[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5655-5672]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      BEACH PROTECTION ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1083 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. 2537.

                              {time}  1404


                     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. 2537) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating 
to beach monitoring, and for other purposes, with Ms. DeGette in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2537, the Beach 
Protection Act of 2007. This legislation extends the authorization of 
appropriations for the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal 
Health Act, the BEACH Act, through 2012. First signed into law in 
October 2000, the BEACH Act has provided States, local governments and 
tribes vital funding for assessment and public notification programs 
that monitor our coastal waters.
  Over the years, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 
has held numerous hearings on EPA's BEACH program. In fact, the history 
of the BEACH Act goes back to 1990 when Congressman William Hughes of 
New Jersey first introduced the Beaches Environmental Assessment, 
Closure and Health Act of 1990. I applaud his vision for effective 
coastal water quality criteria and public notification, as well as the 
efforts of Congressman Pallone and Congressman Bishop, the primary 
sponsors of this legislation, to carry forward this legacy.
  As reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
the Beach Protection Act of 2007 increases the annual authorization 
level for State and local monitoring and notification grants by $10 
million and expands the eligible uses for grants under this program. 
For example, H.R. 2735 allows States to utilize a portion of their 
BEACH grant funding to develop and implement pollution source 
identification and tracking programs for coastal recreation waters, 
which will enable interested States to locate the likely sources of 
coastal water contamination.
  H.R. 2537 also encourages the development and implementation of rapid 
testing methods for determining where and when coastal recreational 
waters exceed coastal water quality criteria. These rapid testing 
methods are designed to ensure that the public is notified of potential 
harmful recreational waters within a few hours, rather than days as 
under the current system. This provision will have a significant impact 
on efforts to protect the public from coming into contact with 
potentially harmful pollutants and contaminants at their favorite 
beaches.
  In addition, H.R. 2537 enhances existing public notification 
requirements, including making beach warnings and closures available on 
the Internet. The bill clarifies that the public must be notified 
within 24 hours of the authority receiving results of contaminated 
water quality samples. However, because many States utilize a system 
where two contaminated samples must be identified before a beach is 
closed, H.R. 2537 also requires that a physical sign must be posted at 
any beach where the results of a water quality sample demonstrate the 
likelihood that the water may be contaminated. Again, providing more 
information and notice on the condition of the Nation's coastal water 
quality is essential to ensure that the public can avoid contact with 
potentially harmful pollutants while visiting their favorite beach.
  The bill also enhances EPA's review of individual States' compliance 
with the requirement of the BEACH Act by requiring the Administrator to 
conduct an annual review of implementation of the BEACH Act by State 
and local governments and to take corrective action if State and local 
governments are not in compliance with BEACH Act requirements. It also 
requires the Government Accountability Office to audit EPA's 
administration of the BEACH Act.
  Finally, the bill requires EPA to conduct annual compliance reviews 
of State and local BEACH programs.
  Later today I plan to offer a bipartisan manager's amendment to the 
bill to address several technical recommendations made by the 
Environmental Protection Agency and others that will improve the bill. 
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and 
the underlying legislation that I believe will make significant 
improvement to EPA's BEACH program.
  Much of our efforts are to provide additional safeguards for our 
families to make sure that they do not come into contact with 
potentially harmful pollutants and contaminants along the Nation's 
coastlines. I believe this legislation accomplishes what we tried to 
do.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I am very excited the House is moving H.R. 2537, the 
Beach Protection Act of 2007. This is an example of the good we can 
accomplish when we are able to work in a bipartisan manner to address 
the Nation's water resources needs.
  Beaches are an important part of American life. Our Nation has nearly 
23,000 miles of ocean and Gulf shoreline along the continental United 
States, 5,500 miles of Great Lakes shorelines and 3.6 million miles of 
rivers and streams. Beaches are an important part of the coastal 
watershed, providing numerous recreational opportunities for millions 
of people, including fishing, boating, beachcombing, swimming, surfing, 
sunbathing and bird watching.
  Each year, over 180 million people visit coastal waters for 
recreational purposes. This activity supports over 28 million jobs and 
leads to the investment of over $50 billion each year in goods and 
services. Public confidence in the quality of our Nation's water is 
important, not only to each citizen who swims, but also to the tourism 
and recreation industries that rely on safe and swimmable coastal 
waters.
  To improve the public's confidence in the quality of our Nation's 
coastal waters and protect public health and safety, Congress passed 
the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000, 
commonly called the BEACH Act in the 106th Congress.
  The BEACH Act aimed to limit and prevent human exposure to polluted 
coastal recreational waters by assisting States and local communities 
to implement beach monitoring, assessment and public notification 
programs. The act also called on States with coastal recreational 
waters to adopt pathogen-related water quality standards and directed 
EPA to conduct research and develop updated water quality criteria to 
protect human health. Under the BEACH Act, EPA has been making grants 
to States to help them implement programs to monitor beach water 
quality and notify the public if water quality standards for pathogens 
are not being met.
  An important indicator of progress to date is the fact that all 
eligible States are now implementing the beach monitoring assessment 
and public notification provisions of the BEACH Act. The number of 
monitored beaches has increased from approximately 1,000 in 1997 to 
more than 3,500 in 2006.
  In addition, EPA has strengthened water quality standards throughout 
all the coastal recreation waters in the United States. All 35 States 
and territories with coastal recreation waters now have water quality 
standards as

[[Page 5656]]

protective of human health as EPA's water quality criteria. This is an 
increase from 11 States and territories in 2000.
  Further, EPA has improved public access to data on beach advisories 
and closings by improving the agency's electronic beach data collection 
and delivery systems. Moreover, EPA has been conducting cutting edge 
research to support the development of new water quality criteria to 
protect human health from pathogens and new monitoring methods to more 
accurately and rapidly detect pathogen contamination in recreational 
waters.
  Faster and better decisions are good for public health and good for 
the economy and beach communities. We are optimistic that this work 
will help State beach managers make the best decisions possible about 
keeping beaches open or placing them under advisory.

                              {time}  1415

  Although EPA and the States have made substantial progress in 
implementing the BEACH Act, there is important work left to do in the 
areas of monitoring, research and updating the existing water quality 
criteria.
  Reauthorizing the BEACH Act will enable EPA and the States to 
complete the important work they have begun so they can better protect 
public health and safety and continue to improve the quality of our 
Nation's recreational coastal waters so important to the economies of 
our coastal communities.
  H.R. 2537 passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by a 
unanimous vote. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, 
Mr. Oberstar, and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and especially a thank you to 
the ranking member, Mr. Mica, for all the hard work they have done put 
in to allow us to bring to you a consensus bill that enjoys strong 
bipartisan support.
  I would also very much like to thank the staff. We have a bipartisan 
amendment that will be offered by Ms. Johnson at the appropriate time. 
It addresses technical and clarifying matters and other matters brought 
to the committee's attention since the committee filed its report.
  I urge all Members to support the legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kagen from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KAGEN. Thank you to Madam Johnson and subcommittee Chair Frank 
Pallone for putting together a tremendous bill.
  Madam Chairman, as a Member who has the honor of representing one of 
the largest States in the country that has shoreline beyond measure in 
its value, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection 
Act.
  This critical piece of legislation will increase grant funding 
overseen by the EPA for water quality surveys and for pollution source 
tracking programs, and it will also set a new standard for public 
notification.
  H.R. 2537 will take important steps to address the serious threat to 
public health and the economic vitality of coastal vitality of coastal 
economies in northeast Wisconsin posed by beach water pollution and 
human pathogens.
  I would be remiss, however, if I did not also recognize the exemplary 
job performed by the State of Wisconsin's Department of Natural 
Resources, who has been monitoring 34 of the 35 beaches in Door County, 
Brown County and Kewaunee County.
  While I am also proud to applaud the beach monitoring standards 
employed by the State of Wisconsin, this act will also improve upon the 
quality of these observations and heighten public safety. After all, 
clean water gets good health.
  Moreover, it will require the EPA to commence a study, identify 
potential revisions in the beach-funding distribution formula, which 
currently weighs the beach season conservatively, more importantly, 
than other factors such as Wisconsin's winter season not being 
adequately measured. Additionally, the bill will call upon the EPA to 
publish a list of pathogens affecting human health.
  In closing, I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 2537.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 2537, the Beach 
Protection Act, and I want to applaud Chairman Oberstar for his 
leadership in bringing this to the floor and working with Ranking 
Member Mica. Certainly our subcommittee Chair, Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
has done extraordinary work on this, and our ranking member on the 
subcommittee, Mr. Boozman, as well, for bringing it to the floor, I 
think, in a very bipartisan way.
  I actually was not in the Congress in 2000 when the original BEACH 
Act became law, but I really feel this program could have been designed 
with my district in mind. In Michigan, we are unbelievably blessed to 
be surrounded by the Great Lakes which provide incredible recreational 
opportunities for boating or fishing or swimming.
  Millions of Michigan residents from all over the world come to 
Michigan to enjoy our magnificent Great Lakes. In fact, there are more 
than 30 million people who find their way every year to our beaches.
  We also have some especially unique challenges in the Great Lakes 
region in regards to quality. Unfortunately, due to inadequate 
underground infrastructure, many areas suffer from combined sewer 
overflows during our wet weather events. We often see sewage discharges 
right into the Great Lakes, right along the beaches near big cities 
like Detroit or Chicago, other populated areas.
  My district faces additional challenges in that we have a very long 
liquid border that we share with Canada. In fact, on the Canadian side 
of the river next to my district is an area which we call Chemical 
Valley, which is the largest concentration of petrochemical 
manufacturing plants in North America. So we need to worry not only 
about discharges on the American side, but on the Canadian side of the 
border as well.
  Frequent and proper monitoring is a critical tool in this area to 
ensure that those who come to enjoy our State's natural beauty can do 
so knowing that the waters are clean and pure.
  The BEACH Act has provided resources to help State and local 
governments ensure that our beaches are safe for recreational activity. 
In many ways, the BEACH Act has been successful and this 
reauthorization bill and the bipartisan cooperation that went into it 
has improved an already outstanding Federal program, but I do believe 
that we can do better.
  A 2007 GAO report about the impact of the BEACH Act on the Great 
Lakes noted that there were some important successes, but also some 
areas where we need to improve. First, the GAO found that the formula 
EPA has used to distribute the BEACH Act grants does not accurately 
reflect the monitoring needs of the respective States. The EPA takes 
into account three factors to determine the allocation of these grants: 
beach season length, beach miles, and then beach usage.
  At the current funding levels, the beach season factor has a much 
greater influence than the factors of beach miles and coastal 
population. Great Lakes States, which have beach seasons of little 
longer than 4 months, lose out when compared to southern and western 
States, of course, that have a full year season, even though the number 
of people who use the beaches might be similar.
  Just an example, my home State of Michigan is disadvantaged by the 
minimal consideration given to beach miles. In 2006, Michigan, that has 
3,224 shoreline miles, received a grant out allocation of only 
$278,000. By contrast, one of our neighboring States, that has only 63 
shoreline miles, received $243,000. Due in part to this funding 
disparity, Michigan is only able to monitor 212 of its 905 beaches.
  I am glad that this legislation helps address this problem by 
requiring the

[[Page 5657]]

