they've got
a field up in the Northwest there that they think rivals the Saudis,
that can actually heat up the sand and the oil comes out. They're
actually taking 1\1/2\ million gallons.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired.
Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
Mr. UPTON. We need to do more. We are now, by 2012, our domestic
needs, we're going to be only producing 12 percent of our gas here.
That's got to change.
Madam Speaker, let's not go to the beach and leave our work undone.
Let's pass this bill, but let's deal with the real issue that Americans
feel in their pocketbooks literally every day that they go to the pump.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to
inquire of my colleague, Mr. Boozman, how many more speakers he has.
Mr. BOOZMAN. We have several, Madam Chairman, probably five or six.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I reserve my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I wanted to read some quotes. This
is a quote from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 4/24/06: ``Democrats have a
commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''
Another quote from Majority Leader Hoyer: ``Democrats believe that we
can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with
high gas prices.'' This was 10/4/05.
On 7/26/06, Mr. Jim Clyburn, the Democratic Whip, said, ``House
Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.''
We need to see those plans. We need to hear what those ideas are.
April 16, 2006, press release, Speaker Pelosi:
``The Republican Rubber Stamp Congress has passed two energy bills,
costing taxpayers $12 billion for giveaways to big oil companies. But
the Republican bills clearly have done nothing to lower gas prices, as
the price of a barrel of oil has sailed over $70 a barrel,'' and I
believe it closed over $110 today, ``the highest price in our
history.''
``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new
direction that works for everyone, not just a few. Our plan would
empower the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on price gouging, to
help bring down skyrocketing gas prices, increase production of
alternative fuels, and rescind the billions of dollars in taxpayer
subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to the big oil
companies.''
Madam Chairman, I'll say that we have not had any relief from gas
prices. Gas prices are a dollar a gallon more today than they were when
the new majority took over.
We have paid too much attention to windmills, bicycles and solar
panels. We need to pay attention to domestic drilling. We need to pay
attention to promoting alternative fuels.
We have been going in the wrong direction. And if you ask the
American people right now, 78 percent of the people say this country is
headed in the wrong direction.
And, Madam Chairman, I promise you, our gas prices are heading the
wrong direction.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to
yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. I'm surprised at the remarks, Madam Chairman, of the
gentleman from Georgia, about bicycling. I think we need to pay more
attention and do more work for bicycling. And we would all do better
burning 86,000 calories a year on the seat of a bicycle than eight
barrels of oil a year in our cars.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, on April 10, 2008, let
the record show, oil is $110 and rising, natural gas is $10.56 and
rising, gasoline and diesel prices at record levels in all our
communities.
Folks back home are scared. They want us to help them. An amendment I
will offer later will help, the NEED Act, to this bill because it will
provide the ability to produce clean, green natural gas on out, out of
sight, offshore. It will provide $20 billion to clean up the Chesapeake
Bay and the beaches there, $20 billion to clean up the Great Lakes, $12
billion for San Francisco Bay clean-up, energy efficiency and
renewables, $32 billion, carbon capture, the famous discussion in the
Senate now, $32 billion. And it'll be mandated spending. The
appropriators can't screw it up.
America's economic future is in trouble. Energy prices will prevent
people from having a job, having an economy and being able to afford
their vacations and go to the beautiful beaches that we have.
I think Roy Ennis says it best, chairman of the Congress of Racial
Equality. Energy is the master resource, the foundation of everything
else. Abundant, reliable, affordable electricity, natural gas and
transportation fuels make our jobs, health and living standards
possible. Energy is the great equalizer, the creator of economic
opportunity and environmental justice. Push energy prices up, everybody
suffers. When energy costs get too much, industry lays people off or
just leaves. Jobs, income and tax revenues vanish. Government social
programs wither. Town and leadership migrate to other cities, other
countries. Social ills multiply. That's why I say the fight over energy
is the critical civil rights battle of our era. Your utility bills, the
price you pay at the pump, your job security are in danger, and not
just because of the Middle East oil wars or competition from China and
India. Our rights are being endangered because of what's happening
right here at home.
This Congress is the cause of high energy prices. There's no action
here to fix the ills of the past. We're locking up our energy supply.
It's not even to be debated. It's not even a priority.
Congress is the reason America doesn't compete energywise. And,
folks, in a period of time, we won't compete in the global economic
economy, and we will not have jobs and a future for this country. We
have the potential of being a second-rate nation because we, as
Congress, have caused the energy crisis and are refusing to fix it.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I'd like to
reserve.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield a minute to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. I rise in support of the Beach Protection Act. And as the
Member who represents the entire Atlantic Coast in Virginia and much of
[[Page H2197]]
the Chesapeake Bay, I recognize that our beaches are a treasure and
must remain clean and safe. But we must lift the Federal moratorium on
deep sea drilling of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf.
America has acted to make our energy consumption cleaner, and today
we use much more natural gas for the generation of electricity. We have
increased demand without increasing supply.
The U.S. is the only developed nation that does not capture natural
gas from the Outer Continental Shelf. Canada has done it for years. We
all know what Cuba's getting ready to do.
It's American families and American businesses that pay this extra
cost, and it is driving American businesses overseas simply because of
the cost of energy in America.
Coastal States should be able to decide if this activity takes place,
and we should share in those royalties. In Virginia, we could use those
dollars for transportation.
America expects our policies to meet our energy needs.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I continue to reserve.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma
(Ms. Fallin) for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. FALLIN. Madam Chairman, I support the Beach Protection Act.
However, while we are debating this legislation, millions of Americans
are wondering why, in large parts of this country, they are having to
pay $3.34 a gallon for gasoline, and even 70 cents more for diesel
fuel. They're struggling to cover their costs of their daily commute,
and they're wondering, why is Congress debating beach protection when I
can hardly afford to drive my children to school and even to go to
work?
American families and businesses are being hammered by the rising
fuel costs, and it is clear that the inaction of this Congress will
come at an expense to both drivers, small businesses and consumers.
The cost of our inaction was outlined yesterday when we had a hearing
in our Small Business Committee about the rising cost of gasoline. We
heard from five different businesses that testified how their
businesses are being squeezed with the rising cost of fuel.
One business, in particular, was a trucking company who said that his
fuel costs had tripled in the last several years, and he was really
struggling to make ends meet.
Small businesses operate on razor thin margins and they are faced
with dilemmas. Do they cut costs? Do they cut their business? Do they
raise their prices, or do they just go out of business? Some of them
are even having to cut the salaries of their employees.
Well, Madam Speaker, fuel costs that are on the rise are making small
businesses feel the heat, and consumers are feeling the heat too. Today
we need to address the issue of rising fuel costs and help our
consumers and our small businesses. Either way, the American worker is
suffering, small businesses are suffering, and this is a very important
issue to our Nation.
Let's show the people of America that we care, and address this
issue.
{time} 1500
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I continue to
reserve.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
As we come to the floor now and the Democrats talk about beaches, my
constituents in the great State of New Jersey suffer. They are
suffering from unrelenting increases in the price of gas, up almost a
dollar now since the Democrats took control of this House. So as my
constituents suffer from higher food costs, all related energy costs;
as my constituents suffer from higher heating costs, all related to
energy costs; as my constituents suffer from the higher cost of living
in general, again, related to energy costs, all of them should be
asking what is it that the Democrat Congress is doing to address this
problem?
Well, the short answer is nothing really helpful. And the long answer
is really potentially driving up the costs even higher.
Let me give you two quick points. First, the Democrats have voted
four times now, four times, to raise taxes so to make sure the
discovering and making sure that America's energy independence is that
much harder. Secondly, they have voted now to lock up almost 85 percent
of known specific energy resources in this country. What does that
mean? What does that translate to the consumer? Again, the Democrats
are making it harder for America to become energy independent from
foreign oil.
Now is the time for all Americans everywhere across this country to
ask what is its Democrat Congress doing. The short answer is nothing
much. The long answer is potentially driving up the cost for fuel for
all of them. Now is, therefore, the time for all of us to come to the
floor to work together for a change and to make sure that America can,
in fact, become energy independent. Now is the time for Democrats to be
working not against the American consumer, but for him instead.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I continue to
reserve.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, we don't have any additional speakers. I
would urge support of H.R. 2537. I appreciate the hard work of the
staffs on both sides in bringing this before Congress today. I
appreciate the leadership of the individuals involved and would just
urge that we adopt the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Beach
Protection Act, and I salute Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Johnson, and
Congressman Pallone for their leadership.
