[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 92 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5004-H5016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS AND WATERTRAILS NETWORK CONTINUING
AUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1233, I call
up the bill (H.R. 5540) to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of
1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay
Gateways and Watertrails Network, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1233, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5540
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 ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and
Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 502 of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998
(16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amending by
striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall
be in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 110-677
if offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), or his designee,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or
demand for division of the question, shall be considered read, and
shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
[[Page H5005]]
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5540,
legislation that will reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and
Watertrails Network which will otherwise expire at the end of 2008.
First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and
Chairman Grijalva for their leadership in getting this bill to the
floor. They've been stalwart advocates in this effort.
The Chesapeake Bay has a tremendous tale to tell.
{time} 1315
The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program connects those who live in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed to the natural, cultural and historic
resources of the bay, and thereby encourage individual and citizen
stewardship of these resources.
I guess the best way to describe the Gateways program is an insurance
policy on our larger investment in the Chesapeake Bay. There are three
parts to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay; there is funding, which of
course is extremely critical, there is regulatory guidance, and then
there is citizen stewardship. Without individual responsibility,
without widespread engagement by the 16 million people that reside in
the watershed, it would be impossible to achieve and maintain the goal
of cleaning up the bay. For a very modest investment, the Gateways
program helps to foster the citizen stewardship that will be necessary
to advance bay clean-up and maintain the gains that we hope to make.
As many of my colleagues know, the Chesapeake Bay is our Nation's
largest estuary. It is a national environmental treasure and an
economic catalyst as it pertains to the region's tourism and seafood
industries. Unfortunately, as many also know, the bay's health in
recent years has been significantly and negatively impacted by multiple
factors, such as increased nutrient runoff, chemical contaminants, and
other forms of pollution. As a result, there has been a severe
deterioration in the bay's water quality in recent years and a rapid
loss of living resources and natural habitat.
To combat these trends, in 1983 the Chesapeake Bay Program was
created. It is a partnership between the States of Maryland, Virginia
and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and the Federal Government,
which is dedicated to restoring and protecting the bay. I am also
committed to reversing these trends and restoring the bay's water
quality and natural habitats, and that is why I have introduced this
legislation to continually reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways
Network.
The Gateways program is the National Park Service's component of the
greater Chesapeake Bay program. The Park Service has entered into a
memorandum of understanding under the Chesapeake Bay program that tasks
the Park Service with ``conserving the Chesapeake Bay's national and
cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of future
generations.'' It goes on to say that the Park Service will provide
assistance to the bay program through resource planning and grants
management, rivers and trails conservation assistance, public
education, interpretation, and cooperative heritage planning support.
That is precisely the purpose of the Gateways program. It provides
grants and technical assistance to parks, volunteer groups, wildlife
refuges, historic sites, museums, and water trails throughout the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. It also provides assistance to the critical
volunteer groups that have stepped forward to support the Gateway
sites.
The network ties these sites together to provide meaningful
experiences and to encourage individual citizens to invest their own
time and energy in the clean up of the Chesapeake Bay. Since 2000, the
network has grown to include 156 gateways in six States and the
District of Columbia. That is why the Park Service has repeatedly
praised the Gateways program.
In September of 2004, the Service released a special resource study
recommending that Gateways be a permanent Park Service program. It goes
on to say that an enhanced version of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways
Network would be the most effective and efficient way for the National
Park Service to help protect and tell the story of the Chesapeake Bay.
In 2005, the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation
recognized Gateways as ``a cooperative conservation success story.''
And therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we act now to
reauthorize this program so that the network and its partners can
continue to educate residents of the Chesapeake Bay watershed about the
natural, cultural, historic and recreational sites throughout the bay
region, and how their communities relate directly to the health of our
largest estuary and a national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay.
By maintaining the network and providing access to these sites, we
can help develop the next generation of environmental stewards, which
is one of the best ways to truly save the bay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, before I give my opening statement,
I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay
Watertrails Network bill.
While I understand the value of the bill we're discussing today and I
commend my colleague, Congressman Rob Wittman from Virginia, for the
hard work he has done on this bill, his efforts will be all for nothing
if we do not address the energy crises we're facing in the United
States today.
In my district of coastal South Carolina, my constituents are dealing
with the same problems as those who live and work along the Chesapeake
Bay. Just as the watermen of the Chesapeake Bay cannot afford to bring
their boats out of the dock to catch blue crab due to the all-time-
record-high diesel prices, my constituents in our fishing communities
cannot bring their shrimp boats on the water to catch shrimp due to the
high cost of diesel fuel.
Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible for our Democrat colleagues to
continue obstructing responsible energy legislation that will help our
energy crisis from being considered on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, we currently depend on foreign--and in many cases
unfriendly--nations for over 60 percent of our Nation's energy needs.
This is a serious national security concern for my constituents in
coastal South Carolina.
On behalf of all the recreational and commercial fishermen, the
shrimpers, the tour boat operators, and the recreational boaters in
coastal South Carolina, I would like to ask the Democrat majority why
we are not voting today on the many pieces of legislation that have
been introduced that would open up domestic sources of energy and help
them get back on the water immediately?
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time to yield 3
minutes to Representative Scott, who is a leader on the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Task Force.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his
hard work on this bill and for his leadership on the Chesapeake Bay
issues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay
Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Reauthorization Act. I
commend my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for introducing the
bill, which will help further the Chesapeake Bay's restoration.
I serve as cochair of the bipartisan Chesapeake Bay Task Force, and
I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.
Over 400 years ago, the first permanent English settlers of North
America sailed into the Chesapeake Bay and settled on the banks of the
James River at Jamestown, Virginia. Although the Chesapeake Bay played
a significant role in the founding of this great Nation, the bay is
often one of the most overlooked natural and economic estuaries in the
United States.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed touches 41 congressional districts in
the States of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New York and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I have been actively involved in ensuring that the
resources are available to protect and restore the
[[Page H5006]]
Chesapeake Bay since my days in the Virginia General Assembly. When I
served in the Virginia House of Delegates, I was a member of a joint
Virginia/Maryland legislative task force that first recommended in 1980
a multi-State commission to address bay issues. And that multi-State
commission continues to recognize the Chesapeake Bay as a vitally
important regional and national treasure.
H.R. 5540 will reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which
is the National Park Service component of the greater Chesapeake Bay
Program. The goal of this network is to conserve the natural beauty and
cultural heritage of the bay for the benefit and enjoyment of future
generations through grants, technical assistance to parks, volunteer
groups, wildlife refuges, historical sites, museums and water trails
throughout the bay watershed. The network ties all of these sites and
projects together to actively engage citizens to help clean up the
Chesapeake Bay. Since 2000, the network has grown to include 156
gateways in six States and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Maryland for his
leadership. And I want to take the opportunity to thank our new
Virginia colleague, Mr. Wittman, for his long-time leadership and
activity in Chesapeake Bay issues. I commend the Committee on Natural
Resources for reporting the bill favorably to the full House and urge
my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Sali).
Mr. SALI. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on H.R. 5540, permanent authorization for
the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.
As my colleague pointed out, today's bill would permanently
reauthorize these Federal funds and remove the $3 million annual cap.
When we held a hearing on this bill in committee, the administration
testified that there have been some successes with this program, and
consequently Federal funds are no longer necessary to subsidize this
partnership. So I rise with serious concerns over the permanent
authorization of this program.
In committee, I offered an amendment that would strike a compromise
limiting this authorization to 5 years. Today's legislation, however,
proposes to put the taxpayer, including taxpayers in Idaho, on the hook
permanently funding this program, and that in spite of the
administration's claim that no Federal funds are even needed.