EPA to conduct a study of the formula for the distribution of grants in 
accordance with the needs of the States. EPA must report their findings 
back to the Congress and suggest possible revisions for a more 
equitable distribution of the funds.
  A second recommendation from the GAO report was that Congress should 
consider providing more flexibility for the grant so that they could be 
used to investigate and remediate contamination sources. Because of the 
increased monitoring, we are better able to predict which beaches would 
be contaminated.
  But most cases local officials do not know the source of the 
contamination and are unable to take the action to address the cause. 
If they did they would still not have adequate funds to address the 
issue.
  This legislation will allow States to use their BEACH Act grants to 
track sources of pollution. This change will provide the valuable 
information that we need to help clean up our waters and reduce 
pollution before it gets into our waters.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to 
yield to our distinguished Chair of the full committee for a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2537, 
the Beach protection Act of 2008.
  This legislation, and the underlying statute that the Beach 
Protection Act amends, are vital to ensuring that the public is aware 
of, and protected from coming into contact with, potentially harmful 
pollutants and contaminants in our coastal recreational waters.
  I applaud the efforts of the primary sponsors of this legislation, 
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, and our colleague on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Bishop, for 
shepherding this important legislation through the hearing process, 
through Committee markup, and to the floor of the House today.
  I also applaud the efforts of the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Bilbray, for his efforts back in 2000 to move the initial BEACH Act to 
the President's desk.
  The BEACH Act that was signed into law in October 2000 authorized $30 
million annually for beach monitoring and assessment programs and 
public notification programs for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. It 
required States and tribes to determine minimum water quality standards 
that were considered ``safe.''
  In many ways, the BEACH Act has proven successful in making the 
public aware of the presence of potentially harmful water contamination 
at local beaches, and has brought about a revolution in terms of States 
creating and implementing coastal recreational water monitoring and 
notification programs. The benefits we have seen over the last 8 years 
include uniform standards for coastal recreational water quality, and 
increased monitoring and notification of such waters.
  However, inasmuch as the BEACH Act has been successful in providing 
more information to the public, the Bush administration's track record 
on utilizing all of the tools contained in the BEACH Act to protect 
human health has been far less successful.
  For example, the EPA was given authority to promulgate standards for 
States that did not have sufficient standards as compared to those in 
the 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA was given 
further direction to continue to study the impacts of waterborne 
pollutants and bacteria to human health, and to revise the criteria 
every five years as needed.
  Unfortunately, EPA failed to complete this task, as demonstrated by a 
lawsuit by advocates for safe beaches, and more recently, in a report 
of the Government Accountability Office (``GAO'').
  This GAO Report, entitled ``Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made 
Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could 
Improve Public Health Protection,'' established that more work could be 
done to ensure the safety of our beach waters.
  Just this week, a Federal District Court judge in California ruled 
that EPA, again, violated its ``non-discretionary duty'' to complete 
required studies on revising coastal water quality criteria and 
standards. Even after losing a similar lawsuit in 2006, EPA continues 
to argue that the statute gives the Agency the discretion to ``conduct 
the studies as it sees fit.'' This is contrary to the law, and has once 
again been dismissed by the Federal District Court judge.
  Similarly, the Bush administration has failed to utilize the 
authorities and direction of the initial BEACH Act to ensure the public 
has the best, most accurate, and timely information on the condition of 
their favorite beaches. For example, the BEACH Act called for a 
creation of a ``National List of Beaches'' that would provide the 
public with information on which beaches had in place monitoring and 
notification programs, and which did not. EPA was given the direction 
to periodically revise this list, based on the availability of new 
information.
  I can assure my colleagues that latest list, published in 2004, is 
not the most up-to-date assessment of the condition of the Nation's 
beaches. Again, the administration has failed to utilize the tools 
provided by Congress to ensure the protection of human health and 
safety.
  Despite the current administration's track record, the BEACH Act is 
an important law for protecting the public from the presence of harmful 
pollutants and contaminants in the Nation's recreational waters.
  The Beach Protection Act, under consideration today, will further 
enhance these authorities by working towards real-time, same-day 
information on the condition of local waters to safeguard against 
unintentional contact with contaminated waters.
  Again, I strongly support the efforts of our colleagues in drafting 
this important piece of legislation, and urge its adoption.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey, who is the author of the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. I thank the subcommittee Chair, the gentlewoman from 
Texas.
  Let me say I appreciate the bipartisan support that this legislation 
has, and certainly the efforts, not only of Mr. Tim Bishop of New York, 
but of our chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and the 
subcommittee Chair, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, for moving this 
legislation today.
  Madam Chairman, our Nation's beaches are vital, not only to residents 
of our coastal States, but also for countless visitors who come to 
visit each year. America's beaches are a tremendous resource for those 
who come to enjoy them, and they are a huge economic engine for our 
coastal States.
  In New Jersey alone, beaches are the primary driver of a tourism 
economy that provides nearly 500,000 jobs and generates nearly $36 
billion in economic activities to the State each year. All summer long 
thousands of people flock to the beaches.
  It's my intention to assure that these beachgoers that are there in 
New Jersey and elsewhere, that not only are they visiting clean 
beaches, but they are also swimming in safe waters.
  Thanks to the BEACH Act, a law that I helped to author back in 2000, 
we have made major strides over the last 8 years. The BEACH Act of 2000 
helped us improve water quality testing and monitoring of beaches 
across the country, which is critical to protecting the health of 
beachgoers.
  The act has three provisions: one, requiring States to adopt certain 
EPA water quality criteria to protect beachgoers from getting sick; 
two, requiring the EPA to update these water quality criteria with new 
science and technologies to provide better, faster water testing; and, 
third, to provide grants to States to implement coastal water 
monitoring programs.
  In New Jersey we used some of this grant money to become the first 
State in the Nation to launch a real-time Web site that notifies 
beachgoers of the state of our beaches. Essentially, this bill is a 
right-to-know piece of legislation.
  Now, despite the actions New Jersey and other States have taken since 
the BEACH Act was signed earlier in the year 2000, this act must be 
improved. That's why I have introduced the Beach Protection Act of 
2007.
  This bill not only reauthorizes the grants to States for 2012 but 
adds to the annual grant levels from a total of $30 million to a new 
level of $40 million annually.
  We also expand the scope of BEACH Act grants from water quality 
monitoring and notification to also include pollution source tracking 
efforts. The bill requires that beach water quality violations are 
disclosed not only to the public but all relevant State agencies with 
beach water quality authority.

[[Page 5658]]

  I want to mention the rapid testing methods. This act calls for the 
use of rapid testing methods by requiring the EPA to approve the use of 
rapid testing methods that detect bathing water contamination in 6 
hours or less. This is something that I have been advocating for the 
last couple of years.
  Current water quality tests, like those used in New Jersey, only test 
for bacteria levels and take 24 to 48 hours to produce reliable 
results, during which time many beachgoers can be unknowingly exposed 
to harmful pathogens. More immediate results would prevent beaches from 
remaining open when high levels of bacteria are found.
  The legislation also requires prompt communication with State 
environmental agencies by stating that all BEACH Act grant recipients 
make decisions about closures or advisories within 24 hours in order to 
ensure coordination in response to activities.
  We are also requiring each State receiving grants to implement 
measures for tracking and IDing sources of pollution, creating a public 
online database for each beach with relevant pollution closure 
information posted, and ensuring the closures or advisories are issued 
shortly after the State finding that coastal waters are out of 
compliance, so, again, right to know, information to the public.
  We are also holding States accountable by requiring the EPA 
administrator to do annual reviews of grantees' compliance with BEACH 
Act process requirements. The Beach Protection Act will strengthen 
current law by requiring States to use expedited testing.
  This is a right to know for our beachgoers. It's very important, and 
I want to thank everyone on a bipartisan basis for supporting it.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, things that we do in this Chamber have 
consequences, and the things we don't do in Chamber also have 
consequences. Quite frankly, there are a lot things that we are not 
doing that are having immense consequences, things like renewing the 
FISA bill, the war supplemental, long-term issues like Social Security 
and Medicaid. We had another one today, the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement, which are things that will have consequences because we have 
not dealt with this on the floor.
  The internal combustion engine will be used for a long time to power 
pleasure craft on our lakes and beaches and waterways. The public 
policy decisions that we are taking in here and have taken in here make 
that use of those boats and jet skis much more expensive.
  Public policy decisions that are specifically aimed at increasing the 
energy costs to all Americans are things like raising taxes on energy 
companies so that they are no longer able to use that money to explore 
for and produce additional crude oil and natural gas, restrictions on 
where we can drill for these additional sources of crude oil and 
natural gas, and the gasoline that results from that to power our water 
crafts and jet ski, added regulations on the production of crude oil 
and natural gas, added regulations on the refining of crude oil and 
natural gas and the gasoline that can be used to power jet skis and 
motor boats and others, and even new regulations that are coming that 
will increase the cost of electricity to American consumers and 
American businesses.

                              {time}  1430

  All of these public policy decisions that we make in this House and 
have made in this House are specifically designed to raise the 
operating costs of all these vehicles to consumers in America. It is 
the elephant in the room that none of us want to talk about as we go 
forward with the energy policy that is put forth by the leadership of 
the current House. That is, they specifically want Americans paying 
higher gasoline prices because when you reduce supplies, as these 
policies do in the face of increasing demand, then the law of supply 
and demand works, in spite of our best efforts, and costs go up.
  As we have seen, gasoline prices are at an all-time high. This 
weekend, which will be a wonderful weekend to be on our beaches and 
lakes, using those watercrafts, the gasoline that will be purchased to 
pay for that recreational use this weekend will be much higher than it 
otherwise would have been than if we had taken rational steps with 
respect to energy policy in this country.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation 
which would reauthorize the Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal 
Health Act, or the BEACH Act.
  My district has over 1,600 miles of beach frontage on the Great 
Lakes, and the BEACH Act has been instrumental in providing funding to 
protect beachgoers from bacteria and other dangerous pathogens.
  Michigan residents rely on BEACH Act funding to protect them. In my 
district, residents on Sugar Island near Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, 
depended on this important funding to monitor water that had been 
contaminated with E. coli, coliform, and other bacteria. Without the 
support of BEACH Act grants, the Chippewa County Health Department 
would not have been able to determine that the pollution was 
originating from a wastewater treatment plant in Canada.
  This legislation would improve the BEACH Act program to ensure a 
fairer distribution of funds. In July of 2007, the Government 
Accountability Office released a report at the request of myself and 
several other Great Lakes colleagues. This report found that the EPA 
was using a funding formula that prioritizes States with warmer 
climates, ignoring other important factors such as beach miles and 
beach use. This formula put Great Lakes States like Michigan at a 
distinct disadvantage, making it more difficult for these States to 
protect their beachgoers.
  This legislation addresses this problem by instructing EPA to revise 
its funding formula to take factors such as beach miles and beach use 
into consideration.
  While monitoring water quality and tracing the sources of pollution 
to its origin are important steps to keeping our beaches clean, 
knowledge is only half of the battle. The July 2007 GAO report also 
found that while the BEACH Act has helped protect beachgoers from 
polluted waters, States still do not have the resources they need to 
clean up the pollution and prevent future problems.
  The latest survey by EPA has estimated that an additional $181 
billion is needed nationwide for infrastructure projects eligible for 
funding under the State revolving fund. I look forward to working with 
Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
later this year to address our water and wastewater infrastructure 
needs and provide resources for the State revolving fund.
  I appreciate the work of Mr. Pallone and Mr. Oberstar on this 
important legislation, and look forward to working with them as we 
continue to address important Great Lakes issues.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I rise to express my deep disappointment 
with today's debate in the House. With our Nation facing record high 
gas prices, the majority leadership in the House has chosen to debate 
legislation not on securing reliable and affordable energy, but on 
beaches.
  I suggest a better use of our time and the American people's time 
would be to have a serious debate about energy. How are we going to 
make energy more affordable in the short term? How are we going to make 
energy more affordable as the Nation needs to be more independent in 
the long term? What will be our primary fuel source in the future, and 
how do we get there?
  Instead, in recent months we have periodically debated shortsighted 
and fatally flawed legislation that purports to fix our energy problems 
simply by raising taxes by billions of dollars on

