[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7308-7320]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 7308]]


                              {time}  1130

    BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, CLEANUP AND HEALTH ACT OF 1999

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 145, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 145

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 999) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act to improve the quality of coastal recreation 
     waters, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill. Each section of the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. Before consideration of any other 
     amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by Representative Shuster or his 
     designee. That amendment shall be considered as read, may 
     amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall 
     be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. After disposition of that amendment, the provisions of 
     the bill as then perfected shall be considered as original 
     text for the purpose of further amendment under the five-
     minute rule. During further consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 145 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental Assessment, 
Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999.
  The purpose of this legislation is to improve the quality of coastal 
recreational waters by establishing national uniform criteria for 
testing and monitoring coastal recreational waters.
  In addition, H.R. 999 establishes uniform notification to the public 
on the quality of those waters in order to protect both the environment 
and public health.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be open for amendment by 
section.
  Additionally, the rule provides for the consideration of the 
amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report, if offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) or his designee.
  The rule further provides that the manager's amendment shall be 
considered as read, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
amendment, shall not be subject to amendment or to a division of 
question, and is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided between the 
proponent and an opponent.
  If adopted, the amendment is considered as part of the base text for 
further amendment purposes.
  The Chair is authorized by the rule to grant priority and recognition 
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record prior to their consideration.
  The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to 
5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, I believe House Resolution 145 is a fair rule. It is 
an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 999, the Beaches 
Environmental Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act of 1999.
  As I understand it, some Members may wish to offer germane amendments 
to this bill, and under this open rule they will have every opportunity 
to do so.
  H.R. 999 establishes uniform criteria for testing coastal recreation 
waters and for public notification of water quality. Indeed, as this 
Nation's first and most ardent conservationist, President Theodore 
Roosevelt noted upon the establishment of the Waterways Commission our 
natural resources are so closely connected that they should be 
coordinated and should be treated as part of one coherent plan and not 
in haphazard or piecemeal fashion.
  By establishing public notification, this bill will not only protect 
public health, but will encourage tourism and business development 
along our coastal areas.
  Each year, an estimated 180 million people from around the world 
visit America's coastal waters for recreational purposes, supporting 
over 28 million jobs and leading to investments of over $50 billion 
each year in goods and services.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 999 is not a regulatory bill. It gives the EPA no 
new regulatory authorities. The bill instead offers an incentive to 
State and local governments to test beaches for pathogens which are 
dangerous to human health.
  By establishing a grant program, H.R. 999 gives the States the 
ability to monitor the safety of coastal recreational waters and to set 
a deadline for updating State water quality standards for these waters 
to protect the public from disease-carrying organisms.
  In my own district, which includes a portion of Lake Ontario, this 
bill will encourage tourism by furthering public confidence in the 
water quality. By ensuring that water quality, the very integrity of 
our waterways, this bill will meet President Roosevelt's challenge that 
this Nation should strive to leave to the next generation the national 
honor unstained and the national resources unexhausted.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their hard work on 
H.R. 999, and I urge my colleagues to support both this open rule and 
the underlying bill.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, House Resolution 145 is fair, a 
completely open rule, and I urge its adoption.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York

[[Page 7309]]

(Mr. Reynolds), my colleague and my friend, for yielding me the 
customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join nearly all of my colleagues in 
support of this beaches bill.
  We in Massachusetts are very fortunate to have some of the most 
beautiful beaches in the country. Once the warm weather hits, residents 
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and tourists from around the world 
head to Cape Cod, the south shore or the north shore.
  This bill will help them enjoy themselves even more in keeping our 
beaches clean and making sure the clean beaches do not stop at the next 
State.
  Madam Speaker, it will also help create and monitor public health 
standards to make sure that our beaches and coastal areas are clean and 
safe.
  Each year over 180 million people visit our American beaches. Those 
visits create over 28 million jobs, they generate millions of dollars 
in revenue, and we need to make sure that our people can swim in our 
oceans and feel confident that the water quality is what it should be.
  At the moment, there are no Federal standards for testing or 
monitoring our beaches. That means that one State could allow a higher 
level of dangerous pathogens than its neighbor, and some of these 
pathogens have names I cannot even pronounce, and I certainly do not 
want to swim in them.
  This bill will set the State standards more in line with one another 
and if, heaven forbid, a public health risk should arise, this bill 
will help inform people when the beaches are unsafe for swimming.
  It will also authorize $150 million over 5 years to help States put 
the monitoring programs in place and keep our clean water rules uniform 
from sea to shining sea.
  Madam Speaker, it is a good rule. It is a good bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying bill. I would like to congratulate first the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray), my friend who has worked long and hard 
on this; his fellow surfer, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), who I know is going to be here to back him up; and the 
very important chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who has 
worked long and hard on this issue, too. It is very important that we 
move ahead in a bipartisan way.
  I would also like to congratulate the brilliant statement from my 
good friend from south Boston who has not quite as many beaches as 
California or Florida, but they are beautiful beaches in Massachusetts, 
I will agree.
  Today is Earth Day and it is a very important time to mark what is 
obviously an important environmental accomplishment for us here. We all 
know how enjoyable it is for people to spend time with their families 
at the beaches, and as we head into the summer months obviously we are 
going to see an increase in that.
  Every year, in fact, over 180 million Americans spend time on our 
coastal waters and that is the case, as I have said, in both California 
and in many other States. However, it is important to note that clean 
coastal waters are not just about fun. They really are about business, 
because there are 30 million jobs and roughly $50 billion in 
investments that take place and are supported by recreation along our 
Nation's shores.
  This bill itself is a very strong, prohealth, proenvironment measure. 
It shows that environmental issues are best handled using common sense 
and consensus building; and the bill's sponsors and, of course, as I 
said, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, deserve a 
great deal of credit for moving us in the direction of a common-sense 
approach to a very, very important environmental issue.

                              {time}  1145

  So I would simply like to congratulate my friend from New York who is 
doing a superb job of managing this rule, and the authors of this 
legislation, as I said, and the Surfers Caucus, which is a very 
important, very, very important group in this body, and again the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work. I 
look forward to seeing strong bipartisan support for this measure.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lewis of Kentucky). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 145 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 999.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) to assume the Chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1146


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 999) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve 
the quality of coastal recreation waters, and for other purposes, with 
Mrs. Emerson (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today we indeed are considering the Beaches Environmental Assessment 
bill, and it is a bipartisan bill that was reported by our committee, 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, by unanimous vote. 
Indeed, this is legislation that is most appropriate on this Earth Day.
  The distinguished members of the Committee on Rules have quite 
clearly explained both the rule and the bill. I would like to focus on 
a couple of specific points.
  The first is to note and emphasize, this is not a regulatory bill. It 
gives EPA no new regulatory authorities. After analyzing the bill, the 
Congressional Budget Office concluded that it contains no 
intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the unfunded 
mandates act, and it would impose no costs to State, local or tribal 
governments.
  I also wish to allay some concerns expressed by some of the States. 
The grant program established by this bill does not provide EPA with an 
opportunity to micromanage State monitoring programs if a State chooses 
to seek Federal assistance. I also wish to be sure that the Members 
understand, particularly those Members from farm States, that we worked 
out a previous concern that was expressed by the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, and indeed we have an en bloc amendment which we will be 
offering shortly, and we have a letter from the American Farm Bureau 
which states:
  ``The en bloc amendment to the beaches bill addresses our concerns 
about this legislation.
  ``The proposal to define coastal recreation waters to not include any 
inland waters addresses our concerns about nonpoint source impacts. The 
proposal that a State can use its criteria for human health if they are 
as protective as Federal criteria addresses our concerns about unfunded 
mandates. Thank you for your attention to this matter.''