The intent of the Beach Protection Act is to protect America's
beautiful coastlines from water pollution. Yet big oil drilling
interests have once again filed an amendment that puts our beaches and
America's coastlines at risk.
New offshore oil and gas drilling represents a real hazard to the
marine environment of the State of Florida, but all across the country,
beaches, our coastal environment, our marine resources, the billion
dollar tourism industry in Florida should not be sacrificed for a small
amount of oil.
It would only take 24 hours after a petroleum spill in the eastern
gulf for the oil to sully Florida's panhandle beaches. If the spill was
swept up in the gulf's powerful loop current, the spill would pollute
the Florida Keys, contaminate estuaries and beaches from the Everglades
to Cape Canaveral.
We only have to look back to 2005 when we had three Category 5
hurricanes, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, that caused massive oil spills
and pollutants in the Gulf of Mexico. It destroyed 150 petroleum
production platforms in the gulf and damaged 457 pipelines.
Drilling off of our beautiful beaches is the energy policy of the
past. If President Bush and my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle truly wanted to address high oil prices, you should have voted
with the Democratic majority to take the huge tax breaks away from the
big oil companies at a time that they are making record profits.
We are fighting for a new direction on energy policy, renewable
sources of energy. We value our natural environment, and we value the
public health of our communities.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield the
balance of my time to the chairman of the full Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I have sat here patiently and listened
to a litany of speakers come here and address the Committee of the
Whole on subjects important to them but irrelevant to the subject
matter at hand. And one or another, maybe several of them, said ``this
Democratic Beach bill.''
I just want to remind the colleagues that this is the bill of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who has labored for several
years on behalf of this legislation. We finally move it through
committee, bring it to the floor, and now it's laid on our doors to be
the Democratic bill and why are we
[[Page H2198]]
wasting the House time. We bring it under an open rule, and then
someone said, you should have brought it on suspension. If we had
brought it on suspension, they would have complained because they
didn't have an opportunity to offer the eight amendments that they're
bringing to the floor. I am just perplexed by this tactic. It's
unworthy of the legislation pending.
And we've worked hard to accommodate the gentleman from California
who has a legitimate concern. I concur with his concern. We bring the
bill out, and we do it in good faith, and we expect at least a good-
faith response from the other side.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, while we debate a bill about beaches
today, I am again appalled that the majority has once again missed an
opportunity to address one of the biggest problems confronting our
constituents, rising energy costs. It is reported today that gasoline
prices reached a new all time high of $112 a barrel. Yet, we have let
another week here pass without doing anything to confront this
challenge.
Not a week goes by when I am not asked about rising energy prices.
These increased costs affect everyone in our society. But none are more
affected by these increased costs than some of our nation's most poor.
On average, the nation's working poor spends approximately 13 to 30
percent of their yearly income on energy costs, and as prices rise so
will the amount of their income spent on energy.
A large number of factors combine to put pressure on energy and
gasoline prices, including peaked U.S. oil production, increased world
demand for crude oil, and U.S. refinery capacity that is inadequate to
supply gasoline to a recovering national economy. These are serious
problems that will not go away with time, and they require real
solutions that will restore American energy independence and help ease
the pain of record price fill-ups. However, the majority in Congress
has failed to do anything that would address any of these factors
contributing to high prices.
When many are citing U.S. production numbers and refinery capacity as
a reason for increased gas prices, the Majority has proposed additional
taxes on these domestic energy suppliers. We have voted on several
bills that would impose up to $15 billion in tax increases on domestic
energy suppliers. These taxes will impede domestic oil and gas
production, discourage investment in refinery capacity, and make it
more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in America than
their foreign competitors, actually increasing America's dependence on
foreign oil.
Let's make no mistake, an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy
companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that
consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed on to
consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their
energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises
energy prices for consumers. I have voted against these attempts to
raise taxes, and luckily none of these bills have become law.
Unfortunately, too often in the 110th Congress, the majority's
solution has been to place restrictions on the marketplace. Policies
that increase supply, not those that place restrictions on the
marketplace, are the solutions to today's energy concerns. For example
the dramatic expansion of the Renewable Fuels Standard to require 36
billion is an artificially created government mandate. While I am
supportive of renewable energy, we should develop a policy that is
technology neutral and allows the market to develop new sources of
renewable energy. The RFS provisions create an unrealistic mandate for
advanced biofuels technology that doesn't yet exist and creates hurdles
for the development of second generation biofuels. These restrictions
will undoubtedly lead to a consumer tax to help bridge the gap in
production.
However, there are many things we could actually do here in Congress
that would help ease the prices at the pump. Many Americans don't know
that the U.S. is the world's largest energy producer. Over the past 25
years we have pumped 67 billion barrels of oil, and strong reserves
remain. The fact is the energy sources are there--in Alaska, the
Rockies, and offshore--but political roadblocks keep it in the ground
instead of in use in the economy.
We should also be focusing on the development of clean Coal-to-Liquid
technologies. This is one of the most promising advancements in coal
research and produces liquid transportation fuels synthesized from
coal. Even using conservative estimates, our country has enough coal to
last over 200 years. Coal is one of our nation's most abundant
resources, yet the development of Coal-to-Liquid technologies has been
completely ignored by this Congress. Producing liquid transportation
fuels from coal will be a major catalyst in helping our country become
energy independent.
Energy costs are affecting the daily life of all of our constituents.
We must change the direction this Congress has been headed in
addressing this issue. We must reject the politics that put
restrictions on the marketplace and keep energy in the ground instead
of in our gas tanks. Instead, we must develop a long-term strategy that
allows us to access our traditional energy sources, while developing
alternative and renewable energy sources that seek to increase energy
supplies and encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use.
Mr. GENE GEEEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection Act of 2008.
Texas is home to over 600 miles of spectacular beaches along the warm
waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
This ``Third Coast'' includes some of the most beautiful and calming
beaches in the Nation and is a huge contributor to our State economy.
Whether it's Galveston Island, Corpus Christi, Port Aransas, or South
Padre Island, millions of Texans and tourists visit and swim in our
waters, making it vital that we monitor these beaches to protect the
health and safety of American families.
Just last July, a man who had an ulcer in his lower leg went swimming
off the coast of Galveston County. Three days later he fell ill and was
rushed to the hospital where he had three surgeries to save him from a
rare bacterial infection. The bacteria entered his ulcer through the
water and the infection spread to his blood.
While this is a rare case, Madam Chairman, it highlights the need to
quickly detect water contamination and warn the public of possible
health related threats.
The Beach Protection Act will provide much-needed grants to States
along the coasts for State and local recreational water monitoring and
notification programs.
It expands the grant program and allows States to use funding to
pinpoint possible sources of water contamination and to track these
pollutants.
Just as important, the bill strengthens public notification laws by
requiring a 24-hour notification if water samples prove contaminated,
and allows for public warnings on the possibility that water may be
contaminated.
With more information, individuals and families can make the most
informed choices when vacationing and visiting our public beaches.
I urge my colleagues to support the Beach Act to protect our waters
and the health of our communities.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chairman, on behalf of the residents of
eastern Long Island, I would like to commend Chairwoman Johnson and
Congressman Pallone for their leadership and unwavering dedication to
clean water issues. I would also like to thank the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee staff for their hard work and commitment to
advancing this legislation to the full House today.
My district encompasses 300 miles of Eastern Long Island's coastline,
which includes some of this country's most popular and beautiful
beaches that I am very proud to represent. Maintaining coastal health
is an integral objective not only in my district but to preserve our
Nation's environment and to sustain the tourist economies of our States
that rely on safe, clean beaches. Millions of beach-going Americans and
their families who will flock to our Nation's shores in the summer
months ahead deserve pristine waterways, and we should do all we can
today to preserve them for future generations of Americans.