[[Page 5659]]

domestic energy companies and hoping for the best. That is not an 
energy policy, that is a tax increase on every American family. Energy 
companies will inevitably pass on their additional costs to consumers 
at the pump.
  We should be debating legislation to streamline the Federal 
permitting process that has stifled construction of new oil refineries. 
We haven't built one in 32 years. We could be talking about benefiting 
consumers by simplifying our Nation's fragmented gasoline supply. The 
number of regional boutique fuels restricts the movement of our fuel 
supply and raises costs on Americans at the pump.
  We could be debating the merits of opening Alaska's Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, and the Outer Continental Shelf for energy 
exploration. We know that combined these areas have nearly 100 billion 
barrels of oil. Previous Congresses, urged on by their radical 
environmentalist allies, made the decision to keep these vast reserves 
off-limits. As a result, we see oil now at $110 a barrel. It is time we 
revisit the very important issue of being able to go after resources we 
have available to us in Alaska and in the Outer Continental Shelf.
  What about encouraging the construction of nuclear power plants? We 
began that process in 2005 with the passage of the Energy Policy Act. 
But as we stand here today, we haven't built a new plant in decades. 
European and Asian nations are building them by the dozens. India has 
nine new plants under construction. Japan is building five more. And 
China has plans to build 30 reactors. We in this country have plans for 
exactly zero on the way.
  Let's talk about how we intend to compete with China, which is 
canvassing the globe in its quest to ensure a reliable supply of oil. 
Reports indicate that the Chinese are forming energy partnerships with 
rogue nations like Iran and Cuba. And Cuba is purportedly planning to 
allow the Chinese to drill for oil off the Florida Keys, off our 
Florida Keys.
  Shouldn't we be talking about boosting domestic production simply so 
we wouldn't have to rely on the mood of Third World dictators like Hugo 
Chavez? Wouldn't it be nice if prices didn't spike at your neighborhood 
gas station when terrorists decide to blow up a pipeline half a world 
away, or when there is instability in Nigeria?
  Some may argue, and they might well be right, that oil isn't the 
long-term answer. It is a finite resource that may be scarce in the 
near future as developing nations like China and India continue to 
expand and industrialize; maybe so. But shouldn't we consider boosting 
our oil and natural gas supplies, increasing our energy independence 
that might just buy us the time necessary to develop the next fuel 
source? Maybe hydrogen fuel cell technology will take us into the next 
century. Maybe it is some other renewable resource. It could be a 
combination, or maybe something we haven't even discovered yet. We 
don't know. We do know that America has substantial reserves of oil and 
natural gas that we have locked up, we have placed off-limits. These 
resources could be the bridge that allows America to cross over the 
choppy waters of OPEC and Third World dictators to the secure footing 
of affordable and secure energy sources of tomorrow. Let's talk about 
these important things. Let's not talk about beaches.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Beach 
Protection Act. This bill will increase protections for the Nation's 
beaches and the public health. I commend Mr. Pallone, Mr. Bishop, and 
the Transportation Committee leadership for bringing this important 
bill to the floor in a bipartisan way.
  Despite having one of the most comprehensive beach water quality 
testing programs of all the coastal States, my home State of California 
has by far the most beach closures and advisories of all of the States. 
The State reported over 4,600 closing and advisory days statewide in 
2006.
  This legislation builds on the progress made since the passage of the 
BEACH Act in 2000 to reduce the number of these closures which threaten 
public health.
  First, the legislation increases the funds available to the States, 
and expands the uses of those funds to include tracking the sources of 
pollution that cause beach closures, and supporting pollution-
prevention efforts.
  It will also require the EPA to develop methods for rapid testing of 
beach water, so results are available in hours, not days.
  Second, the legislation strengthens the requirement for public 
notification of health risks posed by water contamination. These 
measures will improve the public's awareness of health risks posed by 
contamination of coastal waters and create additional tools for 
addressing the sources of pollution that cause beach closures, 
including leaking or overflowing sewer systems and storm water runoff.
  I know some of my colleagues are trying to make this debate into one 
of energy and our economy. This is a bill to help protect the health of 
our beaches and the health of our economies. Safe and healthy beaches 
are strongly tied to our local economies. So I urge my colleagues not 
to be distracted by extraneous arguments.
  Clean water is an economic and public health necessity for California 
and for all coastal States. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
H.R. 2537. Let's take good care of our beaches.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I am of course pleased to support 
H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection Act of 2007, and appreciate the efforts 
of Mr. Pallone to advance this legislation.
  It is my understanding that this bill will receive overwhelming 
bipartisan support. It is going to be a totally green board, which I 
applaud. But it seems to me that the House has other, more critical 
issues to consider, such as the rising cost of energy which affects the 
success or failures of the traveling public to even reach the beaches 
of the world.
  Oil and gas prices are at an all-time high with national averages 
topping $3.25 a gallon. A year ago we feared a time when crude oil 
could reach $100 a barrel, and now oil has reached $110 a barrel for 
the first time in history.
  Unfortunately, energy analysts are saying that prices at the pump are 
not likely to decrease any time soon, and could rise as high as $3.75, 
maybe $4 a gallon this year.
  My constituents in the Fourth District of Texas, as well as all 
Americans, are very concerned about the ever-increasing cost of 
gasoline and diesel, combined with the escalating prices at the grocery 
store. It is costing them more to travel to work, and more to provide 
food for their families. They are looking to Congress for some 
immediate relief and some long-term solutions.
  The Energy Security Act that the majority passed and the President 
signed into law has some good provisions; but, unfortunately, none that 
will provide Americans the relief they need from high energy costs. Not 
one barrel of oil was provided in that entire act. There was no mention 
in the Energy Act of an increase in domestic production, which is one 
way to help bring down energy costs.
  This year marks the culmination of a research and development product 
which I have worked on and passed, I think four times as a Democrat and 
one time as a Republican, and it is the Ultra-deepwater and 
Unconventional Onshore Hydrocarbon Resources Act that was signed into 
law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  Nuclear energy has also seen a surge in recent years as people 
realize it is a clean and safe source of energy. But as with building a 
new refinery, the permitting and construction process is extremely 
expensive, and there are still significant risks to venture capitalists 
who would otherwise invest.
  Congress needs to reduce uncertainty in the regulatory process for 
permitting and construction of new nuclear plants, as well as oil 
refineries, by streamlining the process and requiring

[[Page 5660]]

the Environmental Protection Agency to issue its rulings within a 
realistic time frame.
  America needs relief at the pump now more than ever. Congress needs 
to jump start efforts to bring down energy costs in the short term and 
build on comprehensive energy policies that recognize the importance of 
all energy sources in the long term. Providing Americans with 
affordable energy is an important issue.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the 
Water Resources Subcommittee for yielding to me, and for her great work 
on the legislation, as well as the bill's sponsor, Mr. Pallone.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to enthusiastically support the Beach 
Protection Act of 2007. With over 75 miles of shoreline along Florida's 
well-renowned Gold Coast on the Atlantic Ocean, my congressional 
district relies heavily on its beaches to support both our economy and 
our unparalleled quality of life.
  But keeping our beaches open and thriving requires us to vigilantly 
fight pollution in our waters. According to the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, almost 2,700 beach advisory or closure dates were 
issued due to pollution for the State of Florida in 2006. Although the 
number was down from the previous 2 years, 2006 represents a record 
high for closing or posted warnings with over 25,000 such notices 
across our country.
  Madam Chairman, the causes for beach pollution are well known. It 
often originates from contaminated storm water or inadequately treated 
sewage, and the effects can be wide ranging and devastating, ranging 
from ear infections and respiratory ailments, to hepatitis and 
dysentery. For senior citizens, small children and people with weak 
immune systems, the results can even be deadly.
  That is why this act, the Beach Protection Act, is important. The 
legislation will reauthorize the BEACH Act of 2000 and increase annual 
funding from $30 million to $40 million, enabling more beaches to 
receive Federal grants to support State-monitoring efforts.

                              {time}  1445

  It will also allow States to use the funds to track and clean up the 
sources of beach water pollution so that we can prevent future closings 
and advisories from happening.
  H.R. 2537 will also speed up notifications of water quality. The 
unfortunate truth is that many beach managers are using outdated 
testing methods that are incapable of providing immediate, same-day 
results of water quality. This means that beachgoers sometimes don't 
even find out until a day or two after they return from the beach that 
the water they were swimming in was hazardous.
  This delay must stop. Our constituents have a right to know right 
away if the water is unsafe. And now that we have rapid test methods 
that can provide results in as little as 2 hours, the EPA must approve 
them and States must implement them, and this bill will require them to 
do that.
  The Beach Protection Act is critically important for our coastal 
communities and the millions of Americans who enjoy and visit them each 
year.
  I thank the chairwoman again for her work on it, and look forward to 
the passage of this bill.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member 
of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, Mr. Upton from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I must say, when I saw the whip notice 
this last week, I saw some good things and some bad things. One of the 
bad things that I didn't see was that we're not addressing what my 
constituents are talking about, and that is gas prices.
  Yes, this is a good bill, beach nutrition. It has water monitoring 
there, Great Lakes are now part of it, and I want to thank particularly 
the Members from the Great Lakes area who were able to include that, 
particularly my friend who represents the east side of Michigan, 
Candice Miller, on that committee.
  But as far as I know, this bill passed without dissent. Frankly, it 
could have been under suspension of the rules. I bet we would have 
passed it on a voice vote, two-thirds voting in favor of it. After the 
Flake amendment, maybe there are some that wish that it did come up 
under suspension so that they wouldn't deal with the Flake earmark 
amendment. We'll see.
  But, you know, my constituents back home, they're complaining that 
we're doing things that aren't maybe on the top of their agenda. We're 
talking about steroids, we're talking about a whole number of things 
that don't impact the economy or, in fact, their pocketbook. They're 
talking about gas prices.
  On Tuesday when I left to come back from Michigan, diesel prices were 
$4.11 a gallon. Gas prices, unleaded regular, $3.35 a gallon. I can 
hardly wait till I go back this week and see what they might have gone 
to.
  What have we done on this? That is their question. What are we doing 
about supply and demand?
  Well, I'll tell you some of the things we've done. We've raised taxes 
on them. Thank goodness we've got the Senate saying no so far because, 
of course, if you raise taxes on energy production here, those costs 
are just going to be passed along to the consumer and they'll go up 
even higher. Go talk to the French or the British and those folks. They 
tax gas a lot and they pay a lot more per gallon.
  There's some things that we haven't done. I know some in this body 
have advocated for raising the gas tax by as much as 50 cents a gallon. 
We haven't done that. Maybe, certainly I believe that's a good thing.
  But we've blocked using oil shale from Canada. You know, they've got 
a field up in the Northwest there that they think rivals the Saudis, 
that can actually heat up the sand and the oil comes out. They're 
actually taking 1\1/2\ million gallons.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
  Mr. UPTON. We need to do more. We are now, by 2012, our domestic 
needs, we're going to be only producing 12 percent of our gas here. 
That's got to change.
  Madam Speaker, let's not go to the beach and leave our work undone. 
Let's pass this bill, but let's deal with the real issue that Americans 
feel in their pocketbooks literally every day that they go to the pump.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to 
inquire of my colleague, Mr. Boozman, how many more speakers he has.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. We have several, Madam Chairman, probably five or six.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I reserve my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I wanted to read some quotes. This 
is a quote from Speaker  Nancy Pelosi, 4/24/06: ``Democrats have a 
commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''
  Another quote from Majority Leader Hoyer: ``Democrats believe that we 
can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with 
high gas prices.'' This was 10/4/05.
  On 7/26/06, Mr. Jim Clyburn, the Democratic Whip, said, ``House 
Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.''
  We need to see those plans. We need to hear what those ideas are.
  April 16, 2006, press release, Speaker Pelosi:
  ``The Republican Rubber Stamp Congress has passed two energy bills, 
costing taxpayers $12 billion for giveaways to big oil companies. But 
the Republican bills clearly have done nothing to lower gas prices, as 
the price of a barrel of oil has sailed over $70 a barrel,'' and I 
believe it closed over $110 today, ``the highest price in our 
history.''
  ``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new 
direction that works for everyone, not just