[[Page 7310]]

  So we removed any concern that the Farm Bureau might have. So we 
indeed do bring a bill to the floor today which has overwhelming 
bipartisan support. I urge its adoption.
  Today the House is considering H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental 
Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act of 1999.
  This is a bipartisan bill that was reported by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure by unanimous voice vote.
  H.R. 999 amends the Clean Water Act to establish a grant program for 
States to monitor the safety of coastal recreation waters, and to set a 
deadline for updating State water quality standards for these waters to 
protect the public from disease-carrying organisms.
  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 or surfs, but also to the tourism 
and recreation industries that rely on safe and swimmable coastal 
waters.
  It is important to note that H.R. 999 is not a regulatory bill. It 
gives EPA no new regulatory authorities. After analyzing the bill, the 
Congressional Budget Office concluded that ``H.R. 999 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on State, local, 
or tribal governments.''
  The legislation that we are bringing up today has been carefully 
crafted to balance the concerns of States, EPA, the environmental 
community and other interested parties.
  This is a bipartisan bill that uses incentives, not mandates, to 
improve public health and safety by monitoring the quality of our 
Nation's coastal waters.
  I urge you to join me in supporting this legislation.
  I wish to allay one outstanding concern expressed by some States. The 
grant program established by this bill does not provide EPA with an 
opportunity to micro-manage State monitoring programs if a State 
chooses to seek Federal assistance.
  Under this legislation, EPA is to establish a level of protection for 
monitoring programs, which will be used to determine if a program is 
eligible for a grant. But each individual State program determines how 
that level of protection is reached.
  By providing grants this legislation provides incentives to all 
States to develop monitoring programs that protect public health and 
safety. This does not mean uniform monitoring programs. This does not 
mean that EPA may impose a Federal template on States.
  I also wish to allay some concerns I have heard that the Farm Bureau 
may have. As I stated earlier, this is not a regulatory bill. It does 
not address control of pollution from point or nonpoint sources. It 
imposes no new mandates, unfunded or otherwise.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of our subcommittee, be authorized to 
manage the balance of the time on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BORSKI. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I first want to commend and congratulate the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my friend, the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, on his leadership. He has dealt with us in a fair and 
bipartisan manner, which is the way he always treats us and we 
appreciate it very, very much.
  This simple but important legislation aims at protecting our Nation's 
beachgoers from unhealthy ocean water quality conditions. Whether it is 
swimming along the Great Lakes, surfing off of southern California, or 
vacationing at the Jersey shore, beachgoers everywhere have the right 
to know that the beaches they choose to visit are safe for themselves 
and their families.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation is the product of work conducted 
over the past few Congresses. Originally introduced by our friend and 
former colleague, Bill Hughes, in 1990, this issue has subsequently 
been picked up by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and by the chief sponsor of 
this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). I want 
to commend these gentlemen for their dedication and tireless efforts to 
protect the public from unhealthy water conditions at our Nation's 
beaches, and I hope that this time we can have it signed into law.
  The BEACH bill advocates three simple principles:
  First, beach water quality should be monitored. We cannot know 
whether waters are safe unless the waters are adequately tested.
  Second, water quality criteria should be uniform. Just as we provide 
assurances to the public that water supplies will be safe for drinking 
no matter which State a person happens to be in, the public should feel 
confident that the public health standards at our Nation's beaches meet 
minimum consistent health requirements.
  Finally, if a health problem is discovered at a beach, the public has 
the right to prompt, accurate and effective notification so that they 
may protect themselves and their families.
  To accomplish these principles, this legislation authorizes over $30 
million in funding for Federal, State and local partnerships for water 
quality monitoring and notification. Under this legislation, States and 
localities will be given the flexibility to tailor their monitoring and 
notification programs to meet local needs, so long as these programs 
comply with EPA's minimum requirements for the protection of public 
health and safety.
  In addition, the BEACH Bill directs the EPA to periodically review 
and develop revised water quality criteria for coastal areas to ensure 
we are using the best scientific information available. The public 
deserves no less.
  Finally, this legislation requires EPA to maintain a publicly 
available database of our Nation's beaches, listing those beaches that 
comply with water quality standards and those that do not. This 
information will be very helpful to many Americans for summer vacation 
planning, so that they will know whether the waters at their favorite 
vacation spot are safe and will choose accordingly.
  Every year, over 180 million individuals vacation along our Nation's 
coastal waters. As another summer season rapidly approaches, let us 
make sure that we take the appropriate steps to protect our Nation's 
beachgoers from unnecessary threats to their health and safety.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Chairman, the American Oceans Campaign, in a communication sent 
to every member of this body, pointed out the following:
  ``The current approach to beach water testing is a mixture of 
inconsistent criteria and practices. Passing the BEACH bill will wipe 
out the inconsistencies and improve public health protections 
nationwide.''
  As one of America's favorite actors, Ted Danson, who is president of 
the American Oceans Campaign has said, ``A day at the beach should not 
end with a visit to the doctor's office.''
  I have to give great credit where great credit is due, to the 
gentleman from southern California (Mr. Bilbray). This bill will set 
minimum standards for beach water quality, and it will require EPA to 
establish performance criteria, and it will require the Environmental 
Protection Agency to establish a national beach water pollution 
database that will let the public know where monitoring programs are in 
place and where beach waters are impaired.
  Madam Chairman, the en bloc amendment improves upon the bill, H.R. 
999, that we reported out of committee by unanimous voice vote.
  This package includes noncontroversial technical, and clarifying 
items and has been worked out with the ranking minority Member.
  In summary, the en bloc:
  Clarifies that State criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators 
for coastal recreation waters must be as protective of human health as 
EPA's criteria.
  This does not mean that States must adopt criteria that are identical 
to those that have

[[Page 7311]]

been published by EPA. States adopt water quality criteria under 
section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act and continue to have the 
flexibility, provided under that section to change EPA's criteria based 
on site-specific conditions, or to adopt different, scientifically-
justified criteria.
  Thus, if a State can demonstrate that the pathogen indicators that it 
is using are as protective of human health as the criteria for pathogen 
indicators that EPA has published, a State may continue to use its 
existing criteria.
  As a result, if no appropriations are provided to EPA for this 
purpose, EPA does not need to take funds away from other clean water 
act Programs to provide grants for monitoring and notification 
programs.
  Clarifies that the information provided to the public in the 
information database authorized under section 406(c) is intended to be 
information on exceedances of water quality standards in coastal 
recreation waters only. This database does not address other matters.
  Clarifies that EPA implementation of a monitoring and notification 
program will occur only in situations where a state is not implementing 
a program that protects public health and safety.
  The bill does not provide for partial EPA implementation and partial 
state implementation of a monitoring and notification program.
  In addition, EPA's duty to conduct a monitoring and notification 
program is subject to the same conditions as a state program 
implemented under section 406(b)(2). This means that EPA has the same 
flexibility that states are provided under that section to target 
available resources to those waters that it determines are the highest 
priorities. EPA's duty to implement a monitoring and notification 
program is no more expansive than a State's duty.
  Clarifies that the term ``coastal recreation waters'' includes only 
the Great Lakes and waters that are adjacent to the coastline of the 
United States. ``Coastal recreation waters'' is not synonymous with the 
``coastal zone'' as defined under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The 
geographic scope of this act does not include any inland waters and 
does not extend beyond the mouth of any river or stream or other body 
of water having unimpaired natural connection with open sea.
  Clarifies that Indian tribes with coastal recreation waters are 
eligible for grants for monitoring programs.
  Clarifies that Federal agencies are to implement monitoring programs 
for federally-owned beaches, such as national seashores.
  Finally, the amendment changes the short title of the bill to refer 
to ``awareness'' rather than ``assessment.''
  Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the person most 
responsible in this whole United States of America, out of 250 million 
people, for bringing us to this point today, the author of the bill.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I would first like to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our 
full committee chairman, along with our ranking members, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Borski), for all the help. Their bipartisan effort has really shown 
that we cannot only protect the environment, but we can do it together.
  This bill is a good example of not only talking about working 
together here in Congress to help the public and to protect the 
public's health, but actually having States and counties and health 
officials and the EPA and the Federal Government all working together 
for this goal.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Kuykendall), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and many 
others for their encouragement and their help in bringing this 
together.
  I want to really thank the people that helped bring this bill to 
reality because so often our good intentions here in Congress do not 
reflect the reality out in mainstream America, and out in the waters of 
our Nation. I want to thank the San Diego County Environmental Health 
Department and the Surfrider Foundation, specifically, Chris Gonaver of 
the County of San Diego, and Gary Sirota and Darryl Hatheway of the 
Surfrider Foundation for their instrumental work on the development of 
this public health measure.
  Additionally, I want to join the chairman in thanking the San Diego 
County Medical Association for its support, the Center for Marine 
Conservation, and specifically, the American Oceans Campaign, led by 
Ted Danson, whose son is also a surfer. I want to thank them for their 
critical help on this item.
  Madam Speaker, roughly 60 percent of Americans live within 30 miles 
of a coastline. I happen to have had the privilege of growing up a 
block from the beach and I live nine blocks from the beach now, and 
sometimes we wonder, we might as well live in Kansas when we are that 
far away from the ocean!
  But this bill, the Beach Environment Awareness Cleanup and Health Act 
of 1999, is a bill that I think all of us that use the beaches of 
America will recognize has been a long time in coming. We all know 
about and we can talk about the problems that affect people with 
certain health aspects for long-term exposure. We worry about what 
happens to our children if they live 20 years next to a hazardous waste 
dump. We are worried about our senior citizens if they drink certain 
water for over 40 years.
  This bill is addressing something that we have overlooked, and that 
is the fact that our children and our families can enter coastal waters 
on one day, for one moment, and contract diseases such as hepatitis, 
encephalitis, and different related illnesses related to pathogens. I 
have had surfers in my district actually get inner brain infections and 
almost die from one exposure. These are things that we need to address.
  I want to point out that H.R. 999 is really aimed not at finding 
fault, but at finding answers. It is a way to include, first of all, 
our public health directors in the formation of criteria for this 
country, not from Washington on down, but from America's communities on 
up, and have the Federal Government work as a partner in the formation 
of the criteria to protect our families' health.