To that end, the water quality monitoring and notification grants
established in the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act have been absolutely vital to protecting the health of
beachgoers and preserving the quality of our shores. However, it has
become clear that further development of the BEACH Act is needed after
recent reports marked progress but raised questions about its
implementation.
Therefore, I commend Mr. Pallone, the author of the original BEACH
Act, for building on the program's success by updating the law and
advancing improvements in this bill to meet the challenges involved
with carrying out the program and to continue funding its grant
programs.
Accordingly, this bipartisan legislation reauthorizes grants to
states through 2012, but increases grant authorizations to $40 million
annually; expands the scope of BEACH Act grants from water quality
monitoring and notification to include pollution source tracking
efforts; and strengthens environmental standards for water quality
testing and communication. In addition, this bill requires that beach
water quality violations are disclosed not only to the public but to
all relevant state agencies with beach water pollution authority.
Furthermore, this bill requires the EPA to conduct annual reviews to
make sure state and local governments that receive funding in the BEACH
Act comply with its process requirements. Under this bill, grantees
have one
[[Page H2199]]
year to comply with the new environmental standards. Otherwise, they
will be required to pay at least a 50 percent match for their grant
until they come back into compliance, in place of current law which
allows the government to require a non-federal share of up to 50
percent.
For six years, the BEACH Act has given beachgoers the peace of mind
that the beaches they visit are clean. Our legislation begins the
process of strengthening this important law and reassures the American
public that preserving healthy shores is a priority of our
environmental agenda.
One in ten tourists is destined for the beach this summer--providing
our travel and vacation industries with customers and business. I hope
my colleagues agree that the BEACH Act is an excellent example of an
effective government program that benefits communities in every region
of the country and has yielded tremendous progress in restoring healthy
shores.
Madam Chairman, with the leadership and support of this body, we can
ensure that beach visitors throughout the country are assured that
local governments have all the resources they need to monitor
recreational waters and alert the public of potential health hazards.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment is as follows:
H.R. 2537
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Beach Protection Act of
2007''.
SEC. 2. WATER POLLUTION SOURCE IDENTIFICATION.
(a) Source Tracking.--Section 406(b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1346) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Source identification programs.--In carrying out a
monitoring and notification program, a State or local
government may develop and implement a coastal recreation
waters pollution source identification and tracking program
for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar
points of access that are used by the public and are not
meeting applicable water quality standards for pathogens and
pathogen indicators.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 406(i) of
such Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(i)) is amended by striking
``$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005''
and inserting ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2012''.
SEC. 3. FUNDING FOR BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
COASTAL HEALTH ACT.
Section 8 of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 877) is amended by
striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2012''.
SEC. 4. STATE REPORTS.
Section 406(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (as redesignated by section (2)(a)(1) of this
Act) is amended by inserting ``and all environmental agencies
of the State with authority to prevent or treat sources of
pollution in coastal recreation waters'' after ``public''.
SEC. 5. USE OF RAPID TESTING METHODS.
(a) Contents of State and Local Government Programs.--
Section 406(c)(4)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(c)(4)(A)) is amended by inserting ``,
including rapid testing methods,'' after ``methods''.
(b) Revised Criteria.--Section 304(a)(9) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 1314(a)(9)) is amended by inserting ``and rapid
testing methods'' after ``methods''.
(c) Criteria for Use of Rapid Testing Methods.--Not later
than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and
after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall publish criteria for the use of rapid testing methods,
at coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar
points of access that are used by the public, that will
enhance the protection of public health and safety through
rapid public notification of any exceeding of applicable
water quality standards. In developing such criteria, the
Administrator shall prioritize the use of rapid testing
methods at those beaches or similar points of access that
have the highest use by the public.
(d) Definition.--Section 502 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1362)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(25) Rapid testing method.--The term `rapid testing
method' means a method of testing the water quality of
coastal recreation waters for which results are available as
soon as practicable and not more than 6 hours after a water
quality sample is received by the testing facility.''.
SEC. 6. NOTIFICATION OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES.
Section 406(c)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(c)(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``prompt communication'' and inserting
``communication, within 24 hours of the receipt of the
results of a water quality sample,'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting ``(i) in the case of any State in which
the Administrator is administering the program under section
402,'' before ``the Administrator'' the first place it
appears; and
(B) by inserting at the end the following:
``(ii) in the case of any State other than a State to which
clause (i) applies, all agencies of the State government with
authority to require the prevention or treatment of the
sources of coastal recreation water pollution; and'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(7) and (8), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) measures for an annual report to the Administrator,
in such form as the Administrator determines appropriate, on
the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and
extent of any exceeding of applicable water quality standards
for pathogens and pathogen indicators;''.
SEC. 7. CONTENT OF STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS.
Section 406(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1346(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7) (as
redesignated by section 6(3) of this Act);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) (as
redesignated by section 6(3) of this Act) and inserting a
semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) a publicly accessible and searchable global
information system database with information updated within
24 hours of its availability, organized by beach or similar
point of access and with defined standards, sampling plans,
monitoring protocols, sampling results, and number and cause
of closures and advisory days;
``(10) measures for the immediate posting of signs at
beaches or similar points of access that are sufficient to
give public notice following the results of any water quality
sample that demonstrates an exceeding of applicable water
quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators for
the coastal recreation waters adjacent to such beaches or
similar points of access; and
``(11) measures to ensure that closures or advisories are
made or issued within 24 hours after the State government
determines that any coastal recreation waters in the State
are not meeting applicable water quality standards for
pathogens and pathogen indicators.''.
SEC. 8. COMPLIANCE REVIEW.
Section 406(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1346(h)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(2) by moving such subparagraphs 2 ems to the right;
(3) by striking ``In the'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--In the''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Compliance review.--On or before July 31 of each
calendar year beginning after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, the Administrator shall--
``(A) prepare a written assessment of compliance with all
statutory and regulatory requirements of this section for
each State and local government and of compliance with
conditions of each grant made under this section to a State
or local government;
``(B) notify the State or local government of such
assessment; and
``(C) make each of the assessments available to the public
in a searchable database on or before December 31 of such
calendar year.
``(3) Corrective action.--Any State or local government
that the Administrator notifies under paragraph (2) that it
is not in compliance with any requirement or grant condition
described in paragraph (2) shall take such action as may be
necessary to comply with such requirement or condition within
one year of the date of the notification. If the State or
local government is not in compliance with such requirement
or condition within one year of such date, any grants made
under subsection (b) to the State or local government, after
the last day of such one-year period and while the State or
local government is not in compliance with all requirements
and grant conditions described in paragraph (2), shall have a
Federal share of not to exceed 50 percent.
``(4) GAO review.--Not later than December 31 of the third
calendar year beginning after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, the Comptroller General shall conduct a review of
the activities of the Administrator under paragraphs (2) and
(3) during the first and second calendar years beginning
after such date of enactment and submit to Congress a report
on the results of such review.''.
SEC. 9. STUDY OF GRANT DISTRIBUTION FORMULA.
(a) Study.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall commence a study of the formula for
the distribution of grants under section 406 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1346) for the purpose
of identifying potential revisions of such formula.
(b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Administrator
shall consider the base cost to States of developing and
maintaining water quality monitoring and notification
programs, the States' varied beach monitoring and
notification needs, including beach mileage, beach usage, and
length of beach season, and other factors that the
Administrator determines to be appropriate.
[[Page H2200]]
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the
Administrator shall consult with appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies.
(d) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the
study, including any recommendation for revision of the
distribution formula referred to in subsection (a).
SEC. 10. PUBLICATION OF COASTAL RECREATION WATERS PATHOGEN
LIST.
Section 304(a)(9) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(9)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(C) Publication of pathogen and pathogen indicator
list.--Upon publication of the new or revised water quality
criteria under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall
publish in the Federal Register a list of all pathogens and
pathogen indicators studied under section 104(v).''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose before the beginning of consideration of
the bill and 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 read.
Are there any amendments?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I deeply appreciate the
recognition, and I do appreciate the chairman of the full committee and
the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Boozman, for the legislation we are
discussing today; but I cannot sit idly by and listen to the people
talk about the high cost of energy when there has been little action in
this Congress, and I will say ``this Congress,'' the past Congresses
and this present Congress about solving the high cost of energy to the
American consumer, the $4 a gallon that they're going to have to pay.
