[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19503-19507]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS, CLEANUP, AND HEALTH ACT OF 1999

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in 
the Senate amendment to 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 Clerk read as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

         This Act may be cited as the ``Beaches Environmental 
     Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000''.

     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.--
       ``(1) Adoption by states.--
       ``(A) Initial criteria and standards.--Not later than 42 
     months 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 
     the coastal recreation waters of the State for those 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators for which the Administrator 
     has published criteria under section 304(a).
       ``(B) New or revised criteria and standards.--Not later 
     than 36 months 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 the coastal recreation 
     waters of the State for all pathogens and pathogen indicators 
     to which the new or revised water quality criteria are 
     applicable.
       ``(2) Failure of states to adopt.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a State fails to adopt water quality 
     criteria and standards in accordance with paragraph (1)(A) 
     that are as protective of human health as the criteria for 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators for coastal recreation 
     waters published by the Administrator, the Administrator 
     shall promptly propose regulations for the State setting 
     forth revised or new water quality standards for pathogens 
     and pathogen indicators described in paragraph (1)(A) for 
     coastal recreation waters of the State.
       ``(B) Exception.--If the Administrator proposes regulations 
     for a State described in subparagraph (A) under subsection 
     (c)(4)(B), the Administrator shall publish any revised or new 
     standard under this subsection not later than 42 months after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(3) Applicability.--Except as expressly provided by this 
     subsection, the requirements and procedures of subsection (c) 
     apply to this subsection, including the requirement in 
     subsection (c)(2)(A) that the criteria protect public health 
     and welfare.''.

     SEC. 3. REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.

       (a) Studies Concerning Pathogen Indicators in Coastal 
     Recreation Waters.--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 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, after consultation and in 
     cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and 
     local officials (including local health officials), the 
     Administrator shall initiate, and, not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, shall 
     complete, in cooperation with the heads of other Federal 
     agencies, studies to provide additional information for use 
     in developing--
       ``(1) an assessment of potential human health risks 
     resulting from exposure to pathogens in coastal recreation 
     waters, including nongastrointestinal effects;
       ``(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 published under 
     section 304(a)(9) to account for the diversity of geographic 
     and aquatic conditions.''.
       (b) Revised Criteria.--Section 304(a) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

[[Page 19504]]

       ``(9) Revised criteria for coastal recreation waters.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, after consultation and in 
     cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and 
     local officials (including local health officials), the 
     Administrator shall publish 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.--Not later than the date that is 5 years 
     after the date of publication of water quality criteria under 
     this paragraph, and at least once every 5 years thereafter, 
     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 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

