[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6221-6234]
[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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2537.

                              {time}  1723


                     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 further 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. Jackson-
Lee of Texas (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, amendment No. 4 printed in the Congressional Record offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) had been disposed of.


     Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
     Texas:
       Page 2, line 5, strike ``2007'' and insert ``2008''.
       Page 2, line 8, strike ``1346'' and insert ``1346(b)''.
       Page 4, line 1, strike ``304(a)(9)'' and insert 
     ``304(a)(9)(A)''.
       Page 4, line 2, strike ``1314(a)(9)'' and insert 
     ``1314(a)(9)(A)''.
       Page 4, strike lines 4 through 16 and insert the following:
       (c) Validation and Use of Rapid Testing Methods.--
       (1) Validation of rapid testing methods.--Not later than 
     October 1, 2010, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall complete an evaluation and validation 
     of a rapid testing method for the water quality criteria and 
     standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators described in 
     section 303(i)(1)(A).
       (2) Guidance for use of rapid testing methods.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after completion 
     of the validation under paragraph (1), and after providing 
     notice and an opportunity for public comment, the 
     Administrator shall publish guidance for the use at coastal 
     recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of 
     access that are used by the public of rapid testing methods 
     that will enhance the protection of public health and safety 
     through rapid public notification of any exceeding of 
     applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen 
     indicators.
       (B) Prioritization.--In developing such guidance, the 
     Administrator shall prioritize the use of rapid testing 
     methods at those beaches or similar points of access that are 
     the most used by the public.
       Page 6, strike lines 13 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(9) the availability of a geographic information system 
     database that such State or local government program shall 
     use to inform the public about coastal recreation waters and 
     that--
       ``(A) is publicly accessible and searchable on the 
     Internet;
       ``(B) is organized by beach or similar point of access;
       ``(C) identifies applicable water quality standards, 
     monitoring protocols, sampling plans and results, and the 
     number and cause of coastal recreation water closures and 
     advisory days; and
       ``(D) is updated within 24 hours of the availability of 
     revised information;
       Page 7, line 6, strike ``meeting'' and insert ``meeting or 
     are not expected to meet''.
       Page 8, line 8, strike ``on'' and insert ``on the Internet 
     on''.
       Page 8, strike lines 10 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) Corrective action.--If a State or local government 
     that the Administrator notifies under paragraph (2) is not in 
     compliance with any requirement or grant condition described 
     in paragraph (2) fails to take such action as may be 
     necessary to comply with such requirement or condition within 
     one year of the date of notification, any grants made under 
     subsection (b) to the State or local government, after the 
     last day of such one-year period and while the State or local 
     government is not in compliance with all requirements and 
     grant conditions described in paragraph (2), shall have a 
     Federal share of not to exceed 50 percent.''
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 11. ADOPTION OF NEW OR REVISED CRITERIA AND STANDARDS.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, my amendment 
makes a few technical and clarifying changes to H.R. 2537, as reported 
by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on December 12, 
2007.

[[Page 6222]]

  First, it makes a technical change to section 5(c)(2) of the bill, 
substituting the word ``criteria'' for ``guidance'' to remove any 
potential confusion on the intent of this language.
  Second, it makes a technical change to section 8 to address potential 
constitutional concerns raised by the administration on requiring 
States and local governments to perform certain actions.
  The manager's amendment shifts the focus from requiring States and 
local governments to take certain compliance actions to conditioning a 
percentage of their annual BEACH grant should they choose not to take 
such actions.
  And, third, it puts in a statutory deadline of October 1, 2010, for 
the Environmental Protection Agency to complete its evaluation and 
validation of ``rapid testing methods'' for the existing coastal 
recreation water quality criteria. This significant improvement to the 
bill will ensure that same-day monitoring data will be available before 
the end of the decade.
  Finally, the amendment changes the requirement of section 
303(i)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act to ensure uniformity among States 
in the implementation of water quality criteria and standards.
  This amendment will ensure that should a State choose not to 
incorporate potentially new or revised coastal recreational water 
quality criteria into their own programs, the burden falls on the 
Environmental Protection Agency to propose regulations for such State 
setting forth the revised or new water quality standards. This was the 
structure of the original BEACH Act with respect to the first round of 
water quality criteria that should be carried forward to subsequent 
revisions to coastal recreational water quality criteria.
  The manager's amendment was developed jointly by the majority and 
minority staffs of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 
I am unaware of any opposition to this amendment, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Texas 
for offering this amendment.
  While this amendment makes some technical and clarifying changes to 
H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection Act of 2007, it also makes some 
improvements to the bill since the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure favorably reported the legislation in December.
  This amendment will require the Environmental Protection Agency to 
validate and prioritize rapid testing methods by October, 2010; 
encourage local officials to make publicly available within 24 hours 
the results of water quality samples; reduces the amount a community 
may receive if it does not take corrective action when waters are out 
of compliance with water quality standards; and encourages State and 
local officials to adopt appropriate coastal and beach water quality 
standards.
  I urge all Members to support the Johnson amendment.
  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 Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor in 
appreciation of the underlying intent of both the amendment and the 
underlying bill as well.
  But I am mindful of the fact, as I come from the great State of New 
Jersey and as we think about the issue at hand, and that is our beaches 
and the shores generally, I was just talking with someone recently that 
due to the high cost of energy and the high cost of gasoline, a lot of 
my constituents, quite honestly, won't be able to even enjoy the Jersey 
shore this summer, to ``go down below,'' as we call it, down to the 
Jersey shore to enjoy it and enjoy whatever improvements that this 
amendment, which I support, and the underlying bill, which I support, 
would bring to us.
  So the point I just want to spend a moment on is the fact that while 
we debate these tertiary issues, the fundamental issue that folks back 
in my district are concerned about is how are we going to afford in the 
first place to get about our State of New Jersey, to get to the shore, 
to enjoy our vacation, to enjoy the beaches if Congress is not doing 
anything whatsoever to address the high cost of gasoline and to address 
the high cost of energy in the State of New Jersey and the rest of the 
country as well.

                              {time}  1730

  Here we are now in the ides of April, the middle of April. This is 
about, let's see, 12, 13, 14, 15, the 16th month now into this, the 
110th Congress under the Democrat leadership. And we have to ask 
ourselves one seminal question, one basic question: What has the 16th 
month of Democrat leadership brought us in a whole host of areas? And I 
will get to the energy issue in a minute.
  Well, we see in the area of food prices, my constituents also tell me 
that the price of food, when they go to the A&P or the grocery stores 
every day, whatever the store is, are going through the roof. The 
housing crisis. We will go to any committee here. I serve on the 
Financial Services Committee. We know we are in a terrible housing 
crisis right now, a subprime crisis affecting credit markets across the 
country. Fuel costs I have already mentioned. A recession. You know, 
for the first time in years, we're talking about an economic recession. 
For all the time that the Republicans were in control of this House and 
in control of this government, we saw that they were in booming 
economic times. Sixteen months now into the 110th Congress in a 
Democrat leadership, off the map on food costs, housing costs, into 
recession. If that has happened in 16 months, we wonder what will 
happen if they have another 16 months.
  So I would ask whether this Congress could do what my constituents 
are asking us to do. Maybe address these issues such as beach issues 
and where we can go on vacation, but can we do those after we get to 
the more seminal issues, the more fundamental issues, issues that 
strike at the heart of where America is living right now, issues that 
strike at, well, their pocketbook and where their money is really going 
to right now, and that is energy costs.
  The other day I just drove out in my driveway of my house. I went 
down to the main road. And there at the gas station, the price of a 
gallon of diesel fuel was $4 a gallon. Amazing. $4 a gallon. That means 
that truckers--those same truckers who have to get down to the Jersey 
Shore to bring supplies and what have you for vacationers who want to 
enjoy the beaches and what have you--truckers, I am told, have to spend 
upwards of $1,000 to fill up their diesel tanks in their trucks to get 
about our State.
  New Jersey is a commuter State. New Jersey is a hub State, a 
transportation State. Unless Congress is ready to commit itself to 
really fundamentally look at the underlying causes of the high cost of 
energy, of the high cost of gasoline, of the high cost of diesel fuel, 
unless we are ready to work across both sides of the aisle on these 
issues, these other issues will come to naught, will be of little 
importance to my constituents if they are stranded at home, if their 
husbands or their wives don't have jobs because they can't afford to 
put gas into the car or diesel into the trucks.
  So I just come to the floor to raise these issues now and ask that, 
as important as these beach issues are, can we not really begin to 
address what the constituents are addressing?
  Later on in the evening, I would like to say that there are some 
solutions, there are some solutions that the American public would like 
us to begin to address. There are some answers to the fundamental 
reasons of why the price of gasoline and diesel fuel is going through 
the roof. There are some basic changes that Congress, this Congress, 
could be making right now to the energy supply in this country that 
would help to drive down the cost of