[[Page 5661]]

a few. Our plan would empower the Federal Trade Commission to crack 
down on price gouging, to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices, 
increase production of alternative fuels, and rescind the billions of 
dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to 
the big oil companies.''
  Madam Chairman, I'll say that we have not had any relief from gas 
prices. Gas prices are a dollar a gallon more today than they were when 
the new majority took over.
  We have paid too much attention to windmills, bicycles and solar 
panels. We need to pay attention to domestic drilling. We need to pay 
attention to promoting alternative fuels.
  We have been going in the wrong direction. And if you ask the 
American people right now, 78 percent of the people say this country is 
headed in the wrong direction.
  And, Madam Chairman, I promise you, our gas prices are heading the 
wrong direction.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to 
yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I'm surprised at the remarks, Madam Chairman, of the 
gentleman from Georgia, about bicycling. I think we need to pay more 
attention and do more work for bicycling. And we would all do better 
burning 86,000 calories a year on the seat of a bicycle than eight 
barrels of oil a year in our cars.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, on April 10, 2008, let 
the record show, oil is $110 and rising, natural gas is $10.56 and 
rising, gasoline and diesel prices at record levels in all our 
communities.
  Folks back home are scared. They want us to help them. An amendment I 
will offer later will help, the NEED Act, to this bill because it will 
provide the ability to produce clean, green natural gas on out, out of 
sight, offshore. It will provide $20 billion to clean up the Chesapeake 
Bay and the beaches there, $20 billion to clean up the Great Lakes, $12 
billion for San Francisco Bay clean-up, energy efficiency and 
renewables, $32 billion, carbon capture, the famous discussion in the 
Senate now, $32 billion. And it'll be mandated spending. The 
appropriators can't screw it up.
  America's economic future is in trouble. Energy prices will prevent 
people from having a job, having an economy and being able to afford 
their vacations and go to the beautiful beaches that we have.
  I think Roy Ennis says it best, chairman of the Congress of Racial 
Equality. Energy is the master resource, the foundation of everything 
else. Abundant, reliable, affordable electricity, natural gas and 
transportation fuels make our jobs, health and living standards 
possible. Energy is the great equalizer, the creator of economic 
opportunity and environmental justice. Push energy prices up, everybody 
suffers. When energy costs get too much, industry lays people off or 
just leaves. Jobs, income and tax revenues vanish. Government social 
programs wither. Town and leadership migrate to other cities, other 
countries. Social ills multiply. That's why I say the fight over energy 
is the critical civil rights battle of our era. Your utility bills, the 
price you pay at the pump, your job security are in danger, and not 
just because of the Middle East oil wars or competition from China and 
India. Our rights are being endangered because of what's happening 
right here at home.
  This Congress is the cause of high energy prices. There's no action 
here to fix the ills of the past. We're locking up our energy supply. 
It's not even to be debated. It's not even a priority.
  Congress is the reason America doesn't compete energywise. And, 
folks, in a period of time, we won't compete in the global economic 
economy, and we will not have jobs and a future for this country. We 
have the potential of being a second-rate nation because we, as 
Congress, have caused the energy crisis and are refusing to fix it.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I'd like to 
reserve.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield a minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. I rise in support of the Beach Protection Act. And as the 
Member who represents the entire Atlantic Coast in Virginia and much of 
the Chesapeake Bay, I recognize that our beaches are a treasure and 
must remain clean and safe. But we must lift the Federal moratorium on 
deep sea drilling of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf.
  America has acted to make our energy consumption cleaner, and today 
we use much more natural gas for the generation of electricity. We have 
increased demand without increasing supply.
  The U.S. is the only developed nation that does not capture natural 
gas from the Outer Continental Shelf. Canada has done it for years. We 
all know what Cuba's getting ready to do.
  It's American families and American businesses that pay this extra 
cost, and it is driving American businesses overseas simply because of 
the cost of energy in America.
  Coastal States should be able to decide if this activity takes place, 
and we should share in those royalties. In Virginia, we could use those 
dollars for transportation.
  America expects our policies to meet our energy needs.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma 
(Ms. Fallin) for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. FALLIN. Madam Chairman, I support the Beach Protection Act. 
However, while we are debating this legislation, millions of Americans 
are wondering why, in large parts of this country, they are having to 
pay $3.34 a gallon for gasoline, and even 70 cents more for diesel 
fuel. They're struggling to cover their costs of their daily commute, 
and they're wondering, why is Congress debating beach protection when I 
can hardly afford to drive my children to school and even to go to 
work?
  American families and businesses are being hammered by the rising 
fuel costs, and it is clear that the inaction of this Congress will 
come at an expense to both drivers, small businesses and consumers.
  The cost of our inaction was outlined yesterday when we had a hearing 
in our Small Business Committee about the rising cost of gasoline. We 
heard from five different businesses that testified how their 
businesses are being squeezed with the rising cost of fuel.
  One business, in particular, was a trucking company who said that his 
fuel costs had tripled in the last several years, and he was really 
struggling to make ends meet.
  Small businesses operate on razor thin margins and they are faced 
with dilemmas. Do they cut costs? Do they cut their business? Do they 
raise their prices, or do they just go out of business? Some of them 
are even having to cut the salaries of their employees.
  Well, Madam Speaker, fuel costs that are on the rise are making small 
businesses feel the heat, and consumers are feeling the heat too. Today 
we need to address the issue of rising fuel costs and help our 
consumers and our small businesses. Either way, the American worker is 
suffering, small businesses are suffering, and this is a very important 
issue to our Nation.
  Let's show the people of America that we care, and address this 
issue.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I continue to 
reserve.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  As we come to the floor now and the Democrats talk about beaches, my 
constituents in the great State of New Jersey suffer. They are 
suffering from unrelenting increases in the price of gas, up almost a 
dollar now since the Democrats took control of this House. So as my 
constituents suffer from higher

[[Page 5662]]

food costs, all related energy costs; as my constituents suffer from 
higher heating costs, all related to energy costs; as my constituents 
suffer from the higher cost of living in general, again, related to 
energy costs, all of them should be asking what is it that the Democrat 
Congress is doing to address this problem?
  Well, the short answer is nothing really helpful. And the long answer 
is really potentially driving up the costs even higher.
  Let me give you two quick points. First, the Democrats have voted 
four times now, four times, to raise taxes so to make sure the 
discovering and making sure that America's energy independence is that 
much harder. Secondly, they have voted now to lock up almost 85 percent 
of known specific energy resources in this country. What does that 
mean? What does that translate to the consumer? Again, the Democrats 
are making it harder for America to become energy independent from 
foreign oil.
  Now is the time for all Americans everywhere across this country to 
ask what is its Democrat Congress doing. The short answer is nothing 
much. The long answer is potentially driving up the cost for fuel for 
all of them. Now is, therefore, the time for all of us to come to the 
floor to work together for a change and to make sure that America can, 
in fact, become energy independent. Now is the time for Democrats to be 
working not against the American consumer, but for him instead.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I continue to 
reserve.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, we don't have any additional speakers. I 
would urge support of H.R. 2537. I appreciate the hard work of the 
staffs on both sides in bringing this before Congress today. I 
appreciate the leadership of the individuals involved and would just 
urge that we adopt the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Beach 
Protection Act, and I salute Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Johnson, and 
Congressman Pallone for their leadership.
  The intent of the Beach Protection Act is to protect America's 
beautiful coastlines from water pollution. Yet big oil drilling 
interests have once again filed an amendment that puts our beaches and 
America's coastlines at risk.
  New offshore oil and gas drilling represents a real hazard to the 
marine environment of the State of Florida, but all across the country, 
beaches, our coastal environment, our marine resources, the billion 
dollar tourism industry in Florida should not be sacrificed for a small 
amount of oil.
  It would only take 24 hours after a petroleum spill in the eastern 
gulf for the oil to sully Florida's panhandle beaches. If the spill was 
swept up in the gulf's powerful loop current, the spill would pollute 
the Florida Keys, contaminate estuaries and beaches from the Everglades 
to Cape Canaveral.
  We only have to look back to 2005 when we had three Category 5 
hurricanes, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, that caused massive oil spills 
and pollutants in the Gulf of Mexico. It destroyed 150 petroleum 
production platforms in the gulf and damaged 457 pipelines.
  Drilling off of our beautiful beaches is the energy policy of the 
past. If President Bush and my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle truly wanted to address high oil prices, you should have voted 
with the Democratic majority to take the huge tax breaks away from the 
big oil companies at a time that they are making record profits.
  We are fighting for a new direction on energy policy, renewable 
sources of energy. We value our natural environment, and we value the 
public health of our communities.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield the 
balance of my time to the chairman of the full Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I have sat here patiently and listened 
to a litany of speakers come here and address the Committee of the 
Whole on subjects important to them but irrelevant to the subject 
matter at hand. And one or another, maybe several of them, said ``this 
Democratic Beach bill.''
  I just want to remind the colleagues that this is the bill of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who has labored for several 
years on behalf of this legislation. We finally move it through 
committee, bring it to the floor, and now it's laid on our doors to be 
the Democratic bill and why are we wasting the House time. We bring it 
under an open rule, and then someone said, you should have brought it 
on suspension. If we had brought it on suspension, they would have 
complained because they didn't have an opportunity to offer the eight 
amendments that they're bringing to the floor. I am just perplexed by 
this tactic. It's unworthy of the legislation pending.
  And we've worked hard to accommodate the gentleman from California 
who has a legitimate concern. I concur with his concern. We bring the 
bill out, and we do it in good faith, and we expect at least a good-
faith response from the other side.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, while we debate a bill about beaches 
today, I am again appalled that the majority has once again missed an 
opportunity to address one of the biggest problems confronting our 
constituents, rising energy costs. It is reported today that gasoline 
prices reached a new all time high of $112 a barrel. Yet, we have let 
another week here pass without doing anything to confront this 
challenge.
  Not a week goes by when I am not asked about rising energy prices. 
These increased costs affect everyone in our society. But none are more 
affected by these increased costs than some of our nation's most poor. 
On average, the nation's working poor spends approximately 13 to 30 
percent of their yearly income on energy costs, and as prices rise so 
will the amount of their income spent on energy.
  A large number of factors combine to put pressure on energy and 
gasoline prices, including peaked U.S. oil production, increased world 
demand for crude oil, and U.S. refinery capacity that is inadequate to 
supply gasoline to a recovering national economy. These are serious 
problems that will not go away with time, and they require real 
solutions that will restore American energy independence and help ease 
the pain of record price fill-ups. However, the majority in Congress 
has failed to do anything that would address any of these factors 
contributing to high prices.
  When many are citing U.S. production numbers and refinery capacity as 
a reason for increased gas prices, the Majority has proposed additional 
taxes on these domestic energy suppliers. We have voted on several 
bills that would impose up to $15 billion in tax increases on domestic 
energy suppliers. These taxes will impede domestic oil and gas 
production, discourage investment in refinery capacity, and make it 
more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in America than 
their foreign competitors, actually increasing America's dependence on 
foreign oil.
  Let's make no mistake, an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy 
companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that 
consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed on to 
consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their 
energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises 
energy prices for consumers. I have voted against these attempts to 
raise taxes, and luckily none of these bills have become law.
  Unfortunately, too often in the 110th Congress, the majority's 
solution has been to place restrictions on the marketplace. Policies 
that increase supply, not those that place restrictions on the 
marketplace, are the solutions to today's energy concerns. For example 
the dramatic expansion of the Renewable Fuels Standard to require 36 
billion is an artificially created government mandate. While I am 
supportive of renewable energy, we should develop a policy that is 
technology neutral and allows the market to develop new sources of 
renewable energy. The RFS provisions create an unrealistic mandate for 
advanced biofuels technology that doesn't yet exist and creates hurdles 
for the development of second generation biofuels. These restrictions 
will undoubtedly lead to a consumer tax to help bridge the gap in 
production.
  However, there are many things we could actually do here in Congress 
that would help

[[Page 5663]]