The last time we passed any energy legislation on this floor was
1973. We passed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That's the last time. At
that time, we were importing 38 percent of our fossil fuels. Today, we
are importing 70 percent of our fossil fuels. Mr. and Mrs. America,
keep in mind 50 percent of that fossil fuels is coming from countries
that are not friendly to the United States of America. We are sending
them over about $500 billion a year because this Congress, this
Congress, has not acted to try to relieve the dependency on fossil fuel
from abroad.
Now some people will say, and I listened to the young lady, we are
going to take up alternate forms of energy, and I'll buy that. I'll put
the little curlicue lightbulbs in. I'll do that. I'll save and turn
down the thermostat. I'll do that. I'll, in fact, drive my automobile
slower. Most people do not. But that doesn't solve the problem of the
energy we need to move product.
The chairman knows full good and well, being the chairman of the
Transportation Committee, our economy is based upon the ability to move
product to and fro within this Nation.
The ship it brings us is driven by fossil fuels. The truck, the
plane, the automobile, the train is driven by fossil fuels. And if we
continue to become more dependent, which we apparently are going to do
under the leadership of this Congress, we'll be in the point where we
cannot move our product, ship them abroad which we produce, nor receive
them. Seventy percent, again from foreign countries.
And yet we have a tremendous amount of fossil fuels, the United
States of America, that's not being developed. It should be developed.
Offshore. Chukchi Sea, there's more oil in Alaska than there is in the
Gulf of Mexico at a relatively shallow depth. The coasts of California,
the coast of Florida, the Rocky Mountains, the coasts of Virginia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina has a tremendous amount of oil in
the realm of about, I would suggest, 500 billion barrels of oil.
That's available to the American public. But we have a leadership now
in this Congress that believes that the world is coming to an end, led
by Al Gore, that the world is coming to an end if we burn fossil fuels.
I suggest respectfully, Mr. and Mrs. America, if we do not lower that
price to the small business community and to the person who has to
commute to their work site, we are in a dire shape in this Nation as a
whole. We have to address this issue.
I ask my colleagues, please quit buying this concept that we are
going to do it with windmills and with sun power. Yes, we could use
those things. Yes, we ought to use nuclear, and yes, we ought to use
hydro. The wheel of energy should be developed, and this Congress has
not done it. Has not done it. We have this idea we are going to solve
the problem. Look at the energy bill we passed this year through this
leadership. It produced nothing. Period. Nothing. That's why the
consumer today, in America, is going to that gas pump, and by the way,
it's a tax to him. Every man, woman, and child is paying $2,000 a year
to Saudi Arabia and countries such as because we sit idly on our hands
doing nothing.
Madam Chairman, I suggest respectfully this Congress has to wake up.
I listen to the political rhetoric of all of the presidential
candidates, and nobody is addressing the energy issue other than the
fact that we can't burn fossil fuels because we are losing the icecap
and the polar bears are in danger.
Think about this for a moment. Think about the American public and
the need for economy-based, fossil fuel driven because it moves an
object. We must address this. I'm asking my colleagues to understand
that. Quit pandering. Quit pandering to the interest groups that really
are trying to socially structure our Nation through fear.
We have the fossil fuel. It is here. It should be developed. We
should give the opportunity instead of restricting it, and that's what
we've done in this Congress. In my state alone we have ANWR. It's
passed this House 12 times. It passed the Senate once and Bill Clinton
vetoed it. It's got about 36 billion barrels of oil available 74 miles
away from an existing pipeline. And this Congress will not step forth
and address that issue alone because they say it's going to hurt the
environment, 74 miles away from the existing pipeline.
Madam Chairman, I suggest respectfully let's get off our duffs, and
let's do the job we should for this nation.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the
opportunity to come to the floor today to talk about an issue that is
of vital concern and importance to the American people. It may not have
been what the majority party wanted to talk about today, but it's what
the American people want to talk about and that's energy.
I don't know if anybody had an opportunity to walk outside the United
States Capitol today, but you heard trucks with their horns blaring
outside the Capitol, and they were doing so because they were objecting
to the leadership in this Congress and the lack of action on energy
prices and gas prices. That noise resonates across this land, Madam
Chairman. Resonates across the land.
I had a group of high school students in my office today, and they
wanted to know what we were doing about energy. They'd heard that this
Congress had passed the Energy Efficiency Act. They wanted to know
about the particulars of that act. And so we reviewed the particulars
of that act, and I said, how much more gas do you think will get to the
pumps in communities across this Nation if we increase the taxes on
American oil companies? Well, these are bright high school kids. They
said, well, not much more. And they're absolutely right, Madam
Chairman, because the Energy Efficiency Act that this Congress passed
in this session, in this term, will produce no energy. No new energy.
Mr. NUNES. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. NUNES. I was listening to your conversation on the floor. I want
to reiterate what's going on outside. You made the point, but there are
trucks driving through this Capitol right now trying to drive around to
raise awareness to the people of the United States that the gas price
is too high. And meanwhile today, we are debating a bill on beaches on
the floor of the House while gas prices are soaring to $4 plus a
gallon.
[[Page H2201]]
{time} 1515
And so I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this up and
for yielding to me because this is something that we should be debating
on the House floor. We should be talking about energy, not talking
about how we're going to save the beaches.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate your comments.
And if you think about what has changed in the last 15 months in
terms of leadership here in Washington, it's not the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue. The only thing that's changed during the period of
time when crude oil has gone from $56 a barrel to $112 a barrel, the
only thing that's changed in terms of the leadership in Washington is
the leadership in Congress. That's the only thing that's changed. There
must be a cause and effect here somewhere, Madam Chairman, because gas
prices are increasing, and the leadership has been woeful in not
attempting to deal with this issue.
And so I would ask my colleagues to bring to the floor issues that
are of paramount importance to the American people. The issue that's of
paramount importance in my district is energy and gas prices. And this
Congress is doing nothing about it, in spite of the proclamations and
promises made during the previous election.
So, Madam Chairman, there are wonderful solutions out there, there
are positive solutions. Conservation: We can do a whole lot more to
incentivize individuals to conserve. Utilizing American resources for
Americans, there's a novel thought, Madam Chairman. There are
incredible resources that we have. And we've got the technology and the
American ingenuity to do it in an environmentally sensitive way, and we
ought to. We ought to. This leadership ought to allow that kind of
issue to come to the floor.
And finally, alternative fuel. It's imperative that we have the kind
of research and development and incentivizing alternative fuel
formation in this Nation in ways that we've never done before, not pick
winners and losers, which is what Washington tends to want to do, but
to incentivize a system that would provide for wonderful,
entrepreneurial, visionary, enthusiastic individuals all across this
Nation who have the intelligence and the foresight and the desire to
help America prevail in our energy independence.
So, Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today with a level of
frustration by the inability of this leadership, apparently, to address
the concerns of the American people, to address the concerns of those
high school students that were in my office this morning, to address
the concerns of those truckers, who continue out there outside the
Capitol blaring their horns and saying, wake up. Wake up, Madam
Speaker, wake up leadership in this Congress, wake up and address the
issues that are of paramount importance to the American people. The
paramount issue today is energy and gasoline prices, and we must, as a
Congress, address that issue in a positive way.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. NUNES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NUNES. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing
this issue up. And I know that the bill here today is this beaches
bill, but the concern that I have is that we're not addressing the
needs of the American people.
When the Democrats took the majority, we were told that we were going
to go back to 5-day workweeks. Last week, we were in 3 days; we did two
votes each day. This week, we've only done a couple votes each day. And
here we are doing a bill that now I'm being told we're not even going
to finish the bill today, a bill regarding beaches, while we have
truckers going around the Capitol honking their horns, trying to get
the attention of the United States Congress, to get the attention of
the Democrat majority to do something about lowering their fuel price.
And the answers that we've received from the other side of the aisle
are always the same answers: We need to repeal the tax breaks to the
oil companies. Well, if we want to repeal the tax breaks to the oil
companies, that's not going to lower the fuel price. As the gentleman
from Alaska stated and the gentleman from Georgia stated previously,
the way that you lower the fuel price and the way that you stop buying
fuel from foreign countries is you have to drill in America. We have to
drill for oil in America.