[[Page 6223]]

energy in this country so that Americans, families in my district and 
in yours, will be able to address this problem and not have a problem 
of high energy cost anymore.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank and congratulate 
the gentlelady from the great State of Texas for this amendment. As she 
knows, it really reflects a strategy that has worked since 2000 when we 
did the original bill. And I want to thank her as the original author 
of this bill.
  And with this amendment, it brings in that cooperative effort between 
the local government and the Federal Government. Both the gentlelady 
from Texas and my background show that that kind of cooperative effort 
has been essential for the success of the BEACH bill for these last 7 
years, 8 years now.
  The bill really does, with the amendment, talk about the fact that 
the best people to take care of the local environment are the local 
people, that Washington needs to be here supporting and encouraging 
local people to take control of their own environment.
  I think of the old statement that we used back in the sixties and 
seventies of ``acting locally.'' It was essential for any success that 
we're going to have with environmental activities. This bill actually 
builds on that success that we have had in the past.
  A note of personal interest, Madam Chairman, is that you never know 
when and how your own legislation may affect you. And as the author of 
this bill from 2000, it was interesting to see that when my children 
were on the computer, they were not just checking out the water quality 
and if the beaches were open. They were also looking at real-time 
cameras to see how the surf was that day. How we would have loved to 
have had that in the sixties when we were growing up that you could 
actually look out on the water to see not only how good the surf was, 
but to also see how clean the water was. And with this bill, that is 
possible.
  And so I appreciate the amendment by the gentlelady from Texas. I 
strongly support it. And hopefully we will be able to get this bill 
back to the President and get it signed as soon as possible.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I too want to thank the gentlelady for this 
commonsense amendment. I think it does put the responsibility, at least 
partially, back on those local governments to control themselves. But 
it is for the same reason that the gentleman from New Jersey got up. My 
constituents also are concerned about the ability to go to the beaches. 
No matter how clean we can make them, if they can't get there, then 
they can't enjoy them.
  And we had demonstrations the other day, Madam Chairman. We saw 
truckers driving around the Capitol, at least along the highway here, 
protesting the price of diesel fuel. And diesel is over $4 a gallon. 
And it's costing some of these truckers, independent businesspeople, 
over $1,000 to fill their trucks up.
  And we've had some promises. And those seem to be empty promises that 
we've had. And I wanted to come today because, as you know, the average 
price of gas today is about $3.44 a gallon. The price of a barrel of 
oil is $114 a barrel. And I wanted to just kind of remind some people, 
maybe we have forgotten that we have had some promises made to the 
American people to really bring about some change in our government.
  I want to read a press release that was dated September 21, 2005 by 
Speaker Pelosi. ``This is of the highest priority to our House 
Democratic Caucus because it is a high priority for America's working 
families. Some people have to work 2 more hours a day to cover the cost 
of gas that takes them to work, if they are making minimum wage.''
  Well, we raised the minimum wage, but gas has gone up well over $1 a 
gallon since the Democrats took control and since Ms. Pelosi became 
Speaker.
  September 28, 2005, another press release by the then-Minority Leader 
Pelosi, ``Democrats have been working for months to bring down the 
price of gas at the pump and home heating oil.''
  Well, you've been in charge for 16 months, and I don't see what we 
have done to bring down the price of gas or the price of oil, except we 
have had some hearings where we question the heads of the oil companies 
about the profits they are making.
  The point is, is that gas has gotten so high that the average person 
is now having to look at exactly where and what meets the best needs of 
their family, if they can go to the grocery store or not. That is a 
consideration that it seems like the Democratic leadership wanted to 
have for the working family. So why are we doing that? We are spending 
a lot of time on other issues. But we need to be working on this, 
something that affects the everyday person.
  April 18, 2006, in another press release, Ms. Pelosi said: ``But the 
Republican bills clearly have done nothing to lower gas prices, as the 
price of a barrel of oil today has settled above $70 a barrel.'' Man, 
don't we wish for those days again? At the time it was the highest 
price in history.
  Here is the quote that I think that we really need to get an answer 
to. ``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a 
new direction.''
  There is a new direction. And there is a song that goes with that 
direction. But I don't see a new direction. Or if we were going in a 
new direction, it's the wrong direction. Where is the Democratic plan 
for lower gas prices? Is it on the shelf somewhere? Are we saving it 
for a time when gas gets above $4 a gallon? Five dollars a gallon? What 
are we saving the plan for?
  Let's bring the plan out tomorrow. Let's vote on it tomorrow. You can 
waive the rules. As we have seen in this Congress, we can change the 
rules at any time that it's convenient when we need it, and we really 
don't have to pay attention to the rules we adopted when you became the 
majority.
  So why don't we bring out this plan? Why don't we have a plan that 
tomorrow we can tell the American people that the Democrats are going 
to finally unveil the plan?
  Now the plan that we have heard so far from the Energy and Commerce 
chairman, Mr. Dingell, is to raise the price of the motor fuel tax 50 
cents a gallon. That just doesn't sound like a good plan. One of the 
other plans that we had was to buy 30 bicycles at a cost of $30,000. I 
don't know that that's the plan that the American hardworking family is 
looking for. I mean, I live in Grantville, Georgia, and I would love to 
ride a bicycle to work, but that would take me quite a bit of time. I 
don't know. It might take 24 hours for me to ride a bicycle to work. 
But I don't know how families are going to ride bicycles to work to get 
groceries, or to go to the store, or whatever they have to do. Riding 
bicycles to me is just not that new plan.
  Now if that is the Democrats' plan, then let's go ahead and unveil it 
and let the American people see it. I think they want to know what it 
is.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
  This amendment makes several technical and clarifying changes to the 
Beach Protection Act, as reported by the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  These changes further improve the underlying bill, and will greatly 
assist in providing the public with clearer, quicker, and hopefully, 
more accurate information on the quality of our Nation's coastal 
recreational waters.
  Madam Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to reach agreement 
within the Committee on establishing a hard deadline for the 
Environmental Protection Agency to complete its evaluation and 
validation of a rapid testing methodology for testing coastal 
recreation waters.
  As recognized by the sponsors of this legislation, we need to move 
away from two-to-three day delays in obtaining information on the 
quality of our waters, and towards real-time, same-day information. It 
does no one

[[Page 6224]]

any good to know that the waters were unsafe for swimming yesterday--
yesterday is too late.
  We want to know what the conditions of waters are today--before we 
decide to take ourselves and our families to the beach for the day. 
This amendment will move us in the direction of providing same-day 
information on the condition of our recreational waters, and give our 
citizens the option of avoiding contact with waters that could be 
potentially harmful to their health.
  The Manager's amendment was developed jointly by the majority and 
minority staffs of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
  I am unaware of any opposition to this amendment, and urge its 
adoption.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Bilbray

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Bilbray:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 11. USE OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS FOR MONITORING AND 
                   ASSESSING COASTAL RECREATION WATERS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall conduct a study to assess the 
     benefits of using molecular diagnostics for monitoring and 
     assessing the quality of coastal recreation waters adjacent 
     to beaches and similar points of access that are used by the 
     public.
       (b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Administrator 
     shall--
       (1) to the extent practicable, evaluate the full range of 
     available rapid testing methods, as defined by section 502 of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362), and 
     methods that meet prescribed performance standards, 
     including--
       (A) the amplified nucleic acid assay method; and
       (B) the indicator organisms enterococci and E. coli; and
       (2) compare the use of molecular diagnostics to culture 
     testing of same source water, including the time for 
     obtaining results, accuracy of results, and future 
     applicability.
       (c) Partnerships.--Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the Administrator may award a grant or 
     cooperative agreement to a public or private organization to 
     assist the Administrator in carrying out the study.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, this is an amendment that we've worked 
out with Chairman Oberstar and the gentlelady from Texas. It is really 
an implementation for the new step for the BEACH bill, and that is to 
go beyond the existing system we used in the last 7 years where public 
health officials have to wait 3 days to be able to know if a beach has 
a water quality problem or does not.
  Scientists all over the world have been working on what is very close 
to a real-time response to this concern and be able to empower our 
local health officials to be able to know, within a few hours, rather 
than a few days, if it is safe for water contact activity along our 
beaches.
  My amendment just simply allows the administration to do a study 
within the next 2 years to be able to develop the system that local 
governments can use to implement the BEACH bill so we don't have to 
wait 3 days in New Jersey or 3 days in California to know if our 
beaches are polluted or if they are clean.
  With this study, with cooperation between the Federal Government, the 
local governments and the private sector, we can actually make this 
system effective so our children and our families know if it is safe to 
go in that day and not have to wait 3 days to find out if there is a 
problem.
  So, Madam Chairman, my amendment 13 stands. I would ask for support 
for it. And I think in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that this 
bill has carried since the year 2000, I think we can move forward with 
a system that keeps our families safe and our waters clean.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I move to strike 
the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I support this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California.
  First let me commend my colleague from California for working with us 
to address some of our concerns with the initial draft of this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  The amendment calls for the Administrator of EPA to conduct a short-
term study to assess the benefits of using molecular testing for 
monitoring and assessing the quality of coastal recreation waters.
  This amendment is consistent with other changes made by this 
legislation to encourage EPA to quickly move on the adoption of rapid 
testing methodologies for pathogens and pathogen indicators. These 
studies and changes are essential for shortening the time period 
between when a water quality sample is taken and when the results of 
that testing can be made available to the public. As I have stated 
before, the goal of these changes is to move as close to the same day 
realtime information on the condition of the Nation's coastal 
recreation waters as possible. This amendment helps move us closer to 
our goal.
  Again, I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman to work with us 
in crafting this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  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 Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comments 
by the sponsor, and I support the commonsense approach to this 
amendment as well.
  Coming from the great State of New Jersey, who has had when it comes 
to beach issues over the last 20-some odd years, during which time I 
had the privilege of serving in the State legislature and had to deal 
with some of the same issues that are being dealt with right here and 
now, I appreciate what is being done this evening with regard to 
realtime recovering and realtime information coming in. New Jersey, I 
think, is literally on the cutting edge of this information right now. 
New Jersey is on the cutting edge, having addressed these issues over 
the last decade, and I appreciate what is being attempted to be done 
for the rest of the country as well.
  That being said, I just want to reiterate my point that I made 
earlier this evening that here we are back in Congress again this week, 
and a lot of people are asking me back in the district, what are some 
of the major issues that you will be working on when you return to 
Washington this week?
  At a town hall meeting and discussions back over the weekend, I gave 
them a breakdown, this being one of them. And they asked me, wait, you 
are going to be talking about beach issues? You are going to be talking 
about some of these other suspension bills we had earlier in the week 
and I anticipate having later on in the week?
  But each time, no matter where I was, my constituents asked me the 
same question: Well, when is Congress going to begin the debate, when 
is Congress going to begin the discussion, whether it is in committees 
or on the floor or elsewhere, to try to address the problem that is 
really hitting us the hardest here back at home in the Fifth 
Congressional District, that is the top of the State of New Jersey, the 
issue that is hitting us the most in the pocketbook here in the great 
State of New Jersey? And, of course, what they were referring to is the 
price of energy.
  We have just gone through a little bit of a cold snap in the State of 
New Jersey, as other parts of the country have as well, so for that 
reason we have seen the use of home fuel oil go up, naturally. It is a 
scary thing now when you