ease the prices at the pump. Many Americans don't know that the U.S. is 
the world's largest energy producer. Over the past 25 years we have 
pumped 67 billion barrels of oil, and strong reserves remain. The fact 
is the energy sources are there--in Alaska, the Rockies, and offshore--
but political roadblocks keep it in the ground instead of in use in the 
economy.
  We should also be focusing on the development of clean Coal-to-Liquid 
technologies. This is one of the most promising advancements in coal 
research and produces liquid transportation fuels synthesized from 
coal. Even using conservative estimates, our country has enough coal to 
last over 200 years. Coal is one of our nation's most abundant 
resources, yet the development of Coal-to-Liquid technologies has been 
completely ignored by this Congress. Producing liquid transportation 
fuels from coal will be a major catalyst in helping our country become 
energy independent.
  Energy costs are affecting the daily life of all of our constituents. 
We must change the direction this Congress has been headed in 
addressing this issue. We must reject the politics that put 
restrictions on the marketplace and keep energy in the ground instead 
of in our gas tanks. Instead, we must develop a long-term strategy that 
allows us to access our traditional energy sources, while developing 
alternative and renewable energy sources that seek to increase energy 
supplies and encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use.
  Mr. GENE GEEEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection Act of 2008.
  Texas is home to over 600 miles of spectacular beaches along the warm 
waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
  This ``Third Coast'' includes some of the most beautiful and calming 
beaches in the Nation and is a huge contributor to our State economy.
  Whether it's Galveston Island, Corpus Christi, Port Aransas, or South 
Padre Island, millions of Texans and tourists visit and swim in our 
waters, making it vital that we monitor these beaches to protect the 
health and safety of American families.
  Just last July, a man who had an ulcer in his lower leg went swimming 
off the coast of Galveston County. Three days later he fell ill and was 
rushed to the hospital where he had three surgeries to save him from a 
rare bacterial infection. The bacteria entered his ulcer through the 
water and the infection spread to his blood.
  While this is a rare case, Madam Chairman, it highlights the need to 
quickly detect water contamination and warn the public of possible 
health related threats.
  The Beach Protection Act will provide much-needed grants to States 
along the coasts for State and local recreational water monitoring and 
notification programs.
  It expands the grant program and allows States to use funding to 
pinpoint possible sources of water contamination and to track these 
pollutants.
  Just as important, the bill strengthens public notification laws by 
requiring a 24-hour notification if water samples prove contaminated, 
and allows for public warnings on the possibility that water may be 
contaminated.
  With more information, individuals and families can make the most 
informed choices when vacationing and visiting our public beaches.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Beach Act to protect our waters 
and the health of our communities.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chairman, on behalf of the residents of 
eastern Long Island, I would like to commend Chairwoman Johnson and 
Congressman Pallone for their leadership and unwavering dedication to 
clean water issues. I would also like to thank the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee staff for their hard work and commitment to 
advancing this legislation to the full House today.
  My district encompasses 300 miles of Eastern Long Island's coastline, 
which includes some of this country's most popular and beautiful 
beaches that I am very proud to represent. Maintaining coastal health 
is an integral objective not only in my district but to preserve our 
Nation's environment and to sustain the tourist economies of our States 
that rely on safe, clean beaches. Millions of beach-going Americans and 
their families who will flock to our Nation's shores in the summer 
months ahead deserve pristine waterways, and we should do all we can 
today to preserve them for future generations of Americans.
  To that end, the water quality monitoring and notification grants 
established in the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health 
(BEACH) Act have been absolutely vital to protecting the health of 
beachgoers and preserving the quality of our shores. However, it has 
become clear that further development of the BEACH Act is needed after 
recent reports marked progress but raised questions about its 
implementation.
  Therefore, I commend Mr. Pallone, the author of the original BEACH 
Act, for building on the program's success by updating the law and 
advancing improvements in this bill to meet the challenges involved 
with carrying out the program and to continue funding its grant 
programs.
  Accordingly, this bipartisan legislation reauthorizes grants to 
states through 2012, but increases grant authorizations to $40 million 
annually; expands the scope of BEACH Act grants from water quality 
monitoring and notification to include pollution source tracking 
efforts; and strengthens environmental standards for water quality 
testing and communication. In addition, this bill requires that beach 
water quality violations are disclosed not only to the public but to 
all relevant state agencies with beach water pollution authority.
  Furthermore, this bill requires the EPA to conduct annual reviews to 
make sure state and local governments that receive funding in the BEACH 
Act comply with its process requirements. Under this bill, grantees 
have one year to comply with the new environmental standards. 
Otherwise, they will be required to pay at least a 50 percent match for 
their grant until they come back into compliance, in place of current 
law which allows the government to require a non-federal share of up to 
50 percent.
  For six years, the BEACH Act has given beachgoers the peace of mind 
that the beaches they visit are clean. Our legislation begins the 
process of strengthening this important law and reassures the American 
public that preserving healthy shores is a priority of our 
environmental agenda.
  One in ten tourists is destined for the beach this summer--providing 
our travel and vacation industries with customers and business. I hope 
my colleagues agree that the BEACH Act is an excellent example of an 
effective government program that benefits communities in every region 
of the country and has yielded tremendous progress in restoring healthy 
shores.
  Madam Chairman, with the leadership and support of this body, we can 
ensure that beach visitors throughout the country are assured that 
local governments have all the resources they need to monitor 
recreational waters and alert the public of potential health hazards.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 2537

       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 ``Beach Protection Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. WATER POLLUTION SOURCE IDENTIFICATION.

       (a) Source Tracking.--Section 406(b) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1346) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Source identification programs.--In carrying out a 
     monitoring and notification program, a State or local 
     government may develop and implement a coastal recreation 
     waters pollution source identification and tracking program 
     for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar 
     points of access that are used by the public and are not 
     meeting applicable water quality standards for pathogens and 
     pathogen indicators.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 406(i) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(i)) is amended by striking 
     ``$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005'' 
     and inserting ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012''.

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

       Section 8 of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and 
     Coastal Health Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 877) is amended by 
     striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2012''.

     SEC. 4. STATE REPORTS.

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

     SEC. 5. USE OF RAPID TESTING METHODS.

       (a) Contents of State and Local Government Programs.--
     Section 406(c)(4)(A) of the

[[Page 5664]]

     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(c)(4)(A)) 
     is amended by inserting ``, including rapid testing 
     methods,'' after ``methods''.
       (b) Revised Criteria.--Section 304(a)(9) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1314(a)(9)) is amended by inserting ``and rapid 
     testing methods'' after ``methods''.
       (c) Criteria for Use of Rapid Testing Methods.--Not later 
     than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall publish criteria for the use of rapid testing methods, 
     at coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar 
     points of access that are used by the public, that will 
     enhance the protection of public health and safety through 
     rapid public notification of any exceeding of applicable 
     water quality standards. In developing such criteria, the 
     Administrator shall prioritize the use of rapid testing 
     methods at those beaches or similar points of access that 
     have the highest use by the public.
       (d) Definition.--Section 502 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(25) Rapid testing method.--The term `rapid testing 
     method' means a method of testing the water quality of 
     coastal recreation waters for which results are available as 
     soon as practicable and not more than 6 hours after a water 
     quality sample is received by the testing facility.''.

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

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

     SEC. 7. CONTENT OF STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS.

       Section 406(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1346(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7) (as 
     redesignated by section 6(3) of this Act);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) (as 
     redesignated by section 6(3) of this Act) and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) a publicly accessible and searchable global 
     information system database with information updated within 
     24 hours of its availability, organized by beach or similar 
     point of access and with defined standards, sampling plans, 
     monitoring protocols, sampling results, and number and cause 
     of closures and advisory days;
       ``(10) measures for the immediate posting of signs at 
     beaches or similar points of access that are sufficient to 
     give public notice following the results of any water quality 
     sample that demonstrates an exceeding of applicable water 
     quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators for 
     the coastal recreation waters adjacent to such beaches or 
     similar points of access; and
       ``(11) measures to ensure that closures or advisories are 
     made or issued within 24 hours after the State government 
     determines that any coastal recreation waters in the State 
     are not meeting applicable water quality standards for 
     pathogens and pathogen indicators.''.

     SEC. 8. COMPLIANCE REVIEW.

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

     SEC. 9. STUDY OF GRANT DISTRIBUTION FORMULA.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall commence a study of the formula for 
     the distribution of grants under section 406 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1346) for the purpose 
     of identifying potential revisions of such formula.
       (b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Administrator 
     shall consider the base cost to States of developing and 
     maintaining water quality monitoring and notification 
     programs, the States' varied beach monitoring and 
     notification needs, including beach mileage, beach usage, and 
     length of beach season, and other factors that the 
     Administrator determines to be appropriate.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the 
     Administrator shall consult with appropriate Federal, State, 
     and local agencies.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the 
     study, including any recommendation for revision of the 
     distribution formula referred to in subsection (a).

     SEC. 10. PUBLICATION OF COASTAL RECREATION WATERS PATHOGEN 
                   LIST.

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

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose before the beginning of consideration of 
the bill and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each 
amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to 
be printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
  Are there any amendments?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I deeply appreciate the 
recognition, and I do appreciate the chairman of the full committee and 
the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Boozman, for the legislation we are 
discussing today; but I cannot sit idly by and listen to the people 
talk about the high cost of energy when there has been little action in 
this Congress, and I will say ``this Congress,'' the past Congresses 
and this present Congress about solving the high cost of energy to the 
American consumer, the $4 a gallon that they're going to have to pay.
  The last time we passed any energy legislation on this floor was 
1973. We passed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That's the last time. At 
that time, we were importing 38 percent of our fossil fuels. Today, we 
are importing 70 percent of our fossil fuels. Mr. and Mrs. America, 
keep in mind 50 percent of that fossil fuels is coming from countries 
that are not friendly to the United States of America. We are sending 
them over about $500 billion a year because this Congress, this 
Congress, has not acted to try to relieve the dependency on fossil fuel 
from abroad.
  Now some people will say, and I listened to the young lady, we are 
going to take up alternate forms of energy, and I'll buy that. I'll put 
the little curlicue lightbulbs in. I'll do that. I'll save and turn 
down the thermostat. I'll do that. I'll, in fact, drive my automobile 
slower. Most people do not. But that doesn't solve the problem of the 
energy we need to move product.

[[Page 5665]]

  The chairman knows full good and well, being the chairman of the 
Transportation Committee, our economy is based upon the ability to move 
product to and fro within this Nation.
  The ship it brings us is driven by fossil fuels. The truck, the 
plane, the automobile, the train is driven by fossil fuels. And if we 
continue to become more dependent, which we apparently are going to do 
under the leadership of this Congress, we'll be in the point where we 
cannot move our product, ship them abroad which we produce, nor receive 
them. Seventy percent, again from foreign countries.
  And yet we have a tremendous amount of fossil fuels, the United 
States of America, that's not being developed. It should be developed. 
Offshore. Chukchi Sea, there's more oil in Alaska than there is in the 
Gulf of Mexico at a relatively shallow depth. The coasts of California, 
the coast of Florida, the Rocky Mountains, the coasts of Virginia, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina has a tremendous amount of oil in 
the realm of about, I would suggest, 500 billion barrels of oil.
  That's available to the American public. But we have a leadership now 
in this Congress that believes that the world is coming to an end, led 
by Al Gore, that the world is coming to an end if we burn fossil fuels.
  I suggest respectfully, Mr. and Mrs. America, if we do not lower that 
price to the small business community and to the person who has to 
commute to their work site, we are in a dire shape in this Nation as a 
whole. We have to address this issue.
  I ask my colleagues, please quit buying this concept that we are 
going to do it with windmills and with sun power. Yes, we could use 
those things. Yes, we ought to use nuclear, and yes, we ought to use 
hydro. The wheel of energy should be developed, and this Congress has 
not done it. Has not done it. We have this idea we are going to solve 
the problem. Look at the energy bill we passed this year through this 
leadership. It produced nothing. Period. Nothing. That's why the 
consumer today, in America, is going to that gas pump, and by the way, 
it's a tax to him. Every man, woman, and child is paying $2,000 a year 
to Saudi Arabia and countries such as because we sit idly on our hands 
doing nothing.
  Madam Chairman, I suggest respectfully this Congress has to wake up. 
I listen to the political rhetoric of all of the presidential 
candidates, and nobody is addressing the energy issue other than the 
fact that we can't burn fossil fuels because we are losing the icecap 
and the polar bears are in danger.
  Think about this for a moment. Think about the American public and 
the need for economy-based, fossil fuel driven because it moves an 
object. We must address this. I'm asking my colleagues to understand 
that. Quit pandering. Quit pandering to the interest groups that really 
are trying to socially structure our Nation through fear.
  We have the fossil fuel. It is here. It should be developed. We 
should give the opportunity instead of restricting it, and that's what 
we've done in this Congress. In my state alone we have ANWR. It's 
passed this House 12 times. It passed the Senate once and Bill Clinton 
vetoed it. It's got about 36 billion barrels of oil available 74 miles 
away from an existing pipeline. And this Congress will not step forth 
and address that issue alone because they say it's going to hurt the 
environment, 74 miles away from the existing pipeline.
  Madam Chairman, I suggest respectfully let's get off our duffs, and 
let's do the job we should for this nation.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to come to the floor today to talk about an issue that is 
of vital concern and importance to the American people. It may not have 
been what the majority party wanted to talk about today, but it's what 
the American people want to talk about and that's energy.
  I don't know if anybody had an opportunity to walk outside the United 
States Capitol today, but you heard trucks with their horns blaring 
outside the Capitol, and they were doing so because they were objecting 
to the leadership in this Congress and the lack of action on energy 
prices and gas prices. That noise resonates across this land, Madam 
Chairman. Resonates across the land.
  I had a group of high school students in my office today, and they 
wanted to know what we were doing about energy. They'd heard that this 
Congress had passed the Energy Efficiency Act. They wanted to know 
about the particulars of that act. And so we reviewed the particulars 
of that act, and I said, how much more gas do you think will get to the 
pumps in communities across this Nation if we increase the taxes on 
American oil companies? Well, these are bright high school kids. They 
said, well, not much more. And they're absolutely right, Madam 
Chairman, because the Energy Efficiency Act that this Congress passed 
in this session, in this term, will produce no energy. No new energy.
  Mr. NUNES. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. NUNES. I was listening to your conversation on the floor. I want 
to reiterate what's going on outside. You made the point, but there are 
trucks driving through this Capitol right now trying to drive around to 
raise awareness to the people of the United States that the gas price 
is too high. And meanwhile today, we are debating a bill on beaches on 
the floor of the House while gas prices are soaring to $4 plus a 
gallon.