                              {time}  1200

  Also, H.R. 999 understands and recognizes the unique differences in 
these regions. When I come back to this coast and see these coastal 
waters and surf with my children, it is totally different than what we 
see in the West Coast.
  H.R. 999 has the type of flexibility that we have only talked about 
for so long, that allows the local communities to address their local 
environmental concerns and do that with the aid of the Federal 
Government, rather than what we have seen so often, sadly, where we 
have seen local conflict with the Federal strategies.
  The bill requires the development of updated criteria, in cooperation 
with public health agencies. It does not require the local States to 
take action if they choose not to. It does require the EPA to address 
the public health problems with this issue in every region, but in 
cooperation if the local communities want it.
  H.R. 999 creates a uniform level of protection, so that when any 
parent goes to any beach that is being used anywhere in the United 
States, that parent can feel with some level of confidence that the 
water that their children is entering is safe to have contact with. 
That situation does not exist now.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for H.R. 999, not just for those of 
us who use the water, and not just for those of us who like to look at 
the water. I would ask that H.R. 999 also be passed because it is the 
beginning of a new way to fulfill our responsibilities, not just to the 
environment but to our citizens and to ourselves.
  The cooperative effort of H.R. 999, Democrats and Republicans, local 
and Federal and State people all working

[[Page 7312]]

together, really shows that to care for the environment, we must care 
about the community and every community, not just Washington, D.C. H.R. 
999 sets an example to protect the public health, and do it in a fair 
and reasonable and effective way.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do not find excuses 
to oppose this bill. Look into the future and see what this bill can do 
for our public health and for our processes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 999, the BEACH bill. I 
have some supporting material here, which I would ask to be included in 
the record along with my statement.
  I want to first thank the chairman of the Transportation Committee, 
Mr. Shuster, and the chairman of the Water Resources Subcommittee, Mr. 
Boehlert, for all their hard work, and that of their staffs, on this 
bill, and for making this important public health issue a priority. The 
ranking members on the committee, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Borski, have 
worked with them hand in hand to help advance and strengthen this bill, 
and their bipartisan collaboration has been key to the bill's progress. 
I also want to acknowledge and thank all my colleagues that have rolled 
up their sleeves and worked with me on the BEACH bill, both this year 
and in years past.
  I am also very grateful for the input and assistance that I received 
during the drafting of this bill, and in the subsequent discussions on 
its progress, from the county of San Diego's Department of 
Environmental Health Services, which administers one of the best ocean 
testing programs in the world, and from the Surfrider Foundation, which 
has also been instrumental in helping to improve public education on 
water quality issues. Input from local health agencies and from 
organizations like Surfrider have been key in identifying existing 
problems and shortcomings which make this bill so essential. In 
particular, Mr. Chairman, Chris Gonaver at the County's Environmental 
Health Department and Gary Sirota of the Surfrider Foundation have 
provided critical advice and input to me and my office on this bill 
since its inception, and deserve a great deal of credit for its 
development.
  I would also like to thank the San Diego County Medical Society for 
taking an advocacy role on this issue by endorsing H.R. 999, and the 
American Oceans Campaign and the Center for Marine Conservation for 
their continuing support and efforts in helping to move this bill 
along. This is an exceptional range of support--public health 
officials, medical professionals, and the environmental community--and 
it further underscores both the merits of and need for H.R. 999.
  This bill, Mr. Chairman, is a matter of significant importance not 
only to myself and my San Diego district, but to all Americans who live 
near or love visiting our coastal areas. As someone who has grown up 
and lived in and near the ocean all his life, surfing, swimming, and 
sailing in it, it is quite simply an integral part of my life. Most 
importantly, as a father of five children who share my passion for the 
sea, I want nothing more than for them to be able to spend their lives 
enjoying it in a clean, safe, and health risk-free environment.
  I was with this in mind that I worked closely with my colleague from 
New Jersey in the 105th Congress to develop a ``precursor'' of this 
legislation, then H.R. 2094, as a means to work toward establishing 
reasonable national criteria for coastal water quality. While certain 
parts of the United States (led by my hometown of San Diego) have 
already developed and implemented comprehensive and progressive coastal 
testing and monitoring programs at both the state and local level, 
there are needs which up to this point have not been met, and problems 
which have not been fully addressed. This lack of consistency in the 
levels of protection provided by such monitoring and notification 
nationwide puts at risk beachgoers from coast to coast.
  Roughly 60 percent of all Americans live within 30 miles of a coast, 
and far too often, surfers, swimmers, and others who enjoy using the 
water serve as inadvertent ``canaries in the coal mine''. These are the 
people, particularly children, who are susceptible to and develop the 
ear, nose, and throat infections, fevers, and respiratory or stomach 
ailments that can and do occur as a result contact with pathogen-
contaminated water. There is a clear need, both for people who live on 
the coastlines in places like San Diego and Rehobeth Beach and surf or 
swim every day, and for people who live inland and bring their families 
to the shore once or twice a year, to be able to understand and be 
provided with information as to whether the water is safe for them to 
enjoy before they enter it. This is where consistency in the levels of 
protection provided by monitoring and notification at coastal areas is 
necessary.
  This is the basic focus of H.R. 999--to be a first step towards 
identifying where problems exist and where there is a need for 
monitoring, recognizing the science and capacity we have to respond to 
them, and providing the tools, incentives, and flexibility to states 
and communities that they need to create programs and implement them 
appropriately. Most importantly, the bill provides the ability to 
develop and administer these programs in a ``bottoms up'' fashion, 
while moving away from outdated ``command and control'' strategies 
which may have served us well in the past, but are too cumbersome and 
unwieldy to provide useful solutions to today's challenges.
  The en bloc amendment which will be offered shortly will be carefully 
explained, but I'd like to speak to one of the seemingly minor aspects 
of the amendment. In the short title of the bill, ``assessment'' is 
changed to ``awareness''. While this may seem insignificant, I wanted 
to make this change at this time to help underscore the entire point of 
the bill. Increased awareness is what this bill seeks to achieve, 
starting at the community level, and is what will lead to better 
protection of the public health and the environment at our coastal 
recreational water, both within and without the scope of H.R. 999.
  The whole concept of this bill is to encourage nationwide monitoring 
of coastal recreation waters where it is needed to protect the public 
health, and public notification of the results--but from the community 
on up, not the top down. By empowering local health officials and 
communities to work directly with state and federal officials, H.R. 999 
provides the opportunity and incentive to develop monitoring plans that 
will protect public safety on a regional or beach by beach basis.
  It is important to recognize that H.R. 999 is not an expansion of 
regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act--it provides no new 
regulatory authority to any federal agency, and the bill language and 
accompanying congressional intent in the Committee report makes it 
clear that it may not be interpreted to do so. Its scope is limited to 
the monitoring of coastal recreation waters for pathogens or their 
indicators which are harmful to public health; it does not provide for 
source identification or regulation (specifically, at present non-point 
sources are not regulated under the Clean Water Act, and H.R. 999 does 
not change that).
  H.R. 999 creates no unfunded mandates. States or local governments 
which may already have a robust monitoring program in place, as in 
Florida, California, or New Jersey--are not required to submit or 
develop a ``new'' program under this bill. The intent of the bill is 
not to lead to ``dual monitoring'' by the EPA in areas where 
appropriate monitoring is already taking place; it is to serve to 
encourage the development of monitoring programs in areas where none 
exist and where there is a need to protect the public health. Further, 
the updating and review of science-based criteria which will occur 
under the bill will be an asset to both new and existing monitoring 
programs, and lead to better levels of protection across the board.
  The bill clarifies that state criteria for pathogens or pathogen 
indicators must be at least as protective of human health as previously 
published EPA criteria, which date back almost 14 years to 1986, and 
the incorporation of these new or revised criteria into state programs 
will also help to ensure that the scientific information on which the 
criteria themselves and individuals programs are based is kept current.
  EPA is required under the bill to develop these criteria through a 
public process, which includes collaboration with appropriate local, 
state, and federal officials. This will include criteria for 
determining what areas of coastal recreation waters do not need to be 
monitored to protect the public health. The bill does not require, nor 
does it expect, that monitoring and notification programs will be the 
same in all states for all recreation waters where it is needed. Here 
is where the flexibility of the bill is essential, to allow for 
specific needs to be addressed on a regional basis.
  Again, the goal of H.R. 999 is to create uniform levels of 
protection, not uniform monitoring programs, as might have been the 
case under previous incarnations of this bill.
  The information database which will be established under the bill is 
an important asset to maintaining and improving measures for protecting 
the public health at coastal recreation waters, and pains have been 
taken to ensure that the databases will be used effectively for that 
specific purpose. I should clarify at this point that such a database 
was considered an essential tool for public health purposes by both my 
County Department of Environmental Health and by the Surfrider 
Foundation, and I think the dialogue which we have had in developing 
H.R. 999 has reinforced this view.