[[Page 6225]]

see the delivery truck come to your house to deliver oil to fill up 
your oil tank, because you know as soon as that man is done delivering 
that 100 gallons or 250 gallons to your tank in your basement or in the 
ground or what have you, he is going to hand you a bill at the end of 
that delivery, and that bill can wipe out your savings for the week, 
wipe out the dollars that you may have planned to set aside to buy 
food, to buy medicine, to pay other expenses you were looking forward 
to have to spend that week.
  So the people are asking, when are we going to be doing something? 
Unfortunately, we are still not doing it right now. Here we are, 16 
months into a Democrat-controlled Congress, and still nothing has been 
done about it.
  I refer back, just to give a little element of time to all this, to 
the chart I have right up here in front of us, to the fact that we do 
not have a Democrat energy policy to try to address these seminal 
issues, major issues that are affecting us. Take a look at what the 
prices are and the result of not having an energy policy to address 
this.
  As this chart shows, the price of a barrel of crude oil when the 
Democrats came to power just 16 months ago was $58.31 cents a barrel. 
Fifty-eight bucks a barrel. Here we are less than 2 years later, a 
year-and-a-half later, and the price of a barrel of crude oil today is 
$113 a barrel. It is because of that huge increase in the price of the 
barrel that you and I have to pay so much when that man comes to 
deliver the fuel oil for our house or when we go down to the gas 
station as well.
  Fifty-three cents on the dollar when you buy gas at the gas station 
or are buying fuel oil for your house is the price of crude oil. So 
when you wonder why it is that you are paying so much at the pump or 
you are paying so much for delivery to your house, it is because it has 
gone from 58 bucks to 113 bucks. Not over the last 10 years. Not over 
the last 6 years, or something like that. Not over the period of time 
when the Republicans were in control. No, not over that entire span of 
time. But just in the last 16 months under Democrat control we have 
seen the price of fuel oil spike and go through the roof.
  The result of that has been what? The result has been, besides the 
fact that you now have to spend most of your money going to your fuel 
costs, the price also has translated into a ripple effect on the price 
of food, so when you go to the food store, those are through the roof. 
It has a ripple effect with regard to the overall economy, and so that 
is why Alan Greenspan was on TV just about 2 weeks ago now saying that 
he too is agreeing with other economists in this country saying we have 
entered into a recession.
  So if you remember back how strong the economy was, how strong Wall 
Street was just about 18 months ago, now we see under the Pelosi 
premium of no energy policy, the result is what you see today.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I need to continue with some of 
these quotes, because I think they are pretty interesting as to our 
energy policy that we have, I guess, or the lack of an energy policy 
that we have right now.
  July 25, 2006, Mr. Hoyer, then the Democratic whip, says: 
``Republicans' failure to craft a forward-looking strategy to deal with 
the rising costs of fuel over the last 5 years has helped ensure that 
my constituents would pay a very high price at the gasoline pump today 
and for at least the next several years.''
  Well, I guess he is trying to make that statement come true, because 
it is continuing to rise over the next years. But it is not under our 
watch. So, Mr. Leader, I want to tell you that the ball is in your 
court. You didn't think that we could do a very good job with it. And I 
am reading these quotes. Evidently the now-Speaker didn't think we 
could do a very good job with it. So the ball is in your court, and I 
don't see the ball going anywhere except in the wrong direction. The 
price continues to go up, and I just think we need to see that secret 
plan that the Democrats have for bringing down our gas prices.
  August 16, 2005, a press release by Ms. Wasserman Schultz: ``The 
unacceptable rise that we have seen in gasoline prices over the past 
year can be linked in part to the lack of consumer-oriented energy 
policy in this country. Gas prices have remained at record levels for 
about 4 months at $2.25 per gallon nationwide.''
  Well, I don't know if I am the one that is going to break the news, 
but right now gas is at $3.44. And this lack of policy that evidently 
was in effect when gas was only $2.55 a gallon, where is your policy? I 
challenge you, where is the policy that you had that was supposed to 
bring these gas prices down that you continually talk about. If you 
could just get a chance to get your hands on the ball, that you could 
score. You could score for the American people and you could get gas 
prices down. You have got your opportunity. You have had your 
opportunity for 16 months.
  September 29, 2005, in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
Mr. Tanner said, ``Gas prices in Tennessee and the rest of the country 
have literally skyrocketed. Our ever-growing dependence on foreign oil 
only guarantees that we will have to continue dealing with potentially 
unfriendly countries.''
  News flash, Mr. Tanner and Madam Chairman: I would like to say that 
there they are still skyrocketing, and we are still more dependent now 
on foreign oil than ever before, because the majority does not want us 
having domestic production. They don't want us drilling in our own 
territory, on our own Outer Shelf or in Alaska, anywhere, really, to 
get more dependent on our own oil and our own energy. They decided that 
riding bicycles was the way to go.
  September 9, 2005, a press release, Marion Berry: ``We can barely 
afford to fill our gas tanks to get to and from work each day, and our 
farmers are spending everything they have on diesel fuel just to keep 
their crops alive. These people deserve some answers and a fair price 
for their gasoline.''
  You know, Mr. Berry, I couldn't agree with you more. You made that 
statement not quite 3 years ago. Where is your answer? You have been in 
the majority party for the last 16 months, and I don't see any answers 
to the questions and the comments and the concerns that you brought up 
for your constituents or these farmers that were spending way too much 
money then when gas was $2.50 a gallon.
  May 22, 2005, in a press release by Mr. Pallone: ``Republicans chose 
to commemorate the 35th anniversary of Earth Day by approving an energy 
bill yesterday that raises gas prices. The average price of a gallon of 
regular gas in New Jersey has increased 40 cents, from $1.66 to 
$2.06.''
  I wish we were back to those $2.06 days, don't you? And I don't know 
what we are going to do to celebrate Earth Day today, but gas, Mr. 
Pallone, is at $3.44. So the celebration won't be near as sweet because 
of the promises that you made to the American people that you were 
going to bring gas prices down, and they continue to go up.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray.
  This amendment builds upon the ongoing work of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to develop the next generation of testing 
methodologies for coastal recreation waters. These new standards, 
already well behind schedule, should represent significant improvement 
over the existing standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators both 
in terms of accuracy and delivery time.
  The amendment of our colleague, Mr. Bilbray, calls the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency to study the benefits of using a 
``molecular diagnostic for monitoring and assessing the quality of 
coastal recreation waters.'' This shift from culture-based testing to 
molecular diagnostics should significantly reduce the period of time 
necessary to produce accurate results on the condition of the nation's 
swimming beaches.
  By some estimates, the amount of time that would be necessary under 
this new testing methodology could fall from 24-36 hours to 1-2 hours. 
This would represent a significant