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

       ``(a) Monitoring and Notification.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, after consultation and in 
     cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and 
     local officials (including local health officials), and after 
     providing public notice and an opportunity for comment, the 
     Administrator shall publish performance criteria for--
       ``(A) monitoring and assessment (including specifying 
     available methods for monitoring) of coastal recreation 
     waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that 
     are used by the public for attainment of applicable water 
     quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators; and
       ``(B) the prompt notification of the public, local 
     governments, and the Administrator of any exceeding of or 
     likelihood of exceeding applicable water quality standards 
     for coastal recreation waters described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Level of protection.--The performance criteria 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall provide that the 
     activities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of that 
     paragraph shall be carried out as necessary for the 
     protection of public health and safety.
       ``(b) Program Development and Implementation Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator may make grants to 
     States and local governments to develop and implement 
     programs for monitoring and notification for coastal 
     recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of 
     access that are used by the public.
       ``(2) Limitations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator may award a grant to a 
     State or a local government to implement a monitoring and 
     notification program if--
       ``(i) the program is consistent with the performance 
     criteria published by the Administrator under subsection (a);
       ``(ii) the State or local government prioritizes the use of 
     grant funds for particular coastal recreation waters based on 
     the use of the water and the risk to human health presented 
     by pathogens or pathogen indicators;
       ``(iii) the State or local government makes available to 
     the Administrator the factors used to prioritize the use of 
     funds under clause (ii);
       ``(iv) the State or local government provides 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 that specifies any coastal recreation 
     waters for which fiscal constraints will prevent consistency 
     with the performance criteria under subsection (a); and
       ``(v) the public is provided an opportunity to review the 
     program through a process that provides for public notice and 
     an opportunity for comment.
       ``(B) Grants to local governments.--The Administrator may 
     make a grant to a local government under this subsection for 
     implementation of a monitoring and notification program only 
     if, after the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
     publication of performance criteria under subsection (a)(1), 
     the Administrator determines that the State is not 
     implementing a program that meets the requirements of this 
     subsection, regardless of whether the State has received a 
     grant under this subsection.
       ``(3) Other requirements.--
       ``(A) Report.--A State recipient of a grant under this 
     subsection shall submit to the Administrator, in such format 
     and at such intervals as the Administrator determines to be 
     appropriate, a report that describes--
       ``(i) data collected as part of the program for monitoring 
     and notification as described in subsection (c); and
       ``(ii) actions taken to notify the public when water 
     quality standards are exceeded.
       ``(B) Delegation.--A State recipient of a grant under this 
     subsection shall identify each local government to which the 
     State has delegated or intends to delegate responsibility for 
     implementing a monitoring and notification program consistent 
     with the performance criteria published under subsection (a) 
     (including any coastal recreation waters for which the 
     authority to implement a monitoring and notification program 
     would be subject to the delegation).
       ``(4) Federal share.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator, through grants 
     awarded under this section, may pay up to 100 percent of the 
     costs of developing and implementing a program for monitoring 
     and notification under this subsection.
       ``(B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of developing and implementing a monitoring and 
     notification program may be--
       ``(i) in an amount not to exceed 50 percent, as determined 
     by the Administrator in consultation with State, tribal, and 
     local government representatives; and
       ``(ii) provided in cash or in kind.
       ``(c) Content of State and Local Government Programs.--As a 
     condition of receipt of a grant under subsection (b), a State 
     or local government program for monitoring and notification 
     under this section shall identify--
       ``(1) lists of coastal recreation waters in the State, 
     including coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or 
     similar points of access that are used by the public;
       ``(2) in the case of a State program for monitoring and 
     notification, the process by which the State may delegate to 
     local governments responsibility for implementing the 
     monitoring and notification program;
       ``(3) the frequency and location of monitoring and 
     assessment of coastal recreation waters based on--
       ``(A) the periods of recreational use of the waters;
       ``(B) the nature and extent of use during certain periods;
       ``(C) the proximity of the waters to known point sources 
     and nonpoint sources of pollution; and
       ``(D) any effect of storm events on the waters;
       ``(4)(A) the methods to be used for detecting levels of 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human 
     health; and
       ``(B) the assessment procedures for identifying short-term 
     increases in pathogens and pathogen indicators that are 
     harmful to human health in coastal recreation waters 
     (including increases in relation to storm events);
       ``(5) measures for prompt communication of the occurrence, 
     nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent of any 
     exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water 
     quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators to--
       ``(A) the Administrator, in such form as the Administrator 
     determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(B) a designated official of a local government having 
     jurisdiction over land adjoining the coastal recreation 
     waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards is 
     identified;
       ``(6) measures for the posting of signs at beaches or 
     similar points of access, or functionally equivalent 
     communication measures that are sufficient to give notice to 
     the public that the coastal recreation waters are not meeting 
     or are not expected to meet applicable water quality 
     standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators; and
       ``(7) measures that inform the public of the potential 
     risks associated with water contact activities in the coastal 
     recreation waters that do not meet applicable water quality 
     standards.
       ``(d) Federal Agency Programs.--Not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this section, each Federal 
     agency that has jurisdiction over coastal recreation waters 
     adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used 
     by the public shall develop and implement, through a process 
     that provides for public notice and an opportunity for 
     comment, a monitoring and notification program for the 
     coastal recreation waters that--
       ``(1) protects the public health and safety;
       ``(2) is consistent with the performance criteria published 
     under subsection (a);
       ``(3) includes a completed report on the information 
     specified in subsection (b)(3)(A), to be submitted to the 
     Administrator; and
       ``(4) addresses the matters specified in subsection (c) .
       ``(e) 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--
       ``(1) the data reported to the Administrator under 
     subsections (b)(3)(A)(i) and (d)(3); and
       ``(2) other information concerning pathogens and pathogen 
     indicators in coastal recreation waters that--
       ``(A) is made available to the Administrator by a State or 
     local government, from a coastal water quality monitoring 
     program of the State or local government; and
       ``(B) the Administrator determines should be included.
       ``(f) Technical Assistance for Monitoring Floatable 
     Material.--The Administrator shall provide technical 
     assistance to States and local governments for the 
     development of assessment and monitoring procedures for 
     floatable material to protect public health and safety in 
     coastal recreation waters.
       ``(g) List of Waters.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning not later than 18 months after 
     the date of publication of performance criteria under 
     subsection (a), based on information made available to the 
     Administrator, the Administrator shall identify, and maintain 
     a list of, discrete coastal recreation waters adjacent to 
     beaches or similar points of access that are used by the 
     public that--
       ``(A) specifies any waters described in this paragraph that 
     are subject to a monitoring and notification program 
     consistent with the performance criteria established under 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(B) specifies any waters described in this paragraph for 
     which there is no monitoring and