                              {time}  1515

  And so I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this up and 
for yielding to me because this is something that we should be debating 
on the House floor. We should be talking about energy, not talking 
about how we're going to save the beaches.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate your comments.
  And if you think about what has changed in the last 15 months in 
terms of leadership here in Washington, it's not the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue. The only thing that's changed during the period of 
time when crude oil has gone from $56 a barrel to $112 a barrel, the 
only thing that's changed in terms of the leadership in Washington is 
the leadership in Congress. That's the only thing that's changed. There 
must be a cause and effect here somewhere, Madam Chairman, because gas 
prices are increasing, and the leadership has been woeful in not 
attempting to deal with this issue.
  And so I would ask my colleagues to bring to the floor issues that 
are of paramount importance to the American people. The issue that's of 
paramount importance in my district is energy and gas prices. And this 
Congress is doing nothing about it, in spite of the proclamations and 
promises made during the previous election.
  So, Madam Chairman, there are wonderful solutions out there, there 
are positive solutions. Conservation: We can do a whole lot more to 
incentivize individuals to conserve. Utilizing American resources for 
Americans, there's a novel thought, Madam Chairman. There are 
incredible resources that we have. And we've got the technology and the 
American ingenuity to do it in an environmentally sensitive way, and we 
ought to. We ought to. This leadership ought to allow that kind of 
issue to come to the floor.
  And finally, alternative fuel. It's imperative that we have the kind 
of research and development and incentivizing alternative fuel 
formation in this Nation in ways that we've never done before, not pick 
winners and losers, which is what Washington tends to want to do, but 
to incentivize a system that would provide for wonderful, 
entrepreneurial, visionary, enthusiastic individuals all across this 
Nation who have the intelligence and the foresight and the desire to 
help America prevail in our energy independence.
  So, Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today with a level of 
frustration by the inability of this leadership, apparently, to address 
the concerns of the

[[Page 5666]]

American people, to address the concerns of those high school students 
that were in my office this morning, to address the concerns of those 
truckers, who continue out there outside the Capitol blaring their 
horns and saying, wake up. Wake up, Madam Speaker, wake up leadership 
in this Congress, wake up and address the issues that are of paramount 
importance to the American people. The paramount issue today is energy 
and gasoline prices, and we must, as a Congress, address that issue in 
a positive way.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. NUNES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NUNES. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing 
this issue up. And I know that the bill here today is this beaches 
bill, but the concern that I have is that we're not addressing the 
needs of the American people.
  When the Democrats took the majority, we were told that we were going 
to go back to 5-day workweeks. Last week, we were in 3 days; we did two 
votes each day. This week, we've only done a couple votes each day. And 
here we are doing a bill that now I'm being told we're not even going 
to finish the bill today, a bill regarding beaches, while we have 
truckers going around the Capitol honking their horns, trying to get 
the attention of the United States Congress, to get the attention of 
the Democrat majority to do something about lowering their fuel price.
  And the answers that we've received from the other side of the aisle 
are always the same answers: We need to repeal the tax breaks to the 
oil companies. Well, if we want to repeal the tax breaks to the oil 
companies, that's not going to lower the fuel price. As the gentleman 
from Alaska stated and the gentleman from Georgia stated previously, 
the way that you lower the fuel price and the way that you stop buying 
fuel from foreign countries is you have to drill in America. We have to 
drill for oil in America.
  I'm a big supporter of solar energy and wind energy, they're great 
renewable fields, but we get less than 1 percent of our energy from 
these sources. So if we want to talk about renewable sources of energy, 
we're going to have to look seriously at nuclear power. We're going to 
have to look at using the oil that we have in this country if we don't 
want to buy oil from foreign countries. These are the types of things 
that we're going to have to do in this Congress. But unfortunately, 
we've made this commitment, supposedly, to the American people that 
we're going to work 5 days a week, but instead we only work a few hours 
a day and end up working 3 days a week. Today we have to get out of 
here by 4, I'm told, because the Democrats don't want to stay in so 
that they can get on an airplane and fly home. We're not even going to 
finish a bill on beaches. And meanwhile, the American people are 
outside this Congress driving their trucks, honking their horn, asking 
for the attention of this Congress, and this Congress is not paying 
attention.
  We've got to do something to lower these fuel prices, Madam Chairman. 
The Democrats are in control, they're in the majority. We need answers. 
My constituents need answers. They need their fuel price lowered. They 
need their electricity cost lowered. The only way we can do this is by 
building nuclear power plants, investing in wind and solar power, and 
drilling for oil in America.
  And I would hope, as the gentleman from Alaska has stated over and 
over again, the last time we've gotten serious about drilling for oil 
in Alaska was 1973. 1973. And here we are, 35 years later, with no more 
oil production. Now we used to have at least half of our oil came from 
the United States, now we're less than 30 percent of our oil that comes 
from the United States.
  And we send money to Venezuela, we send money to Saudi Arabia, and 
the other side of the aisle complains about it. But their only answer 
is that we need to repeal the tax cuts to the oil companies. So in 
their last energy bill, what did we repeal? We picked the American 
companies. We repealed the tax breaks on the American companies and we 
gave tax breaks to the Venezuela oil companies.
  So I don't know what we're going to do in this Democrat majority to 
solve the country's problems. President Bush has said that he will sign 
a bill to drill for oil in America. He will sign any bill that promotes 
nuclear power. These are the answers that the American people need and 
they should demand from this Congress to have those answers.
  And I would hope, Madam Chairman, that this Democrat majority listens 
to the truckers that are outside right now honking their horn trying to 
get this Congress' attention. And I am happy that at least on our side 
of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, we are taking this 
opportunity, during a bill that we're talking about beaches here, but 
we're trying to bring to the American people, to bring to the attention 
of this Congress that we need to lower the fuel price, and we need to 
do it today.
  So with that, Madam Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, you know, it's interesting that we 
came here to talk about a beach bill, and we're finally getting a 
chance to talk about some energy because most American families are not 
going to have the money to drive to the beach this year.
  We look at the price of gasoline right now. And I earlier quoted some 
of the quotes from the Democratic leadership about how they were going 
to get a grip and get ahold of the gas prices and bring them down. 
Well, since they've been in the majority, they have actually gone up $1 
per gallon, oil has gone up about 100 percent. And what are we telling 
our people at home? I've got to go back and explain to the people of 
the Third District of Georgia that this week, rather than addressing 
the price of gas and our energy situation, that we did some beach 
restoration, which is a very worthy bill; we did some landscape 
conservation; we named some post offices; and we did some several other 
suspensions. But I've got to go back and tell them that, when they're 
standing there at the gas pump almost pumping $4 a gallon into their 
car, that they need to realize something, they need to realize what the 
majority plan for our future price of motor fuel is.
  The chairman, who I have a great deal of respect for, on the 
Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, who's been here a long time and 
is very wise, but he projected or at least proposed a 5 cents a gallon 
hike for our infrastructure and $1 per barrel on oil. The Energy and 
Commerce chairman is talking about a carbon tax. He's also talking 
about a 50 cent per gallon tax on fuel.
  We're talking about taking away these tax breaks from Big Oil. You 
know, we can take away tax breaks from anybody, but I'm telling you, if 
you take a tax break away from a company that is manufacturing products 
in this country, they're not going to just absorb that loss, they're 
going to go up on the price of their product. So we're talking about 
maybe 55, 60 cents more a gallon.
  So I've got to go back and tell my constituents, look, here's their 
plan: Their plan is to go up another 55 cents or so a gallon on your 
gas, another dollar on a barrel of oil, take away any tax breaks that 
the big oil companies have that hopefully they're passing on to you, 
and your Congress just spent $30,000 to buy 30 bicycles. So they've got 
a great plan.
  And I guess this is the great plan that we've heard about in so many 
of these quotes about how they were going to fix the price of gas. 
We've bought 30 bicycles at a cost of $30,000; we're going to increase 
the price of gas 55 cents; we're going to take away the tax breaks for 
Big Oil so they can go up, increase the price on a barrel of oil. We're 
not going to do any domestic

[[Page 5667]]

drilling. We're going to depend on changing light bulbs. We're going to 
depend on solar power. We're going to depend on windmills.
  Now, Madam Chairman, I just don't know how much comfort that's going 
to give the people of the Third Congressional District of Georgia. In 
fact, I don't know that if I tell them that, that they're even going to 
believe that, that this body, this House, that is their answer to them 
paying $4 a gallon for gas. It's just going to be hard for me to sell 
it. But if they will pay attention to what's going on up here, then I 
think they'll be convinced that these are the only things that the 
majority has brought forth.
  We need to concentrate on being less dependent on foreign oil. We 
need to look at our own future, our own lands, our own prospects of 
what we're doing. And as the gentleman from Alaska said, regardless of 
what you think about fossil fuels, we're going to be using it. And so 
we need to provide for ourselves.
  And I think it's a shame that each and every one of us, and I know 
we're going to be through by 4 o'clock because, you know, we do need to 
get home, but we're not doing our job. We're not doing the business of 
the people when we constantly go home and people ask us, help us, help 
me, help me be able to put gas in my car to take my children to soccer 
practice, or go to school, or go to the beach.
  So I'm going to go back and I'm going to say, I'll tell you what, we 
gave you some help. We're going to raise the price of gas and oil and 
we're buying bicycles.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, I, too, rise, sticking up for American 
families that are struggling with the high prices of many products 
right now, most of which I hear from my constituents in Nebraska is 
about the price of gasoline at the pump. I hear about the groceries as 
well. And of course then when I see a bill like this, the bill that we 
have up now about making sure that our beaches are clean and we have 
plans for that, unfortunately under the leadership of the House and 
Senate currently now, my first thought isn't well, that's absolutely 
right, we need to keep our beaches clean. My first thought is, is this 
another environmental tool to make sure that we can't get to drilling 
in places where we need to get?
  Now, the frequently asked question about gasoline prices is, what are 
you going to do about it? Well, we have a couple of options that I 
think could alleviate some of the pressure. One is, we can take the 
1970s actions done by the Nixon administration to simply set the price. 
We will set the price. We will freeze them; $3.30 at my home, we can 
freeze that. Well, what did that do? Created about a half mile line for 
gas. And then maybe if you pulled up to the pump, you might see that 
little white piece of paper that said ``out of gas.'' We can go back to 
that. But the gas prices would be stable. But running out of gas begs 
the question, the question is, what's causing this?