[[Page 7313]]

  The bill specifies that this database will consist only of 
information on exceedances of water quality standards for pathogens 
that are harmful to human health, not to sources of causes. To address 
concerns which were expressed over potential misuse of the databases, 
the bill language was strengthened to clarify that only information on 
water quality standard exceedances for pathogens or pathogen 
indicators, from reliable water quality monitoring programs, may be 
included in the database. Access to important scientific information is 
what is intended and will be derived from the development and use of 
this database.
  In sum, this is very much an incentive-based process; the bill 
provided that availability of federal grant funding to state and/or 
local governments which have established or are encouraged to establish 
an adequate monitoring program. The list which H.R. 999 requires to be 
maintained of area which do and do not have monitoring programs in 
place will serve as an additional incentive to state and local 
governments to develop and implement a monitoring program which best 
meets their own specific regional needs. It will also demonstrate to 
both residents and tourists alike that there is a system in place to 
make sure coastal recreation waters in question are safe and protective 
of human health, and give them a means by which they can understand and 
be aware of water conditions in a given area, and make their own 
decisions as a result.
  By providing financial and public incentives rather than the threat 
of punitive action, H.R. 999 creates a fair process by which to 
establish means to effectively monitor coastal waters, and to make the 
public aware of those results and conditions.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, thank you again for this opportunity 
and your support. Together we can make sure that the American people, 
whether they live on the coast or in the heartland, are never again 
accidental ``canaries in a coal mine'' at our nation's beaches. Let's 
pass H.R. 999 today, and see it signed into law this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following material:

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

     H.R. 999--Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup, and 
         Health Act of 1999
       Summary: H.R. 999 would amend the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act to require states to adopt water quality criteria 
     for coastal recreation waters consistent with those developed 
     by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the purpose 
     of protecting human health in coastal recreation waters 
     (beaches). The bill would authorize EPA to provide grants to 
     states of $30 million annually over the 2000-2004 period to 
     implement programs to monitor the quality of coastal waters 
     and to notify the public of any conditions where beach water 
     does not meet the established standards. In addition, the 
     legislation would require EPA to issue new water quality 
     criteria for recreational coastal areas based on studies of 
     potential human health risks in these areas, make available 
     to the public a database of the water quality at coastal 
     recreational areas, and report to the Congress on the efforts 
     under this program.
       Becuse the bill would not affect direct spending or 
     receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 999 
     contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
     defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 
     impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary impact of H.R. 999 is shown in the following table. 
     The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
     (natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\......................................        3        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................        3        0        0        0        0        0
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level.........................        0       34       34       34       34       34
    Estimated Outlays.....................................        0       19       28       34       34       34
Spending Under H.R. 999:
    Estimated Authorization Level \1\.....................        3       34       34       34       34       34
    Estimated Outlays.....................................        3       19       28       34       34       34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year.

       Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
     assumes that the bill will be enacted before the start of 
     fiscal year 2000 and that the full amounts authorized will be 
     appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are 
     based on historical spending patterns of similar EPA 
     programs.
       The bill authorizes the appropriation of $30 million a year 
     for grants to states to implement programs to monitor and 
     report on beach water quality. Based on information from EPA, 
     CBO estimates that the agency would incur additional costs of 
     about $4 million annually over the 2000-2004 period to study 
     health hazards in coastal recreational waters, establish new 
     criteria for monitoring water quality for these waters, 
     develop a national database on pollution of beaches, and 
     report to the Congress on the effectiveness of this program.
       Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
       Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 999 
     contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and 
     would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 
     While the bill would require states to establish acceptable 
     water quality standards for coastal areas within three and a 
     half years, if states choose not to establish these 
     standards, the EPA would do it for them. The bill would 
     authorize $30 million annually from 2000 through 2004 for 
     states and local governments to implement eligible monitoring 
     and notification programs. If they choose not to implement 
     these programs, the EPA would be directed to use remaining 
     money authorized by this bill to provide those programs for 
     them. Any costs incurred by state and local governments to 
     implement these programs would be voluntary and conditions of 
     receiving grant assistance.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Kim Cawley. Impact on 
     State, local, and tribal governments: Lisa Cash Driskill.
       Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.
                                  ____

     Press Release: March 4, 1999.
     From: American Oceans Campaign.

 American Oceans Campaign Hails Congressman for His Commitment to the 
            Public's Right To Know About Beach Water Quality

       Washington, DC.--Representatives of American Oceans 
     Campaign (AOC) voiced their strong endorsement of legislation 
     introduced today by Representative Brian Bilbray (R-CA). The 
     Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act of 
     1999 (the B.E.A.C.H. Bill) addresses the problems of 
     inconsistent beach water quality testing and public 
     notification practices across the nation.
       ``From coast to coast, surfers, children, and others are 
     becoming ill after swimming in beach waters contaminated with 
     disease-causing microorganisms,'' said Ted Danson, President 
     of American Oceans Campaign. ``All recreational beach waters 
     should be tested consistently and the public should be 
     informed when waters are unsafe.''
       ``Beach goers have a right to know that the waters they 
     choose to play in are safe for recreation. A fun day at the 
     beach should not make you sick the morning after,'' said 
     Danson.
       ``Gastroenteritis and various eye, ear, nose, and throat 
     infections can develop after contact with waters contaminated 
     with bacteria and viruses,'' explained David Younkman, AOC's 
     Executive Director. ``The U.S. Environmental Protection 
     Agency has recommended water quality criteria for beach 
     waters; however, many states either use weaker standards or 
     do not regularly test their waters for the presence of 
     bacteria and viruses. Shockingly, many states that do test 
     their waters do not always alert the public about unhealthy 
     water conditions.''
       ``The current approach to beach water testing is a mixture 
     of inconsistent criteria and practices,'' said Younkman. 
     ``Passing the B.E.A.C.H. bill will wipe out the 
     inconsistencies and improve public health protections 
     nationwide.''
       ``The B.E.A.C.H. bill will make certain that whether a 
     person chooses to surf in San Clemente or snorkel in the 
     Florida Keys, she enters the ocean with greater confidence 
     about the quality of the water,'' said Danson. 
     ``Representative Bilbray and other members of Congress who 
     have introduced similar measures are to be congratulated for 
     their leadership on this environmental and public health 
     concern. American Oceans Campaign looks forward to 
     energetically working with them to pass a strong B.E.A.C.H. 
     Bill in 1999.''

[[Page 7314]]

     
                                  ____
            [From the San Diego Union Tribune, Mar. 5, 1999]

                          End Polluted Beaches


              Bilbray bill would require national testing

       San Diego County instituted an aggressive testing program 
     for its coastal waters year ago. Now it has begun DNA 
     screening of polluted runoff to find out exactly why our 
     beaches are sometimes polluted.
       And what have we gotten for this effort? Nationwide 
     scrutiny and criticism for having dirty beaches.
       But the fact is, our beaches aren't dirtier than other 
     places. (They're actually cleaner than many others.) We've 
     been singled out only because we test more vigorously and 
     close beaches when bacteria levels are too high. Most coastal 
     areas in other states don't maintain effective testing 
     programs. And some places never tell the public when they do 
     find high pathogen levels.
       Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Imperial Beach, introduced 
     legislation yesterday that would put all coastal regions on 
     an equal plane. Endorsed by several environmental groups, 
     including the Surfrider Foundation, Bilbray's Beaches 
     Environmental Assessment, Cleanup and Health Act (with the 
     clever acronym BEACH), would establish uniform national 
     criteria for testing and monitoring recreational coastal 
     waters. It also would require public notification when those 
     waters endanger public health.
       This is a very good idea. Now, the standards for beach 
     water cleanliness are very loose. Some coastal states use 
     very weak standards. Others have a policy of silence even 
     when they do test, probably because of concerns about scaring 
     away tourists.
       Bacteria and viruses in coastal waters can sicken bathers, 
     causing gastroenteritis and ear, eye, nose and throat 
     infections. People in states that don't test properly could 
     be getting sick from polluted water and never know the cause.
       The BEACH bill would develop standards with the help of 
     local health officials. Also, since some coastal areas have 
     different problems or conditions, individual monitoring 
     programs tailored to certain regions would be allowed. 
     Federal grants would be available for local monitoring 
     programs.
       Bilbray's legislation doesn't include a strong enforcement 
     mechanism for beach areas that don't comply. However, the 
     federal Environmental Protection Agency would keep a list of 
     such areas and make it available to the public. Compliance 
     must be addressed at some point after water quality standards 
     and monitoring programs are developed.
       While Congress considers monitoring beach pollution 
     nationwide, San Diego County is taking an advanced step in 
     cleaning up its coastal waters. After local environmental 
     advocate Donna Frye pushed the idea for a year, the county is 
     set to begin DNA testing to find the origins of bacterial 
     pollution at our beaches. This scientific monitoring should 
     tell us exactly where the pollution originates, so we can 
     take steps to stop it at its source.
       Monitoring beach pollution isn't expensive. But most 
     coastal regions neglect it because they're afraid of what 
     they might find. It's time to stop ignoring coastal 
     pollution, and start doing something about it, as San Diego 
     County does. Congress should approve Bilbray's BEACH bill.
                                  ____