[[Page 19505]]

     notification program (including waters for which fiscal 
     constraints will prevent the State or the Administrator from 
     performing monitoring and notification consistent with the 
     performance criteria established under subsection (a)).
       ``(2) Availability.--The Administrator shall make the list 
     described in paragraph (1) available to the public through--
       ``(A) publication in the Federal Register; and
       ``(B) electronic media.
       ``(3) Updates.--The Administrator shall update the list 
     described in paragraph (1) periodically as new information 
     becomes available.
       ``(h) EPA Implementation.--In the case of a State that has 
     no program for monitoring and notification that is consistent 
     with the performance criteria published under subsection (a) 
     after the last day of the 3-year period beginning on the date 
     on which the Administrator lists waters in the State under 
     subsection (g)(1)(B), the Administrator shall conduct a 
     monitoring and notification program for the listed waters 
     based on a priority ranking established by the Administrator 
     using funds appropriated for grants under subsection (i)--
       ``(1) to conduct monitoring and notification; and
       ``(2) for related salaries, expenses, and travel.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for making grants under subsection (b), 
     including implementation of monitoring and notification 
     programs by the Administrator under subsection (h), 
     $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.

     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.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `coastal recreation waters' 
     means--
       ``(i) the Great Lakes; and
       ``(ii) marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) 
     that are designated under section 303(c) by a State for use 
     for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact 
     activities.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `coastal recreation waters' 
     does not include--
       ``(i) inland waters; or
       ``(ii) waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream 
     having an unimpaired natural connection with the open sea.
       ``(22) Floatable material.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `floatable material' means any 
     foreign matter that may float or remain suspended in the 
     water column.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `floatable material' includes--
       ``(i) plastic;
       ``(ii) aluminum cans;
       ``(iii) wood products;
       ``(iv) bottles; and
       ``(v) paper products.
       ``(23) Pathogen indicator.--The term `pathogen indicator' 
     means a substance that indicates the potential for human 
     infectious disease.''.

     SEC. 6. INDIAN TRIBES.

       Section 518(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1377(e)) is amended by striking ``and 404'' and 
     inserting ``404, and 406''.