This comes on the heels of the vote of this body we just took
approving the largest tax increase in American history, a tax increase
of some $683 billion, as well as action raising the national debt to an
all-time record high of $10.5 trillion. This, together with
skyrocketing fuel prices and increases in fuel cost, has the American
taxpayer, the American family, and everyone across this country,
including my great home State of Idaho, under a tremendous burden.
Idahoans are considering the reality that they may not have enough
money to pay their bills, let alone enjoy the majestic beauty of
Idaho's outdoors this summer. Notably, however, this is not a problem
limited to weekend excursions or vacations. The price pinch is hitting
folks who have a job, but wonder if they can afford the fuel to get to
work, those people that have called my office to complain. In addition,
schools across this country are cutting programs and moving to four-day
school weeks to address rising fuel costs.
People being hit the hardest by these high gas prices don't even
drive, they're our parents and our grandparents, those seniors who rely
on services like Meals on Wheels to deliver the food they eat each day.
In Idaho, it was reported on Tuesday that five volunteers had quit
because they couldn't afford the gas they needed to complete their
routes and deliver meals to seniors.
This is a moral issue, an issue which for many senior citizens and
low-income, hardworking families affects their access to food as well
as to education and even doctors. It's time for Congress to act on that
moral obligation, to make provision so the needs of the poor and the
elderly will be met. It's time for Congress to lift the restrictions on
America's energy-rich public lands, to responsibly increase exploration
for production of American crude, and to increase American supply and
bring down prices of gas and diesel.
Increasing the supply of crude oil and ultimately lowering its price
is the single most effective thing Congress can do to lower gas prices.
Today, 73 percent of every dollar we pay for gasoline is the price of
producing crude oil. Almost two-thirds of it comes from foreign
countries, including OPEC nations and dictatorships like Hugo Chavez's
Venezuela.
Congress could vote today to unlock huge American onshore oil and
natural gas reserves on public lands in the United States. In a study
just released by the Bureau of Land Management, while onshore public
lands in the United States are estimated to contain 31 billion barrels
of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, some 60 percent of
these lands are completely closed to leasing because of the actions of
Congress.
{time} 1330
Once such example is the oil reserves in Alaska, where in 1980
President Jimmy Carter set aside 2,000 acres specifically for energy
production. According to the U.S. Energy and Information
Administration, the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil on
those section 1002 lands is 10.4 billion barrels. That's more than
twice the proven oil reserves in all of Texas and almost half of the
total U.S. proven reserves of 21 billion barrels. The recoverable oil
within these lands represents a possible 50 percent increase in total
U.S. proven reserves.
Congress must act to lift the restrictions on America's energy-rich
public lands and increase exploration and production of American crude
oil and natural gas. We can do this in an environmentally friendly
manner. But we have to act and we have to act now. Of that there can be
no dispute.
With those pressing needs before us, why would Congress act on this
bill to give a permanent authorization and increase the amount of money
to go to the subject of this legislation when the administration has
told us that no Federal funds are even needed? Mr. Speaker, we can and
we must do better.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I just want to note a couple of things.
First, that this is a bipartisan bill, and I want to salute, as
Representative Scott did, the partnership of Congressman Wittman from
Virginia in helping to marshal support for this bill.
I also want to point out that the annual appropriation process will
determine the funds that go to support this authorization. Otherwise,
the claims that it's sort of breaking through the cap or not are not
correct.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who is another
leader with respect to the Chesapeake Bay and co-chairs the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Task Force.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending my colleague
from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for taking the initiative on this
important piece of legislation and for all his leadership in our effort
to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and to Mr. Wittman for joining him in
this bipartisan effort.
Before I say a few words about this bill, I do think it's important
to point out that this body has now passed numerous pieces of
legislation to try to address the energy crisis and the rise in gas
prices around this country, including legislation to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil by diversifying our energy portfolio. One of
the things we passed out of this body to do that was to say we
shouldn't be giving taxpayer subsidies, giveaways, to the oil and gas
industry at a time when they're already making record profits and
Americans are facing record prices at the pump. We should instead be
using those resources to invest in renewable energy and energy
efficiency. That's the direction this country needs to go.
The President was in Saudi Arabia recently having tea with the
leaders of the Saudi Royal Family asking them to reduce prices. They
said no. We need a long-term strategy. We passed that out of this
House, and, unfortunately, the President said he's going to veto it
[[Page H5007]]
because he wants to keep giving those subsidies to the oil and gas
industry rather than taking a new and different approach to our energy
crisis. That's what this House did. Unfortunately, the President
continues to block those efforts.
Now, we do need, as a country, to protect our beautiful and vital
natural resources like the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay, as my
colleague Mr. Sarbanes has pointed out, is the Nation's largest
estuary. It is a national treasure; it's a natural treasure. And that's
what this bill is about because the Chesapeake Bay is currently under
assault from a whole host of sources of pollution. Point sources of
pollution like the kind of pollution that comes out of a sewage pipe
when it's not being adequately treated before it gets into the
tributaries, like the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, the
Susquehanna River; and nonpoint sources of pollution, the kind of
pollution that washes off our driveways from oil dripping from cars or
the pollution that comes off of fields that are under agricultural
production.
Now, not long ago we passed in this legislature, in this Congress,
the farm bill, and that farm bill provided vital additional help to our
farmers, who are good stewards of our land. It provided them with vital
new tools to help prevent that kind of nonpoint source pollution. And
that will give them a vital boost in the years ahead in our effort to
clean up the Chesapeake Bay and meet the goals that have been set.
But the other key element to sustain that support is to engage the
public. And we mean not just the Department of Agriculture but the
other departments and agencies of the United States Government like the
Department of Interior and the National Park Service, who has played
such an important role in raising the understanding of the public that
we all need to be part of this effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
In our State of Maryland, when you go down your roads and you see the
systems where the water dumps into the pipes to take it out to rivers,
it says this drains into the Chesapeake Bay. We have done a good job of
trying to raise that public support. But this system, this whole
effort, the Gateways effort that we are talking about in this bill, has
also been a vital component of that to let people know what the
Chesapeake Bay means to our region and to our country.
And it would be very shortsighted to end this program. What we need
to do instead is to say, as has been said by others, that this program
has worked in raising that public awareness, enlisting the support of
students and adults, young children and senior citizens in this big
effort to protect this vital estuary. And this Gateways program has
been a very important component in that effort. We need to keep it
going, and we need to make it permanent.
I salute my colleague from Maryland, John Sarbanes, for his
tremendous effort in this region and for reaching out and making this a
bipartisan effort along with Mr. Wittman, and I urge adoption of this
legislation.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.
I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, the other gentleman from
Maryland, for working on this project, the Gateways and Watertrails
system. It is a system, Mr. Speaker, that provides, as the gentleman
from Maryland described, public education about the ecology of the
Chesapeake Bay and what an individual can do not only to enjoy the
landscape, not only to explore and paddle the landscape, but to
understand the landscape.
Now, a lot of discussion here recently has been about energy, fossil
fuels, should we drill for more oil? The issue of the Gateways is about
education. A quote from Norman Cousins, the editor of the Saturday
Evening Post some 30 or 40 years ago, said, ``Knowledge is the solvent
for danger.'' So let's focus on a little bit of information, knowledge.
The United States can never become energy independent if it continues
to be dependent on fossil fuel. There is simply not enough here. We
peaked in the 1970s. Energy from fossil fuels has created the situation
we now call ``climate change'' or ``global warming.'' Global warming
creates a transition for the Chesapeake Bay. This is not a geologic
transition. This is not a natural forces transition from a changing
ecology. This is a human-forced transition for the Chesapeake Bay that
will continue to degrade the water. What can we do about it? One of the
things is a source of education, a source of knowledge.
