[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 28, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8928-H8932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CLEAN COASTAL ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH ACT OF 2009

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2093) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act relating to beach monitoring, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2093

       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 ``Clean Coastal Environment 
     and Public Health Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. WATER POLLUTION SOURCE IDENTIFICATION.

       (a) Monitoring Protocols.--Section 406(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(a)(1)(A)) 
     is amended by striking ``methods for monitoring'' and 
     inserting ``protocols for monitoring that are most likely to 
     detect pathogenic contamination''.
       (b) Source Tracking.--Section 406(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1346(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Source identification programs.--In carrying out a 
     monitoring and notification program, a State or local 
     government may develop and implement a coastal recreation 
     waters pollution source identification and tracking program 
     for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar 
     points of access that are used by the public and are not 
     meeting applicable water quality standards for pathogens and 
     pathogen indicators.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 406(i) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(i)) is amended by striking 
     ``$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005'' 
     and inserting ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 
     through 2014''.

     SEC. 3. FUNDING FOR BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 
                   COASTAL HEALTH ACT.

       Section 8 of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and 
     Coastal Health Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 877) is amended by 
     striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2014''.

     SEC. 4. STATE REPORTS.

       Section 406(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (as redesignated by section 2(b)(1) of this Act) 
     is amended by striking ``public'' and inserting ``public and 
     all environmental agencies of the State with authority to 
     prevent or treat sources of pathogenic contamination in 
     coastal recreation waters''.

     SEC. 5. USE OF RAPID TESTING METHODS.

       (a) Contents of State and Local Government Programs.--
     Section 406(c)(4)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(c)(4)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``methods'' and inserting ``methods, including a rapid 
     testing method after the last day of the one-year period 
     following the date of validation of that rapid testing method 
     by the Administrator,''.
       (b) Revised Criteria.--Section 304(a)(9)(A) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1314(a)(9)(A)) is amended by striking ``methods, as 
     appropriate'' and inserting ``methods, including rapid 
     testing methods''.
       (c) Validation and Use of Rapid Testing Methods.--
       (1) Validation of rapid testing methods.--Not later than 
     October 15, 2012, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall complete an evaluation and 
     validation of a rapid testing method for the water quality 
     criteria and standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators 
     described in section 304(a)(9)(A) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(9)(A)).
       (2) Guidance for use of rapid testing methods.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after completion 
     of the validation under paragraph (1), and after providing 
     notice and an opportunity for public comment, the 
     Administrator shall publish guidance for the use at coastal 
     recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of 
     access that are used by the public of the rapid testing 
     method that will enhance the protection of public health and 
     safety through rapid public notification of any exceeding of 
     applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen 
     indicators.
       (B) Prioritization.--In developing such guidance, the 
     Administrator shall require the use of the rapid testing 
     method at those beaches or similar points of access that are 
     the most used by the public.
       (d) Definition.--Section 502 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(26) Rapid testing method.--The term `rapid testing 
     method' means a method of testing the water quality of 
     coastal recreation waters for which results are available as 
     soon as practicable and not more than 6 hours after the 
     commencement of the rapid testing method in the 
     laboratory.''.
       (e) Revisions to Rapid Testing Methods.--
       (1) In general.--Upon completion of the validation required 
     under subsection (c)(1), and every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall identify and review potential rapid 
     testing methods for existing water quality criteria for 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators for coastal recreation 
     waters.
       (2) Revisions to rapid testing methods.--If a rapid testing 
     method identified under paragraph (1) will make results 
     available in less time and improve the accuracy and 
     reproducibility of results when compared to the existing 
     rapid testing method, the Administrator shall complete an 
     evaluation and validation of the rapid testing method as 
     expeditiously as practicable.
       (3) Reporting requirement.--Upon completion of the review 
     required under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall publish 
     in the Federal Register the results of the review, including 
     information on any potential rapid testing method proposed 
     for evaluation and validation under paragraph (2).
       (4) Declaration of goals for rapid testing methods.--It is 
     a national goal that by 2017, a rapid testing method for 
     testing water quality of coastal recreation waters be 
     developed that can produce accurate and reproducible results 
     in not more than 2 hours after commencement of the rapid 
     testing method.

     SEC. 6. NOTIFICATION OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES.