                    [From Inside EPA, Mar. 19, 1999]

     Legislation Would Require New EPA Standards for Beach Quality

                          (By Jean Wiedenheft)

       Legislation requiring EPA to establish water quality 
     monitoring standards for recreational beaches may pass this 
     year as environmentalists and states appear to be on the 
     verge of an acceptable compromise, observers agree.
       In previous sessions, bills have been introduced into both 
     houses of Congress that would require certain baseline 
     monitoring of water quality, followed by notification of the 
     public if the water does not meet set standards. But the 
     language has always been shot down by states concerned over 
     its implementation.
       Under the new legislation introduced by Rep. Brian Bilbray 
     (R-CA), EPA would set monitoring standards for beaches, 
     though states would not be forced to implement those 
     standards. Instead, EPA would publicize states that failed to 
     meet the federal standards. If states still do not implement 
     a monitoring program, under the legislation EPA would monitor 
     the beaches in the state. EPA already has guidelines in place 
     for states, suggesting contaminants to monitor for and 
     contaminant levels at which the public should be notified of 
     possible danger.
       States are saying the new version of the bill--H.R. 999--is 
     much closer to being acceptable to them, with one source 
     adding that the bill's sponsors are ``serious'' about working 
     with them to see the bill pass. Environmentalists are 
     endorsing the measure.
       As the bill is written, states would be required to monitor 
     beaches for certain pollutants and pathogens, and make that 
     information available to the public through the Internet and 
     local newspapers if there is a threat.
       Such legislation is necessary, environmentalists and bill 
     supporters say, because only some states monitor their 
     beaches, and even fewer post warnings or close beaches when 
     water contaminants reach unsafe levels.
       It is difficult to get a handle on how many coastal areas 
     are actually being monitored, sources say, because often it 
     is through a local initiative, not a state program.
       The bill provides $7.5 million a year, from 2000 to 2004, 
     in grants for states to implement the programs. But a state 
     source says that while the funding is an increase over last 
     year's proposal, it is still too low. There are over 30 
     states that have coastal areas and would need funding to 
     implement and maintain a monitoring program, this source 
     points out, and any one state can only apply for half of its 
     costs.
       Some state sources also say the structure of the proposed 
     law would need to be modified to allow them more flexibility. 
     Any legislation should focus on meeting performance 
     objectives, one source points out, not on procedural 
     monitoring requirements.
       The timeliness proposed in the legislation, for example, 
     may need to have more flexibility for gathering and reporting 
     data. In some cases, one source points out, it takes several 
     days to get laboratory analyses back before knowing whether 
     the public should be warned about swimming at a particular 
     beach.
       The legislation can also only reasonably apply to public 
     beaches, one source points out, because the states do not 
     have the resources--or the authority--to impose such 
     regulations on private citizens.
       But several state sources say Bilbray's staff have been 
     open to their suggestions, and are willing to negotiate in 
     order to get the legislation through.
       A similar House bill has been introduced by Rep. Frank 
     Pallone (D-NJ), and Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Frank 
     Torricelli (D-NJ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Joseph Lieberman 
     (D-CT) are cosponsoring the beach bill in the Senate.

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), the original cosponsor of the bill.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 999. I want to thank my 
fellow Californian (Mr. Bilbray) for his leadership on this issue.
  Today is Earth Day, and I want to wish all Members a happy Earth Day, 
and I want to encourage them to do something about this being Earth Day 
by supporting this legislation.
  Most of us do not think about how the oceans and coasts are important 
to our lives, but they really are. A beautiful coastline is important 
to each of us in each of our districts. We are a Nation that travels 
and visits relatives, we visit beautiful places. An awful lot of those 
places are coastlines, because 70 percent of America's population lives 
within 50 miles of the coast.
  Americans love the oceans. According to the 1997 SeaWeb and Melman 
poll and a 1999 USA Today poll, more than half of Americans have 
observed that the conditions of our coasts are worsening, especially 
due to pollution and overfishing, and they want us, Members of 
Congress, to do something about it.
  We are critically dependent upon the ocean for ocean resources for 
tourism purposes, for travel dollars. Eighty-five percent of the 
tourist revenues spent in the United States are spent in the coastal 
States. Over 180 million people visit our coastal waters nationwide 
each year. In California alone the ocean-related tourism revenue 
exceeds $38 billion.
  Yet, our oceans are imperiled. Most of the major fish stocks in the 
world are overfished. Seventy-five percent of the endangered and 
threatened mammals and birds rely on coastal habitat. This will only 
get worse. Americans are moving to the coasts and exploiting them more 
than ever. By the year 2010, 75 percent of the U.S. population will 
live within 50 miles of the coast.
  What are we going to do about this? What are we going to do to care 
for our coasts, to ensure that our coasts can support this intensity of 
habitation? We have not demonstrated our commitment yet to the oceans. 
We have not passed the Oceans Act, but we have this, and we can do 
something about it.
  We have created national marine sanctuaries, which are essentially 
national parks in the ocean. We have 12 of those, yet with less than 1 
percent of the funding that we give to our national parks. We have 378 
national

[[Page 7315]]

parks, 155 national forests, but only 12 national marine sanctuaries.
  We need to make our coasts safe for everyone, including swimmers, 
surfers, fishers, and even the sea life, the fish themselves, the 
plants and the smallest of plankton organisms that they rely on. This 
bill is a step in that direction.
  I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 999, and I wish my 
colleagues a happy Earth Day.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert) and all those who have put a lot of hard work and 
effort into this piece of legislation.
  I especially want to tip my hat to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Brian Bilbray). Before Brian got here, I was the best surfer in the 
House of Representatives. Unfortunately, Brian was elected, and seeing 
that there is another surfer, he is the best surfer in the House, even 
though sometimes he is a wave hog.
  Let me say this, that this bill is a terrific piece of legislation. 
The gentleman has put a lot of effort into it. There are some 
conservatives with a few apprehensions, and the fact is that we do 
believe that the States should play a major role.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sherry Boehlert) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Brian Bilbray) have made sure that this bill 
represents a cooperation with the States, and not a domination of the 
States by the Federal Government.
  The oceans, both as a recreational resource and an economic resource, 
are perhaps the most valuable asset we have in the United States of 
America. We have scuba diving, we have people like the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Brian Bilbray) and myself who do a lot of surfing in 
the ocean, and we also have fishing and other recreational uses that 
add a tremendous value and are a tremendous asset to our people.
  I am very pleased that this bill is the very first time where surfing 
is actually identified as a federally-recognized recreational activity. 
Whether when you are a surfer or a scuba diver, which I am also a scuba 
diver, but when one is in the ocean, one is experiencing one of God's 
most awesome gifts to humankind. It is a living force, and it is also 
in itself an entity of tremendous power and energy.
  Those of us who surf and use the ocean know this, and it is like 
skiing on a mountain, except the mountain is going right with you. It 
is this tremendous, awesome power that you are with. The ocean 
represents this to all of humankind, this potential.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to realize that this 
bill, H.R. 999, is officially recognizing the ocean and recognizing 
this asset as a valuable asset in which we all in the States and in 
local communities and in the Federal Government will cooperate with in 
order to maintain this asset, and make sure it is available to those of 
us who use it. So many millions of Americans use this asset.
  Let us also remember when we talk about the ocean, our bodies are 
made out of water. God made human bodies out of water, just like he 
made the world mainly out of water, so we are caretakers for God's 
gift.
  Finally, my colleagues who have any thought of opposing this bill 
should know and be advised that if the amendment fails, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray) and I will double the number of surfing 
videos that are played in the Congressional Gym.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), another sponsor of the bill.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Beaches 
Environmental Awareness Cleanup and Health Act, the BEACH bill. I am 
fortunate to represent and call home one of the most beautiful 
districts in our Nation, the central coast of California. People come 
from all around the world to visit the area, and they are especially 
attracted to our spectacular coastline and incredible beaches, where 
fishing, all kinds of tourism, and indeed, surfing go on on a regular 
basis. We had surfboards outside my family home all through the growing 
up years of my children.
  Sadly, an increasingly familiar blight on these majestic beaches is a 
bright yellow sign reading ``Advisory'' or ``Closure.'' Santa Barbara 
County issues beach advisories to warn the public of harmful elevated 
bacterial levels in the surf. Unfortunately, during the past years, and 
in 1997, a record 199 days saw this bright yellow beach sign in front 
of beaches on the Santa Barbara coastline.
  The public should be able to enjoy their beaches without worrying 
about their health. We cannot tolerate people getting sick from 
swimming in the ocean.
  Santa Barbara is blessed with a vibrant local citizen group which was 
formed as a public outcry to these polluted beaches. It is called Heal 
the Ocean. It is a grass roots group. I am proud to be a supporter. 
Heal the Ocean conducts testing of our coastal waters, and is engaged 
in a significant public outreach campaign to educate the community on 
this important issue. This group enjoys tremendous and well-deserved 
local support.
  The bill we are debating today will provide critical Federal support 
to groups around the country, such as Heal the Ocean in Santa Barbara.
  We all share a common goal, to protect and improve the quality of our 
coastal waters, and to ensure public safety. By establishing national 
recreational water quality standards and empowering local communities 
to develop monitoring plans, the BEACH bill represents a strong step 
forward. This legislation will not only protect the health of our 
beaches, but also the health of our economy.
  My district, like so many other coastal communities around the 
Nation, depends on recreation and tourism for its economic vitality. 
The cost of beach water quality monitoring is minuscule compared to the 
revenue that is generated by coastal tourism.
  I do appreciate the hard work of my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) and my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Bilbray) in establishing this bill.
  I would like to recognize the efforts of my colleague, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been a leader on this issue for 
many years and has introduced critical beach legislation in the 105th 
Congress as well as the 106th Congress.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
supporting this important bill to protect public health, our beaches, 
and our coastal communities.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, today we celebrate Earth Day. It is 
only fitting that we take up this piece of legislation today as it 
deals with one of the most significant components of our environment, 
the coastal and recreational waters.
  Each year millions of tourists flock to our beaches, and in Los 
Angeles County alone our tourism industry is worth about $13 billion in 
average revenue. The beaches in that county generate most of that, and 
three or four of those beaches are in my district: Hermosa Beach, 
Manhattan Beach, household names in our area. They play a significant 
role in generating that revenue.
  There are real economic consequences that stem from protecting our 
environment, particularly the water resources. Helping build the 
public's confidence in the quality of this water will ensure its 
protection in the future.
  The BEACH bill will help build this confidence in beaches across the 
country by establishing a uniform national standard. The bill will also 
allow local communities to tailor the monitoring and notification that 
meet their unique regional needs, and it provides incentives, not 
mandates, to meet the national criteria, incentives that take the form 
of grants from the Federal Government to implement monitoring and 
notification programs. In other words, instead of dictating to each 
jurisdiction how to meet a national