[[Page 6226]]

breakthrough in providing almost instantaneous information to the 
public on any potential human health risks that might result from 
coming into contact with contaminated waters.
  I congratulate the gentleman for offering this amendment, today, and 
express my appreciation for his willingness to work with us to address 
some concerns raised with his initial amendment.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 3, line 3, strike ``indicators'' and insert 
     ``indicators. If, in carrying out such source identification 
     and tracking program, a source of pathogenic contamination is 
     identified by such State or local government, such State or 
     local government shall make information on the existence of 
     such source available to the public on the Internet within 24 
     hours of the identification of such source.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, my amendment will allow the public to 
know if a State or local government receiving funds from this act has 
been successful in its efforts to identify the source of the pathogenic 
pollution.
  The problems created by contaminated surface waters are real. The 
health risks of swimming in water contaminated with biological 
pathogens are now well studied. Several studies on surfers, for 
example, show that the closer the swimming spot is to a sewer or storm 
water outfall, the higher the risk for walking away with 
gastroenteritis, respiratory infection, ear infection, salmonellosis, 
dysentery, skin rashes and pink eye.
  The risks are economic as well. Many coastal communities rely heavily 
on tourism for their local economies. Swimming, boating and fishing all 
generate significant revenues. Great Lakes boaters spend more than $2 
billion per year. Fishing brought in $4.5 billion in 2002. Lake Erie 
alone generates $2.5 billion annually in tourism revenue.
  With the discharges that cause elevated pathogen levels come more 
than just pathogens. Raw sewage also contains a host of other 
chemicals, like lead and unmetabolized prescription drugs.
  When sewage makes its way into our waterways, it can affect us 
directly. Lake Erie provides drinking water for approximately 11 
million people. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 
samples taken at Cuyahoga County beaches on Lake Erie in 2006 exceeded 
standards between 7 percent and 50 percent of the time.
  When the Government Accountability Office examined the implementation 
of the Beach Act of 2000 last year, they identified an important 
weakness. They found that the causes for the contamination are usually 
unidentified. The GAO said, ``Local officials at 67 percent of Great 
Lakes beaches reported that when results of water quality testing 
indicated contamination, they did not know the source of the 
contamination. Only 14 percent reported that they had taken actions to 
address the source of contamination.''

                              {time}  1800

  Worse, they also found that State and local governments, as BEACH Act 
grantees, were not able to use their funds to get to the source of the 
problem. They weren't able to allow the funds to track down the source 
of the pathogenic contamination.
  The Beach Protection Act under consideration today corrects that 
omission but stops when the pollution source is found. My amendment 
would spur action by letting the public know when a State or local 
government is able to identify the polluter. Since grantees are already 
required to notify the public when contamination is detected, the 
relevant infrastructure is already in place.
  Communities deserve to know about the health risks that exist in 
their own backyard. With this information they not only avoid exposure 
to the hazard, but they can also bring pressure to bear to prevent the 
pollution from occurring.
  Citizens should know where and when the contamination occurs so they 
can avoid it. They should also know where it is coming from so they can 
work to prevent it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, it's great to be down here to talk about 
healthy beaches again.
  I spoke on the rule. The first colleague on the other side talked 
about oil wells and how they endanger healthy beaches, so it gave me an 
opportunity to continue to talk about the failed Democratic policies on 
energy and the continued increase in the cost of energy in this country 
and the continued future plan for energy increases in the decades to 
come.
  It's a simple economic debate, supply and demand. We need more 
supply. The failed Democrat policies will not bring more supply to this 
debate.
  How does it relate to healthy beaches? I will tell you how it relates 
to healthy beaches. What is the most damaging thing to a beach, an oil 
spill.
  How do oil spills occur? They occur when we have these big super 
tankers traveling all around the world trying to feed the demand. We 
want to stop oil spills, and the best way to stop oil spills is to 
develop our own resources, redevelop our own oil wells. In southern 
Illinois, in Texas, on the Outer Continental Shelf, a lot of the places 
we have oil, the Democrat majority continues to put them off-limits.
  What happens? Prices go up. Here is an example. We have seen this 
chart before, and I imagine we are going to see it a lot the rest of 
this year, except there is going to be a change. Every time we see it, 
the price of a barrel of crude oil is going to continue to go up.
  When this majority, Speaker Pelosi, took the oath of office, swore us 
all in, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58.31.
  What is it today? Actually, this is wrong, they didn't update it. 
This was from a couple of days ago. I think it raised, got to $114, 
$114 a barrel. When you do not plan, you plan to fail. The Democrats 
have no plan. They said they had a plan, Speaker Pelosi is quoted, in a 
quote on April 24, 2006, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help 
bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''
  I have a plan. The only plan was to increase gas prices, not lower 
them.
  Here is a quote from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on October 4, 2005: 
``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are 
struggling to deal with high gas prices.'' You are doing more for the 
people who are struggling with high gas prices, you are making it more 
difficult.
  We have, as I have used the term before, bitter change. Why are folks 
bitter in America? Why are folks bitter in rural America? Because we 
are paying high gas prices because we can't get supply.
  You bet we are bitter, because in rural America we drive the long 
distances to get to work. We are the folks who don't have buses, we 
don't have light rail. We have got a lot of rural Members here, and we 
need big vehicles to haul our beef and our pork and our corn to the 
refineries. We need trucks.
  I brought down pictures yesterday of independent truckers going on 
strike. Why? Diesel oil is up over $4 a gallon.
  When you don't have a plan, you plan to fail. What's the solution? 
Coal-to-liquid technologies. It's not imported. Coal field, U.S. 
refineries, U.S. jobs, lower price fuel. That's a solution.
  What's another solution? These are all the areas Democrats have put 
off-limits for exploration. Look at it. You know what is even worse, 
what you all tried to do in the last energy bill, you tried to take a 
big chunk out of Colorado and say we are not going to explore there 
either.

[[Page 6227]]

  Supply and demand, the simple basic economics. We have higher demand, 
you don't allow a supply, we get higher prices, over $1.02 a gallon for 
gas since the Democrats went into the majority. You know what?
  It's going to continue to go up. You have no plan. How are we going 
to get these prices lower? ``Oh, let's tax the oil companies.'' That's 
really going to bring prices down. You know what that's going to do? 
It's going to raise prices and you are hurting the people you say you 
support.
  You are hurting the middle class, you are hurting the lower middle 
class. This also translates into electricity, translates here into your 
great debate on climate change. John Dingell said let's address climate 
change by adding an additional 50 cents a gallon for gas.


                  Announcement By the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is reminded that his remarks 
should be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi 
said, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down 
skyrocketing gas prices.'' We are calling it the Pelosi premium.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has 
expired.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in support 
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. This amendment offers a 
significant improvement to the underlying bill by assuring that the 
public is made aware of identified sources of contamination to our 
Nation's coastal recreation waters. I support those efforts of the 
gentleman in offering this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, the previous gentleman was 
most accurate in his portrayal of what the problem is. Let me just dig 
into it a little bit more.
  Again, as I said before, I support the ideas of the amendment that we 
are discussing right now in the underlying legislation. My heart just 
goes out for my constituents at home who may not be able to enjoy the 
benefits of such, the beaches of the great State of New Jersey and 
others along the eastern seaboard, simply because, a very practical 
matter with the high price of energy, the high price of gas, they 
simply may not be able to afford to get there.
  I think I saw it in some news report the other day, how it was 
characterized, the point that I made earlier and the previous gentleman 
just made, as the chart just shows, the lack of a plan to deal with the 
energy problem in this country by the Democrat majority has brought us 
in this 110th Congress, this huge spike, this huge increase in the 
price of oil.
  As the gentleman explained, it went from $58 per barrel of oil now up 
to $113, almost $114 per barrel of oil. The paper I think I was reading 
the other day, I heard it someplace, was this can most appropriately be 
called, not a Democrat problem, a premium that we are paying for the 
price of oil. Perhaps, appropriately, the paper called it the Pelosi 
premium because it comes during the time of this Congress headed by the 
Democrats.
  The previous gentleman from Georgia was saying that, and he laid out 
very eloquently, that the other side of the aisle had campaigned on, 
and the Speaker said frequently they had a plan. Well, would that it be 
that they actually had a plan and began to implement that was 
beneficial, that would be beneficial, but they have had some sort of a 
plan.
  I have to point this out to the gentleman from Georgia. They have had 
some suggestions as to what we can be doing with the price of gasoline. 
Let me just run through a couple of them. One of their suggestions to 
deal with the price of gasoline was a 50-cent increase per gallon 
Federal gas tax, which was proposed by the Energy and Commerce 
chairman.
  So we are already paying $3.50 or so for a gallon of gasoline at the 
pump. The Energy and Commerce chairman said how do we deal with that 
issue? Let's add a 50-cent increase per gallon Federal gas tax on top 
of that. That's one part of their plan.
  The second plan the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority 
proposed to deal with the high price of energy, was a $150 million war 
surtax. That was under a plan proposed by the Appropriations chairman, 
David Obey. We are already paying a high price for gasoline, we are 
already paying a high price for diesel, home heating fuel. Let's add 
insult to injury and add a $150 billion war surtax on top of that that 
you and I would have to pay.
  Was that the end of their plan? No, they had a couple of other ideas. 
Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha and Representative Jim 
McGovern said low- and middle-income taxpayers should have to pay 2 
percent added to their tax bill while higher income taxpayers would 
take an additional 12 to 15 percent added tax as well. There again, how 
do you deal with this problem, higher taxes.
  Finally, a final proposal to deal with this situation from the 
Democrat majority, a 5-cent increase per gallon gasoline gas tax was 
proposed by Representative James Oberstar to pay for infrastructure. 
This proposal, as you may recall, would raise the Federal gas tax to 
23.4 cents a gallon from the current 18.4 cents. This was made last 
summer.
  So every proposal that they have had suggested, every proposal that 
we have heard from the Democrat side of the aisle to deal with the 
energy crisis in this country, to deal with the fact that energy costs 
for a barrel of oil going $58 up to $114, their solution to the fact 
that we are paying $3.25, $3.50, $4 for diesel, their solution so far 
has done nothing to lower the price. It has done everything to raise 
the price.
  To add insult to injury, their proposal is to add even more by adding 
additional taxes and surtaxes on top of that.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I wanted to continue on to read 
some of these quotes about the outrage that the majority party had 
about the prices of gas and oil, and now, as to the outrage of the 
American people because evidently they felt like there could be a 
change and that there could be some solution to the price of higher 
fuel.
  On September 9 of 2005 there was a press release sent out by Mr. 
Doyle that said, ``Supply and demand can't account for the spike in gas 
prices we've seen.'' ``Americans want and deserve stable, affordable 
gas prices.''
  I agree, they do. There have been some broken promises given to the 
American people about who could produce, because at the time this press 
release was written, gas was about $2.25 a gallon. It's $3.44 a gallon 
now.
  The party of Mr. Doyle has been in charge for 16 months. Where is 
that accountability? Where is the stable, affordable gas prices that 
Mr. Doyle said the American people deserved?
  We haven't seen them. They are in that secret plan that we are 
waiting to see unveiled.
  June 7, 2006, press release by Mr. DeFazio, ``Americans deserve an 
effective, comprehensive solution to the problem of high gas prices and 
growing dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, all they get out of 
this Republican Congress is a lot of hot air.''
  Well, Mr. DeFazio, I think there's enough hot air to go around 
because evidently this press release was a lot of hot air.
  Gas prices have done nothing but go up. The majority has changed. 
There is a new sheriff in town, so to speak, that I have heard when 
this takeover took place, but what is the sheriff doing?

