[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11483-11496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS AND WATERTRAILS NETWORK CONTINUING 
                           AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1233, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 5540) to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 
1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay 
Gateways and Watertrails Network, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1233, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5540

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
     Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 502 of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 
     (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amending by 
     striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 110-677 
if offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), or his designee, 
which shall be in order

[[Page 11484]]

without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of 
the question, shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 20 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5540, 
legislation that will reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network which will otherwise expire at the end of 2008.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and 
Chairman Grijalva for their leadership in getting this bill to the 
floor. They've been stalwart advocates in this effort.
  The Chesapeake Bay has a tremendous tale to tell.

                              {time}  1315

  The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program connects those who live in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed to the natural, cultural and historic 
resources of the bay, and thereby encourage individual and citizen 
stewardship of these resources.
  I guess the best way to describe the Gateways program is an insurance 
policy on our larger investment in the Chesapeake Bay. There are three 
parts to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay; there is funding, which of 
course is extremely critical, there is regulatory guidance, and then 
there is citizen stewardship. Without individual responsibility, 
without widespread engagement by the 16 million people that reside in 
the watershed, it would be impossible to achieve and maintain the goal 
of cleaning up the bay. For a very modest investment, the Gateways 
program helps to foster the citizen stewardship that will be necessary 
to advance bay clean-up and maintain the gains that we hope to make.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Chesapeake Bay is our Nation's 
largest estuary. It is a national environmental treasure and an 
economic catalyst as it pertains to the region's tourism and seafood 
industries. Unfortunately, as many also know, the bay's health in 
recent years has been significantly and negatively impacted by multiple 
factors, such as increased nutrient runoff, chemical contaminants, and 
other forms of pollution. As a result, there has been a severe 
deterioration in the bay's water quality in recent years and a rapid 
loss of living resources and natural habitat.
  To combat these trends, in 1983 the Chesapeake Bay Program was 
created. It is a partnership between the States of Maryland, Virginia 
and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and the Federal Government, 
which is dedicated to restoring and protecting the bay. I am also 
committed to reversing these trends and restoring the bay's water 
quality and natural habitats, and that is why I have introduced this 
legislation to continually reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 
Network.
  The Gateways program is the National Park Service's component of the 
greater Chesapeake Bay program. The Park Service has entered into a 
memorandum of understanding under the Chesapeake Bay program that tasks 
the Park Service with ``conserving the Chesapeake Bay's national and 
cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of future 
generations.'' It goes on to say that the Park Service will provide 
assistance to the bay program through resource planning and grants 
management, rivers and trails conservation assistance, public 
education, interpretation, and cooperative heritage planning support.
  That is precisely the purpose of the Gateways program. It provides 
grants and technical assistance to parks, volunteer groups, wildlife 
refuges, historic sites, museums, and water trails throughout the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. It also provides assistance to the critical 
volunteer groups that have stepped forward to support the Gateway 
sites.
  The network ties these sites together to provide meaningful 
experiences and to encourage individual citizens to invest their own 
time and energy in the clean up of the Chesapeake Bay. Since 2000, the 
network has grown to include 156 gateways in six States and the 
District of Columbia. That is why the Park Service has repeatedly 
praised the Gateways program.
  In September of 2004, the Service released a special resource study 
recommending that Gateways be a permanent Park Service program. It goes 
on to say that an enhanced version of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 
Network would be the most effective and efficient way for the National 
Park Service to help protect and tell the story of the Chesapeake Bay.
  In 2005, the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation 
recognized Gateways as ``a cooperative conservation success story.'' 
And therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we act now to 
reauthorize this program so that the network and its partners can 
continue to educate residents of the Chesapeake Bay watershed about the 
natural, cultural, historic and recreational sites throughout the bay 
region, and how their communities relate directly to the health of our 
largest estuary and a national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay.
  By maintaining the network and providing access to these sites, we 
can help develop the next generation of environmental stewards, which 
is one of the best ways to truly save the bay.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, before I give my opening statement, 
I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay 
Watertrails Network bill.
  While I understand the value of the bill we're discussing today and I 
commend my colleague, Congressman Rob Wittman from Virginia, for the 
hard work he has done on this bill, his efforts will be all for nothing 
if we do not address the energy crises we're facing in the United 
States today.
  In my district of coastal South Carolina, my constituents are dealing 
with the same problems as those who live and work along the Chesapeake 
Bay. Just as the watermen of the Chesapeake Bay cannot afford to bring 
their boats out of the dock to catch blue crab due to the all-time-
record-high diesel prices, my constituents in our fishing communities 
cannot bring their shrimp boats on the water to catch shrimp due to the 
high cost of diesel fuel.
  Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible for our Democrat colleagues to 
continue obstructing responsible energy legislation that will help our 
energy crisis from being considered on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, we currently depend on foreign--and in many cases 
unfriendly--nations for over 60 percent of our Nation's energy needs. 
This is a serious national security concern for my constituents in 
coastal South Carolina.
  On behalf of all the recreational and commercial fishermen, the 
shrimpers, the tour boat operators, and the recreational boaters in 
coastal South Carolina, I would like to ask the Democrat majority why 
we are not voting today on the many pieces of legislation that have 
been introduced that would open up domestic sources of energy and help 
them get back on the water immediately?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time to yield 3 
minutes to Representative Scott, who is a leader on the Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed Task Force.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his 
hard work on this bill and for his leadership on the Chesapeake Bay 
issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay 
Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Reauthorization Act. I 
commend my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for introducing the 
bill, which will help further the Chesapeake Bay's restoration.
  I serve as cochair of the bipartisan Chesapeake Bay Task Force, and 
I'm