[[Page 7316]]

standard, the Federal Government will give them flexibility and help 
cover part of the cost. This is unprecedented environmental regulation.
  Finally, several people say, why should we do this if California 
already has good monitoring? My constituents, when they go other places 
in this country, and Members' constituents all over the country, 
deserve to have good quality water to play in when they go to surf or 
swim in our recreational waters. If we standardize that monitoring, we 
all know, whether we are from California or from Michigan, whether the 
water is safe to be in.
  I urge Members' support of the BEACH bill. It is solid national 
environmental policy. It brings together flexibility and incentives 
instead of mandates. It has local control instead of force-fed Federal 
policy. It is a good example of environmental policy supplementing 
economic policy. I urge Members' aye vote.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  As a representative of a Florida coastal district, I rise today to 
applaud my colleague, the gentleman from California, (Mr. Bilbray) of 
San Diego for bringing this legislation to the Floor today.
  In addition to being some of the nicest in this country, the beaches 
in my district are already clean and safe, and I am proud of that fact. 
I am a supporter of the BEACH bill because rather than taking a command 
and control approach to protecting our Nation's beaches, it utilizes a 
far more powerful approach, the power of information.
  The BEACH bill establishes mechanisms that will let the public know 
where and when beaches are safe.

                              {time}  1215

  If coastal communities choose to risk the quality of their water, 
they will risk losing valuable tourist dollars. Floridians know this 
firsthand. When we improved the health of the local environment, we 
also improved the health of the local economy. Tourists are smart. 
Armed with information, they will spend their money where they know the 
beaches are clean and safe.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), for the long 
hours he has spent on this bill and his personal dedication and 
commitment in bringing it to this point of achievement; and to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the subcommittee, 
who has a long and distinguished record in the protection of the 
environment, and for his concern that we fashion a bill that will be 
useful and meaningful and effective and for bringing it to the floor on 
this Earth Day; and of course to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), the chairman of the full committee, who already spoke quite 
pointedly of his support for this legislation.
  But I rise today, not only in support of this legislation, but to 
recall for our colleagues my very dear friend and classmate, the class 
of the 1974 election, 94th Congress, Congressman Bill Hughes, who made 
this issue his cause during the time that he served in the House.
  It is the culmination of years of effort, but culmination of a very 
deep-seated, genuine, ardent, vocal effort by Congressman Bill Hughes 
during his service in the Congress.
  Together we served on the House Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries. I recall both in committee and in one-on-one conversations 
with Bill Hughes his deep, genuine concern about the deterioration of 
the quality of water in the ocean that bordered on his State of New 
Jersey, his accounts of hypodermic needles washing up on the beaches, 
bringing some of the debris with him to our committee meetings and to 
one-on-one member meetings, the numerous health warnings that disturbed 
us so greatly, the beach closings, and the health effects on users of 
the New Jersey coastline; and that brought him to other coastlines in 
other parts of the country, and he really made this a great concern.
  I will recall his statement on introducing essentially this bill, his 
version, which was a predecessor to today's legislation, ``This bill is 
a great improvement to the policies that currently exist in beach 
testing and monitoring. It provides a public health stamp of approval 
for States proudly to show people who live and vacation along the shore 
that the coastal waters are safe for swimming and other related 
activities.''
  Following Bill Hughes' retirement from Congress, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a successor, not particularly from that 
district, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), directly 
from that district, championed the cause along with the later arrival 
in the House of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who has 
been persistent and vigorous and single-minded in his purpose of 
getting this legislation through the committee and to the House floor. 
Great advocates. The torch really has been passed from Bill Hughes to a 
new generation of advocates for quality of life along our freshwater 
and saltwater beaches.
  This bill attempts to assure American families that the only concern 
they will have when going to the beach is how much sunblock they have 
on, not what rashes or illnesses they may have developed after an 
outing to the beach.
  When we consider, as our colleague from California (Mrs. Capps) a 
moment ago cited, 199 days of beach closings in areas of her district, 
there were 22,746 beach closings in the decade from 1988 to 1998, that 
is not acceptable. We have to do a better job of monitoring, of 
stewardship for these great resources of the Nation's freshwater and 
saltwater beaches.
  The idea of a monitoring bill is good. This bill has two public 
health goals, to have uniform monitoring of coastal recreational waters 
and uniform means of notification to the public of unhealthy water 
conditions.
  The partnerships between the Federal Government and the coastal 
States and the local communities that this bill brings about are good. 
They are good steps in the right direction, $30 million for grants to 
States and communities to establish monitoring programs.
  But I just want to make it clear that, and no one should 
misunderstand the purpose of this bill, this is for monitoring and for 
notification. It does not go to cleanup. It does not address the upland 
issues of nonpoint source runoff, of discharges by cities and other 
entities into those rivers and estuaries that discharge on and lay 
their debris upon the beaches.
  It will be argued that there are other programs, other means, other 
ways of doing this. But because I have heard from people who say, oh, 
we are going to do something about cleaning up the beaches, no, we are 
going to do something about notifying people about unsafe conditions. 
We are going to do something about monitoring those conditions with 
this legislation.
  I also note repeated references to giving the States their 
responsible authority to undertake this role, and that is true. This is 
a Federal-State partnership. But I do want to remind my colleagues that 
the thin line of sand or pebbles that are the beach is the dividing 
point between the ocean and the land.
  It is the ocean that is the common heritage of all mankind. It does 
not belong to a State or a Nation. As a Nation, we have a greater 
responsibility than any individual State does for the quality of that 
ocean and the littoral, the linkage between the land and the water.
  This is a good step in the right direction. It will be a step, I 
hope, that heightens our awareness of the individual responsibility 
each of us has, that the responsibility to each State has and that this 
Nation has toward that greater body of water, the ocean, the common 
heritage of all mankind and, in the case of the Great Lakes,

[[Page 7317]]

one-fifth of all the freshwater on the face of the Earth.
  So I urge our colleagues to support this legislation and that we move 
it along to signature by the President as quickly as possible.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by once again thanking the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray), all those who worked so hard to make this day 
a reality. Let me compliment the House of Representatives on this Earth 
Day 1999. On a bipartisan basis, we have Democrats and Republicans 
working constructively to develop responsible public policy that will 
protect the families health and well-being.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray) for a closing word.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank both the ranking 
members and the chairmen for their work on this bill.
  Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, this bill has had a lot of 
people who have worked on it for a long time who are not here today. 
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) worked hard with me at 
trying to figure out how to get to this point to where we can get the 
Federal Government working with the States, and now with H.R. 999 we 
will be able to do something that, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) pointed out, is getting the information to the local 
community so that they are empowered to know there is a problem, which 
is the first and most critical step of knowing how to respond to it.
  I would say in closing, personally, back in 1970 on the first Earth 
Day, I was a high school senior and I wore the green and blue armbands, 
and I was protesting the pollution of my beaches in south San Diego. 
Sad to say, almost 30 years later, our beaches are still polluted by 
the Republic of Mexico, and that is something that we need to and are 
working to address.
  But this bill does something that we said back in 1970, and it was a 
big battle cry that we had in the environmental movement, ``Think 
globally but act locally.'' This bill empowers the local community to 
have the local information so that they can address their problems in 
their neighborhood, in their community, and have the Federal Government 
as an ally in the local effort to act locally, to be able to take care 
of the global problem.
  I thank this body, and I thank the chairmen and the ranking members 
for the chance to be able to bring this bill up for action.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
bill shall be considered by section as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment, and pursuant to the rule each section is considered read.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in House Report 106-103 if offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) or his designee. That 
amendment shall be considered read, may amend portions of the bill not 
yet read for amendment, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.
  After disposition of that amendment, the bill, as perfected, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
  During further consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that 
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.