                              {time}  1815

  The sheriff must have lost his gun or something, because, Madam 
Chairman,

[[Page 6228]]

there has been no action. There has been nothing. We have discussed a 
lot of things on this floor, but I don't think there has been anything 
about higher gas prices.
  July 13, 2006, a press release by Rosa DeLauro: ``The Bush 
administration and congressional Republicans have failed to bring up 
comprehensive energy reform, or any piece of legislation, for that 
matter, that would lower gas prices.''
  Well, here it is 2 years later, and I haven't seen anything from the 
new majority that does anything to lower gas prices or, to quote her, 
``or anything else.''
  It goes on, ``Addressing these gas prices should be a priority for 
the congressional Republicans. I urge the Republican leadership to take 
action to reduce gas prices for consumers.''
  I want to do the same thing. I want to encourage the congressional 
Democrats, Madam Chairman, to do something about gas prices and oil 
prices. I want to see the magic plan.
  April 8, 2005, a press release by Ms. DeGette: ``Thanks to the 
shortsighted policies of the Republican Congress, our economy and the 
budgets of all Coloradoans are being hurt by skyrocketing gas prices. 
In Colorado, gas is up to $2.15 a gallon.'' Man, don't we wish we had 
those days when Republicans were in charge and gas was $2.15. Democrats 
have been in charge for 16 months, and it is $3.44 a gallon.
  May 14, 2004, a press release by Mr. Etheridge: ``Gas prices in North 
Carolina and throughout the Nation are at record high levels.
  ``A major reason for these prices is the high price of crude oil, 
which has reached $40 a barrel.''
  Man, don't we wish we had $40 a barrel back.
  ``We need immediate action to lower gas prices.''
  Where is the outrage from these people that I am reading quotes from 
today demanding lower gas prices? I can't hear them. I haven't heard 
them. I haven't even seen them.
  April 27, 2006, a press release from Ms. Herseth: ``We have heard 
strong words this week about rising gas prices, but words are not 
enough. Families across America are struggling to fill their gas tanks. 
They deserve answers and concrete actions, not just lip service.''
  Lip service, that's what we've got.
  Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Madam Chairman, I have listened to 
the debate on the floor, and I am somewhat puzzled. I have listened to 
the Republicans accuse Democrats of increasing gasoline prices. It 
reminds me of the fellow who said it would be like Roho the Rooster 
going to dinner with Colonel Sanders to imply that we are the ones that 
have caused this situation to occur this way.
  I am looking at places like Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in the 
Middle East, who are being protected by our young men and women, our 
brave men and women in the Middle East, in the Middle Eastern war that 
we have with Iraq. And I watched them build these huge mansions and ski 
slopes, going out in the ocean and building whatever you would like to 
have, I guess. Are they selling sand?
  I wonder if our President when he went over there realized that the 
most folks he was going to be protecting were the oil tycoons who are 
over there in the Middle East.
  I wonder why Saudi Arabia is not spending more money to held rebuild 
Iraq. I wonder why United Arab Emirates and Dubai are building these 
palatial estates for their folks to have ski slopes in the desert. I 
wonder why they aren't helping Iraq rebuild. We are there protecting 
them.
  And why isn't Kuwait, who is producing all of the oil, is not helping 
America, at least helping to defuse the situation in the Middle East?
  Why is this President not calling on Saudi Arabia to increase their 
production so at least we can put maybe a glut of oil on the market 
that will be threatening and intimidating to the stock markets that 
choose to drive the price of oil the way that it is. There is no reason 
it should be inflated the way it is.
  Why is this administration not doing something about this? Don't 
blame Democrats who came on this floor 16 months ago. How in the world 
can you in all honesty try to imply that it is the Democrats' fault 
that we are paying $3-plus a gallon for gas today. Look at the 
circumstances and the situations. Have the Democrats, who in the last 
few months have tried to say let's find some way to resolve the issue 
in Iraq, are we the ones who said we ought to stay forever over there, 
and to disrupt the oil markets, to make people throughout the world, 
including those in places like India and in China, who are using an 
increased amount of oil that we can't control in this country, but we 
can at least control our foreign policy that we have established.
  So let's think about what we are being told here. The poorest 
countries in the world are paying $100-some for oil, just like we are 
in this country, considered to be one of the richest nations of the 
world.
  India and China are paying the same price that we are paying in this 
country. I guess the Democrats forced the price up also in China and 
India. Maybe I'm missing something, but let's be honest in this debate 
and let's be honest with the American public and let's stop blaming 
folks for what is happening.
  The turmoil and instability in the Middle East has brought about most 
of the situation that we have, and the economic growth, that may recede 
dramatically, may also drop it down. That might please you if that 
happens.
  But I can tell you this much, the folks that I represent in my 
district came to the open meetings, and their concern was gasoline 
prices just like you're saying about your district.
  They are also worried about health care costs and whether or not they 
will be able to survive. Small business folks are literally losing 
their business because they cannot afford to keep up the cost both of 
fuel and of health care costs.
  We have a lot of problems we need to address, but blaming someone and 
saying the last 16 months we have brought to this Nation the high 
gasoline prices, Democrat leaders have, to me stretches the truth a 
little bit to where that rubber band breaks.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich.
  This amendment furthers the overall goals of the BEACH Act in 
providing the public with greater amounts of information on the quality 
of their favorite beach locations, including any potential sources of 
contamination that may make these beaches unsafe for swimming.
  The gentleman's amendment would require States and local governments 
that choose to implement contaminant source identification and tracking 
programs to ensure that any information gathered on potential sources 
of contamination be made public. Since, I would surmise, that many 
potential sources of contamination of coastal recreation waters come 
from failing wastewater or stormwater infrastructure systems, this 
increased public awareness on their location and relevance in 
protecting water quality is important.
  I have often heard it said that ``out of sight'' means ``out of 
mind.'' This is especially true of the deplorable condition of our 
Nation's wastewater treatment infrastructure. By providing the public 
with direct links between the source of the contamination, and the real 
world implications of potential infrastructure failure, I only hope 
that we will rekindle interest in reinvesting in our Nation's 
infrastructure.
  This amendment provides yet another avenue for increasing public 
awareness and pressure on improving our infrastructure, and in turn, 
improving our overall environment and safeguards for human health.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 7, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Kirk

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Kirk:

[[Page 6229]]

       Redesignate sections 9 and 10 of the bill as sections 10 
     and 11, respectively.
       After section 8 of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 9. TREATMENT OF MERCURY AS PATHOGEN INDICATOR.

       Section 406 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1346) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Treatment of Mercury as Pathogen Indicator.--For 
     purposes of monitoring and notification programs under this 
     section, mercury shall be treated as a pathogen indicator.''.