       Section 406(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1346(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5) by striking ``prompt communication'' 
     and inserting ``communication, within 24 hours of the receipt 
     of the results of a water quality sample,'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``(i) in the case of any State in which 
     the Administrator is administering the program under section 
     402,'' before ``the Administrator'' the first place it 
     appears; and
       (B) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(ii) in the case of any State other than a State to which 
     clause (i) applies, all agencies of the State government with 
     authority to require the prevention or treatment of the 
     sources of coastal recreation water pollution; and'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) measures for an annual report to the Administrator, 
     in such form as the Administrator determines appropriate, on 
     the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and 
     extent of any exceeding of applicable water quality standards 
     for pathogens and pathogen indicators;''.

     SEC. 7. CONTENT OF STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS.

       Section 406(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1346(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by section 6(3) of 
     this Act)--
       (A) by striking ``the posting'' and inserting ``the 
     immediate posting''; and

[[Page H8929]]

       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) (as 
     redesignated by section 6(3) of this Act) and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) the availability of a geographic information system 
     database that such State or local government program shall 
     use to inform the public about coastal recreation waters and 
     that--
       ``(A) is publicly accessible and searchable on the 
     Internet;
       ``(B) is organized by beach or similar point of access;
       ``(C) identifies applicable water quality standards, 
     monitoring protocols, sampling plans and results, and the 
     number and cause of coastal recreation water closures and 
     advisory days; and
       ``(D) is updated within 24 hours of the availability of 
     revised information; and
       ``(10) measures to ensure that closures or advisories are 
     made or issued within 2 hours after the receipt of the 
     results of a water quality sample that exceeds applicable 
     water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen 
     indicators.''.

     SEC. 8. COMPLIANCE REVIEW.

       Section 406(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1346(h)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (2) by moving such subparagraphs 2 ems to the right;
       (3) by striking ``In the'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--In the''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Compliance review.--On or before July 31 of each 
     calendar year beginning after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) prepare a written assessment of compliance with all 
     statutory and regulatory requirements of this section for 
     each State and local government and of compliance with 
     conditions of each grant made under this section to a State 
     or local government;
       ``(B) notify the State or local government of such 
     assessment; and
       ``(C) make each of the assessments available to the public 
     in a searchable database on the Internet on or before 
     December 31 of such calendar year.
       ``(3) Corrective action.--If a State or local government 
     that the Administrator notifies under paragraph (2) is not in 
     compliance with any requirement or grant condition described 
     in paragraph (2) fails to take such action as may be 
     necessary to comply with such requirement or condition within 
     one year after the date of notification, any grants made 
     under subsection (b) to the State or local government, after 
     the last day of such one-year period and while the State or 
     local government is not in compliance with all requirements 
     and grant conditions described in paragraph (2), shall have a 
     Federal share of not to exceed 50 percent.
       ``(4) GAO review.--Not later than December 31 of the third 
     calendar year beginning after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, the Comptroller General shall conduct a review of 
     the activities of the Administrator under paragraphs (2) and 
     (3) during the first and second calendar years beginning 
     after such date of enactment and submit to Congress a report 
     on the results of such review.''.

     SEC. 9. PUBLICATION OF COASTAL RECREATION WATERS PATHOGEN 
                   LIST.

       Section 304(a)(9) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(9)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C) Publication of pathogen and pathogen indicator 
     list.--Upon publication of the new or revised water quality 
     criteria under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a list of all pathogens and 
     pathogen indicators studied under section 104(v).''.

     SEC. 10. ADOPTION OF NEW OR REVISED CRITERIA AND STANDARDS.

       Section 303(i)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(i)(2)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)(A)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)''.

     SEC. 11. NATIONAL LIST OF BEACHES.

       Section 406(g)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(g)(3)) is amended by striking ``The 
     Administrator'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting ``Within 12 months after the date of the enactment 
     of the Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 
     2009, and biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall 
     update the list described in paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 12. IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 
                   OF COASTAL RECREATION WATERS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study on the 
     long-term impact of climate change on pathogenic 
     contamination of coastal recreation waters.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Information on potential contaminant impacts.--The 
     report shall include information on the potential impacts of 
     pathogenic contamination on ground and surface water 
     resources as well as public and ecosystem health in coastal 
     communities.
       (3) Monitoring.--The report shall address monitoring 
     required to document and assess changing conditions of 
     coastal water resources, recreational waters, and ecosystems 
     and review the current ability to assess and forecast impacts 
     associated with long-term change.
       (4) Federal actions.--The report shall highlight necessary 
     Federal actions to help advance the availability of 
     information and tools to assess and mitigate these effects in 
     order to protect public and ecosystem health.
       (5) Consultation.--In developing the report, the 
     Administrator shall work in consultation with agencies active 
     in the development of the National Water Quality Monitoring 
     Network and the implementation of the Ocean Research 
     Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy.