The Gateways program involves the public in understanding some
amazing things. Number one, the geology of the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. Why is the Chesapeake Bay here? Why is the Delmarva
Peninsula here? An understanding of how geologic forces created this
magnificent estuary over millions of years.
Number two, Gateways helps people understand the ecological evolution
of the Chesapeake Bay. Why are there forests here? Why is there a whole
range of song birds or water foul or marine life? It is a magnificent
place unknown anywhere else on the continent but the Chesapeake Bay.
The ecological evolution of the Chesapeake Bay.
And the other thing the Gateways program does is help us understand
human history, when the first Native Americans got here about 10,000
years ago, to John Smith 400 years ago, to the transition that we see
today in the Chesapeake Bay. The Gateways and Watertrails program is an
educational program.
To understand the transition that the bay is now going through is not
a geological change. It's not an ecological change. It's that human
activity is not compatible with nature's design. And this program helps
us understand those views so we can be a part of the solution and not
part of the problem.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.
Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest) for his career's work on behalf of the environment and the
Chesapeake Bay and thank him for his support.
Mr. Speaker, it is my extreme pleasure now to yield 1 minute to the
majority leader, another champion of the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, I had the great
privilege of being elected to the Maryland State Senate in 1966. There
were two other individuals--there were a lot of other individuals, but
there were two other individuals who were elected with me. The other
two were elected to the House of Delegates. One of those was Benjamin
Cardin, who is now Maryland's junior United States Senator. The other
individual elected that had same year was Paul Sarbanes.
Paul Sarbanes served for 4 years, then was elected to the House in
1970, served in the House for 6 years, and in 1976 was elected to the
United States Senate. I was in the State Senate and had the privilege
of working hard for his election that year. He served longer than any
other individual representing our State, and one of the programs that
he fostered was the program that we are reauthorizing today.
He can swell with pride not only on the substance of this legislation
but also on the fact that his extraordinary son, who now represents a
district that he used to represent, the Third Congressional District of
our State, is now sponsoring and shepherding this legislation through
the House of Representatives.
My colleagues have spoken about the substance of this legislation.
John Smith in 1607 came up a bay that was pristine and essentially
unspoiled. In the next 400 years, man, in his somewhat
irresponsibility, has not husbanded that asset that God gave us as he
should or as she should.
This legislation, sponsored by Senator Sarbanes many years ago, now
shepherded by his son, Congressman John Sarbanes, was an effort to
ensure that we understood what Congressman Gilchrest talked about and
the importance of this asset we call the Chesapeake Bay, not just to
Maryland, not just to Pennsylvania or Delaware or Virginia, but to our
country. An extraordinary ecological resource.
So I rise simply not to recite what my colleagues have already
recited but to congratulate John Sarbanes, to say how proud we are, as
I know he is as well, of the extraordinary service given to our State
by his father, Senator
[[Page H5008]]
Paul Sarbanes, the original author of this legislation, and to thank
him for carrying this torch forward on behalf of a resource that is
priceless, as the ad says.
So I thank him for yielding this time, congratulate him for his
efforts, and urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 5540,
legislation introduced by Representative John Sarbanes which seeks to
permanently reauthorize the National Park Service's Chesapeake Bay
Gateways and Watertrails Network Program.
Those of us fortunate to live in this region have been blessed with a
multitude of magnificent natural resources, not the least of which is
our Nation's largest estuary--the Chesapeake Bay, a body of water that
has played such an important role in shaping the cultural, economic,
political, and social history of our region.
Unfortunately, the Chesapeake Bay of 2008 is not the pristine body
that Captain John Smith first charted on his expeditions some 400 years
ago. Indeed, earlier this year, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program released
the Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment which found
the overall health of the bay remains significantly impaired.
In the 110th Congress, I have joined with my colleagues in
successfully advocating legislation to improve the health of the bay.
We've strengthened the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers to
undertake bay oyster restoration, water pollution control, and
environmental infrastructure projects in the 2007 WRDA bill. And, we've
included approximately $438 million in mandatory funding to help
Chesapeake Bay watershed farmers in their ongoing efforts to implement
practices to prevent runoff and control shoreline erosion.
H.R. 5540, the legislation we consider today, takes another important
step forward in our efforts by permanently authorizing a program that
has already done so much to raise awareness of the fragile health of
the bay and directly engage our region's citizens and visitors to take
an active role in fulfilling our shared goal of restoring the
Chesapeake.
The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which includes more than 156
museums, State parks, wildlife refuges and other sites in 6 States and
the District of Columbia, was established to link together these
wonderful places in the hopes of enabling visitors to better understand
and appreciate the role they can play in the bay's survival.
The program enables sites to compete for grant funding--which must be
fully matched--for projects that will help conserve, restore and
interpret their roles in the bay's natural, cultural, and social
history.
The Gateways Program is a critical component to fostering a
commitment among our citizens to restore the bay and I encourage my
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
So here we are debating a bill under a rule which we all know should
have best been under a suspension. It's not a perfect bill. If they
accept an amendment later on, it will be a perfect bill. But for any
imperfections that are here, this bill has far better drafting, far
better intent, far more bipartisanship than perhaps some illogical
partisan gamesmanship that produced vociferous debate under suspensions
yesterday.
But one would wonder why we are taking time on the floor to consider
a bill which was passed out of the Resources Committee by a voice vote
and a bill in which I intend to vote in favor? What is it about this
bill that is actually so important that we are talking about it rather
than other more pressing national issues such as an energy crisis? Why
does such a relatively innocuous bill take precedence over finding
solutions to gas prices that are now around $4 a gallon and probably
going higher?
{time} 1345
It must be that this bill accomplishes something so dramatically
important that we are foolish to consider other issues, such as
national security or our deepening dependence on foreign oil.
This bill deals with an area that includes no Federal waters. There
are no Federal assets that are a part of it. It could easily be done
with an inter-local cooperating agreement, which many States in the
West use. Instead, the Federal Government is involved in that. Despite
that fact, I still intend on voting for this particular bill.
This is a recreational bill. This bill provides moneys for trails,
maps, signs, and all the nice things in the quest of healthy outdoor
recreation in the Chesapeake Bay region. This program was originally
authorized in 1998 as a 5-year program, and then reauthorized for
another 5 years in 2002. And now the authorization, not for the program
but for the appropriations for this program, are set to expire and the
proponents are offering this legislation to authorize funding this
program for eternity.
There will be no caps on the funds that can be appropriated for this
program, no time limit. Maybe this is such a big priority for the
Democratic majority because the National Park Service testified this
program has received $7.7 million in earmarks since its creation. Maybe
the Democrats wish to preserve a conduit for earmarks masquerading as a
recreation bill. This is what takes precedence over national security
and the energy crisis here on the floor of the House.
Yet, I don't object to the earmarks that were made for this
particular bill, even though some of them are different. Part of the
money that goes to this particular bill or has been earmarked in the
past has been $20,000 dollars for a Native American interpretive
brochure. I don't oppose that. Funds go into this for a Dino-Mania!
Camp-In so that people can delve into the world of dinosaurs as your
family spends the night in a Virginia Living Museum, explore how big
some dinosaurs were, find out what might have caused their extinction,
and it also comes with an evening snack and a breakfast.
My favorite, the Tree Spirits. The ancients believed the trees had
spirits, and if you look hard enough, you see them in this woody bark.
This workshop will focus on the old beliefs to trees, their meaning,
their practical purposes. Fathers and sons will join the rangers on a
hike as we scavenge the materials to make our own Tree Spirits for you
all.
I actually don't object to that. I still intend to vote for this
particular bill.