  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, in conjunction with the majority and 
minority, I ask unanimous consent that we consider the modified 
amendment that I have at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Kirk:
       Strike the text of the amendment and insert the following:

     SEC. 11. MONITORING PROTOCOL FOR MERCURY.

       (a) Review and Update of Existing Monitoring Protocols.--
     The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall review and update existing monitoring protocols as 
     necessary for mercury affecting the coastal recreation waters 
     of the Great Lakes.
       (b) Recommendations on Testing.--In carrying out subsection 
     (a), the Administrator shall develop updated recommendations 
     on testing for the presence of mercury affecting the coastal 
     recreation waters of the Great Lakes, including the presence 
     of mercury in Great Lakes sediment and fish tissue.
       (c) Publication of Water Quality Criteria.--Nothing in this 
     section shall delay the schedule for publication of new or 
     revised water quality criteria as required by section 
     304(a)(9) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1314(a)(9)).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

  Mr. KIRK (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Beach 
Protection Act because it is critical that we protect millions of 
Americans who use the public beaches each day, like the ones in my own 
congressional district. Unfortunately, many beaches go unmonitored or 
face severe delays and do not receive testing results in time to 
protect the public health. Without proper monitoring and notification, 
thousands of citizens risk illness due to growing contamination. This 
legislation provides authority for funding for rapid testing of 
recreational waters that can save millions from unnecessary beach 
closings or even hospital bills.
  We must not ignore also far more dangerous toxins which have far-
reaching effects on the most vulnerable members of our society--our 
children. Mercury pollution is a serious problem for my district in 
Northern Illinois, as well as nationwide.
  I would like to present to the House a chart which shows mercury 
depositions for 2001. What it shows here is a picture of both the West 
Coast, the Midwest and the East as mercury hot spots where further 
monitoring should be used to protect the public health.
  In my own area, the Chicago region, other data shows we could be one 
of the hottest mercury hot spots in the country. Today there are more 
than 700 bodies of water throughout the United States that are impaired 
by mercury. The Great Lakes are particularly vulnerable to this 
exposure as 36 percent of mercury emissions are generated in the Great 
Lakes region. In fact, there are currently no less than 18 separate 
fish advisories for mercury contamination in our region. And yet the 
Great Lakes remain a source of food, and especially drinking water, for 
30 million Americans. This undoubtedly contributes to the recent 
estimate by the U.S. Government that more than 300,000 American babies 
are born each year with a risk of mercury pollution.
  I will note in my own State of Illinois, pregnant women test 14 times 
above the background level for mercury in their blood.
  We are just at the beginning of learning what mercury deposited in 
our waterways are doing from American coal plants and other industrial 
sources.
  Some scientists estimate also that 36 percent of mercury settling 
into U.S. ground soil and waterways comes from Asia, particularly 
China. We know that China is home to 20 of the 30 most polluted cities 
on the planet, and their extensive use of coal affects their water and 
their air in their mercury pollution.
  In light of the newly discovered data on global mercury sources and 
new atmospheric modeling methods, it is critical that we revise the 
outdated monitoring and testing procedures for this dangerous toxin.
  My amendment would require the administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to update existing monitoring protocols and develop 
updated testing recommendations for the existence of mercury in the 
Great Lakes coastal waters, sediments and fish. Funds for this effort 
would not come out of scarce resources set aside for beach monitoring 
and testing.
  To the chairman and the ranking member who have helped me out with 
this, I want to thank you for your leadership on this and helping 
support this amendment in protecting the Great Lakes.
  As we enter the summer months when mercury deposition is the highest, 
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to help safeguard the 
future of our generations and the Midwest's most precious natural 
resource.
  Mr. Chairman, I would seek to break up the partisan tone of this 
debate and offer this bipartisan amendment because I think looking at 
increased testing and protocols to monitor mercury pollution, making 
sure especially in the Great Lakes, the source of drinking water for 30 
million Americans is safe, we should adopt this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee). The gentlewoman 
from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  MS. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). The 
substitute amendment directs the administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to review existing monitoring protocols for mercury 
in the recreational waters of the Great Lakes and to make 
recommendations on their potential revision.
  As the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment learned at a 
hearing early last year, mercury is a significant concern in a majority 
of the United States. For example, according to EPA, 44 States have 
fish consumption advisories for mercury. More telling, the entirety of 
the Great Lakes basin is currently under a fish advisory for toxic 
chemicals, including the presence of mercury.
  I applaud the actions of the gentleman from Illinois to bring greater 
attention to the threat of mercury contamination. Given what we have 
known about the health impacts of mercury, a mercury advisory in 
today's day and age is wrong and it needs to be addressed.
  This substitute amendment will require the administrator to review 
and where necessary revise and monitor protocols for detecting the 
presence of mercury. The amendment directs the administrator to pay 
particular attention to the presence of mercury in the sediment of the 
Great Lakes and the fish tissues.
  In addition, this amendment provides an additional authorization of 
appropriations for this review and update. Funding for this study is 
not authorized from funds made available under section 406(i) for 
implementation of monitoring and notification programs by State and 
local governments, nor from EPA funding to implement the BEACH program.

                              {time}  1830

  Finally, this amendment includes a savings clause that insures that 
this

[[Page 6230]]

additional study will not delay EPA's ongoing efforts to publish new or 
revised water quality criteria as required by Section 304(a)(9) of the 
Clean Water Act.
  I support the substitute amendment, and urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the Chair. And I appreciate the 
gentleman from Tennessee having come to the floor a moment ago to 
address this energy and the like. To be honest, that's the only way 
that we are going to be able to find solutions to these major issues 
that we need to address, whether it is the Iraq war situation, or this 
major issue of energy costs in this country.
  Obviously, we have been able to find common ground when it comes to, 
I would catch it, slightly less significant issues dealing with beach 
quality and what have you. Now if we can find that same comity when it 
comes to the Iraq war and energy, then we'll be moving in the right 
direction.
  That being said, the gentleman can't disagree with some of the facts 
that have been set out here for the last evening, and this will 
probably be my last comment for the night; and that is that the 
Democrat majority, prior to becoming the majority, did point out some 
problems with regard to energy prices prior to coming into the 
majority.
  And the gentleman from Georgia went through a litany of quotes from 
Democrat leadership citing the problem, and making a promise that the 
Democrat majority had a solution to those problems. I'm eager to see 
what those solutions are. I would like to extend a hand across the 
other side of the aisle to work with them, if those solutions were ever 
forthcoming.
  As I indicated in my last comments, the only proposals that I've seen 
so far from the other side of the aisle have been restrictive or 
increasing to the cost of energy. They were the two or three tax 
increases that I ran through before, the 50 cent increase per gallon 
gasoline Federal gas hike proposed, the $150 billion war surtax or the 
5 cent increase per gallon tax hike, all proposals from the other side 
of the aisle. None of those things will lower the cost of energy. All 
of those things will raise the price that you and I and everyone else 
have to pay at the pump.
  What we may want to do is look to see what other countries are doing 
with regard to energy costs in general. Let me just run down real 
quickly some of these.
  Over in China, three or four things. One, China has expanded its 
natural gas infrastructure by constructing pipe lines. Unfortunately, 
the Democrats have opposed natural gas production in this country and 
natural gas infrastructure improvements in the country in general. And 
the chart that we had up previously showed that as far as offshore.
  Secondly, China is rapidly expanding its refining capacity. 
Unfortunately, Democrats have repeatedly voted against expanding 
America's refinery capacity. I don't think we've had any new refineries 
built in some several decades.
  Thirdly, China is ambitiously developing its nuclear power energy 
which plans to spend $50 billion on 30 additional nuclear reactors 
within the next 15 years. Again, unfortunately, Democrats consider the 
notion of increasing nuclear power generation in the U.S. basically as 
off the table.
  And finally, China's planning on constructing many new large scale 
hydro electric projects over the forecasted period, including an 18.2 
gigawatt Three Gorges dam project which is expected to come in in 2009. 
Again, unfortunately, Democrats have actively opposed new hydro 
electric power plants here in the United States.
  So I will end where I began. The gentleman said that we should be 
concerned about how much money is going to Saudi Arabia and Dubai and 
all of the things that they're able to build with that oil. I agree.
  I wish all of our American tax dollars and American gasoline dollars 
that we pay at the pump weren't going overseas. But right now, 63 
percent of our energy sources are dependent on foreign sources of 
energy and growing more every year.
  What we need to do is make America more self-reliant when it comes to 
energy. You do that by what we've talked about all evening. Don't tax 
it, don't raise the cost of production, don't restrict the production 
here in the United States, don't restrict the ideas of new efficient 
energy alternatives and the like, but allow it to grow using ingenuity 
of Americans insight and entrepreneurs, so that we do not have to be 
more dependent every day on foreign, unreliable sources that are a 
threat to this country, are a threat to our national security, and put 
our young men and women in harm's way on the points with regard to war, 
as the gentleman from Tennessee was pointing out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Richardson

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Ms. Richardson:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 11. NATIONAL LIST OF BEACHES.