I'm a big supporter of solar energy and wind energy, they're great
renewable fields, but we get less than 1 percent of our energy from
these sources. So if we want to talk about renewable sources of energy,
we're going to have to look seriously at nuclear power. We're going to
have to look at using the oil that we have in this country if we don't
want to buy oil from foreign countries. These are the types of things
that we're going to have to do in this Congress. But unfortunately,
we've made this commitment, supposedly, to the American people that
we're going to work 5 days a week, but instead we only work a few hours
a day and end up working 3 days a week. Today we have to get out of
here by 4, I'm told, because the Democrats don't want to stay in so
that they can get on an airplane and fly home. We're not even going to
finish a bill on beaches. And meanwhile, the American people are
outside this Congress driving their trucks, honking their horn, asking
for the attention of this Congress, and this Congress is not paying
attention.
We've got to do something to lower these fuel prices, Madam Chairman.
The Democrats are in control, they're in the majority. We need answers.
My constituents need answers. They need their fuel price lowered. They
need their electricity cost lowered. The only way we can do this is by
building nuclear power plants, investing in wind and solar power, and
drilling for oil in America.
And I would hope, as the gentleman from Alaska has stated over and
over again, the last time we've gotten serious about drilling for oil
in Alaska was 1973. 1973. And here we are, 35 years later, with no more
oil production. Now we used to have at least half of our oil came from
the United States, now we're less than 30 percent of our oil that comes
from the United States.
And we send money to Venezuela, we send money to Saudi Arabia, and
the other side of the aisle complains about it. But their only answer
is that we need to repeal the tax cuts to the oil companies. So in
their last energy bill, what did we repeal? We picked the American
companies. We repealed the tax breaks on the American companies and we
gave tax breaks to the Venezuela oil companies.
So I don't know what we're going to do in this Democrat majority to
solve the country's problems. President Bush has said that he will sign
a bill to drill for oil in America. He will sign any bill that promotes
nuclear power. These are the answers that the American people need and
they should demand from this Congress to have those answers.
And I would hope, Madam Chairman, that this Democrat majority listens
to the truckers that are outside right now honking their horn trying to
get this Congress' attention. And I am happy that at least on our side
of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, we are taking this
opportunity, during a bill that we're talking about beaches here, but
we're trying to bring to the American people, to bring to the attention
of this Congress that we need to lower the fuel price, and we need to
do it today.
So with that, Madam Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, you know, it's interesting that we
came here to talk about a beach bill, and we're finally getting a
chance to talk about some energy because most American families are not
going to have the money to drive to the beach this year.
We look at the price of gasoline right now. And I earlier quoted some
of the quotes from the Democratic leadership about how they were going
to get a grip and get ahold of the gas prices and bring them down.
Well, since they've been in the majority, they have actually gone up $1
per gallon, oil has gone up about 100 percent. And what are we
[[Page H2202]]
telling our people at home? I've got to go back and explain to the
people of the Third District of Georgia that this week, rather than
addressing the price of gas and our energy situation, that we did some
beach restoration, which is a very worthy bill; we did some landscape
conservation; we named some post offices; and we did some several other
suspensions. But I've got to go back and tell them that, when they're
standing there at the gas pump almost pumping $4 a gallon into their
car, that they need to realize something, they need to realize what the
majority plan for our future price of motor fuel is.
The chairman, who I have a great deal of respect for, on the
Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, who's been here a long time and
is very wise, but he projected or at least proposed a 5 cents a gallon
hike for our infrastructure and $1 per barrel on oil. The Energy and
Commerce chairman is talking about a carbon tax. He's also talking
about a 50 cent per gallon tax on fuel.
We're talking about taking away these tax breaks from Big Oil. You
know, we can take away tax breaks from anybody, but I'm telling you, if
you take a tax break away from a company that is manufacturing products
in this country, they're not going to just absorb that loss, they're
going to go up on the price of their product. So we're talking about
maybe 55, 60 cents more a gallon.
So I've got to go back and tell my constituents, look, here's their
plan: Their plan is to go up another 55 cents or so a gallon on your
gas, another dollar on a barrel of oil, take away any tax breaks that
the big oil companies have that hopefully they're passing on to you,
and your Congress just spent $30,000 to buy 30 bicycles. So they've got
a great plan.
And I guess this is the great plan that we've heard about in so many
of these quotes about how they were going to fix the price of gas.
We've bought 30 bicycles at a cost of $30,000; we're going to increase
the price of gas 55 cents; we're going to take away the tax breaks for
Big Oil so they can go up, increase the price on a barrel of oil. We're
not going to do any domestic drilling. We're going to depend on
changing light bulbs. We're going to depend on solar power. We're going
to depend on windmills.
Now, Madam Chairman, I just don't know how much comfort that's going
to give the people of the Third Congressional District of Georgia. In
fact, I don't know that if I tell them that, that they're even going to
believe that, that this body, this House, that is their answer to them
paying $4 a gallon for gas. It's just going to be hard for me to sell
it. But if they will pay attention to what's going on up here, then I
think they'll be convinced that these are the only things that the
majority has brought forth.
We need to concentrate on being less dependent on foreign oil. We
need to look at our own future, our own lands, our own prospects of
what we're doing. And as the gentleman from Alaska said, regardless of
what you think about fossil fuels, we're going to be using it. And so
we need to provide for ourselves.
And I think it's a shame that each and every one of us, and I know
we're going to be through by 4 o'clock because, you know, we do need to
get home, but we're not doing our job. We're not doing the business of
the people when we constantly go home and people ask us, help us, help
me, help me be able to put gas in my car to take my children to soccer
practice, or go to school, or go to the beach.
So I'm going to go back and I'm going to say, I'll tell you what, we
gave you some help. We're going to raise the price of gas and oil and
we're buying bicycles.
Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, I, too, rise, sticking up for American
families that are struggling with the high prices of many products
right now, most of which I hear from my constituents in Nebraska is
about the price of gasoline at the pump. I hear about the groceries as
well. And of course then when I see a bill like this, the bill that we
have up now about making sure that our beaches are clean and we have
plans for that, unfortunately under the leadership of the House and
Senate currently now, my first thought isn't well, that's absolutely
right, we need to keep our beaches clean. My first thought is, is this
another environmental tool to make sure that we can't get to drilling
in places where we need to get?
Now, the frequently asked question about gasoline prices is, what are
you going to do about it? Well, we have a couple of options that I
think could alleviate some of the pressure. One is, we can take the
1970s actions done by the Nixon administration to simply set the price.
We will set the price. We will freeze them; $3.30 at my home, we can
freeze that. Well, what did that do? Created about a half mile line for
gas. And then maybe if you pulled up to the pump, you might see that
little white piece of paper that said ``out of gas.'' We can go back to
that. But the gas prices would be stable. But running out of gas begs
the question, the question is, what's causing this?
{time} 1530
Now, obviously it's just simple high school economic supply and
demand, folks. What we have is that oil that we have access to within
the United States, whether it's ANWR or off the Continental Shelf or
shale in Colorado or other pockets that have been made into public
lands and thereby unaccessible, what we've done is adopt a policy in
this country that we want to push the production or creation of fuel
out of our country to foreign countries. That makes us reliant on
foreign countries. In fact, about 60 some percent, about 63 percent, of
our oil needs are imported. We use about 20 million barrels per day to
meet our energy needs, and 14 million barrels per day are imported. So
as other countries compete with us for that oil on the world market,
prices increase. At the well head, just yesterday closing out the
markets, sweet crude jumped $2.30, hitting a new record of $112.21,
closing at the closing record of $110.87 per barrel.
Now, we can ask what the solution will be. Do we just simply raise
taxes on oil production, or do we say that it's part of our plan to
make sure that we can become energy independent and secure this
Nation's future? And I think the long-term answer can be the type of
issues that we're dealing with, with alternative and biofuels like
cellulosic ethanol, like hydrogen, but let's admit that those are a
generation away if we make the commitment today. So what we need to do
in the meantime is either be honest with the American citizens and say
that our policy is to limit supply in a competitive global market,
therefore, get used to $4 and then $5 per gallon of gas, or we allow
the drilling to take place where we can produce more of our own
resources of oil. And we can do that.