Nature hikes, picnics in the park, learning about ecology are causes
to champion, and I'd be happy to support those things, but this bill
doesn't solve the major threat to those activities. How will one be
able to afford to get to these outdoor locations, enjoy these earmarks
when the gas is too expensive to allow them to travel anywhere. At this
point, Americans are not working to live, they are working to pay for
the gas to get to work and back home. With gas at $4 a gallon, weekend
family visits to the Chesapeake are becoming less and less of a
possibility.
Unfortunately, our unwillingness to address the dramatic spike in
energy prices today hurts American families, not only by putting some
recreational activities beyond their reach, but by wrecking the
household budget for basics, such as food, electricity, and medicine.
Some people talk about our goal should be to get revenge on companies
that produce energy, but such a program does not add one barrel of
energy to meet the demands of the present time.
The Resources Committee, from which this legislation originated, is
the same committee that has jurisdiction over domestic resources,
resources on public lands, such as the Outer Continental Shelf and
ANWR. It's past time for the Resource Committee to stop in its quest to
become merely a ``Recreation Committee.'' This country has locked up
more resources in America than other nations have in their entire
country. America is blessed with a wealth of natural resources and
historically we have had the unique ability to develop and continuously
improve the technology needed to use these resources.
We have faced and overcome bigger challenges in the past, but we in
Congress must act now to meet the critical energy needs of today. We
need to stop creating obstacles to domestic energy production so the
American people can get to work and solve the problem. That should be
the priority of the people, that should be our priority as well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SARBANES. How many minutes remain?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have 15 minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am gratified that Representative Bishop intends to vote for the
bill. I did want to point out that this is about as far as from an
earmark as you can get. The projects under this particular
[[Page H5009]]
Gateways program are determined at the discretion and based on
application to the agency by the National Park Service.
At this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to
another champion of the Chesapeake Bay and someone who understands the
importance of reaching out to partners throughout the watershed, and
that is the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for
yielding. I want to thank him for his tremendous leadership,
outstanding leadership with regard to such a critical issue.
As I listened to the last speaker from the other side, I could not
help but think about how many people in our country simply want to have
an opportunity to have a little life brought to their lives. This is
not a major measure, but it is one that will bring spice to life.
We are very blessed to have the Chesapeake Bay. We are very blessed
to have this program. When you think about my favorite saying, and that
is, That we did not inherit our environment from our parents but we
borrowed it from our children, I think this program goes a long ways to
making sure that we leave an earth better than the one we received when
we came upon the earth.
This Gateways program and its reauthorization are very important
because through its partners it can continue to educate people about
the natural, cultural, historic, and recreational sites throughout the
bay region and about how their communities relate directly to the
health of our largest estuary and national treasure, the Chesapeake
Bay.
And so what will happen as a result of this is that children will
have an opportunity to learn about what part the bay plays in their
lives and how important it is and, believe it or not, some of them even
being exposed to the bay to really understand that it is indeed a very,
very wonderful feature of their State and their backyard.
So, again, I congratulate Mr. Sarbanes and all of those who have
anything to do with making this happen. I think it's very important, as
I said before, that we bring spice to the lives of our citizens, and
this bill goes a very, very long way in doing that.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the newest
member of the Virginia delegation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop) for yielding time to me on this important issue.
I rise in support of H.R. 5540, legislation to reauthorize the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. I represent Virginia's
First Congressional District, which is largely defined by the
Chesapeake Bay. My constituents live, work, and play in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. My district also includes many components of the
Gateways Network, including historic Yorktown, Colonial Williamsburg,
historic Jamestown, all the way to Washington's birthplace in
Westmoreland County.
This is a fantastic effort here that, as you have heard, was spawned
by lots of great ideas and leaders in the past, and one of those that
was part of this effort was the late Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis. She
did a tremendous amount of work to put together the ideas to help in
creating this network. She had a passion for the Chesapeake Bay and all
the assets that are there in the Chesapeake Bay and passion to make
sure people knew about those so they could appreciate the bay, they
could appreciate the culture that it brings to our region, that folks
could appreciate the natural resources there, and that they could
understand how all of those parts are interrelated to understand the
importance of the bay to our region.
The Gateways Network links together over 100 parks, museums, wildlife
refuges, and other cultural and historic sites into a comprehensive
system so that people can understand it and so that they realize the
parts of the things that make the Chesapeake Bay important.
This Gateways program connects visitors with the natural beauty, rich
history, and the recreational opportunities there within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. That's extraordinarily important so that folks can make
the effort to understand the bay and be part of the effort to preserve
and protect the bay.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, my constituents, like everybody else, are
dealing with the cost of rising prices for gasoline. These increasing
cost are impacting their budgets and cutting into their planned summer
vacations. I am strongly in support of this bill. But I do join Mr.
Bishop and many of my colleagues to call on Congress to take action on
a comprehensive plan to rein in gas prices.
We should take a number of steps to promote American-made energy. We
need to encourage next-generation technologies, we need to promote
conservation, we need to look at bridging from the present and the use
of fossil fuels to the future. But, let's face it folks, fossil fuels
is going to be part of that bridge to the future. So we need to make
sure that we have them available for us to get to this next generation
of energy.
We need to make sure that we, as part of that, look at our dependence
on foreign oil, while keeping in mind the environment that we must
protect in all parts of that puzzle in creating a comprehensive energy
policy.
Unfortunately, unless gas prices come down soon, I am concerned that
families that may want to come to the Chesapeake Bay and enjoy the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and enjoy the Chesapeake Bay network may not
have the opportunity to do so. That means it's incumbent upon us to put
together a responsible, comprehensive energy policy the make sure that
folks can indeed enjoy the Chesapeake Bay, enjoy the network that this
program provides so they can understand the importance of the different
cultural and environmental and economic aspects of the Chesapeake Bay.
So let's not miss this opportunity as we work to extend this
particular network system to make sure that we also use this as a
conduit to talk about energy policy, energy issues that are important
to this Nation and to the Chesapeake Bay. Let's face it, the bay these
days is being affected by the impact of man, and energy is part of
that. So let's make sure that across the board we address these
particular issues and make sure that we provide some relief to our
hardworking American families that are dealing with these high energy
prices. Again, it needs to be a long-term energy solution to make sure
that we are able to address this in a way that is important for our
future.
Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank, again, Congressman Wittman for his
support and his lifelong commitment to the Chesapeake Bay.
Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger has been a champion of the Chesapeake
Bay throughout his career, earlier in his career as county executive
for Baltimore County, Maryland, and now as a Congressman from the
Second District of Maryland. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I thank you for yielding. Congressman Sarbanes,
thank you for your advocacy. The Chesapeake Bay is so important to our
region, to our country.
I do want to respond though to my colleagues on the other side about
the issue of oil prices. We are talking about the Chesapeake Bay, which
is very important to our country. We all know that the oil prices and
energy is a very important issue. Believe me, we have had 8 years
trying to deal with that issue. And we will continue to deal with it
because we know people are suffering. But we are talking about the
Chesapeake Bay today.
The Chesapeake Bay is very important to those of us who live in the
Chesapeake Bay. We feel that we are stewards of the Chesapeake Bay.
There are 16 million people that live within the watershed of the
Chesapeake Bay, and that is very relevant. It's very relevant that we
generate millions of dollars in seafood from the Chesapeake Bay. It's
very relevant that our citizens who work around and within the
Chesapeake Bay are also paid money for their jobs.
But, more importantly, it's also about an issue of the environment
too. The watershed. Right now, the Chesapeake Bay is having problems.
We have to deal with those problems. This bill is a very important bill
because if we don't move forward with this bill, we will not be able to
educate our peers, 16
[[Page H5010]]
million people who, unfortunately, don't understand that when you pour
a toxic substance down the drain, that it could go to the Chesapeake
Bay.