                              {time}  1530

  Now, obviously it's just simple high school economic supply and 
demand, folks. What we have is that oil that we have access to within 
the United States, whether it's ANWR or off the Continental Shelf or 
shale in Colorado or other pockets that have been made into public 
lands and thereby unaccessible, what we've done is adopt a policy in 
this country that we want to push the production or creation of fuel 
out of our country to foreign countries. That makes us reliant on 
foreign countries. In fact, about 60 some percent, about 63 percent, of 
our oil needs are imported. We use about 20 million barrels per day to 
meet our energy needs, and 14 million barrels per day are imported. So 
as other countries compete with us for that oil on the world market, 
prices increase. At the well head, just yesterday closing out the 
markets, sweet crude jumped $2.30, hitting a new record of $112.21, 
closing at the closing record of $110.87 per barrel.
  Now, we can ask what the solution will be. Do we just simply raise 
taxes on oil production, or do we say that it's part of our plan to 
make sure that we can become energy independent and secure this 
Nation's future? And I think the long-term answer can be the type of 
issues that we're dealing with, with alternative and biofuels like 
cellulosic ethanol, like hydrogen, but let's admit that those are a 
generation away if we make the commitment today. So what we need to do 
in the meantime is either be honest with the American citizens and say 
that our policy is to limit supply in a competitive global market, 
therefore, get used to $4 and then $5 per gallon of gas, or we allow 
the drilling to take place where we can produce more of our own 
resources of oil. And we can do that.
  I asked the question the other day, how much oil and natural gas do 
we have access to within 75 miles of our coastline? The answer is ``I 
don't know'' because we have been blocked from being able to explore 
that. We can't measure that. That's wrong.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

        Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 3, after line 8, insert the following:
       (c) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to section 406(i) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1346(i)) may be used for a Congressional earmark as 
     defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, the focus of the Beach Act is to ensure 
that citizens enjoy recreational activity in the coastal waters and 
that they can do that safely. That should be the focus of the bill, and 
that's where I think we should keep the focus of the bill.
  The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the purpose of the 
bill is not to protect vulnerable Members, vulnerable incumbents. And, 
unfortunately, that's been the case with a lot of legislation that we 
have passed in the past. It just simply becomes a magnet for earmarks, 
for Member earmarks, to protect vulnerable Members or to reward Members 
or to go towards Members in leadership or in high positions on 
particular committees.
  The Beach Act authorizes a formula-based grant program to help 
implement State and local beach monitoring, assessment, notification 
programs. What we don't want to see is money bled off from these 
formula-based programs to Member projects. Unfortunately, that has 
happened. And if we don't think that it will happen with this bill, 
then we have our heads in the sand.
  The purpose of this amendment is simply to say that none of the 
moneys authorized in this legislation will go toward earmarks, that all 
of the money as it is now will go toward formula-based funding.
  Now, some might say that the Beach Act has not been historically 
earmarked. That is true. That's how it should remain. The problem is 
some of the legislation that has not been historically earmarked is now 
earmarked. In fact, when we passed the Homeland Security bill, which we 
celebrated today 5 years after, we were told this will not be 
earmarked. This will be formula-based grants, it will be spread out, 
but it will not be earmarked. And for 4 years that remained true.
  But last year the legislation to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security had a boatload of earmarks in it. According to Taxpayers For 
Common Sense, the 2008 omnibus bill contained 128 earmarks worth more 
than $400 million in Homeland Security funding. According to a story by 
the Hill, 115 new earmarks worth $117 million were air-dropped at the 
last moment. These were earmarks that we said we weren't going to do 
anyway in a bill that we said we were not going to earmark. These were, 
obviously, to assist vulnerable Members.
  Many were earmarks in the funding for FEMA's Predisaster Mitigation 
Program. This was a program intended

[[Page 5668]]

to ``save lives and reduce property damage'' by providing funds for 
``hazard mitigation planning, acquisition, and relocation of structures 
out of the floodplain.'' In 2007 this program received $101 million to 
fund competitively awarded projects with no earmarks. According to 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, in 2008 this program received a boost in 
funding to $114 million, but nearly half of the amount, $51.3 million, 
was tied to 96 earmarked projects, including earmarks for projects that 
should not have qualified for funding under the program.
  So we could have earmarks in this beach program for projects that 
aren't even eligible under the formula-based funding that's currently 
here, and that's what we should all fear. This body has gone far too 
far over the past several years, under Republicans and Democrats, in 
bleeding off necessary funding for particular programs just to protect 
vulnerable incumbents during re-election or just to reward particular 
Members.
  Some people will say, well, we know in Congress better than those 
faceless bureaucrats in some department. Well, if that is the case, 
then we should have parameters. We should provide oversight. That's 
what this body is supposed to do. There is a process called 
authorization, appropriation, and oversight. And that's the process we 
need to follow, not circumventing that process by earmarking.
  That's the purpose of this amendment. I hope that we can all agree 
that this is needed to ensure that this program is not earmarked in the 
future.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. In the 109th Congress, we considered the 
reauthorization of the Appalachian Regional Commission. During 
consideration of the bill in committee, I proposed language to prohibit 
earmarks, which have been done time and again in the appropriation 
process, prohibit earmarks in the Appalachian Regional Commission 
appropriation process. The gentleman from Arizona supported my 
initiative, and I appreciated his support. It was the right thing to 
do.
  Unfortunately, the committee did not include that language. When the 
bill came to the floor, I worked to defeat the bill because it did not 
have that prohibition on earmarks, and the gentleman from Arizona 
supported my initiative.
  In the BEACH bill, or the Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal 
Health Act, proposed by the gentleman from California, with whom I 
worked on this matter for a period of 6 or 7 years, both in his 
previous seating in Congress and during the time he was out of service 
in the Congress and when he returned, it's a good bill. The initial 
BEACH Act authorized $30 million. About $10 million has been 
appropriated each year. And the money goes out by formula to the 
States. There have never been earmarks. In the Appropriations Committee 
nor on the House floor have there ever been attempts to suballocate the 
funds. Each State receives a portion of annual appropriations based on 
a calculation of each State's varied beach monitoring and notification 
efforts.
  Now, we know very well that $10 million is insufficient, and because 
money is insufficient for a bill, that's often why, Madam Chairman, 
Members come with a proposal for an earmark to designate money so they 
are sure that their State or their beach or their city gets their, at 
least, perceived fair share of funding.
  But it's never been done on this legislation, and we don't need any 
such limitation language. I think we have a fair formula, a specific 
focus on the base cost of the States of developing, maintaining water 
quality monitoring, notification programs, the mileage of the beach, 
beach use, the length of the season, and other factors that the 
administrator of the agency determines to be appropriate. That is fair, 
and I think Members of this body and of the other body recognize that 
it's fair; so they haven't attempted to tinker with it, and we 
shouldn't do that in this bill. This is a good piece of legislation, a 
fair piece of legislation.
  Look, we bring this bill to the House floor under an open rule. It's 
one advocated by a Member from the other side, a Member for whom I have 
the highest personal regard, and then we have a succession of Members 
standing here complaining that we bring a bill to the floor under an 
open rule that should have been brought under suspension. If we had 
brought it under suspension, I suspect the same people would come to 
the floor, Madam Chairman, and complain that we didn't have an open 
rule.
  So we're trying to the do the right thing on the right piece of 
legislation, and we ought not to gimmick it with this proposal that is 
totally unnecessary for a limitation on earmarks. We ought not to adopt 
this amendment.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for 
bringing that up because I think every bill needs to be brought to the 
floor like this, an open rule, so we can have debate. This is a breath 
of fresh air to have an open rule. I can't remember the last time we 
had one. So this is a great thing that we have this. This is our 
republican action in letting people, our constituents, hear our 
different views on these bills rather than just having it jammed down 
our throats. So I agree with the chairman on this, and I hope more of 
these can be brought under an open rule.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to yield to my good friend from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
  And I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, Madam Chairman. I 
could not agree more with virtually everything he has said. This is an 
important bill. It was brought here, and it has not been historically 
earmarked. That is great. We need to keep it that way. We need to keep, 
as he so aptly put it, Members from meddling in this. That's the 
purpose of this amendment, to keep Members from meddling with the 
formula-based program in the bill.
  It was mentioned that it's unnecessary because it hasn't been 
historically earmarked. I suppose the same would have been said had I 
brought the same amendment last year to the Department of Homeland 
Security authorization bill or the appropriation bill because it hadn't 
historically been earmarked. We promised not to do that. But yet we 
have earmarked between $500 million and $1 billion, hundreds of 
earmarks air-dropped at the last minute, never debated on the House 
floor, never debated, never an opportunity to amend them out. And 
that's what we are trying to do here is to protect this important 
legislation from the same fate.
  It was mentioned that we have increased the authorization for money 
in this legislation. That is true. We did that in the FEMA grants in 
Homeland Security and then earmarked it. We increased it by a little 
and then earmarked it by a lot. It doesn't take conspiracy theorists to 
say that this might be happening here, that maybe this is what is going 
to be attempted here, to start earmarking this legislation, to get 
these programs that are funded by formula to instead fund Members who 
need protection in their re-election or who need to be rewarded in some 
other way. That's not how we should do business.
  The purpose of this amendment is recognizing the importance of this 
legislation and making sure that Members don't meddle in it.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. And I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this 
amendment because a little ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 
cure. And so I think what we are doing, like he said, is just making 
sure that we are perfectly clear to anybody on the conference 
committee, or any other process that this bill goes through, that

[[Page 5669]]

we're not to air-drop these earmarks that we never get a chance to 
discuss. It is very seldom that we get to discuss anything on the floor 
in the manner that we are being able to talk about this beach 
restoration bill as we are today. And so I think it is a great thing 
that we are having this open discussion.
  Again, I want to comment that I hope that one day my constituents 
from Georgia's Third Congressional District, which is not that far away 
from the beach, will be able to have the money that won't pinch their 
budget to be able to drive to the beach. Right now in Georgia you're 
paying $3.29 per gallon, which is $1 more a gallon than we paid when 
the 110th Congress started. And we had all the empty promises and the 
smoke-and-mirror gadgets that came from the majority that they were 
going to somehow, that they had some kind of miraculous plan to lower 
gas prices.
  We have yet to see that plan. We've talked about raising the fuel 
tax. We've talked about raising the price of a barrel of oil. We've 
actually purchased bicycles. And we have done a lot of different 
things. But the price of gas and oil continues to go up.
  We had a bailout that caused our dollar to deflate. And that, itself, 
probably caused the price of a barrel of oil to go up. So I am waiting 
on that magic wand. I am waiting on that secret that Speaker Pelosi and 
Leader Hoyer and the whip, Mr. Clyburn, all talked about prior to 
getting in charge.
  It almost reminds me of a dog inside a fence that is really barking 
and yelping and wanting to get out and wanting to convince its master 
that it can go out and do the things that it wants to show that it can 
do. And then once it gets out of the gate, it just kind of lays down 
under a tree and scratches its ear or something.
  So I am ready for some action. I think the American people are ready 
for action. Bring out this magic plan. Unveil it. Let's see it.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I move to strike 
the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, this amendment is 
a proposed solution in search of a problem. The Beaches Environmental 
Assessment and Coastal Health Act, or the BEACH Act, which this 
legislation amends, was introduced to limit and prevent human exposure 
to polluted coastal recreation waters, including those along the Great 
Lakes.
  The initial BEACH Act authorized $30 million annually to assist 
States and local governments to implement beach monitoring, assessment 
and public notification programs.
  Funds authorized under the initial BEACH Act and under the 
legislation we consider today go either to the Environmental Protection 
Agency or are distributed to individual States on a formula basis.
  Each State receives a portion of annual appropriations which have 
hovered around $10 million based upon a calculation of the State's 
variant beach monitoring and notification needs.
  The committee is aware of the concerns that the current formula 
utilized by EPA for the distribution of grant funds may not provide for 
an equitable allocation of funds among States at current appropriation 
levels.
  Section 9 of this legislation requires EPA to conduct a study of 
potential revisions to the formula with a specific focus on base costs 
to States of developing and maintaining water quality monitoring and 
notification programs, the State's varied beach monitoring and 
notification needs, including beach mileage, beach usage and length of 
beach season and other factors that the administrator determines to be 
appropriate.
  None of the funds appropriated under this legislation go out to the 
States or local communities under a ``congressional earmark.''
  This amendment has no bearing on the authorities under the BEACH Act 
or EPA's beach program.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back.
  Mr. PENCE. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PENCE. I rise in strong support of the Flake amendment because 
the American people need taxpayer protection more than we need beach 
protection. Now I understand this is important legislation that 
Congress is considering today. And I do not rise to trivialize this 
bill. It has its moorings in and its heritage in bipartisan 
foundations. I rise, rather, to say that the time has come for this 
Congress to get serious in large ways and in small ways about the 
epidemic of earmarking that has taken hold of the Federal budget 
process.
  In fiscal year 2008, according to one estimate, legislation that 
passed in one catch-all omnibus bill included some 11,610 earmarks in 
all of those different appropriations bills in the course of the year 
costing taxpayers some $17.2 billion. It was the second highest number 
of earmarks any Congress has ever approved. It represented a 337 
percent increase above fiscal year 2007.
  What the Flake amendment says, in effect, is that none of the funds 
appropriated pursuant to this section may be used for a congressional 
earmark as defined by the House rules. Now, this is part and parcel of 
an effort by many of us that I believe, while it is being led by 
Republicans, I believe there are many in the other party who understand 
that earmarks is a cancer in the belly of the Federal budget. And we 
must address it.
  The Flake amendment seizes this opportunity and this moment of this 
legislation that says that should the Beach Protection Act of 2007 be 
signed into law, that at no point in the future may it be used as a 
vehicle for earmarking. And as the author of this amendment has 
suggested, we have been assured in the past before that those things 
pertaining to homeland security, the Department of Homeland Security, 
would not become vehicles for earmarking, and they have.
  And for my part, let me say this is not an issue that I am interested 
in demagoguing, Madam Chairman. For my part, through the course of my 
career up until very recently, I have requested earmarks and special 
projects for my district. But I must tell you, having negotiated when 
Republicans were in charge for earmark reform, having supported 
Democrat efforts for earmark reform, at the end of last year when I saw 
a catchall omnibus bill come to the floor of this Congress with 
hundreds of unexamined earmarks dropped in at the last minute in the 
dead of night that hadn't been subject to the scrutiny the American 
people demand, I knew it was time for a change. And so I had to tell 
the people of my district that I could no longer be a part of this 
flawed system. And I commend the gentleman from Arizona for his 
extraordinary leadership on this issue.
  I want to challenge my colleagues to support the Flake amendment. But 
let's just begin there. Let's support a moratorium on earmarking in 
this Congress. The American people know there is something 
fundamentally wrong with the way we spend the people's money, 
especially when it comes to earmarks.
  Frankly, I used an analogy not long ago, Madam Chairman, of an 
airplane. When you're flying an airplane through the air, and the 
meters on the control panel tell you that something is wrong with the 
engine, the first thing you do is put the plane on the ground and get 
the hood open and find out what is wrong. Well, many of us who are 
advocating an earmark moratorium believe the time has come for us to 
put the plane on the ground in a bipartisan way, embrace an earmark 
moratorium and reform this system in the way that Congressmen Frank 
Wolf and Jack Kingston have suggested in their commission format.
  And let me say, as I close in strong support of the Flake amendment, 
that there is enough blame to go around on this earmarking business. I 
recognize earmarking came of age under Republican control of the 
Congress. And I am not rising here to point fingers. I am, however, 
rising to say that we need to change the way we spend the people's