       Section 406(g)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1346(g)(3)) is amended by striking ``The 
     Administrator'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting ``Within 12 months after the date of the enactment 
     of the Beach Protection Act of 2008, and biennially 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall update the list described 
     in paragraph (1).''

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed the BEACH Act in 
2000, it took an important step towards keeping Americans, of which a 
large majority are ill-prepared children, away from polluted beaches. 
As a proud Californian, I understand how critical clean and safe 
beaches are to our State's health, identity and economy. As with 
airplanes or even drinking water, Americans trust our government to 
alert them in the event of a safety concern.
  I thank Chairman Oberstar, and also our great subcommittee 
chairwoman, Ms. Johnson from Texas, for shepherding this important 
public health and safety bill to the House floor.
  This is a vital reauthorization that includes an expansion of the 
BEACH program by increasing the authorization level by $10 million. 
This program is most effective when properly administered if the 
program maintains adequate funding levels and a product result that 
demonstrates that the resources are well utilized.
  The Environmental Protection Agency reported that States 
significantly increased the number of beaches they monitored from 
approximately 1,000 in 1997 to more than 3,500 in 2004. There are over 
6,099 beaches nationwide.
  When the EPA became lenient in the beach monitoring back in 2006, the 
Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit against the EPA to 
protect our public health concerns. Ongoing or periodic monitoring is 
crucial to maintaining a safe environment.
  In my area alone, in Los Angeles County, beach closings due to 
hazardous bacterial contamination dramatically jumped 15 percent in 
2005. During the course of that year, beaches nationwide were closed or 
posted with health advisories 20,000 times.
  Providing sufficient funding to the EPA for testing is only one part 
of this equation, however. To ensure the American public receives this 
beach quality information, Congress must compel the EPA to publish 
comprehensive results that are easily accessible on-line.

[[Page 6231]]

  This amendment will reinstitute the requirement from the original 
BEACH Act that would enable the EPA to publish a complete list of every 
public beach, whether or not it is monitored or not. The EPA's 2004 
``National List of Beaches'' was an important resource for beachgoers, 
and this amendment will ensure that the EPA updates and maintains the 
list every 2 years for the safety of all Americans and visitors alike.
  Families, fishermen and sports enthusiasts deserve to know whether 
the EPA is fulfilling its obligation to protect our community beaches. 
The Richardson amendment will make sure that this happens.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this nonpartisan amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I think that the gentlelady from California has a very 
good amendment. We certainly support it.
  I think that requiring the EPA to update the national list of beaches 
program to alert the public to beaches that had occurrences of 
pollution is an excellent idea. I think it's a good tool in Congress' 
toolbox, as we exercise oversight over the EPA's BEACH program.
  So I would urge Members to support the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Richardson.
  The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH 
Act) was signed into law on October 10, 2000, as a means to reduce the 
risk of illness to users of the Nation's recreational waters.
  The BEACH Act requires states, tribes, and territories to identify 
their coastal recreation waters and to report on monitoring activities 
at those beaches. EPA compiled into a single list all of the 
information submitted by states and territories to EPA as of December 
31, 2003.
  This National List of Beaches provides the only nationwide assessment 
of the extent of beach monitoring across the country. The requirements 
for EPA to create and periodically maintain this list were included as 
part of the BEACH Act to help EPA determine how to better implement the 
Act, and minimize the potential human health effects from coming into 
contact with contaminated waters.
  The National List of Beaches also provides information to the public 
about beaches in their state.
  Unfortunately, this important list has only once been published by 
EPA--in March of 2004. Since that time, we have little information on 
whether progress is being made towards full implementation of the BEACH 
Act. No additional nationwide assessments have been conducted to 
determine whether individual states or local governments are making 
improvements in the number and quality of local beach monitoring and 
notification programs.
  By requiring EPA to revise this list every two years, we will halve a 
better idea of the progress that is being made to safeguard public 
health, and ensure that a trip to the beach will not also result in a 
trip to the emergency room.
  I applaud the efforts of our Committee colleague, Ms. Richarson, for 
offering this amendment, and I strongly support its adoption.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Inslee

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Inslee:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 11. IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON POLLUTION OF COASTAL 
                   RECREATION WATERS.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment I'm 
offering with Mr. Van Hollen. The amendment is quite simple. It will 
simply direct the EPA to report to Congress on how to mitigate the 
effects of climate change on recreation at our Nation's beaches.
  I'm particularly partial to islands and beaches. I live in one, 
Bainbridge Island, Washington. It's a great place.
  And like others, I'm concerned about the impact of global climate 
change on rising sea levels that can impact the quality of our beaches. 
And we need to get to the bottom of what those impacts will be so that 
we can help local communities respond to rising beaches.
  Scientists have agreed that sea level is already rising across our 
coast. In my neck of the woods, the University of Washington Climate 
Impacts Group has predicted that sea levels in Puget Sound could rise 
by as much as 50 inches by 2100. This could have a $1 billion impact on 
waterfront investment.
  Rising sea levels intensify flooding, we know. They intensify storms 
and the erosion associated with them. And they can impact the water 
quality of our Nation's beaches as they impact sewage disposal systems.
  Already, under BEACH Act programs, the EPA does collaborate with 
government agencies to predict where and when this pollution can occur. 
My amendment simply directs the EPA to report to Congress on how 
climate change may exacerbate those problems.
  We know how important recreation is on our beaches. In fact, beaches 
are the leading tourist destination. I was surprised to learn 85 
percent of all U.S. tourism is associated with beaches. They contribute 
over $700 billion each year to the GDP, and that's not just the Beach 
Boys.
  In 2006, recreation brought in $948 million, just the Olympic and 
Kitsap Peninsulas where I live. So knowing about the problems we're 
going to have with climate change locally is a boost. You don't have to 
live on an island or near a beach to recognize that.
  I want to thank the Chair, Mr. Pallone, and the Chair for their help 
in drafting and accepting this amendment. And I hope you'll join me in 
supporting a very commonsense measure to help respond to these problems 
we know we're going to have. And I hope we can prevent them. But we're 
going to have some of them no matter what we do.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). The gentleman from 
New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee) to the Beach Protection 
Act.
  For the last 20 years, my colleagues in the scientific community have 
issued warnings that the release of greenhouse gases is altering the 
Earth's climate in ways that are both expensive and deadly. And nowhere 
is this change more evident than in the changing habitat of our world's 
oceans.
  Science has demonstrated that global change is already causing the 
sea level to rise. It is predicted that in my home State of New Jersey, 
the sea level rise

[[Page 6232]]

will cause a loss of 7 inches to 2 feet of our coastline by the end of 
the decade.
  Of course, changes in the acidity of the ocean from increased carbon 
is another effect. And as the oceans continue to change, factors that 
are known to affect water quality along our coastline, such as 
flooding, storms and erosion, will, of course, occur.
  The Inslee amendment simply requires the Environmental Protection 
Agency to study the effects of the global climate change on our 
Nation's coastlines. The amendment will help States, local communities 
and Congress better address the challenges, prepare for the changes, 
and it will call attention to the steps we need to take to prevent 
further damage. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I commend my colleague for preparing and introducing this amendment.
  I yield back.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Inslee's 
amendment calls for the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a 
study on the long-term impact of climate change on pollution of coastal 
recreational waters. The study would include information on the 
potential contaminant impacts on ground and surface water resources, as 
well as the impacts on ecosystems and public health in coastal 
communities like mine.