We need to educate our farmers to let them know that we need to have
no-till farming, make sure that the fertilizer don't go to the
Chesapeake Bay and kill the fish and the crabs and the oysters that are
generated through the Chesapeake Bay.
So I feel very, very strongly that we need to pass this bill. It's a
relevant bill. We will deal with the issue of energy. We need to. We
can't keep relying on other countries for our oil. I urge all my
colleagues to vote in favor of reauthorizing this critical program to
continue and expand the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network and make sure
that the treasures of the Chesapeake Bay are preserved for future
generations.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1400
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of other points I wanted to
make. First of all, I am pleased to indicate that we have a letter that
came to Chairman Rahall and to Ranking Member Young from the six
Governors of the six States that make up the watershed and from the
Mayor of the District of Columbia. So that is the Governors of
Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia,
and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, who have written to indicate
their very, very strong support for this legislation.
June 5, 2008.
Hon. Nick J. Rahall,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington DC.
Hon. Don Young,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Natural Resources,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young: We are
writing to express our strong support for H.R. 5540, the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing
Authorization Act.
The Chesapeake Gateways Program (``program'') plays a
vitally important role in our efforts to restore the
Chesapeake Bay by improving public access, enhancing public
education, and fostering citizen stewardship of the many
natural, cultural and historical resources of the Bay region.
Since its establishment in 1998, more than 150 sites and
water trails have been designated as Gateways throughout the
watershed in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West
Virginia, New York, and the District of Columbia. These
Gateway sites are helping to promote a greater understanding
and appreciation of the Chesapeake Bay and a greater
commitment to the Bay's restoration. The relatively modest
federal investment in the program has leveraged substantial
matching contributions--both financial and in-kind--from our
States, community organizations and other partners. For these
reasons, among others, the program was recognized by the
White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in 2005 as
a cooperative conservation success story.
However, there is still a tremendous need for improved on-
site interpretation, enhanced public access, and additional
strategies to engage visitors and residents alike in the
Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection effort. In 2004,
the National Park Service completed a Chesapeake Bay Special
Resources Study which recommended, as its preferred
alternative, that the Gateways Program be made permanent and
expanded. The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrail Network
Continuing Authorization Act would codify this recommendation
as well as enable implementation and fulfillment of the
original vision for an expansive Gateways and Watertrails
Network. It is critical that the Congress reauthorize this
important program and reject efforts to weaken the
legislation or sunset the Network. Doing so will pay
significant dividends in the years ahead by helping to
preserve and enhance our nation's largest estuary.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
Martin O'Malley,
Governor, Maryland.
Timothy M. Kaine,
Governor, Virginia.
Ruth Ann Minner,
Governor, Delaware.
Edward G. Rendell,
Governor, Pennsylvania.
David A. Paterson,
Governor, New York.
Joe Manchin III,
Governor, West Virginia.
Mayor Adrian Fenty,
Mayor, District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I did want to just mention one site, because we talked
about the 156 sites and I wanted to bring that to life a little bit.
The Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, which is not far from here, located in
Maryland between Baltimore and Washington, is the oldest and really
only National Wildlife Refuge that conducts wildlife research. It is
13,000 acres. It is the largest contiguous block of forest in the
Baltimore-Washington corridor and it is the site of a tremendous amount
of environmental education.
Not too long ago we had the opportunity in connection with some other
environmental education legislation that I have sponsored to do a field
hearing at the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, and in the morning we had six
schools represented from Maryland that came there with busloads of
children to participate in activities of environmental education. If
you could have seen the look on their faces and how excited they were
to be outdoors and engaged in this kind of learning you would have I
think been very, very impressed with the resource that exists there.
That is just one site of 156 sites across the bay watershed that are
providing a tremendous opportunity to our citizens to connect not just
to the environment, but to the heritage and cultural history of this
area.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, if you recall back to the movie
``The Natural,'' if you remember there is that one wonderful scene
where this mythical team, the New York Knights, have called in a
psychologist to talk to the team to try to get them out of their losing
slump. And as they are sitting there, talking to these ballplayers he
says, ``The mind is a strange thing, men. We must begin by asking, what
is losing? Losing is a disease that is as contagious as syphilis.
Losing is a disease as contagious as the bubonic plague, attacking one,
but infecting all. But curable. Now I want you to imagine you are on a
vast ocean. You are on a ship at sea gently rocking, gently rocking,
gently rocking, gently rocking.''
In that scene Roy Hobbs, now in disgust, breaks out of that and
leaves this therapy session, because he recognizes that the solution to
their losing season is not sitting there talking philosophically about
it, but actually going out on the field and doing something.
We today in the issue of energy are in the mode of simply talking
about it. All we are doing is coming here and talking about these
theoretical approaches, gently rocking, gently rocking. We are talking
about building straw men that we can then knock about, whether it is
big oil or a so-called bubble, or yesterday someone said the reason we
are paying so much at the pump is because of Enron. Ken Lay has somehow
reached up from the dead and somehow hiked up the price of gasoline.
And our only solution to this entire situation so far is we have passed
a piece of legislation that allows lawyers to go out and sue OPEC, in
the hopes that maybe they might give us some more energy money.
It is almost as if what we are trying to say is we are going to have
everyone sit down and listen to a psychologist that will try and
convince us that freezing in the dark can be an enjoyable thing if we
just have the right attitude towards it, because losing is simply a
mind game and it is contagious.
What Roy Hobbs did is the exact opposite. He left that stuff. He went
out on the field, he knocked the cover off the ball, and when they
actually started doing something, that is when this mythical New York
Knights team started to win.
If we want to solve the problem of energy for American citizens, we
have got to stop, quit talking about it and our secret plans and coming
up with these mythical enemies which we want to attack, and we simply
have to go out and do something. And that means production now. We
cannot sit here simply idly by while American people are suffering
without actually doing something in reality. And that means yes on
conservation, but it also means we have to increase production. If we
don't do that, recreational opportunities like this particular bill
have no purpose and have no meaning. There is nothing left for them to
do.
If I could give a few statements that have been given by people who
live in this area and who will be impacted by this particular bill and
what they are
[[Page H5011]]
saying about the energy issues and how it impacts and affects them.
``Repercussions,'' a quote here, ``from the escalating price of fuel
are felt everywhere. Sportsfishing is no exception. Neither is the
business of chartering, headboating or commercial fishing. The same
applies to businesses associated with fishing. One big tackle shop
proprietor told the other day, `I have four people and myself working
now and not a single customer in the shop. Haven't seen one in 10
minutes.'''
``Alex DeMetrick reports gas prices are soaring, having an impact on
those who depend on boats and the Bay to make a living. Naming a work
boat the `Last Penny,' which may have been a stab at some kind of
subtle humor, it is striking a little too close to reality at the fuel
docks around the bay as diesel is now at $4.50 a gallon and climbing.
`Gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going down,' said one of
the watermen who works there. `Working the water takes constant moving,
but with crabs spotty and fuel high, watermen are trying to conserve.
They are hurting us bad,' he says. `It's almost double in the past
year, so it is taking a right good bite out of us,' says another one of
the watermen who works there.''
Over at Dredge Harbor, New Jersey, another one of those people who
work there said high gas prices are also affecting his customers.
``Instead of taking four trips down the Chesapeake Bay, they now might
take two trips this year, and most of their customers use their boats
as homes afloat so they can conserve as much fuel as possible. High
prices are somewhat affecting the sales.''
Another one of the reports from this area, ``Elevated prices are
causing some charter fishing captains to want to jump overboard.'' As
one said who owns a yacht yard, he is selling gas for $4.20 per gallon
at his fuel dock, and he has noticed fewer and fewer small power boats
on the water.
