[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12635-12636]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 27, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2311) making 
     appropriations for energy and water development for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my 
strong support for setting aside sufficient funding for Beach 
Protection projects, and to keep the current language in the bill which 
states that 65 percent of the initial construction costs of beach 
replenishment projects are to be financed by the Federal Government, 
and 35 percent of the costs are to be paid by states and local 
governments.
  The fact of the matter is that our beaches are national assets that 
deserve national protection. Just like our national parks, our beaches 
are not enjoyed solely by those who live near or on them. Just the 
opposite is true: our beaches are visited by tens of millions of people 
from all over the country. Foreign tourists come from all parts of the 
globe to visit our coasts and beaches.
  My good friend, Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, has offered 
an amendment today to strike language in the bill that directs the 
Secretary of the Army to honor existing Federal contracts with States, 
counties, and cities throughout coastal America. Under the gentleman's 
amendment, the Federal government would essentially shirk its 
responsibility, and shuffle it onto the shoulders of state and local 
governments, by switching the cost share ratio to 35 percent federal/65 
percent local.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, because it is bad national 
policy, as well as bad for local taxpayers in coastal communities.
  Mr. Speaker, the record is clear: states and local governments have 
consistently shown their commitment to assist in the preservation and 
replenishment of beaches along the Nation's coastlines. The proposed 
Federal change in cost sharing would result in the delay or elimination 
of several important Corps of Engineers projects, which would 
potentially increase the property damage from hurricanes and severe 
storm events. Additionally, states and localities would not be able to 
absorb the increased costs without raising taxes or cutting other vital 
priorities.
  Our nation's beaches contribute to our national economy--four times 
as many people visit our nation's beaches each year than visit all of 
our National Parks combined. And yet Congress provides copious funding 
for national parks--as it should. It is estimated that 75% of Ameicans 
will spend some portion of their vacation at the beach this year. 
Beaches are the most popular destination for foreign visitors to our 
country as well. The amount of money spent by beach-going tourists 
creates an extensive economic benefit--a portion of which goes back to 
the Federal government in the form of income and payroll taxes.
  So to suggest, as the amendment from Mr. Tancredo does, that beach 
protection confers benefits to only a handful of beach-house owners, is 
simply false. Just look at my own State of New Jersey. Tourism is the 
second greatest contributor to the New Jersey economy. In 1999, tourism 
brought $27.7 billion to the state. Out of the 167 million trips made 
to New Jersey in 1999, 101 million were to the Shore area.
  I would also like to thank the Committee for setting aside $413,000 
in funds to complete the next stage of the Manasquan Inlet Project, 
which extends from the Manasquan Inlet to the Barnegat Inlet and 
includes the beaches of several coastal towns in Ocean County, which 
are in my district.

[[Page 12636]]

  Additionally, the Manasquan Inlet is absolutely crucial the fishing 
industry and the general economic health of the New Jersey metropolitan 
shore. It is through the Manasquan Inlet that many large deep-sea 
fishing vessels gain their entry to the ocean and where they can return 
with their catch. Nearly 22,000 people are employed by the fishing 
industry in New Jersey, with an economic output of almost $2.1 billion. 
Protecting the beaches and preventing erosion benefits more than just 
the tourism industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of Congress to protect our nation's 
beaches, coastal communities and tourism industry by keeping the 
Federal/Local cost share at 65 percent Federal, 35 percent local.
  Vote ``no'' on the Tancredo amendment.

                          ____________________