     SEC. 13. IMPACT OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS ON COASTAL RECREATION 
                   WATERS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study to 
     review the available scientific information pertaining to the 
     impacts of excess nutrients on coastal recreation waters.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the 
     study conducted under subsection (a).
       (2) Impacts.--Such report shall include information on any 
     adverse impacts of excess nutrients on coastal recreation 
     waters, including adverse impacts caused by algal blooms 
     resulting from excess nutrients.
       (3) Recommendations.--Such report shall include 
     recommendations for action to address adverse impacts of 
     excess nutrients and algal blooms on coastal recreation 
     waters, including the establishment and implementation of 
     numeric water quality criteria for nutrients.
       (4) Consultation.--In developing such report, the 
     Administrator shall consult with the heads of other 
     appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration), States, and local government 
     entities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Boozman) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to 
revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on 
H.R. 2093.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 
2009 increases the authorization of appropriations for the Beaches 
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, more commonly known as 
the BEACH Act bill, through 2014.
  First signed into law in October 2000, the BEACH Act provides funding 
to States, to local governments and to tribes for the creation of 
coastal water assessment and for public notification programs that 
monitor our recreational waters.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2093, the Clean Coastal Environment and Public 
Health Act of 2009, increases the authorization of appropriations for 
the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, more 
commonly known as the BEACH Act, through 2014.
  First signed into law in October 2000, the BEACH Act provides funding 
to states, local governments, and tribes for the creation of coastal 
water assessment and public notification programs that monitor our 
recreational waters.
  Over the past nine years, my Subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and Environment, has held hearings on reauthorization of the 
BEACH Act and has received recommendations for statutory changes that 
would strengthen State coastal water quality monitoring and public 
notification programs.
  I applaud the sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Pallone, and our 
colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. 
Bishop and Mr. Hall, for introducing this important legislation.
  H.R. 2093, the Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act, will 
increase the annual authorization for State and local monitoring and 
notification programs to $40 million annually.
  In addition, this legislation expands the eligible uses for grants 
under this program to better understand ongoing sources of 
contamination to the nation's beaches.
  For example, H.R. 2093 allows States to utilize a portion of their 
BEACH grant funding to develop and implement pollution source 
identification and tracking programs for coastal recreation waters.
  These programs will enable interested States to locate the likely 
sources of coastal water contamination.
  This information will be critical to states to demonstrate ongoing 
sources of pollution to the nation's beaches.

[[Page H8930]]

  With definitive information on the causes of coastal water 
contamination, States can take appropriate action to eliminate these 
ongoing sources, and ensure that the nation's coastal areas are safe 
for swimming and other recreational activities.
  Mr. Speaker, last Congress, the House considered similar legislation 
to reauthorize and strengthen the BEACH Act.
  That version, H.R. 2537, was approved by the House on a voice vote in 
April 2008.
  Unfortunately, the 110th Congress adjourned before further 
consideration could be taken on that bill.
  H.R. 2093 is modeled on the bill that passed the House in the last 
Congress.
  However, one significant change is the adoption of a statutory 
deadline for the development of rapid testing methods for measuring the 
quality of coastal recreation waters.
  The development of a rapid testing method will provide a significant 
safeguard against swimming-related  illnesses by ensuring that the 
public is notified of potentially harmful waters within a few hours, 
rather than days, as under the current system.