                              {time}  1845

  The amendment also requires the report to highlight necessary Federal 
actions to help advance the availability of information and tools to 
assess and mitigate effects in order to protect our public and the 
ecosystem's health.
  Our coastal waters are hubs of recreation and commerce for all of our 
Nation's individuals. It is with this in mind that the original BEACH 
Act was passed. We can expect many changes to occur in a warming world. 
Amongst these there will be, and it should be no surprise, that changes 
to our temperature and chemistry of our beaches in coastal waters have 
already gone into effect. Especially because so many children recreate 
in these waters, it is imperative to determine whether the 
contamination that already exists will become more hazardous to the 
health of our beach users.
  I encourage my fellow Members to join with me in support of Mr. 
Inslee's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I'm glad we are talking about healthy 
beaches. As I said earlier, one of the most damaging aspects about 
healthy beaches is an oil spill, and one way to limit the risk of oil 
spills is to become more self-reliant, and I know my colleague would 
appreciate it because he does a lot of renewal, and it's great work, 
but renewable alone can't fill the future demand. In fact, it really 
only nibbles around the edges.
  I'm also glad we're opening up the discussion to climate change 
because the reality is is that climate change will cost the American 
public, and it's going to cost us big bucks. And those of us on our 
side who are willing to go into debate just hope that there's some 
honest discussion on the real costs needed.
  I'm not a big cap-and-trade guy. I think it's a game by which we're 
going to play with the consumers hiding the real cost. Chairman 
Dingell, intellectually honest, said, let's add 50 cents a gallon to 
gasoline to help pay for the climate change cost. He's at least being 
intellectually honest because he's going to go and help the debate 
saying there is going to be a cost, we're going to have to pay for it, 
let's add 50 cents to a gallon of gas. Now, a gallon of gas is $3.50; 
that would make it $4. We know it's going to get to $4 this summer. 
That means a gallon of gas will be $4.50. That's the challenge.
  The California Public Utility Commission on electricity generation 
said, let's add a 20 to 30 percent surcharge on our electricity bill. 
That's the cost we're going to incur to comply with climate change.
  So, again, we're asking that there be a great debate on climate 
change, and as we're going to bring in money to help address this, that 
the people who are going to have to pay these costs know that there's 
going to be costs. And again, Chairman Dingell is being intellectually 
honest. The Public Utility Commission of California is being 
intellectually honest. And we are going to address that.
  Because here is the problem. When the Democrats took office, the 
price of a barrel of crude oil was $58 a barrel. Now what is it today? 
I think this is actually wrong. It's $114 a barrel. $114.
  Now, I came down here on a 1-minute this week, got some clips. Here 
is a clip from my district, Independent Truckers Join Strike. 
Independent Truckers Join Strike. You want to know why the aviation 
industry is going bust, all of these low-cost airlines? High fuel 
costs.
  So if we want healthy beaches, and we don't want oil spills, we have 
to develop the resources that we have. We have a solution. One that the 
Democrat majority is unwilling to bring to the floor; although if they 
did, we would pass it. I could guarantee we would pass it. And that's 
using great natural resources in the only coal basin, the high plains 
of Montana, Wyoming, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio. We know 
we have coal under the ground, and we know that we can turn that coal 
into synthetic fuel. Low-cost fuel, abundant supply, and we know that 
we can refine this coal using biomass and carbon sequestration cleaner 
than current crude oil refineries.
  And where are our crude oil refineries? They're on the coast. Most of 
them are in the gulf coast. That's a great place to protect our healthy 
beaches, by having all of these refineries on the coast. And we saw 
what Katrina did. Katrina caused a disruption in cost. Katrina caused 
obviously outages in these refineries. This would give us the 
opportunity to have refineries located in the heartland with the 
commodity product of coal right there.
  Dig the coal, American jobs; build the refinery, American jobs; 
refine the oil into fuel, American jobs; put it in a pipeline to the 
aviation industry, American jobs. What is clearer than that? It's a 
great success. But we can't get that moved to the floor. So what do we 
have? No supply, $113 a barrel.
  Now I have read the quotes from the Democratic leadership. They had a 
plan in 2006 to lower gas prices. I have read the quotes. No one has 
disputed them. And guess what? You have only raised gas prices. And 
guess what is going to happen this summer? Gas prices are only going to 
go up higher. When you have no plan, you plan to fail.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressman 
Inslee's amendment to H.R. 2537, reauthorization of the BEACH Act. This 
amendment calls for a study of the long-term impacts of climate change 
on the pollution of coastal waters.
  At its center, the intent of the BEACH Act is to provide information 
and notification for the public with regard to the safety of the 
coastal waters they use for recreation. It is well-known that climate 
change may cause significant changes to ecosystems, hydrology, and 
water temperature. What we are unsure of, however, is the extent to 
which these changes will occur, and also--importantly--the effect this 
will have on public health.
  For example, if coastal water temperatures increase and freshwater 
inflows decrease, does this result in a more hospitable environment for 
pathogens in our coastal waters? Because the public--including 
children--are in direct contact with these waters, it is of the utmost 
importance that we have a better understanding of what a warming 
environment means for public health.
  The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee included a similar 
provision in last summer's energy bill. This program called for a 
National Academy of Science study to be conducted on the impacts of 
climate change on water quality, and subsequent ramifications of these 
changes on the Clean Water Act. While this provision did not survive 
conference, I am pleased that Mr. Inslee's amendment picks up in a 
similar vein.
  I call on other members to join me in supporting passage of this 
amendment.

[[Page 6233]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Mc Carthy of New York

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 11. PRESENCE OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND PERSONAL CARE 
                   PRODUCTS IN COASTAL RECREATION WATERS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with appropriate 
     government agencies (including the National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences), shall conduct a study of the 
     presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (in 
     this section referred to as ``PPCPs'') in coastal recreation 
     waters .
       (b) Contents.--In conducting the study under subsection 
     (a), the Administrator shall--
       (1) identify PPCPs that have been detected in the waters of 
     the United States and the levels at which such PPCPs have 
     been detected; and
       (2) identify the sources of PPCPs in the waters of the 
     United States.
       (c) Examination of Wastewater Effluent and Run-Off From 
     Agricultural Products.--In identifying sources of PPCPs under 
     subsection (b)(2), the Administrator shall examine wastewater 
     effluent and run-off from agricultural products.
       (d) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, in order to provide a better 
     understanding of the effects of PPCPs in the waters of the 
     United States on human health, aquatic animal health, and 
     aquatic wildlife, the Administrator shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the results of the study conducted under this 
     section.
       (e) Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products Defined.--In 
     this section, the terms ``pharmaceuticals and personal care 
     products'' and ``PPCPs'' mean products used by individuals 
     for personal health or cosmetic reasons or used by 
     agribusiness to enhance growth or health of livestock.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Chairman, I would first like to 
congratulate the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, Mr. Oberstar; the subcommittee chairwoman, Eddie Bernice 
Johnson; and the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Pallone, for bringing forth 
such important legislation. The bill will help ensure that our beaches 
are safe for swimming as we enter the summer months.
  Today, I will be offering an amendment to H.R. 2537, the Beach 
Protection Act of 2007, in order to raise awareness of Congress about 
the presence of pharmaceuticals in our Nation's drinking water. We must 
begin to better understand this important issue.
  At the end of the debate, I intend to withdraw this amendment.
  A recent Associated Press study brought to life the fact that 
pharmaceutical products have been found in the drinking water supply of 
at least 41 million Americans. In my State of New York, health 
officials found heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, mood 
stabilizers and tranquilizers in Upstate water supply. Six 
pharmaceuticals were found in the drinking water right here in 
Washington, D.C.
  We don't know how the pharmaceutical enters into the water supply. 
But it's likely that some medications that are not fully absorbed by 
the body may have passed into the water through human waste. In some 
other cases, unused pills may have simply been flushed down the toilet.
  Additionally, some agricultural products and medications may have run 
off into the groundwater supply.
  In addition to antibiotics and steroids, EPA has identified over 100 
individual pharmaceuticals and personal care products in environmental 
samples and drinking water. Wastewater treatment plants appear to be 
unable to completely remove pharmaceuticals from the water. The 
presence of the pharmaceuticals in the water raises serious questions 
about the effects on human health and wildlife.
  My amendment would require EPA to conduct a study on the presence and 
source of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in coastal 
recreation waters.
  Pharmaceuticals and personal care products include prescription and 
over-the-counter therapeutical drugs, veterinary drugs, fragrances, 
lotions, and cosmetics, as well as products used to enhance growth or 
health of livestock. The report will be used as part of the government 
efforts to better understand the effects pharmaceuticals in our waters 
have on human health and aquatic wildlife.
  Unfortunately, I recognize that this bill is not in the proper venue 
to adequately address safe drinking water. Therefore, I will withdraw 
the amendment shortly.
  Instead, I am drafting a stand-alone legislation on this issue and 
will call for congressional hearings so that we can better understand 
the problems associated with pharmaceuticals in our Nation's drinking 
water supply.
  We need to know how the pharmaceuticals are entering the water 
supply, how much is in the water, what are the effects of human health 
and adequate plant life, what is the best way to dispose of 
pharmaceuticals, and how should we treat water that has been 
contaminated with pharmaceuticals and personal care products.
  It is vital that Congress take up and champion the cause of keeping 
our coastal recreation and drinking water safe. This is a public health 
issue. And we must act before the presence of pharmaceuticals reaches 
crisis levels.
  Congresswoman Richardson, will the committee work with me on 
legislation to address the presence of pharmaceuticals and other care 
products in our Nation's water supply and help further our 
understanding of the effects on the human health and wildlife?
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairman, I understand that the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) will be withdrawing this amendment, but I 
commend her consideration of this very pressing matter. And it is one 
that I look forward to working with her on in the future.
  Since at least 2002, we've known that a wide variety of chemicals, 
including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and others such as 
fire retardants, are ending up in our Nation's water as you just 
expressed. More recently, the Associated Press found that the drinking 
water supplies of 24 of 28 municipalities tested had pharmaceuticals 
present. While the levels of these largely unregulated chemicals are 
low, their presence raises a number of troubling issues such as the 
long-term human health impacts on adults and any different impacts on 
children.
  It is fair to ask how do these pollutants get into our streams and 
drinking water supplies in the first place. I understand that the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment may further this issue 
over the upcoming months and examine it in great detail with you.
  I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from New York and 
other Members who have raised concerns about these reports on 
pharmaceuticals and other chemicals in our Nation's water.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank Congresswoman Richardson for her 
assistance and again congratulate her on her leadership.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ellsworth) having assumed the chair, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the

[[Page 6234]]

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, pursuant to House Resolution 1083, she reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________