[[Page 5670]]

money. The only way we will do that is by embracing the bold leadership 
that Congressman Jeff Flake has brought to this Congress in connection 
with the Beach Protection Act, but it also means embracing a moratorium 
and coming together, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and 
conservatives, and saying we are going to push away from the table, and 
we are going to bring fundamental earmark reform to the American 
people. And that's my hope.
  And I urge support for the amendment as a first step in that 
direction.
  I yield back.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I agree with Mr. Flake and Mr. Pence about the situation 
of needing to earmark responsibly. And certainly earmarking to protect 
vulnerable Members, in fact, anything of that certainly is not for the 
good of the country and the good of Congress or whatever.
  I guess what I question is that in this particular amendment, in this 
particular bill, I think it is inappropriate. This program is a 
formula-based grants program that has not been earmarked in the past 
and there's no plans to earmark it in the future.
  We are not talking about beach restoration. We are not talking about 
beach reclamation. We are talking about a bill that allows States, 
allows beaches, to monitor pathogens so that when a family from 
Arkansas goes to Florida or goes to South Carolina, wherever they go, 
and they pull up, that they can, with safety, get out and swim in the 
waters without it being a cesspool. I wish that more people would sneak 
an earmark in the night to protect their beach. Again, that is not 
going to happen with this bill. It is not the purpose of the bill.
  So I would ask that we vote against this, and yet again I feel very 
strongly that what Mr. Pence is saying, what Mr. Flake is trying to do 
with his amendment is appropriate, but not in this particular vehicle. 
I don't think that it pertains at all.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes, sir.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his very thoughtful comments, 
which I fully concur. But I also would like to take this opportunity to 
compliment the gentleman from Indiana for a very thoughtful, reasoned, 
balanced and principled statement that adhered to the purpose of the 
amendment and stuck to the principle that the underlying amendment 
addresses. Though I disagree with the outcome of his reasoning, it was 
a very thoughtful and a principled statement, more of the kind of 
discussion we ought to have on this floor.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield back.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I, too, want to congratulate the majority party for 
bringing an open rule bill to the floor. It is a rare event. And 
hopefully our side won't wear out its welcome so poorly that this is 
the last open rule bill that is brought. I know it has to happen on 
appropriations bills, but we are not too excited about those coming 
later this year.
  I rise in support of the Flake amendment. It is a pretty 
straightforward amendment that, to quote an often poorly used phrase, 
the opponent doth protest too much. I have not heard anything really as 
to why it is inappropriate for this to be attached to the legislation, 
how this would cripple the legislation, how this would prevent the 
monitoring processes, how this would prevent the grant-based 
programming from functioning. I have just heard arguments that ``let's 
don't do it because we have never done it that way before.''
  And I am persuaded that under the Department of Homeland Security 
example, this idea of ``let's just, because we have not done it before, 
we won't do it in the future.'' And I would prefer to have a 
straightforward statement in this important legislation.
  We had an event this past year where a young man, although this 
legislation won't affect this because it happened in one of the lakes 
in Texas, where a young man had an amoeba-borne illness get into his 
brain, and it killed him. It was a freak and tragic accident. And 
obviously this legislation is aimed at trying to prevent similar type 
of occurrences on our beaches, coastal beaches I guess, but the idea 
that somehow because we have been pure in the past we will remain pure 
in the future. And our history here with respect to earmarks is 
anything but that.
  So as we look at the Flake amendment and why it is important, I hope 
that someone can rise to say, here is a mechanical reason why it is 
inappropriate to have this earmark restriction, this statement, flatout 
statement that I think both sides can agree on. Because while 
earmarking doesn't really fix the overall spending pattern and the 
overall spending problem that we have in this Congress, because 
everybody knows that the annual budget is set, and every one of those 
nickels that get allocated to the Appropriations Committee will get 
spent, and most all of this earmark churn happens within that number. 
And so to the extent that we do away with all earmarks, it really won't 
impact the total amount spent.

                              {time}  1600

  My grandchildren, of whom I have seven, have a $53 trillion debt 
staring them in the face because we have made $53 trillion in unfunded 
promises to each other, issues that we think are important to my 
generation and my parents' generation, but we are taking their money to 
pay for it.
  So anything that we can do to begin the process of restricting 
spending on issues like earmarks in this instance, on a bill that 
clearly works best on a grant-based formula, where the mileage of the 
beaches are assessed in each State and the money is parceled out that 
way as fairly as it can be, we can argue how much that money ought to 
be from time to time, but to expose it to the earmarking process I 
think is inappropriate.
  I hope, like I said, that the Members who oppose the mechanics of 
this can help those of us who don't understand the mechanics understand 
why an earmark restriction that the Flake amendment would put in place 
cripples and hamstrings this otherwise good legislation, because all of 
us want safe water to swim in and to play in, but we also want my 
grandchildren to be able to afford to address the issues they have in 
front of them some 50 years from now with their money. Quite frankly, 
it is going to take a Herculean effort among all of us here and 
everybody listening today to rein in that $53 trillion in unfunded 
promises.
  This House, as important as this legislation is, continues to ignore 
major problems facing this country, problems like the FISA 
reauthorization, problems like the war supplemental, problems like 
Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. We continue to simply let 
those slide, and those failed actions have consequences.
  We are going to add another one today, the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement. By refusing to take action on the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement, we have left more work undone as we go about all this 
business. All of that has consequences. As many of my colleagues have 
said, it has consequences on energy policy, it has consequences on the 
fiscal policy of this country.
  I think this is a simple step on a simple bill that would allow the 
fiscal operations of this process to go forward in an appropriate and 
in a correct manner. So, I urge my colleagues to support the Flake 
amendment, should we get a vote on that.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor also 
to speak in support of the Flake amendment. I was in my office almost a 
half-hour ago now when I saw the debate on the floor and my friend and 
colleague Mr. Flake was here speaking

[[Page 5671]]

about his amendment, and I thought I would come down to hear his 
closing remarks and hear the other side then say that they agreed to 
the amendment, because I thought, in essence, this was an amendment 
that both sides of the aisle could reach across and find unanimity and 
agreement with, if we believed the rhetoric that we heard last year and 
if we believe the rhetoric we hear oftentimes from the other side of 
the aisle about their desires to rein in spending, to address the 
earmark situation problem and to work with Republicans to try to deal 
with it, as we heard during their campaign to come to the majority, as 
they have, and now on the floor as well.
  To my surprise, and perhaps I should not be surprised to find that as 
of this time, a half-hour later into the debate on a simple amendment 
to say that we should not be having earmarks in this bill, a bill that 
never had earmarks before, the other side of the aisle, the Democrat 
side of the aisle, cannot agree to it.
  Earlier, when the general debate on this bill was on the floor, I 
came to the floor and said that in light of all the issues that we are 
discussing right now, it is amazing we are about to go into the weekend 
break discussing beaches as opposed to some other fundamentally 
important issue striking at the hearts and the wallets of the American 
taxpayers and the citizens of the State of New Jersey as well, one 
principally which was the high cost of oil.
  The Democrats have been in charge of this House now for almost a year 
and a quarter, and during that time we have seen the price of gas at 
the local gasoline stations go up by almost a buck. You would think 
that would be something first and foremost that they would be 
addressing. But, no, they are addressing a spending bill and beaches, 
as we have before us. Again, maybe I should not be surprised, because 
wasn't it Hillary Clinton who said that she has more ideas on spending 
than there are dollars in D.C.?
  Well, in light of the fact that the other side of the aisle, the 
Democrat majority, will not even consider to support the Flake 
amendment, which would try to rein in some of that wasteful, wanton 
abuse that we see in earmarks here, apparently the Democrat House 
leadership is taking a page from Hillary Clinton's playbook. They too 
have more ideas on spending than there are dollars in D.C. to spend.
  It was just indicated a moment ago, well, this is not the purpose of 
the bill, to do earmarks. Well, if it is not the purpose of the bill, 
then it should be an easy lift to support this amendment to eliminate 
earmarks from the bill.
  Secondly, someone suggested from the other side, well, if we are 
going to do it in this one, we should do it in all other bills like 
this. I agree, and I am sure Mr. Flake would come to the floor as well 
and say he would put this in any bill coming to the floor, to say we 
should not have earmarks, and I think he just rose to that point.
  Finally, the point was made, I think from this side of the aisle, 
well, it hasn't been done in bills like this before. What a better time 
than right now? And I commend the gentleman, Mr. Flake for bringing it 
to the floor. If not now, then when? If both sides of the aisle are as 
adamantly opposed to abuses of earmarks as both sides of the aisle say 
they are, why shouldn't they support the amendment by Mr. Flake?
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I believe that soon after this we are going to have a vote on this 
legislation. Again, this amendment is simply to preserve the bill as it 
is, to make sure that Members don't meddle in it. It is there to 
protect the waters and the beaches, not protect incumbents for 
reelection. That is what this is about.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 263, 
noes 117, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 55, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               AYES--263

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Clay
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--117

     Abercrombie
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Ellison
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)

[[Page 5672]]


     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--55

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boehner
     Boren
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Cubin
     Davis (AL)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Ferguson
     Fortuno
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Granger
     Grijalva
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Marchant
     McNulty
     Musgrave
     Payne
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rogers (AL)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Sires
     Skelton
     Stark
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Weller
     Wilson (NM)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Jackson of Illinois) (during the vote). 
Members are advised there are approximately 2 minutes remaining in the 
vote.

                              {time}  1632

  Messrs. WEINER, MURTHA, INSLEE, CROWLEY, ABERCROMBIE, Ms. WATSON, 
Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms. CLARKE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota, Messrs. MITCHELL, BRADY of Texas, TIM 
MURPHY of Pennsylvania, SPRATT, HALL of New York, and McINTYRE changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall 182, I was unable to vote 
because of pressing business with my constituents in my home district. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, April 10, 2008, I 
missed three rollcall recorded votes due to unforeseen circumstances. 
Had I been present, the Record would reflect the following votes:
  Rollcall vote No. 178--``yea''; rollcall vote No. 179--Rule providing 
for consideration of H.R. 2537--Beach Protection Act of 2007--``yea''; 
rollcall vote No. 180--Recognizing the fifth anniversary of the 
Department of Homeland Security and honoring the Department's employees 
for their extraordinary efforts and contributions to protect and secure 
our Nation--``yea''; rollcall vote No. 182--imposes a no earmark 
limitation on a formula driven EPA grant authority for State beach 
water quality monitoring and notification programs--``no.''
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Boyda of Kansas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, 
Acting 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. 2537) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
relating to beach monitoring, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________