  H.R. 2093 adopts a statutory deadline of October 15, 2012 for the 
development of rapid testing methods, and requires states to implement 
such methods within one year of their validation by EPA.
  This provision should enhance the protection of public health, and 
hopefully prevent families from coming into contact with harmful 
pollutants at their favorite beaches.
  The bill also defines the term ``rapid testing method'' to mean ``a 
method of testing the water quality of a coastal recreation water for 
which results are available as soon as practicable and not more than 6 
hours after the commencement of the rapid testing method in the 
laboratory.''
  Mr. Speaker, as made clear in the Committee Report to accompany this 
legislation, the intent of this definition is to compress the time 
period for testing water quality to provide real-time information on 
the condition of coastal recreation waters.
  The Committee received information on testing technologies that are 
currently available which can produce accurate results in two to three 
hours.
  The intent of this legislation is to require that EPA validate a 
rapid testing methodology that can achieve accurate results as quickly 
as possible within the confines of existing technologies.
  In addition, H.R. 2093 requires the administrator to periodically 
review the state of water quality testing technologies, and to validate 
new rapid testing methods that can shorten the time necessary to 
produce results on the condition of such waters, with a goal of 2-hour 
testing by 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2093 also enhances existing public notification 
requirements, including making beach warnings and closures available on 
the Internet.
  The bill also clarifies that the public must be notified within 2 
hours after the appropriate State or local authority receives the 
results of a coastal water quality sample.
  However, because many States utilize a system where two contaminated 
samples must be identified before a beach is closed, H.R. 2093 requires 
that beach closures or advisories must be made within 2 hours of the 
receipt of any water quality sample that exceeds public health limits, 
and that a warning sign be posted immediately, thereafter.
  Again, precaution against potential public health impacts needs to be 
the focus of this program.
  Finally, the bill requires EPA to conduct annual compliance reviews 
of state and local BEACH programs.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will 
make significant improvements to EPA's BEACH program.
  Much of our efforts are to provide additional safeguards for our 
families to ensure they do not come into contact with potentially 
harmful pollutants and contaminants along the nation's coastlines.
  I believe that this legislation accomplishes what we have tried to 
do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House is moving H.R. 2093, the Clean 
Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 2009. This is an example 
of the good we can accomplish when we're able to work in a bipartisan 
manner to address the Nation's water resources needs.
  Our Nation has nearly 23,000 miles of ocean and gulf shoreline along 
the continental United States and 5,500 miles of Great Lakes shoreline. 
Beaches are an important part of American life, providing numerous 
recreational opportunities for millions of people, including swimming, 
fishing, boating, beach-combing, surfing, sunbathing, and bird-
watching.
  This bill enables the EPA and the States to complete the important 
work they have begun so they can better protect public health and 
safety and so that they can continue to improve the quality of our 
Nation's recreational coastal waters.
  H.R. 2093 increases the authorized annual funding for grants to 
States from $30 million to $40 million, and it extends the program 
through fiscal year 2014. This will help ensure that the public can get 
timely warnings of potential health hazards associated with a trip to 
the beach.
  H.R. 2093 also requires the EPA to review State compliance with the 
BEACH Act, and it provides the means for dealing with States that 
remain out of compliance. H.R. 2093 passed the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee by unanimous vote.
  I am pleased the House is moving H.R. 2093, The ``Clean Coastal 
Environment and Public Health Act of 2009.''
  This is an example of the good we can accomplish when we are able to 
work in a bipartisan manner to address the Nation's water resources 
needs.
  Our Nation has nearly 23,000 miles of ocean and gulf shoreline along 
the continental United States, and 5,500 miles of Great Lakes 
shorelines.
  Beaches are an important part of American life, providing numerous 
recreational opportunities for millions of people, including fishing, 
boating, beachcombing, swimming, surfing, sunbathing, and bird-
watching.
  Each year, over 180 million people visit coastal waters for 
recreational purposes.
  This activity supports over 28 million jobs and leads to investments 
of over $50 billion each year in goods and services.
  Public confidence in the quality of our nation's waters is important 
not only to each citizen who swims, but also to the tourism and 
recreation industries that rely on safe and swimmable coastal waters.
  To improve the public's confidence in the quality of our Nation's 
coastal waters and protect public health and safety, Congress passed 
the ``Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 
2000,'' commonly called the ``BEACH Act,'' in the 106th Congress.
  The BEACH Act aimed to limit and prevent human exposure to polluted 
coastal recreational waters by assisting States and local communities 
to implement beach monitoring, assessment, and public notification 
programs.
  The act also called on States with coastal recreational waters to 
adopt pathogen-related water quality standards, and directed EPA to 
conduct research and develop updated water quality criteria to protect 
human health.
   Under the BEACH Act, EPA has been making grants to States to help 
them implement programs to monitor beach water quality and notify the 
public if water quality standards for pathogens are not being met.
  An important indicator of progress to date is the fact that all 
eligible States are now implementing the beach monitoring, assessment, 
and public notification provisions of the BEACH Act.
  The number of monitored beaches has increased from approximately 
1,000 in 1997 to more than 3,700 in 2008.
  In addition, EPA has strengthened water quality standards throughout 
all the coastal recreation waters in the United States.
  All 35 States and Territories with coastal recreation waters now have 
water quality standards as protective of human health as EPA's water 
quality criteria. This is an increase from just 11 States and 
Territories in 2000.
  Further, EPA has improved public access to data on beach advisories 
and closings by improving the agency's electronic data systems.
  Moreover, EPA has been conducting cutting-edge research to support 
the development of new water quality criteria to protect human health 
from pathogens, and new monitoring methods to more accurately and 
rapidly detect pathogen contamination in recreational waters.
  Faster and better decisions are good for public health and good for 
the economy in beach communities.
  We are optimistic that this work will help State beach managers make 
the best decisions possible about keeping beaches open or placing them 
under advisory.
  Although EPA and the States have made substantial progress in 
implementing the BEACH Act, there is important work left to do in the 
areas of monitoring, research, and updating existing water quality 
criteria.
  H.R. 2093 recognizes this, and reauthorizes and amends the BEACH Act.
  This bill enables EPA and the States to complete the important work 
they have begun, so they can better protect public health and safety 
and continue to improve the quality of our Nation's recreational 
coastal waters.
  H.R. 2093 increases the authorized annual funding level for grants to 
States from $30 to $40 million, and extends the program through fiscal 
year 2014.