I asked the question the other day, how much oil and natural gas do
we have access to within 75 miles of our coastline? The answer is ``I
don't know'' because we have been blocked from being able to explore
that. We can't measure that. That's wrong.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 3, after line 8, insert the following:
(c) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds
appropriated pursuant to section 406(i) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 1346(i)) may be used for a Congressional earmark as
defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, the focus of the Beach Act is to ensure
that citizens enjoy recreational activity in the coastal waters and
that they can do that safely. That should be the focus of the bill, and
that's where I think we should keep the focus of the bill.
The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the purpose of the
bill is not to protect vulnerable Members, vulnerable incumbents. And,
unfortunately, that's been the case with a lot of legislation that we
have passed in the past. It just simply becomes a magnet for earmarks,
for Member earmarks, to protect vulnerable Members
[[Page H2203]]
or to reward Members or to go towards Members in leadership or in high
positions on particular committees.
The Beach Act authorizes a formula-based grant program to help
implement State and local beach monitoring, assessment, notification
programs. What we don't want to see is money bled off from these
formula-based programs to Member projects. Unfortunately, that has
happened. And if we don't think that it will happen with this bill,
then we have our heads in the sand.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to say that none of the
moneys authorized in this legislation will go toward earmarks, that all
of the money as it is now will go toward formula-based funding.
Now, some might say that the Beach Act has not been historically
earmarked. That is true. That's how it should remain. The problem is
some of the legislation that has not been historically earmarked is now
earmarked. In fact, when we passed the Homeland Security bill, which we
celebrated today 5 years after, we were told this will not be
earmarked. This will be formula-based grants, it will be spread out,
but it will not be earmarked. And for 4 years that remained true.
But last year the legislation to fund the Department of Homeland
Security had a boatload of earmarks in it. According to Taxpayers For
Common Sense, the 2008 omnibus bill contained 128 earmarks worth more
than $400 million in Homeland Security funding. According to a story by
the Hill, 115 new earmarks worth $117 million were air-dropped at the
last moment. These were earmarks that we said we weren't going to do
anyway in a bill that we said we were not going to earmark. These were,
obviously, to assist vulnerable Members.
Many were earmarks in the funding for FEMA's Predisaster Mitigation
Program. This was a program intended to ``save lives and reduce
property damage'' by providing funds for ``hazard mitigation planning,
acquisition, and relocation of structures out of the floodplain.'' In
2007 this program received $101 million to fund competitively awarded
projects with no earmarks. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, in
2008 this program received a boost in funding to $114 million, but
nearly half of the amount, $51.3 million, was tied to 96 earmarked
projects, including earmarks for projects that should not have
qualified for funding under the program.
So we could have earmarks in this beach program for projects that
aren't even eligible under the formula-based funding that's currently
here, and that's what we should all fear. This body has gone far too
far over the past several years, under Republicans and Democrats, in
bleeding off necessary funding for particular programs just to protect
vulnerable incumbents during re-election or just to reward particular
Members.
Some people will say, well, we know in Congress better than those
faceless bureaucrats in some department. Well, if that is the case,
then we should have parameters. We should provide oversight. That's
what this body is supposed to do. There is a process called
authorization, appropriation, and oversight. And that's the process we
need to follow, not circumventing that process by earmarking.
That's the purpose of this amendment. I hope that we can all agree
that this is needed to ensure that this program is not earmarked in the
future.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. In the 109th Congress, we considered the
reauthorization of the Appalachian Regional Commission. During
consideration of the bill in committee, I proposed language to prohibit
earmarks, which have been done time and again in the appropriation
process, prohibit earmarks in the Appalachian Regional Commission
appropriation process. The gentleman from Arizona supported my
initiative, and I appreciated his support. It was the right thing to
do.
Unfortunately, the committee did not include that language. When the
bill came to the floor, I worked to defeat the bill because it did not
have that prohibition on earmarks, and the gentleman from Arizona
supported my initiative.
In the BEACH bill, or the Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act, proposed by the gentleman from California, with whom I
worked on this matter for a period of 6 or 7 years, both in his
previous seating in Congress and during the time he was out of service
in the Congress and when he returned, it's a good bill. The initial
BEACH Act authorized $30 million. About $10 million has been
appropriated each year. And the money goes out by formula to the
States. There have never been earmarks. In the Appropriations Committee
nor on the House floor have there ever been attempts to suballocate the
funds. Each State receives a portion of annual appropriations based on
a calculation of each State's varied beach monitoring and notification
efforts.
Now, we know very well that $10 million is insufficient, and because
money is insufficient for a bill, that's often why, Madam Chairman,
Members come with a proposal for an earmark to designate money so they
are sure that their State or their beach or their city gets their, at
least, perceived fair share of funding.
But it's never been done on this legislation, and we don't need any
such limitation language. I think we have a fair formula, a specific
focus on the base cost of the States of developing, maintaining water
quality monitoring, notification programs, the mileage of the beach,
beach use, the length of the season, and other factors that the
administrator of the agency determines to be appropriate. That is fair,
and I think Members of this body and of the other body recognize that
it's fair; so they haven't attempted to tinker with it, and we
shouldn't do that in this bill. This is a good piece of legislation, a
fair piece of legislation.
Look, we bring this bill to the House floor under an open rule. It's
one advocated by a Member from the other side, a Member for whom I have
the highest personal regard, and then we have a succession of Members
standing here complaining that we bring a bill to the floor under an
open rule that should have been brought under suspension. If we had
brought it under suspension, I suspect the same people would come to
the floor, Madam Chairman, and complain that we didn't have an open
rule.
So we're trying to the do the right thing on the right piece of
legislation, and we ought not to gimmick it with this proposal that is
totally unnecessary for a limitation on earmarks. We ought not to adopt
this amendment.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for
bringing that up because I think every bill needs to be brought to the
floor like this, an open rule, so we can have debate. This is a breath
of fresh air to have an open rule. I can't remember the last time we
had one. So this is a great thing that we have this. This is our
republican action in letting people, our constituents, hear our
different views on these bills rather than just having it jammed down
our throats. So I agree with the chairman on this, and I hope more of
these can be brought under an open rule.
Madam Chairman, I would like to yield to my good friend from Arizona
(Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
And I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, Madam Chairman. I
could not agree more with virtually everything he has said. This is an
important bill. It was brought here, and it has not been historically
earmarked. That is great. We need to keep it that way. We need to keep,
as he so aptly put it, Members from meddling in this. That's the
purpose of this amendment, to keep Members from meddling with the
formula-based program in the bill.
It was mentioned that it's unnecessary because it hasn't been
historically earmarked. I suppose the same would have been said had I
brought the same amendment last year to the Department of Homeland
Security authorization bill or the appropriation bill because it hadn't
historically been earmarked. We promised not to do that. But yet we
have earmarked between $500 million and $1 billion, hundreds of
[[Page H2204]]
earmarks air-dropped at the last minute, never debated on the House
floor, never debated, never an opportunity to amend them out. And
that's what we are trying to do here is to protect this important
legislation from the same fate.
It was mentioned that we have increased the authorization for money
in this legislation. That is true. We did that in the FEMA grants in
Homeland Security and then earmarked it. We increased it by a little
and then earmarked it by a lot. It doesn't take conspiracy theorists to
say that this might be happening here, that maybe this is what is going
to be attempted here, to start earmarking this legislation, to get
these programs that are funded by formula to instead fund Members who
need protection in their re-election or who need to be rewarded in some
other way. That's not how we should do business.
The purpose of this amendment is recognizing the importance of this
legislation and making sure that Members don't meddle in it.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
{time} 1545
Mr. WESTMORELAND. And I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this
amendment because a little ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure. And so I think what we are doing, like he said, is just making
sure that we are perfectly clear to anybody on the conference
committee, or any other process that this bill goes through, that we're
not to air-drop these earmarks that we never get a chance to discuss.