     SEC. 7. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 4 years thereafter, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     submit to Congress a report that includes--
       (1) recommendations concerning the need for additional 
     water quality criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators 
     and other actions that should be taken 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 of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency may coordinate the report under this 
     section with other reporting requirements under the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
     provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this 
     Act, for which amounts are not otherwise specifically 
     authorized to be appropriated, such sums as are necessary for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support H.R. 999, the Beaches 
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000, which was 
introduced and championed by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray). He has been a tireless advocate for monitoring the quality of 
our Nation's coastal recreation waters.
  This issue has been languishing in Congress for years. But thanks to 
the tenacity of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), all the 
interested parties have come together, come to the table, and we have 
reached an agreement on a bipartisan basis. That is a tribute, a 
singular tribute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). It is 
a privilege to work with him on this very important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a significant step in protecting 
the health of millions of beach goers. It passed the Senate 
unanimously. It is supported by the administration, the States, and the 
environmental community. It is a good bill worthy of our support, and I 
urge its passage.
  I am pleased to lend my support to H.R. 999, the BEACHES bill. This 
simple, but important legislation aims at protecting our nation's beach 
goers from unhealthy ocean water quality conditions. Wherever it may 
be, beach goers, everywhere, have the right to know that the waters 
they choose to visit are safe for themselves and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 our colleagues from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone and Senator 
Lautenberg, and by the sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Bilbray from 
California. I commend these gentlemen for their dedication and their 
tireless efforts to protect the public from unhealthy water conditions 
at our nation's beaches. And I am pleased that this time, we will send 
this important legislation to the President for his signature.
  The BEACHES bill advocates three simple principles: First, beach 
water quality should be monitored. You 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. And finally, if a health problem is 
discovered at the beach, the public has the right to prompt, accurate, 
and effective notification so that they may protect themselves and 
their families.
  In realizing these principals, 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 would be given the flexibility to tailor their monitoring 
and notification programs to meet local needs, so long as these 
programs are consistent with EPA's minimum requirements for the 
protection of public health and safety. In addition, the BEACHES 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 are subject to 
local monitoring programs, and those that do not. This information will 
be very helpful to many Americans for vacation planning, so they will 
know whether the waters at their favorite vacation spot are safe, and 
will choose accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this important legislation, and urge my 
colleagues to vote for its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the author of this bill and 
the driving force behind it all.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member, and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and Environment. I appreciate the bipartisan way we have 
approached this issue.
  I am glad to see the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
ranking member, here today who has worked on a lot of water quality 
issues over the years.
  H.R. 999 is really a bipartisan approach to addressing an old 
problem. What we have done is try to raise not only our environmental 
strategies to a higher level of outcome-based approaches, but also the 
political process here in Washington, to one of putting

[[Page 19506]]