[[Page H8931]]

  In addition, the bill requires the development and use of rapid 
testing methods and quick notification to State officials and the 
public if a problem is found.
  This will help ensure the public can get timely warnings of potential 
health hazards associated with a trip to the beach.
  H.R. 2093 also requires EPA to review State compliance with the BEACH 
Act, and provides means for dealing with States that remain out of 
compliance.
  H.R. 2093 passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by a 
unanimous voice vote.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Oberstar, 
and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and especially thank the ranking 
member of the committee, Mr. Mica, for all their hard work that enabled 
us to bring to you today a consensus bill that enjoys strong, 
bipartisan support.
  I urge all members to support the legislation.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Oberstar, 
the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
Eddie Bernice Johnson, and especially their staffs for their hard work 
on both sides. Also, I would like to thank Mr. Mica for his hard work 
in helping us to bring this forward.
  Again, I urge adoption of this. I am so glad that it enjoys 
bipartisan support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the full committee chairman, Mr. Oberstar.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I want to compliment Ms. Johnson on her superb chairmanship of the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment where she has 
diligently pursued the work of the committee with numerous hearings--
in-depth, thorough work on the precious resources we have of fresh 
water. All the water we have ever had and will have is with us today, 
and it's our responsibility to care for it. Her vigilance in holding 
these hearings over the last Congress and in this Congress have been 
superb.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) has been a splendid partner 
and a diligent worker on the issues of water resources. He understands 
the needs that come from his State of Arkansas, which is a Mississippi 
River State, which is a water-dependent State, and he has devoted great 
initiative to this work.
  Also, we have had success. The old saying is ``success has a thousand 
fathers.'' Mr. Pallone, the gentleman from New Jersey; Mr. Bishop and 
Mr. Hall--both members of our committee--have been strong supporters of 
this legislation.
  I do have to give special recognition to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray), who, over several Congresses, has championed 
this legislation, including the initial BEACH Act. The persistence with 
which Mr. Bilbray pursues matters is remarkable, to say the least, and 
he has been single-minded in his pursuit of this particular issue.
  We have here a very splendid bipartisan bill that improves on the 
previous legislation, that improves on the practices of the previous 
administration, which, frankly, neglected the needs of beaches. We 
provide State and local governments greater authority to use a portion 
of their beach grant funds to identify sources of beach water quality 
impairments, to track ongoing sources of pollution to coastal 
recreation waters and to establish the validation of a rapid testing 
method, which all Members of this body who represent coastal areas, 
whether they're the freshwater coast or the saltwater coast, have 
strongly urged. This legislation will define ``rapid testing'' as a 
method that can produce results as soon as practicable but not more 
than 6 hours after the commencement of the test.
  All of the supporters, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone), who is just arriving, have urged action on this particular 
rapid testing issue, so we give it definition, and we give it urgency 
and fiscal support.
  This is a very good bill, a product of a great deal of experience and 
interest and support from Members on both sides of the aisle--on the 
east coast, the west coast, the gulf coast, and the fourth coastline, 
which is the Great Lakes coast.
  I urge support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2093, the ``Clean 
Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 2009'', as amended.
  This legislation, and the underlying sections of the Clean Water Act 
that focus on coastal recreation water quality monitoring and public 
notification, are vital to protect the public from unwanted contact 
with potentially-harmful pollutants and contaminants in our coastal 