It is very seldom that we get to discuss anything on the floor in the
manner that we are being able to talk about this beach restoration bill
as we are today. And so I think it is a great thing that we are having
this open discussion.
Again, I want to comment that I hope that one day my constituents
from Georgia's Third Congressional District, which is not that far away
from the beach, will be able to have the money that won't pinch their
budget to be able to drive to the beach. Right now in Georgia you're
paying $3.29 per gallon, which is $1 more a gallon than we paid when
the 110th Congress started. And we had all the empty promises and the
smoke-and-mirror gadgets that came from the majority that they were
going to somehow, that they had some kind of miraculous plan to lower
gas prices.
We have yet to see that plan. We've talked about raising the fuel
tax. We've talked about raising the price of a barrel of oil. We've
actually purchased bicycles. And we have done a lot of different
things. But the price of gas and oil continues to go up.
We had a bailout that caused our dollar to deflate. And that, itself,
probably caused the price of a barrel of oil to go up. So I am waiting
on that magic wand. I am waiting on that secret that Speaker Pelosi and
Leader Hoyer and the whip, Mr. Clyburn, all talked about prior to
getting in charge.
It almost reminds me of a dog inside a fence that is really barking
and yelping and wanting to get out and wanting to convince its master
that it can go out and do the things that it wants to show that it can
do. And then once it gets out of the gate, it just kind of lays down
under a tree and scratches its ear or something.
So I am ready for some action. I think the American people are ready
for action. Bring out this magic plan. Unveil it. Let's see it.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I move to strike
the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, this amendment is
a proposed solution in search of a problem. The Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act, or the BEACH Act, which this
legislation amends, was introduced to limit and prevent human exposure
to polluted coastal recreation waters, including those along the Great
Lakes.
The initial BEACH Act authorized $30 million annually to assist
States and local governments to implement beach monitoring, assessment
and public notification programs.
Funds authorized under the initial BEACH Act and under the
legislation we consider today go either to the Environmental Protection
Agency or are distributed to individual States on a formula basis.
Each State receives a portion of annual appropriations which have
hovered around $10 million based upon a calculation of the State's
variant beach monitoring and notification needs.
The committee is aware of the concerns that the current formula
utilized by EPA for the distribution of grant funds may not provide for
an equitable allocation of funds among States at current appropriation
levels.
Section 9 of this legislation requires EPA to conduct a study of
potential revisions to the formula with a specific focus on base costs
to States of developing and maintaining water quality monitoring and
notification programs, the State's varied beach monitoring and
notification needs, including beach mileage, beach usage and length of
beach season and other factors that the administrator determines to be
appropriate.
None of the funds appropriated under this legislation go out to the
States or local communities under a ``congressional earmark.''
This amendment has no bearing on the authorities under the BEACH Act
or EPA's beach program.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. PENCE. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I rise in strong support of the Flake amendment because
the American people need taxpayer protection more than we need beach
protection. Now I understand this is important legislation that
Congress is considering today. And I do not rise to trivialize this
bill. It has its moorings in and its heritage in bipartisan
foundations. I rise, rather, to say that the time has come for this
Congress to get serious in large ways and in small ways about the
epidemic of earmarking that has taken hold of the Federal budget
process.
In fiscal year 2008, according to one estimate, legislation that
passed in one catch-all omnibus bill included some 11,610 earmarks in
all of those different appropriations bills in the course of the year
costing taxpayers some $17.2 billion. It was the second highest number
of earmarks any Congress has ever approved. It represented a 337
percent increase above fiscal year 2007.
What the Flake amendment says, in effect, is that none of the funds
appropriated pursuant to this section may be used for a congressional
earmark as defined by the House rules. Now, this is part and parcel of
an effort by many of us that I believe, while it is being led by
Republicans, I believe there are many in the other party who understand
that earmarks is a cancer in the belly of the Federal budget. And we
must address it.
The Flake amendment seizes this opportunity and this moment of this
legislation that says that should the Beach Protection Act of 2007 be
signed into law, that at no point in the future may it be used as a
vehicle for earmarking. And as the author of this amendment has
suggested, we have been assured in the past before that those things
pertaining to homeland security, the Department of Homeland Security,
would not become vehicles for earmarking, and they have.
And for my part, let me say this is not an issue that I am interested
in demagoguing, Madam Chairman. For my part, through the course of my
career up until very recently, I have requested earmarks and special
projects for my district. But I must tell you, having negotiated when
Republicans were in charge for earmark reform, having supported
Democrat efforts for earmark reform, at the end of last year when I saw
a catchall omnibus bill come to the floor of this Congress with
hundreds of unexamined earmarks dropped in at the last minute in the
dead of night that hadn't been subject to the scrutiny the American
people demand, I knew it was time for a change. And so I had to tell
the people of my district that I could no longer be a part of this
flawed system. And I commend the gentleman from Arizona for his
extraordinary leadership on this issue.
I want to challenge my colleagues to support the Flake amendment. But
[[Page H2205]]
let's just begin there. Let's support a moratorium on earmarking in
this Congress. The American people know there is something
fundamentally wrong with the way we spend the people's money,
especially when it comes to earmarks.
Frankly, I used an analogy not long ago, Madam Chairman, of an
airplane. When you're flying an airplane through the air, and the
meters on the control panel tell you that something is wrong with the
engine, the first thing you do is put the plane on the ground and get
the hood open and find out what is wrong. Well, many of us who are
advocating an earmark moratorium believe the time has come for us to
put the plane on the ground in a bipartisan way, embrace an earmark
moratorium and reform this system in the way that Congressmen Frank
Wolf and Jack Kingston have suggested in their commission format.
And let me say, as I close in strong support of the Flake amendment,
that there is enough blame to go around on this earmarking business. I
recognize earmarking came of age under Republican control of the
Congress. And I am not rising here to point fingers. I am, however,
rising to say that we need to change the way we spend the people's
money. The only way we will do that is by embracing the bold leadership
that Congressman Jeff Flake has brought to this Congress in connection
with the Beach Protection Act, but it also means embracing a moratorium
and coming together, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and
conservatives, and saying we are going to push away from the table, and
we are going to bring fundamental earmark reform to the American
people. And that's my hope.
And I urge support for the amendment as a first step in that
direction.
I yield back.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BOOZMAN. I agree with Mr. Flake and Mr. Pence about the situation
of needing to earmark responsibly. And certainly earmarking to protect
vulnerable Members, in fact, anything of that certainly is not for the
good of the country and the good of Congress or whatever.
I guess what I question is that in this particular amendment, in this
particular bill, I think it is inappropriate. This program is a
formula-based grants program that has not been earmarked in the past
and there's no plans to earmark it in the future.
We are not talking about beach restoration. We are not talking about
beach reclamation. We are talking about a bill that allows States,
allows beaches, to monitor pathogens so that when a family from
Arkansas goes to Florida or goes to South Carolina, wherever they go,
and they pull up, that they can, with safety, get out and swim in the
waters without it being a cesspool. I wish that more people would sneak
an earmark in the night to protect their beach. Again, that is not
going to happen with this bill. It is not the purpose of the bill.
So I would ask that we vote against this, and yet again I feel very
strongly that what Mr. Pence is saying, what Mr. Flake is trying to do
with his amendment is appropriate, but not in this particular vehicle.
I don't think that it pertains at all.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his very thoughtful comments,
which I fully concur. But I also would like to take this opportunity to
compliment the gentleman from Indiana for a very thoughtful, reasoned,
balanced and principled statement that adhered to the purpose of the
amendment and stuck to the principle that the underlying amendment
addresses. Though I disagree with the outcome of his reasoning, it was
a very thoughtful and a principled statement, more of the kind of
discussion we ought to have on this floor.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield back.
Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. I, too, want to congratulate the majority party for
bringing an open rule bill to the floor. It is a rare event. And
hopefully our side won't wear out its welcome so poorly that this is
the last open rule bill that is brought. I know it has to happen on
appropriations bills, but we are not too excited about those coming
later this year.
I rise in support of the Flake amendment. It is a pretty
straightforward amendment that, to quote an often poorly used phrase,
the opponent doth protest too much. I have not heard anything really as
to why it is inappropriate for this to be attached to the legislation,
how this would cripple the legislation, how this would prevent the
monitoring processes, how this would prevent the grant-based
programming from functioning. I have just heard arguments that ``let's
don't do it because we have never done it that way before.''