What we are simply doing as we go along with this, there are other
people that simply say, ``Now I can see no way of getting over the hump
of fuel costs. We have got good fishing, but we have fewer and fewer
customers. With gas prices going this way, we are simply losing the
opportunity of using this resource for the purpose in which it was
therefore designed. High costs not only affect the fishing industry on
the water, local businesses are also feeling the gas price pinch. A
local tackle shop simply said, `I still got people working there and no
one is coming in there.' Gas prices are dipping into his resources and
his ability to make a living.''
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. One of the things we have to deal with if we are
actually going to deal in a proper way with the reauthorization of this
entire program is to understand that if we are going to have these
types of opportunities, either for people to recreate, people to learn,
people to enjoy, people to enhance their entire environment, we have
got to be able to get them there. Kind of like today. We seem to be
needing to get people up from the White House, in which case they are
walking because we can't afford the fuel to put them on buses to get
them here. Therefore, things change because of those circumstances, and
it is one of those concepts in which we are working.
If we really need to be serious about this, we have to realize that
our energy crisis today is limiting the ability to experience this type
of an environment, this type of attitude and this process. And if we
want to make full use of the Chesapeake Bay resources that are there,
we have to make sure that real people have the opportunity of going
there and experiencing it. Because when we talk about oil prices, we
are not simply talking about some concept, some ethereal project that
is out there. We are talking about real people, how they live, how
their jobs work, how they get to the chance to recreate and make their
lives fuller and better. And that has to be an integral part of this
discussion, ought to be an integral part. In fact, it is a more
significant part of this discussion on a bill that still is a decent
bill that should have been done as a suspension, not as a rule here on
the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, a couple of points.
First of all, the gentleman from Utah spoke to the livelihood of
people who work on the Chesapeake Bay, but the biggest threat to those
who make their living on the Chesapeake Bay is the decline in the
health of the Chesapeake Bay and the fisheries in particular that are
in the Chesapeake Bay. So if we have the interests of those people at
heart, we ought to be committing ourselves wholeheartedly to this
continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails
Network, because it is designed to enhance and improve and protect over
the long term the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
To address another point, one of the reasons that the Democratic
majority has been so steadfast in urging the pursuit of alternatives to
fossil fuels in terms of energy sources is to reduce our dependence
there, which obviously could go a long way towards the concern over
fuel prices and gas prices. But another reason is because it will
reduce these greenhouse gas emissions, which, again, impact the
environment. If we don't take steps to do that, then there is not going
to be any environment for us to enjoy.
The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program, it has been alluded to the fact
that this is noncontroversial bill, that it should have come up on
suspension. I agree. The minority resisted our desire to have it
permanently authorized, and that is why we are in the process we are in
today. But that permanent authorization I think is very much a part of
the strong statement that we are seeking to make to the citizens in the
watershed and to the many millions of visitors who come to the
watershed every year, that our national government stands steadfast in
this partnership with our citizenry.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would still like
to try and reemphasize as we are talking about this particular bill is
this bill deals with the reauthorization of the appropriations concept.
This is not about cleaning up the environment. Several of the speakers
who have spoken today talked about the necessity of environmental
protection. This is not the EPA's program. This is a wholly separate
issue and a separate concept.
One of the things that we should keep in mind is the purpose and the
concept of an authorizing committee, is an authorizing committee should
be reviewing what we are trying to do at periodic bases. That is our
purpose.
One of the things in this particular bill that is a problem, is
problematic to the future, is that it rejects the ability of Congress
to take periodic reviews of this particular program. When it was first
initiated in 1998, there was a 5-year statute in which we would then
review it. In 2002 we reviewed it. We are now looking at a bill that I
think we are all going to agree is needed to go forward, but there
still should be some kind of review.
It should not be forgotten that when we voted this particular bill in
the Resource Committee on a voice vote, there were six other bills at
that time similar in scope, similar in fashion, similar in funding, but
each of them had a periodic review attached to it. So a bill by Mr.
Udall, a bill by Ms. Baldwin, a bill by Mr. Bilbray, by Mrs. Bono Mack
and Ms. Bordallo, all of them had the responsibility of allowing
Congress to do what it is supposed to do and try to take some kind of
review at regular basic intervals.
That still is the wisest approach to it. It is one of the few flaws
that I actually find in this particular bill, and it is one of those
flaws that probably should be addressed.
We talked about the kinds of grants that have been awarded in the
past. There are $7.7 million worth of earmarks not asked by the agency
that have been added to this. We have added grants in certain years
that have been, for example, $34,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Marine
Museum, $21,000 for the Stratford Hall Plantation; $12,000 for the
Mason Neck State Park; and $18,000 for the Annapolis Maritime Museum. I
am not objecting to these as being inappropriate. In fact, I could
probably argue they were appropriate and they were needful. They are
useful. But I am
[[Page H5012]]
saying that what Congress should do if we actually fulfill our
responsibility is make sure that we look at these on a periodic basis,
and that should be part of the statute. That is what we commonly do in
most pieces of legislation, and it all should be part of this
legislation at the same time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1415
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 1 minute. The
gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, one more time, if we can try and
emphasize the point of this.
This is still a decent bill. There are a few flaws, but it is a
decent bill and I support it going forward with this particular bill.
There are still some changes I would like to see in that bill.
Also, we must realize, though, that if we are talking about the
overall use of this bill, we are taking time on the floor when we
should be talking about much more significant and vital issues than
this particular bill.
Having a rule on this bill is a strange use of the time of Congress,
especially when there are much more significant issues that need to be
debated and discussed at this particular time. And even though I plan
on voting for this bill, it is one of those things that is still sad
that we are as a Congress not addressing the core issues for which the
people have sent us here and not looking at what should be the core
issues for which the people have sent us here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, again, I am gratified the gentleman from
Utah plans to vote for this bill. I do note that the reason that we are
here, the reason this was under a rule in part was to allow the
gentleman to present an amendment, which I guess is going to be coming
next.
In terms of safeguards, the appropriations process provides that on
an annual basis in terms of looking at the program and deciding what
kind of support ought to be given to it. The permanent authorization is
about making a statement, making a statement to the citizen partners
that we are asking to step up and be part of this effort to preserve
the Chesapeake Bay.
The way we are going to save the bay, the way we are going to enhance
its health over time is not by turning it over to experts, but by
taking ownership at the community level, having every citizen
understand what they can do in their own backyard, working with
nonprofit groups, working with museums, with wildlife refuges, with
historic sites, et cetera, to stake a claim in the future of the bay.
And that is what the Chesapeake Bay Gateways program is all about; it
is a gateway to this national treasure, 156 sites, 1,500 miles of water
trails, and a tremendous investment on the part of ordinary citizens in
the future of this national treasure. That is why we sought a permanent
authorization. That is why we continue to seek it. That is at the heart
of H.R. 5540, and I urge my colleagues to support it when it comes to
the vote.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Natural
Resources, I would like to commend our colleague, Representative John
Sarbanes, for his tireless efforts on behalf of the pending
legislation.
This bill is a simple, straightforward measure that would permanently
authorize the highly successful Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails
Network, which would otherwise expire at the end of this fiscal year.
Over 10 million people each year visit one of the 156 gateway sites
supported by this program. They come to kayak or canoe, hike or bike,
picnic, hunt or fish or to watch wildlife. Others come to visit the
Chesapeake's many maritime museums or to renew their acquaintance with
turning points in our Nation's history at sites such as Fort McHenry
and Yorktown Battlefield.
Each of those visitors comes away with a strengthened awareness of
the crucial role of the Chesapeake in our national story and as the
ecological and economic heart of the mid-Atlantic. And that is the goal
of the Gateway Network, to renew our connection with that great bay.
The program is so successful that the National Park Service has
heaped praise upon it, and the White House, in 2005, declared it to be
a ``cooperative conservation success story.''