recreational waters.
  I applaud the efforts of the primary sponsors of this legislation, 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and our colleagues on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Bishop and Mr. 
Hall, for shepherding this important legislation through the hearing 
process, through Committee markup, and to the Floor of the House today.
  I also applaud the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray), for his efforts back in 2000 to move the initial BEACH Act to 
the President's desk.
  The BEACH Act that was signed into law in October 2000 authorized $30 
million annually for beach monitoring and assessment programs and 
public notification programs for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. It 
required States and tribes to determine minimum water quality standards 
that were considered ``safe''.
  In many ways, the BEACH Act has proven successful in making the 
public aware of the presence of potentially harmful water contamination 
at local beaches, and has brought about a revolution in terms of States 
creating and implementing coastal recreational water monitoring and 
notification programs. The benefits we have seen over the last nine 
years include uniform standards for coastal recreational water quality, 
and increased monitoring and notification of contamination of such 
waters.
  However, in as much as the BEACH Act has been successful in providing 
more information to the public, the previous Administration's track 
record on utilizing all of the tools contained in the BEACH Act to 
protect human health was far less successful.
  For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given 
authority to promulgate standards for States that did not have 
sufficient standards, as compared to those in the 1986 Ambient Water 
Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA was given further direction to 
continue to study the impacts of waterborne pollutants and bacteria to 
human health, and to revise the criteria every five years as needed. 
Unfortunately, EPA failed to complete this task, as demonstrated by a 
lawsuit by advocates for safe beaches.
  Similarly, the last Administration failed to utilize the authorities 
and direction of the initial BEACH Act to ensure the public has the 
best, most accurate, and timely information on the condition of their 
favorite beaches. For example, the BEACH Act called for the creation of 
a ``National List of Beaches'' that would provide the public with 
information on which beaches had in place monitoring and notification 
programs, and which did not. EPA was given the direction to 
periodically revise this list, based on the availability of new 
information.
  I can assure my colleagues that latest list, published in 2004, is 
not the most up-to-date assessment of the condition of the nation's 
beaches. It is regrettable that the last Administration was unwilling 
to utilize the tools provided by Congress to ensure the protection of 
human health and safety.
  I am hopeful that the Obama Administration will seize the opportunity 
to enhance the protection of human health and safety, and I expect that 
passage of the H.R. 2093 will aid in this effort.
  H.R. 2093 increases by $10 million annually the authorization of 
appropriations for EPA to issue grants to State and local governments 
for the implementation of coastal recreation water monitoring and 
notification programs.
  In addition, the bill provides State and local governments the 
authority to use a portion of their BEACH grant to identify potential 
sources of beach water quality impairments. This authority will help 
State and local governments track ongoing sources of pollution to 
coastal recreation waters, and allow these entities to take the 
necessary next steps to control or eliminate these sources of 
pollution.
  The bill also directs EPA to complete its review and publication of 
revised water quality criteria for coastal recreation waters by October 
15, 2012, and to include with this publication, the validation of a 
``rapid testing method'' for coastal recreation waters. H.R. 2093 
defines a rapid testing method as one that can produce results ``as 
soon as practicable'' but not more than six hours after commencement of 
the test.
  Today, the majority of States are utilizing culture-based testing 
methodologies for determining the presence of pathogens in coastal 
waters. This testing methodology typically requires 24 hours before 
results can be obtained, which can mean that one or two days