                   Amendment Offered By Mr. Boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       An amendment made in order by House Resolution 145 offered 
     by Mr. Boehlert:
       Page 2, line 5, strike ``Assessment'' and insert 
     ``Awareness''.
       Page 3, line 8, strike ``If a State'' and all that follows 
     through ``paragraph (1)(A),'' on line 10 and insert the 
     following:
       If a State has not adopted water quality criteria referred 
     to in paragraph (1)(A) that are as protective of human health 
     as the criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators for 
     coastal recreation waters that the Administrator has 
     published under section 304(a)(9),
       Page 6, line 13, after ``State,'' insert ``tribal,''.
       Page 7, line 9, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is authorized 
     to''.
       Page 7, line 10, after ``States,'' insert ``Indian 
     tribes,''.
       Page 7, line 14, after ``State,'' insert ``and tribal,''.
       Page 7, line 16, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is 
     authorized to''.
       Page 7, line 16, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian 
     tribe''.
       Page 7, line 23, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian 
     tribe''.
       Page 7, line 25, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is 
     authorized to''.
       Page 8, line 1, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian tribe''.
       Page 8, line 9, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian tribe''.
       Page 8, line 14, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian 
     tribe''.
       Page 8, line 19, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian 
     tribe''.
       Page 10, line 17, after ``State'' insert ``or tribal''.
       Page 11, line 8, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is 
     authorized to''.
       Page 11, line 17, strike ``shall'' and insert ``is 
     authorized to''.
       Page 12, line 15, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian 
     tribe''.
       Page 12, line 17, after ``State'' insert ``or Indian 
     tribe''.
       Page 13, after line 20, insert the following:
       ``(c) Federal Agency Programs.--Each Federal agency shall 
     develop, through a process that provides for public notice 
     and an opportunity for comment, a program for monitoring and 
     notification to protect public health and safety that meets 
     the performance criteria established under subsection (a) for 
     coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches (or other 
     points of access) that are open to the public and subject to 
     the jurisdiction of the Federal agency. Each Federal agency 
     program shall address the matters identified in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(iii).
       Page 13, line 21, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 14, line 5, strike ``The Administrator'' and all that 
     follows through line 10 and insert the following: ``The 
     Administrator may include in the database other information 
     only if the information is on exceedances of applicable water 
     quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators for 
     coastal recreation waters and is made available to the 
     Administrator from other coastal water quality monitoring 
     programs determined to be reliable by the Administrator. The 
     data base may provide such information through electronic 
     links to other databases determined to be reliable by the 
     Administrator.''
       Page 14, line 11, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       Page 14, line 12, after ``States'' insert ``, Indian 
     tribes,''.
       Page 14, line 16, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Page 15, strike lines 8 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(g) EPA Implementation.--With respect to a State that has 
     no program for monitoring for and notification of exceedances 
     of the applicable water quality standards for pathogens and 
     pathogen indicators in coastal recreation waters adjacent to 
     beaches (or other points of access) open to the public that 
     protects public health and safety, after the last day of the 
     3-year period beginning on the date the Administrator 
     identifies, on a list required pursuant to subsection (f), 
     discrete areas of coastal recreation waters in the State that 
     are not subject to a monitoring and notification program 
     meeting the performance criteria established under subsection 
     (a), the Administrator shall conduct, subject to the 
     conditions of subsection (b)(2), a monitoring and 
     notification program for such discrete areas using the funds 
     appropriated for grants under subsection (b), including 
     salaries, expenses, and travel.
       Page 15, line 20, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
       Page 15, line 21, after ``States'' insert ``, Indian 
     tribes,''.
       Page 16, line 7, insert ``coastal'' before ``estuaries''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York

[[Page 7318]]

(Mr. Boehlert), as the designee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This will be very quick. The en bloc amendment deals with 
noncontroversial bipartisan amendments, technical and clarifying. They 
have been worked out by the ranking minority member. I would like to 
give special credit to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who 
helped with the agriculture community to get us to this point. I urge 
their adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as the author of the bill, I support the 
en bloc amendment. I would like to also take this opportunity to thank 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for his cooperative effort 
and willingness to work with me in addressing the concerns that the 
agricultural community had initially expressed, and which are addressed 
by the en bloc.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       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 ``Beaches Environmental 
     Assessment, Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 
                   AND STANDARDS BY STATES.

       Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1313) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Coastal Recreation Water Quality Criteria and 
     Standards.--
       ``(1) Adoption by states.--
       ``(A) Initial criteria and standards.--Not later than 3\1/
     2\ years after the date of enactment of this subsection, each 
     State having coastal recreation waters shall adopt and submit 
     to the Administrator water quality criteria and standards for 
     such waters for those pathogens and pathogen indicators for 
     which the Administrator has published criteria under section 
     304(a).
       ``(B) New or revised standards.--Not later than 3 years 
     after the date of publication by the Administrator of new or 
     revised water quality criteria under section 304(a)(9), each 
     State having coastal recreation waters shall adopt and submit 
     to the Administrator new or revised water quality standards 
     for such waters for all pathogens and pathogen indicators for 
     which the Administrator publishes new or revised water 
     quality criteria.
       ``(2) Failure of states to adopt.--If a State has not 
     complied with paragraph (1)(A) by the date specified in 
     paragraph (1)(A), the Administrator shall promptly prepare 
     and publish proposed regulations for the State setting forth 
     revised or new water quality standards for coastal recreation 
     waters for the pathogens and pathogen indicators subject to 
     paragraph (1)(A). If the Administrator prepares and publishes 
     such regulations under subsection (c)(4)(B) before the date 
     specified in paragraph (1)(A), the Administrator shall 
     promulgate any revised or new standard under this paragraph 
     not later than the date specified in paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(3) Savings clause.--Except as expressly provided by this 
     subsection, the requirements and procedures of subsection (c) 
     apply to this subsection.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 3. REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.

       (a) Studies.--Section 104 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(v) Studies Concerning Pathogen Indicators in Coastal 
     Recreation Waters.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, and after consultation and 
     collaboration with appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     officials (including local health officials) and other 
     interested persons, the Administrator shall conduct, in 
     cooperation with the heads of other Federal agencies, studies 
     to provide additional information for use in developing--
       ``(1) a more complete determination of potential human 
     health risks resulting from exposure to pathogens in coastal 
     recreation waters, including effects to the upper respiratory 
     system;
       ``(2) appropriate and effective indicators for improving 
     detection in a timely manner in coastal recreation waters of 
     the presence of pathogens that are harmful to human health;
       ``(3) appropriate, accurate, expeditious, and cost-
     effective methods (including predictive models) for detecting 
     in a timely manner in coastal recreation waters the presence 
     of pathogens that are harmful to human health; and
       ``(4) guidance for State application of the criteria for 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators to be issued under section 
     304(a)(9) to account for the diversity of geographic and 
     aquatic conditions.''.
       (b) Revised Criteria.--Section 304(a) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(9) Revised criteria for coastal recreation waters.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, and after consultation and 
     collaboration with appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     officials (including local health officials), the 
     Administrator shall issue new or revised water quality 
     criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators (including a 
     revised list of testing methods, as appropriate) based on the 
     results of the studies conducted under section 104(v) for the 
     purpose of protecting human health in coastal recreation 
     waters.
       ``(B) Reviews.--At least once every 5 years after the date 
     of issuance of water quality criteria under this paragraph, 
     the Administrator shall review and, as necessary, revise the 
     water quality criteria.''.

     SEC. 4. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND 
                   NOTIFICATION.

       Title IV of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1341-1345) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 406. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND 
                   NOTIFICATION.