Congress originally authorized this program for 5 years, and renewed
that short-term authorization in 2002. In 2004, a National Park Service
special resource study concluded that a permanent commitment to the
program would ensure its long-term viability and enhance the
Chesapeake's status among America's national treasures.
Anyone who saw the Washington Post article on Monday knows that the
bay's oyster population is in trouble. That situation is both a symptom
and one of the causes of the precarious health of the bay. Keeping
people connected with and concerned about the Bay is vital to each step
in restoring that great estuary--from its headwaters to its oysterbeds.
The Gateways Network does just that. The program is a proven success,
and should be permanently authorized. I commend the gentleman from
Maryland, a valued member of the Natural Resources Committee, for his
advocacy of this measure.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5540.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, my district is home to many beautiful
American treasures and one of them is the Chesapeake Bay. ``Save the
Bay'' is one message that reaches beyond all political boundaries.
Working alongside my longtime colleague and friend Jo Anne Davis in
the 109th Congress, we passed legislation to create the Captain John
Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail--which is part of the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network we are reauthorizing
today. As many of you know, this initiative falls under the larger
Chesapeake Bay Program, which was created in 1983 to restore and
protect the bay.
I am proud to lend my vote in favor of this bill today, however, I
would like to call attention to one of the greater matters that this
Congress should also be voting on: legislation to help the American
people pay for the astounding cost of energy. One example is a
comprehensive bill by Representative Peterson that creates a
partnership between energy development and the environment. This bill
opens up the OCS for natural gas exploration and uses an estimated $86
billion dollars in royalties for environmental restoration efforts. The
Chesapeake Bay Commission estimated that the total cost to restore the
Chesapeake Bay is $19 billion. The NEED Act fully funds the Chesapeake
Bay restoration effort at $20 billion. This energy bill is another way
we can help Save the Bay, and the budgets of American families.
I am an original cosponsor of the NEED Act and I believe it is an
example of bipartisan energy legislation. We must all come together in
a bipartisan manner to pass legislation that will increase our domestic
energy supply and help alleviate soaring prices. I cannot speak for
your districts, but families in Virginia's Second District need an
energy solution now and it is our job to give them one.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). All time for debate on the bill
has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made
in order under the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
Page 2, line 14, insert after ``section'' the following:
``for fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1233, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I proposed here
was actually proposed in the committee as well, and it is an amendment
which in all sincerity is an effort to try and make a good bill into a
very, very good bill. It has no intentions whatsoever of trying to
derail the path of successful completion of this particular bill, but
actually solve a problem and present a sense of comfort that might not
necessarily be there as the bill proceeds to the other body.
We are dealing, obviously, as some people have--not here on the
floor, for all of us here on the floor who are Members, but some people
have said that this is simply a sunsetting provision. It is not that.
This program is not going to be sunsetted. But there is an
authorization of appropriations which desperately needs that time to be
looked at.
My amendment is designed to bring this bill in line with all the
other bills that we have passed out of the Resources Committee this
year. Typically
[[Page H5013]]
in the Resources Committee we review authorizations on specific periods
of time. For this reason, I anxiously anticipate the support of
Democratic colleagues, because this is good government. It is a
fiscally responsible amendment.
My amendment reauthorizes the review of this program after 5 years.
This is a compromise between the National Park Service request, which
was no authorization at all. They were fine about technical assistance,
but they suggested there should be no more grants given to this
program, as they said this program has matured enough and don't need
any more, and the bill's sponsor who was asking for an eternal unending
authorization of appropriations. Five years was good enough the first
time this program was authorized, it was sufficient when this program
was reauthorized, and it ought to be a sufficient time for Congress not
to abrogate our responsibility but do our responsibility to review the
programs that we authorize and how they are being funded.
There is a reason we add these positions to bills. As I told you in
the committee, the very committee that sent this bill out, there were
six other bills in a similar status; and on each of those six bills we
put in this process so that the committee could review that
authorization and the funding source and what those programs were doing
at 5-year intervals. Some bills we have passed out have no time limits,
but in every situation they have funding limitations that are put on
them. This particular bill in the course it is drafted right now has no
funding limitation nor any review process to it. And that is where it
can be improved.
There is a reason we add these provisions to bills. Without them,
programs have a tendency of languishing, depending upon Federal funds,
where we want them to encourage recipients of these funds to use them
wisely and to have an incentive to produce results. When programs
expire, we have a chance to reevaluate them and conduct this oversight.
That is our responsibility as an authorizing committee and as Congress
as a whole, and we should not abrogate that responsibility. Without my
amendment, we are relinquishing our oversight and leaving it simply to
appropriators.
Already this program has received, as I said earlier, $7.7 million in
unrequested earmarks. This bill also eliminates the annual cap on the
funds that are eligible to be received. I understand that this has been
an excellent conduit for earmarks, but let us not lose the fiscal
responsibility that we have to do and get away from simply handing out
a blank check.
I mentioned earlier parts of the program that are funded, somewhat
sarcastically, I admit. They do sound on the surface humorous. I am not
opposed to what they are doing; I am not opposed to those programs. I
am simply saying that Congress should have the responsibility of
looking at those at a regular period. That is our job.
It is nearing impossibility for the average family to drive to any of
these recreation areas; much of the responsibility for that lies here
in Congress as well. Despite that fact, the other side of the aisle is
unwilling to increase oil and gas reductions. I hope they will cut the
taxpayers at least a small break by accepting this good government
amendment, and allow us to review how the money is spent on a periodic
basis as we traditionally do in most bills that come out of this
committee.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
Bishop amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicated some anxiety that
the program would languish if it was permanently authorized. And I can
assure him that this is one program that will not languish, because it
has so stimulated the interest and the engagement of so many citizens
and volunteer groups across the six States and the District of Columbia
that make up the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And that is the point. That
is the point of permanently authorizing it, because the citizenry has
stepped up and they have shown that they are ready to work in
partnership with their national government, and it is time for the
national government to make an equally powerful statement to the
citizenry that, when it comes to the Chesapeake Bay, we are going to be
here as a steadfast ongoing supporter of that partnership.
Gateways has a proven track record. Initially authorized in 1998 and
reauthorized in 2002, the Park Service conducted a special resource
study on the program in 2004, and it concluded that Gateways should be
made permanent and expanded. That is because the program is tested and
proven. Park Service has already made the Gateways network a permanent
unit of the Park System. Again, another reason it certainly will not
languish, and a reason why the kind of oversight that the gentleman
from Utah is concerned about will be there in terms of the agency's
responsibility.
The appropriations process, which he dismissed as a significant way
of overseeing the program and providing scrutiny to it, is there on an
annual basis and can certainly serve that purpose.
So it is the essence of this bill in fact that we permanently
authorize it, because we want to make the statement to those volunteers
and citizens who stepped into this tremendous partnership to preserve
the Chesapeake Bay that we understand the commitment they have made,
and we are prepared to make an equal commitment from our side.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate one more time the
opportunity of talking about this.
It is one of the fundamental elements that we have as the concept of
good government that Congress should exercise its right of oversight on
programs. Even if we authorize a program, however good it should be,
there still should be at a regular basis an oversight. It is not
threatening to a program. It is the responsibility of Congress.
We do have a bunch of programs that simply run without that kind of
oversight. Some programs whose authorization has lapsed still function
on. That is not the concept of good government. We have things
especially in our area, Coastal Zone Management, Endangered Species Act
whose reauthorization has lapsed, still functions on under their
authorization by the appropriators, but it needs to be reviewed by the
Appropriations Committee. That is its purpose.
We have some programs that are permanent, that have no oversight
whatsoever: Defense, food stamps, child health care, school lunches.