[[Page H8932]]

may pass before the public is made aware of the presence of potentially 
harmful contaminants.
  H.R. 2093 directs EPA to reduce the testing time from the current 24 
hours to less than six hours, with the hope that communities can 
provide same day results on the condition of their local waters. To be 
clear, this legislation does not require that an approvable test 
actually take six hours, but establishes six hours as the absolute 
maximum time allowed for an approvable rapid testing method. If science 
dictates that the amount of testing time can be less than six hours, 
this bill allows EPA to approve a ``more rapid'' testing methodology.
  It is my understanding that the scientific community believes that 
current technology is capable of producing a reliable rapid testing 
methodology that can produce results in two to three hours. This 
technology could be readily adopted by EPA under the revised 
definition, and the Agency is encouraged to adopt the shortest, 
reliable testing methodology possible.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, this reauthorization of the BEACH Act 
focuses on providing State and local governments with the tools they 
need to protect public health and reduce the incidence of water-borne 
illness. As we are in the midst of the summer vacation season, let us 
make sure that a family trip to the beach will not also result in a 
trip to the doctor's office.
  I urge my colleague to support H.R. 2093.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, I would like to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member and my chairman, Ms. Johnson. I urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know that time is short, so I'll be very 
brief. This is a very important bill to the Nation's beaches, and I 
represent a coastal area.
  Basically, a few years ago, we passed the original BEACH Act, which 
allowed for the testing of ocean waters so that people would know, as 
sort of a right-to-know measure, when to go into the water and when not 
to. It has been very successful in keeping beaches clean and in 
notifying people when they shouldn't go swimming or when beaches have 
been cleaned up and they can go back into the water. We found out that 
we needed some better protection, and that is what we're doing with 
this bill today.
  It calls for more rapid testing, within 24 hours--well, within a few 
hours, I should say--because, in the past, sometimes it would take 24 
to 48 hours before we would know whether beaches should be closed. So 
there is a much more rapid testing method, which is within a few hours. 
In addition to that, the grants allow for the support for actually 
preventing beach closings and for using the Federal money for tracking 
so that, actually, the waters do not become more polluted.
  So there are a lot of improvements in this bill over the current 
BEACH Act, and I urge its passage. I think we can get it signed into 
law quickly.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I 
will be even more brief than Mr. Pallone.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply thank Mr. Pallone, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. 
Boozman, Chairman Oberstar, and Chairwoman Johnson for their leadership 
on this issue.
  This bill builds on the successes of the original BEACH Act. It 
implements rapid testing procedures which are vitally important. It 
provides a significantly larger authorization for the grants, and I 
urge its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of eastern Long Island, I 
would like to commend Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Johnson and 
Congressmen Pallone and Bilbray for their leadership and unwavering 
dedication to clean water issues. I would also like to thank the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff for their hard work 
and commitment to advancing this legislation to the full House today.
  My district encompasses 300 miles of coastline, and I'm very proud to 
represent some of this country's most popular and beautiful beaches. 
Maintaining coastal health is an integral objective toward preserving 
the Nation's environment and sustaining the tourist economies of our 
States. The beach-going public that flocked to our Nation's shores this 
summer reminds us that we deserve pristine waterways to enjoy with our 
families and that we need to preserve them for future generations of 
Americans.
  The water quality monitoring and notification grants established in 
the original BEACH Act have been absolutely vital to protecting the 
health of beachgoers on our shores. Today, with the consideration of 
H.R. 2093, the Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 2009, 
we can continue to assure the American public that preserving healthy 
shores is a priority of our environmental agenda.
  After EPA reports marked progress but raised questions about the 
implementation of the BEACH Act, it has become clear that further 
development of the legislation was needed. That is why Mr. Pallone, the 
author of the original BEACH Act, and I decided to pool our resources 
to advance better legislation to fix problems and fund grant programs.
  The Pallone/Bishop/Bilbray legislation reauthorizes the BEACH Act 
through fiscal year 2013 and increases authorization for funding from 
$30 million to $40 million, annually. This bipartisan legislation 
requires development and implementation of rapid testing methods to 
ensure that the public is notified of potential health concerns related 
to water quality in hours rather than days and enhances existing public 
notification requirements.
  In the 110th Congress, a nearly identical bill was agreed to by this 
committee and passed on the House floor--both by voice vote. 
Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the bill.
  One in ten tourists is destined for the beach this summer--providing 
our travel and vacation industries with customers and business. I hope 
my colleagues agree that the BEACH Act is an excellent example of an 
effective government program that benefits communities in every region 
of the country and has yielded tremendous progress in restoring healthy 
shores.
  Mr. Speaker, with the leadership and support of this body, we can 
ensure that beach visitors throughout the country are assured that 
local governments have all the resources they need to monitor 
recreational waters and alert the public of potential health hazards.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the 
sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Pallone, and our colleagues on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Bishop and Mr. 
Hall, for introducing this important legislation. Further, I appreciate 
and respect the fact that Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. Boozman helped 
with this as well, so I urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2093, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________