       ``(a) Monitoring and Notification.--Not later than 18 
     months after the date of enactment of this section, after 
     consultation and collaboration with appropriate Federal, 
     State, and local officials (including local health 
     officials), and after providing public notice and an 
     opportunity for comment, the Administrator shall publish 
     performance criteria for--
       ``(1) monitoring (including specifying available methods 
     for monitoring) coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches 
     (or other points of access) that are open to the public for 
     attainment of applicable water quality standards for 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators and for protection of 
     public safety from floatable materials; and
       ``(2) promptly notifying the public, local governments, and 
     the Administrator of any exceedance of applicable water 
     quality standards for coastal recreation waters described in 
     paragraph (1) (or the immediate likelihood of such an 
     exceedance).

     The performance criteria shall provide for the activities 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2) to be carried out as 
     necessary for the protection of public health and safety.
       ``(b) Program Development and Implementation Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall make grants to 
     States and local governments for the purpose of developing 
     and implementing programs for monitoring and notification, as 
     provided in paragraphs (2) and (3).
       ``(2) State programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall make grants to a 
     State for developing and implementing a program for 
     monitoring and notification to protect public health and 
     safety that meets the performance criteria established under 
     subsection (a) for coastal recreation waters adjacent to 
     beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the 
     public and are subject to the jurisdiction of the State.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The Administrator shall make grants 
     for implementation of a program of a State under subparagraph 
     (A) only if the Administrator determines that--
       ``(i) the program has been developed through a process that 
     provides for public notice and an opportunity for comment;
       ``(ii) the program meets the performance criteria under 
     subsection (a), based on a review of the program, including 
     information provided by the State under clause (iii); and
       ``(iii) the program--

       ``(I) identifies coastal recreation waters within the 
     jurisdiction of the State;
       ``(II) identifies those coastal recreation waters adjacent 
     to beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the 
     public and subject to the jurisdiction of the State and that 
     are covered by the program;
       ``(III) identifies those coastal recreation waters covered 
     by the program that would be given a priority for monitoring 
     and notification if fiscal constraints prevent compliance at 
     all coastal recreation waters covered by the program with

[[Page 7319]]

     the performance criteria established under subsection (a);
       ``(IV) identifies the process for making any delegation of 
     responsibility for implementing the program to local 
     governments, the local governments, if any, to which the 
     State has delegated or intends to delegate such 
     responsibility, and the coastal recreation waters covered by 
     the program that are or would be the subject of such 
     delegation;
       ``(V) specifies the frequency of monitoring based on the 
     periods of recreational use of such waters and the nature and 
     extent of use during such periods;
       ``(VI) specifies the frequency and location of monitoring 
     based on the proximity of such waters to known point and 
     nonpoint sources of pollution and in relation to storm 
     events;
       ``(VII) specifies which methods will be used for detecting 
     levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful 
     to human health and for identifying short-term increases in 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human 
     health in coastal recreation waters, including in relation to 
     storm events;
       ``(VIII) specifies measures for prompt communication of the 
     occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent 
     of such an exceedance (or the immediate likelihood of such an 
     exceedance) to the Administrator and a designated official of 
     a local government having jurisdiction over land adjoining 
     the coastal recreation waters covered by the State program 
     for which an exceedance is identified; and
       ``(IX) specifies measures for posting of signs at the beach 
     (or other point of access), or functionally equivalent 
     communication measures, sufficient to give notice to the 
     public of an exceedance (or the immediate likelihood of an 
     exceedance) of applicable water quality criteria for 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators for such waters and the 
     potential risks associated with water contact activities in 
     such waters.

       ``(3) Local programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall make a grant to 
     a local government for developing and implementing a program 
     for monitoring and notification to protect public health and 
     safety that meets the performance criteria established under 
     subsection (a) for coastal recreation waters adjacent to 
     beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the 
     public and subject to the jurisdiction of the local 
     government.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The Administrator shall make grants 
     for implementation of a local government program under 
     subparagraph (A) only if the Administrator determines that--
       ``(i) the State in which the local government is located 
     did not submit a grant application meeting the requirements 
     of paragraph (2)(B) within one year following the date of 
     publication of performance criteria under subsection (a);
       ``(ii) the local government program has been developed 
     through a process that provides for public notice and an 
     opportunity for comment;
       ``(iii) the local government program meets the performance 
     criteria under subsection (a), based on a review of the local 
     government program, including information provided by the 
     local government under paragraph (2)(B)(iii); and
       ``(iv) the local government program addresses the matters 
     identified in paragraph (2)(B)(iii) with respect to such 
     waters.
       ``(4) List of waters.--Following receipt of a grant under 
     this subsection, a State or local government shall apply the 
     prioritization established by the State or local government 
     under paragraph (2)(B)(iii)(III) and promptly submit to the 
     Administrator--
       ``(A) a list of discrete areas of coastal recreation waters 
     that are subject to the program for monitoring and 
     notification for which the grant is provided where the 
     performance criteria under subsection (a) will be met; and
       ``(B) a list of discrete areas of coastal recreation waters 
     that are subject to the program for monitoring and 
     notification for which the grant is provided where fiscal 
     constraints will prevent compliance with the performance 
     criteria under subsection (a).
       ``(5) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     developing and implementing a monitoring and notification 
     program under this subsection shall be not less than 50 
     percent nor more than 100 percent, as determined by the 
     Administrator. The non-Federal share of such cost may be met 
     through in-kind contributions.
       ``(6) Delegation.--If a State delegates responsibility for 
     monitoring and notification under this subsection to a local 
     government, the State shall make a portion of any grant 
     received by the State under paragraph (2) available to the 
     local government in an amount commensurate with the 
     responsibilities delegated.
       ``(c) Information Database.--The Administrator shall 
     establish, maintain, and make available to the public by 
     electronic and other means a national coastal recreation 
     water pollution occurrence database that provides information 
     on exceedances of applicable water quality standards for 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators for coastal recreation 
     waters using information reported to the Administrator 
     pursuant to a monitoring and notification program that meets 
     the performance criteria established under subsection (a). 
     The Administrator may include in the database information 
     made available to the Administrator from other coastal water 
     quality monitoring programs determined to be reliable by the 
     Administrator. The database may provide information through 
     electronic links to other databases determined to be reliable 
     by the Administrator.
       ``(d) Technical Assistance.--The Administrator shall 
     provide technical assistance to States and local governments 
     for the development of assessment and monitoring procedures 
     for floatable materials to protect public health and safety 
     in coastal recreation waters.
       ``(e) List of Waters.--Beginning not later than 18 months 
     after the date of publication of performance criteria under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall maintain a list of 
     discrete areas of coastal recreation waters adjacent to 
     beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the 
     public and are not subject to a program for monitoring and 
     notification meeting the performance criteria established 
     under subsection (a) based on information made available to 
     the Administrator. The list also shall identify discrete 
     areas of coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches (or 
     other points of access) that are open to the public and are 
     subject to a monitoring and notification program meeting the 
     performance criteria established under subsection (a). The 
     Administrator shall make the list available to the public 
     through publication in the Federal Register and through 
     electronic media. The Administrator shall update the list at 
     least annually.
       ``(f) EPA Implementation.--After the last day of the 3-year 
     period beginning on the date the Administrator identifies a 
     discrete area of coastal recreation waters adjacent to 
     beaches (or other points of access) that are open to the 
     public and are not subject to a monitoring and notification 
     program meeting the performance criteria established under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall conduct such a 
     monitoring and notification program for the discrete area 
     using the funds appropriated for grants under subsection (b), 
     including salaries, expenses, and travel. The Administrator's 
     duties under this paragraph shall be limited to the 
     activities that can be performed using such funds.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for making grants to States and local 
     governments under subsection (b), including implementation of 
     monitoring and notification programs by the Administrator 
     under subsection (f), $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2004.''.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) Coastal recreation waters.--The term `coastal 
     recreation waters' means the Great Lakes and marine coastal 
     waters, including estuaries, used by the public for swimming, 
     bathing, surfing, or other similar water contact activities.
       ``(22) Floatable materials.--The term `floatable materials' 
     means any foreign matter that may float or remain suspended 
     in the water column and includes plastic, aluminum cans, wood 
     products, bottles, and paper products.
       ``(23) Pathogen indicators.--The term `pathogen indicators' 
     means substances that indicate the potential for human 
     infectious disease.''.

     SEC. 6. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and within the succeeding 4-year 
     period and periodically thereafter, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall transmit to Congress a 
     report including--
       (1) recommendations concerning the need for additional 
     water quality criteria for pathogens and other actions needed 
     to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters;
       (2) an evaluation of Federal, State, and local efforts to 
     implement this Act, including the amendments made by this 
     Act; and
       (3) recommendations on improvements to methodologies and 
     techniques for monitoring of coastal recreation waters.
       (b) Coordination.--The Administrator may coordinate the 
     report under this section with other reporting requirements 
     under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out 
     the provisions of this Act (including amendments made by this 
     Act) for which amounts are not otherwise specifically 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no amendments, the question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.

                              {time}  1230

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bliley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 999) 
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve the quality 
of coastal recreation waters, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 145, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bliley). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.

[[Page 7320]]

  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________