But, once again, in each of those areas what Congress should be doing
is exercising our responsibility, and simply saying there is nothing
that we should pass that shouldn't ask Congress to relook at a bill and
relook at a program, and evaluate the essence of that program if it is
still the most significant thing we should be doing. Or perhaps our
priorities have changed. That should not be seen as an attack on the
bill, it should not be seen as something that is negative or
unfriendly. It should be seen as something simply as reauthorizing and
re-recognizing what we are supposed to be doing. That is our job as
representatives of the people, is to constantly be looking at what we
have authorized, reevaluate, and reappropriate. And we are doing
something in this particular amendment in an effort to do that at a 5-
year basis. That is not illogical. In fact, that is the norm. That is
rational. That is what usually happens in these particular situations,
and it is what should happen in this particular situation. Again, it is
nothing again to try to harm the bill in any way; it is simply an
effort to try to move us forward to make sure that Congress does its
job, and does its job on a regular, appropriate level. That is why we
are here. We should not abrogate that responsibility. We should accept
that. We should embrace it. And we should try to move forward from that
position.
I apologize for trying to elongate this in some particular way. I
think I have said repeatedly what the crux of this issue is. This is
not a proposition from Liechtenstein; this is simply the concept of, do
we periodically review what we authorize. It is a plus thing that we
should be doing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I am new to Congress, but I have already
sat through a number of hearings in the
[[Page H5014]]
Natural Resources Committee where we scrutinize the appropriations
requests and presentation of various agencies that are under our
jurisdiction. So I have high confidence that the congressional
oversight that is needed for this kind of program will be there through
the annual appropriation process.
And I say again that this is about making a statement to all of those
citizens who stepped forward and have supported the Gateways program,
that are there to back these sites, to preserve our environment and the
Chesapeake Bay, its heritage, its cultural legacy. And if we vote today
as I hope we will, to permanently authorize this program, we will be
saying to all of those citizen stewards that we are thankful for the
commitment that they are making, and that their national government is
ready to step up and make an equal commitment to protecting and
preserving the Chesapeake Bay.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1430
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1233, the
previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 178,
nays 232, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 384]
YEAS--178
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Capito
Carney
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey
Gohmert
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--232
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Forbes
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Blunt
Boehner
Boucher
Campbell (CA)
Carter
Delahunt
Ehlers
Ellison
Everett
Fattah
Gillibrand
Granger
Jackson-Lee (TX)
LaHood
McCotter
McKeon
Pascrell
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rodriguez
Rush
Shuler
Tiahrt
{time} 1454
Messrs. TANNER, MURPHY of Connecticut, CANTOR, ABERCROMBIE, COSTELLO,
LARSON of Connecticut, SPRATT, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, and Messrs.
SAXTON and SCOTT of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ISSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Sali
Mr. SALI. I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SALI. In its current form I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sali moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5540 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House promptly in the form to which
perfected at the time of this motion, with the following
amendment:
Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act
of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended
to read as follows:
``(B) to identify and utilize the collective resources as
Chesapeake Bay Gateways sites for enhancing public education
of and access to the Chesapeake Bay, including educating the
public regarding the effect of high fuel prices on access to
and use and enjoyment of all present uses of the Chesapeake
Bay Gateways sites and Chesapeake Bay Watertrails;''.
{time} 1500
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, this motion is a straightforward one and one
that I hope we can all support.
Because the underlying bill is a permanent authorization of
appropriations for this regional program, it is suitable that the
Secretary of the Interior should use some of these funds to help the
residents of the Chesapeake Bay better understand exactly how their
recreational opportunities, their livelihoods and even their everyday
lives are affected by the shocking gas prices affecting the country,
prices which have skyrocketed over 71 percent since the current
majority was installed in the House of Representatives.
[[Page H5015]]
I have read several news reports that show exactly how high boat fuel
prices have affected the watermen of the bay. They cannot afford to run
their boats to catch seafood we all enjoy. In the meantime, the price
of those delicious crabs is climbing almost as fast as gas prices just
so these fishermen can make their costs.
While this program creates popular Chesapeake Bay watertrails, tour
operators have shuttered their boats because they cannot afford to fill
up their tanks. Families are forced to stay home rather than
vacationing on the Chesapeake Bay shore to enjoy its historic sites,
education programs and Chesapeake Bay gateway sites supported by the
authorization in this bill. This is a shame because the area has much
to offer.
I wish I could offer a motion to actually decrease these prices, but
the majority won't allow a vote on a measure to open up secure,
American supplies of oil and natural gas, or oil shale, on our public
lands. In the meantime, we are occupying hours of our legislative day
with this minor program.
Our constituents, including the millions who live near, use, and
enjoy the Chesapeake Bay, deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that we're going to hear from the other side
of this body that there's a problem with this motion being made
``promptly.'' As we also know, the majority controls the work of this
committee and schedules the House. Just as they have scheduled this
bill today, they can bring this bill back early next week. This motion
is made promptly so that, in addition to the matters that are
considered within this motion to recommit, that the committee can take
up all of the matters and make sure that we have fully addressed all of
these issues as they affect the people who live and work in the
Chesapeake Bay area.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, this is an odd motion as you read it and
one that I don't think takes full account of how aware people are of
the effect of gas prices, which is the issue that the other side has
talked about all day. It says that there will be education of the
public regarding the effect of high fuel prices. I think the public is
fully able to educate itself with respect to that impact.
This is a distraction. It doesn't really connect to the underlying
bill. It was not offered in committee. It was not offered as part of
the rules process. But more importantly than that, this is styled, as
was just indicated, as a ``promptly'' motion and, therefore,
effectively would kill the bill. And I can't imagine why anybody would
want to kill this bill.
What this is designed to do is to recognize the incredible commitment
that has been made by ordinary citizens on behalf of the Chesapeake
Bay. It would reauthorize on a permanent basis the Chesapeake Bay
Gateways Program and Watertrails Network, which was first enacted in
1998. This is a successful, efficient and effective program. The White
House Conference called it ``a cooperative conservation success
story.''
It includes 156 sites across six States and the District of Columbia,
parks, wildlife refuges, museums, historic sites, watertrails, and most
importantly, it reaches out to volunteer groups that have stepped
forward to take stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay, millions of visitors
from around the country and around the world every year.
It's an efficient and effective program, and this reauthorization
makes an important statement. And that's why I object to the motion
because the ``promptly'' nature of it would effectively kill this bill,
and we need to make a statement now to those citizens that have stepped
forward, that just as they have made an important and steadfast
commitment to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, so their national
government will make a similar commitment to the Chesapeake Bay and the
watershed by stepping forward and permanently authorizing this
outstanding program.
I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on the motion to
recommit.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that if this motion did
pass, that this bill could be referred back to the committee or
committees of authority and be reported back the next business day?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair reaffirmed on November 15,
2007, at some subsequent time, the committee could meet and report the
bill back to the House.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the motion to
suspend with regard to H.R. 3058.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181,
nays 223, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 385]
YEAS--181
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
[[Page H5016]]
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--29
Barton (TX)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boucher
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carter
Delahunt
Ehlers
Ellison
Everett
Fattah
Gillibrand
Granger
Jackson-Lee (TX)
LaHood
Langevin
McCotter
McCrery
Pascrell
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ruppersberger
Rush
Shuler
Tiahrt
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1522
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 385, I was in an
Intelligence committee briefing. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 321,
nays 86, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 386]
YEAS--321
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--86
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (KY)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Reichert
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Walberg
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--27
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boucher
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carter
Delahunt
Ehlers
Ellison
Everett
Fattah
Gillibrand
Granger
Jackson-Lee (TX)
LaHood
Linder
McCotter
Pascrell
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rangel
Rush
Shuler
Tiahrt
Walsh (NY)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes
remaining on this vote.
{time} 1529
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________