the public's health first ahead of partisan bickering.
  It has been a privilege to work with the subcommittee chairman and 
the ranking members. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) 
has been a leader on this issue. The Senate has taken up the challenge 
after we passed this on Earth Day a year ago, and they have moved it 
along.
  I would just like to say sincerely that we are talking about a bill, 
H.R. 999, that will allow the American people to know when their 
beaches are clean, and if it is safe for their children to go in the 
water. They will be able to go on the Internet to see that, should one 
want to go to Ocean City, whether Ocean City be safe enough to be able 
to surf in this weekend. If one wants to go to San Diego next week, 
will it be safe at La Jolla, Imperial Beach or Coronado to be able to 
allow one's children, indeed, allow oneself, to get in the water and 
enjoy the waves and the ocean.
  It will mean that those from the Gulf to the Great Lakes will finally 
be able to say we know about our water quality and we know if it is 
safe.
  I would just ask every Member here to recognize that this is not just 
a victory for the environment, it is a victory for this institution and 
the system because, while we may fight and bicker about a lot of 
things, when it came to our children and our grandchildren's health, 
when it came to the safety of our communities and the safety of our 
families, Democrats, Republicans worked together on this bill. They 
worked together and found reasons to vote aye.
  I want to thank both sides for that kind of cooperative effort. I 
want to thank my colleagues for not only setting an example here in the 
House, but I think to the rest of the country that we can work together 
as Americans for Americans. I think people are going to look back at 
the Beach bill of 2000 and say, why do we not do more of that? Why do 
we not work together more? Why do we not help the environment together?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 999, on behalf of all 
surfers, swimmers, divers, sailors, lifeguards, and all Americans who 
love the ocean.
  This is a real triumph, not only for coastal communities and ocean 
enthusiasts of all kinds, but in fact for all beach users or visitors 
all across this country. We've been able to take a strong bill that we 
passed unanimously in the House last year, and make it even more 
effective, by taking the perspectives and real life experiences shared 
with us by local and state public health officials and water 
administrators, members of the environmental community, and other 
stakeholders. H.R. 999 reflects what can really be accomplished for the 
environment by working together in an inclusive and bipartisan manner, 
and I'm very proud of both the process that produced this important 
public health bill, and the fact that we are in a position here today 
to send this bill to the President.
  Mr. Speaker, we've come a long way since I first sat down with the 
Surfrider Foundation and the San Diego Department of Environmental 
Health to seek their input in the process of drafting what became H.R. 
999. Now, no longer will surfers, swimmers, and beach-going families 
and their children have to serve as the proverbial ``canaries in the 
coal mine''. H.R. 999 will provide coastal states with both the 
incentive and the financial means to develop and implement a specific 
monitoring and public notification program for its recreational waters, 
in partnership with local, state, and federal public health officials.
  This is a strong step in a new direction, away from a punitive, over-
regulatory approach to an inclusive and incentive-based process, which 
is tailored specifically to encourage the growth and implementation of 
testing and notification programs that meet the needs of individual 
communities or regions. What is most effective for water quality 
testing and subsequent public notification in New Jersey may not be as 
appropriate along the California coast, or vice versa. This bill 
recognizes the need for flexibility and partnership in developing these 
programs, based on strong and current science. One of the problems 
we've encountered in water quality testing in general is the use of 
outdated science and methodology; under H.R. 999, that science will be 
constantly under scrutiny and review to help ensure that the best 
available information is being used as the foundation for these custom-
made programs.
  The bottom line is that due to the implementation of this bill, 
families from across the country will be able to go to the beach with 
the expectation that it is either safe to go into the water at a given 
location, or that they will be properly informed if it is not. In many 
instances, families will be able to go on-line to determine whether a 
given beach is clean and safe before leaving their house, another 
example of how H.R. 999 uses current technology to better inform the 
public.
  Mr. Speaker, this is something I'm extremely proud of, but it has 
been an incredible team effort. I want to particularly thank my 
colleagues in both the House and Senate, who worked so hard and in a 
bipartisan fashion to help achieve this wonderful result we have here 
today. In the House, Water Resources Subcommittee Chairman Sherry 
Boehlert and full Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster, along 
with their counterparts Robert Borski and James Oberstar, have 
committed considerable time and energy toward this day. The committee 
staff deserve particular recognition for the considerable time, 
attention, and long hours they've focused on this goal, particularly 
Susan Bodine and Ben Grumbles of the Chairman's staff, and Ken Kopocis 
of Mr. Oberstar's staff.
  In the other body, Senate Environment committee Chairman Robert Smith 
made H.R. 999 a top priority of his Committee, which was already 
preoccupied with an active pro-environmental agenda, and I am very 
grateful for the time and resources he devoted to shepherding this bill 
through the Senate. This success was due in large part to the efforts 
of John Pemberton, Christy Plummer, and Ann Klee of the EPW committee 
staff, who did yeoman's work on this issue, as did Jo-Ellen Darcy of 
Senator Baucus' staff. I want to particularly thank my beach bill 
partner in the Senate, the senior Senator from New Jersey, Frank 
Lautenberg, who introduced the companion beach bill and has been 
working on water quality issues throughout his distinguished career in 
public service. The people of New Jersey will certainly miss his 
presence in the Senate, but the legacy he's helped shape with this bill 
will be a permanent reminder of his leadership. I greatly appreciate 
Senator Lautenberg's willingness to work together with me to craft a 
bill which will do so much for our own constituents, and for all 
Americans who enjoy the beach. He and Amy Maron of his staff have done 
their home state proud.
  There has been strong support for this effort from the environmental 
community since my other New Jersey colleague Frank Pallone and I first 
introduced H.R. 2094 back in the 105th Congress, which paved the way 
for H.R. 999. The Surfrider Foundation, the Center for Marine 
Conservation, and the American Oceans Campaign have all been strong 
partners in this shared effort. I want to particularly thank the 
Surfrider Foundation, for their willingness to work with me from the 
very early going, and stick with me, to help accomplish this long-
shared public health goal. I have to also thank Chris Gonaver of the 
San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, for providing 
critical input on the need to provide for a substantive role for local 
public health officials in crafting and implementing an effective 
monitoring and notification program that is tailored to fit a specific 
region.
  This kind of brings it full circle for me, Mr. Speaker. Coming from 
local government myself, and knowing how important it is to have that 
perspective and expertise applied to any effective environmental or 
public health strategy, I think that the path we have blazed with H.R. 
999 is critical for the success of our current and future environmental 
strategies. I can't think of any better result or legacy, than for the 
outcome and incentive-based approach of this Beach Bill, H.R. 999, to 
be used as a blueprint for the next generation of environmental 
strategies.
  Thanks again to my colleagues and all the stakeholders who worked so 
hard with me to make this bold step on behalf of our ocean environment 
and the public health.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Representative Bilbray on 
this bill, H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal 
Health Act of 2000. I also thank Representatives Oberstar, Boehlert and 
Borski, and Senators Smith, Baucus and Lautenburg, for their assistance 
on this legislation.
  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.