And I am persuaded that under the Department of Homeland Security
example, this idea of ``let's just, because we have not done it before,
we won't do it in the future.'' And I would prefer to have a
straightforward statement in this important legislation.
We had an event this past year where a young man, although this
legislation won't affect this because it happened in one of the lakes
in Texas, where a young man had an amoeba-borne illness get into his
brain, and it killed him. It was a freak and tragic accident. And
obviously this legislation is aimed at trying to prevent similar type
of occurrences on our beaches, coastal beaches I guess, but the idea
that somehow because we have been pure in the past we will remain pure
in the future. And our history here with respect to earmarks is
anything but that.
So as we look at the Flake amendment and why it is important, I hope
that someone can rise to say, here is a mechanical reason why it is
inappropriate to have this earmark restriction, this statement, flatout
statement that I think both sides can agree on. Because while
earmarking doesn't really fix the overall spending pattern and the
overall spending problem that we have in this Congress, because
everybody knows that the annual budget is set, and every one of those
nickels that get allocated to the Appropriations Committee will get
spent, and most all of this earmark churn happens within that number.
And so to the extent that we do away with all earmarks, it really won't
impact the total amount spent.
{time} 1600
My grandchildren, of whom I have seven, have a $53 trillion debt
staring them in the face because we have made $53 trillion in unfunded
promises to each other, issues that we think are important to my
generation and my parents' generation, but we are taking their money to
pay for it.
So anything that we can do to begin the process of restricting
spending on issues like earmarks in this instance, on a bill that
clearly works best on a grant-based formula, where the mileage of the
beaches are assessed in each State and the money is parceled out that
way as fairly as it can be, we can argue how much that money ought to
be from time to time, but to expose it to the earmarking process I
think is inappropriate.
I hope, like I said, that the Members who oppose the mechanics of
this can help those of us who don't understand the mechanics understand
why an earmark restriction that the Flake amendment would put in place
cripples and hamstrings this otherwise good legislation, because all of
us want safe water to swim in and to play in, but we also want my
grandchildren to be able to afford to address the issues they have in
front of them some 50 years from now with their money. Quite frankly,
it is going to take a Herculean effort among all of us here and
everybody listening today to rein in that $53 trillion in unfunded
promises.
This House, as important as this legislation is, continues to ignore
major problems facing this country, problems like the FISA
reauthorization, problems like the war supplemental, problems like
Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. We continue to simply let
those slide, and those failed actions have consequences.
We are going to add another one today, the Colombia Free Trade
Agreement. By refusing to take action on the Colombia Free Trade
Agreement, we have left more work undone as we
[[Page H2206]]
go about all this business. All of that has consequences. As many of my
colleagues have said, it has consequences on energy policy, it has
consequences on the fiscal policy of this country.
I think this is a simple step on a simple bill that would allow the
fiscal operations of this process to go forward in an appropriate and
in a correct manner. So, I urge my colleagues to support the Flake
amendment, should we get a vote on that.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor also
to speak in support of the Flake amendment. I was in my office almost a
half-hour ago now when I saw the debate on the floor and my friend and
colleague Mr. Flake was here speaking about his amendment, and I
thought I would come down to hear his closing remarks and hear the
other side then say that they agreed to the amendment, because I
thought, in essence, this was an amendment that both sides of the aisle
could reach across and find unanimity and agreement with, if we
believed the rhetoric that we heard last year and if we believe the
rhetoric we hear oftentimes from the other side of the aisle about
their desires to rein in spending, to address the earmark situation
problem and to work with Republicans to try to deal with it, as we
heard during their campaign to come to the majority, as they have, and
now on the floor as well.
To my surprise, and perhaps I should not be surprised to find that as
of this time, a half-hour later into the debate on a simple amendment
to say that we should not be having earmarks in this bill, a bill that
never had earmarks before, the other side of the aisle, the Democrat
side of the aisle, cannot agree to it.
Earlier, when the general debate on this bill was on the floor, I
came to the floor and said that in light of all the issues that we are
discussing right now, it is amazing we are about to go into the weekend
break discussing beaches as opposed to some other fundamentally
important issue striking at the hearts and the wallets of the American
taxpayers and the citizens of the State of New Jersey as well, one
principally which was the high cost of oil.
The Democrats have been in charge of this House now for almost a year
and a quarter, and during that time we have seen the price of gas at
the local gasoline stations go up by almost a buck. You would think
that would be something first and foremost that they would be
addressing. But, no, they are addressing a spending bill and beaches,
as we have before us. Again, maybe I should not be surprised, because
wasn't it Hillary Clinton who said that she has more ideas on spending
than there are dollars in D.C.?
Well, in light of the fact that the other side of the aisle, the
Democrat majority, will not even consider to support the Flake
amendment, which would try to rein in some of that wasteful, wanton
abuse that we see in earmarks here, apparently the Democrat House
leadership is taking a page from Hillary Clinton's playbook. They too
have more ideas on spending than there are dollars in D.C. to spend.
It was just indicated a moment ago, well, this is not the purpose of
the bill, to do earmarks. Well, if it is not the purpose of the bill,
then it should be an easy lift to support this amendment to eliminate
earmarks from the bill.
Secondly, someone suggested from the other side, well, if we are
going to do it in this one, we should do it in all other bills like
this. I agree, and I am sure Mr. Flake would come to the floor as well
and say he would put this in any bill coming to the floor, to say we
should not have earmarks, and I think he just rose to that point.
Finally, the point was made, I think from this side of the aisle,
well, it hasn't been done in bills like this before. What a better time
than right now? And I commend the gentleman, Mr. Flake for bringing it
to the floor. If not now, then when? If both sides of the aisle are as
adamantly opposed to abuses of earmarks as both sides of the aisle say
they are, why shouldn't they support the amendment by Mr. Flake?
Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I believe that soon after this we are going to have a vote on this
legislation. Again, this amendment is simply to preserve the bill as it
is, to make sure that Members don't meddle in it. It is there to
protect the waters and the beaches, not protect incumbents for
reelection. That is what this is about.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 263,
noes 117, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 55, as follows:
[Roll No. 182]
AYES--263
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Clay
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hodes
Hoekstra
Honda
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--117
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Boozman
Bordallo
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capuano
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Ellison
Engel
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hobson
Holt
Hooley
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
[[Page H2207]]
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Mahoney (FL)
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Simpson
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wynn
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Obey
NOT VOTING--55
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Barton (TX)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Boehner
Boren
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Cardoza
Cubin
Davis (AL)
Doyle
Emanuel
Ferguson
Fortuno
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Granger
Grijalva
Hinojosa
Holden
Hulshof
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Marchant
McNulty
Musgrave
Payne
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Rogers (AL)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Sires
Skelton
Stark
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walden (OR)
Waters
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Jackson of Illinois) (during the vote).
Members are advised there are approximately 2 minutes remaining in the
vote.
{time} 1632
Messrs. WEINER, MURTHA, INSLEE, CROWLEY, ABERCROMBIE, Ms. WATSON,
Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms. CLARKE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota, Messrs. MITCHELL, BRADY of Texas, TIM
MURPHY of Pennsylvania, SPRATT, HALL of New York, and McINTYRE changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall 182, I was unable to vote
because of pressing business with my constituents in my home district.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Personal Explanation
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, April 10, 2008, I
missed three rollcall recorded votes due to unforeseen circumstances.
Had I been present, the Record would reflect the following votes:
Rollcall vote No. 178--``yea''; rollcall vote No. 179--Rule providing
for consideration of H.R. 2537--Beach Protection Act of 2007--``yea'';
rollcall vote No. 180--Recognizing the fifth anniversary of the
Department of Homeland Security and honoring the Department's employees
for their extraordinary efforts and contributions to protect and secure
our Nation--``yea''; rollcall vote No. 182--imposes a no earmark
limitation on a formula driven EPA grant authority for State beach
water quality monitoring and notification programs--``no.''
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Boyda of Kansas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Jackson of Illinois,
Acting Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 2537) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
relating to beach monitoring, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________