[[Page 19507]]

  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.
  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.
  The House passed this bill on April 22, 1999, by voice vote. The 
Senate passed the bill, with an amendment, on September 20, 2000, by 
unanimous consent.
  The Senate amendment does not make significant changes to the bill.
  Like the House-passed bill, the Senate amendment to H.R. 999 gives 
EPA no new regulatory authorities and contains no intergovernmental or 
private-sector mandates.
  Like the House-passed bill, the grant program established by H.R. 
999, as amended, 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.
  Like the House-passed bill, the Senate amendment to H.R. 999 also 
does not address control of pollution from point or nonpoint sources. 
It imposes no new mandates, unfunded or otherwise.
  Like the House-passed bill, the Senate amendment clarifies that State 
water quality 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 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.
  The House-passed bill provided that the information database 
authorized under section 406(e) is intended to be information on 
exceedances of water quality standards in coastal recreation waters 
only. This database does not address other matters. The Senate 
amendment further specifies that the source of that information is to 
be from State and local monitoring programs only.
  Like the House bill, the Senate amendment provides for EPA 
implementation of a monitoring and notification program 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. This 
means that EPA has the same flexibility that States are provided to 
target available resources to those waters that it determines are the 
highest priorities.
  Finally, like the House-passed bill, the Senate amendment provides 
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 
Senate amendment further clarifies in bill language that 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.
  I urge all Members to support H.R. 999, as amended.
  Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, for all 
of his hard work on H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and 
Coastal Health Act of 2000. I strongly urge that we pass this much 
needed environmental initiative today.
  As a Representative from California, with beautiful beaches 
stretching along the coastal areas in my district, I have seen first-
hand the need to establish national safety standards for monitoring 
coastal recreation waters. Beach-goers in my district and across the 
nation are often forced to postpone their recreational plans due to 
contamination by urban runoff or sewage spills. Swimming along 
California's shore should not pose a potential health hazard. However, 
in 1999, Lost Angeles County--including Long Beach--issued advisories 
or closed beaches 460 times.
  H.R. 999 addresses this problem by providing effective mechanisms to 
ensure that beach water quality is monitored and safe for recreational 
use. The bill amends the Clean Water Act to establish a grant program 
for states to monitor coastal recreation waters. It also sets a 
deadline for updating state water quality standards to protect the 
public from disease-carrying pathogens. I should also mention that 
updated water quality standards are not only good for public health, 
but also for the environment--cleaner waters mean healthier marine 
animals and protected aquatic habitats.
  Each year over 180 million people visit coastal waters for 
recreational purposes. I believe we owe it to each citizen of our 
nation to pass this bill and ensure that they can enjoy safe, hazard-
free coastal waters. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting final passage of H.R. 999.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) that the House 
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 
999.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was 
concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________