[[Page 11485]]

proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  Over 400 years ago, the first permanent English settlers of North 
America sailed into the Chesapeake Bay and settled on the banks of the 
James River at Jamestown, Virginia. Although the Chesapeake Bay played 
a significant role in the founding of this great Nation, the bay is 
often one of the most overlooked natural and economic estuaries in the 
United States.
  The Chesapeake Bay Watershed touches 41 congressional districts in 
the States of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, 
Pennsylvania, New York and the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been actively involved in ensuring that the 
resources are available to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay since 
my days in the Virginia General Assembly. When I served in the Virginia 
House of Delegates, I was a member of a joint Virginia/Maryland 
legislative task force that first recommended in 1980 a multi-State 
commission to address bay issues. And that multi-State commission 
continues to recognize the Chesapeake Bay as a vitally important 
regional and national treasure.
  H.R. 5540 will reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which 
is the National Park Service component of the greater Chesapeake Bay 
Program. The goal of this network is to conserve the natural beauty and 
cultural heritage of the bay for the benefit and enjoyment of future 
generations through grants, technical assistance to parks, volunteer 
groups, wildlife refuges, historical sites, museums and water trails 
throughout the bay watershed. The network ties all of these sites and 
projects together to actively engage citizens to help clean up the 
Chesapeake Bay. Since 2000, the network has grown to include 156 
gateways in six States and the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Maryland for his 
leadership. And I want to take the opportunity to thank our new 
Virginia colleague, Mr. Wittman, for his long-time leadership and 
activity in Chesapeake Bay issues. I commend the Committee on Natural 
Resources for reporting the bill favorably to the full House and urge 
my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Sali).
  Mr. SALI. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today on H.R. 5540, permanent authorization for 
the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.
  As my colleague pointed out, today's bill would permanently 
reauthorize these Federal funds and remove the $3 million annual cap.
  When we held a hearing on this bill in committee, the administration 
testified that there have been some successes with this program, and 
consequently Federal funds are no longer necessary to subsidize this 
partnership. So I rise with serious concerns over the permanent 
authorization of this program.
  In committee, I offered an amendment that would strike a compromise 
limiting this authorization to 5 years. Today's legislation, however, 
proposes to put the taxpayer, including taxpayers in Idaho, on the hook 
permanently funding this program, and that in spite of the 
administration's claim that no Federal funds are even needed.
  This comes on the heels of the vote of this body we just took 
approving the largest tax increase in American history, a tax increase 
of some $683 billion, as well as action raising the national debt to an 
all-time record high of $10.5 trillion. This, together with 
skyrocketing fuel prices and increases in fuel cost, has the American 
taxpayer, the American family, and everyone across this country, 
including my great home State of Idaho, under a tremendous burden.
  Idahoans are considering the reality that they may not have enough 
money to pay their bills, let alone enjoy the majestic beauty of 
Idaho's outdoors this summer. Notably, however, this is not a problem 
limited to weekend excursions or vacations. The price pinch is hitting 
folks who have a job, but wonder if they can afford the fuel to get to 
work, those people that have called my office to complain. In addition, 
schools across this country are cutting programs and moving to four-day 
school weeks to address rising fuel costs.
  People being hit the hardest by these high gas prices don't even 
drive, they're our parents and our grandparents, those seniors who rely 
on services like Meals on Wheels to deliver the food they eat each day. 
In Idaho, it was reported on Tuesday that five volunteers had quit 
because they couldn't afford the gas they needed to complete their 
routes and deliver meals to seniors.
  This is a moral issue, an issue which for many senior citizens and 
low-income, hardworking families affects their access to food as well 
as to education and even doctors. It's time for Congress to act on that 
moral obligation, to make provision so the needs of the poor and the 
elderly will be met. It's time for Congress to lift the restrictions on 
America's energy-rich public lands, to responsibly increase exploration 
for production of American crude, and to increase American supply and 
bring down prices of gas and diesel.
  Increasing the supply of crude oil and ultimately lowering its price 
is the single most effective thing Congress can do to lower gas prices. 
Today, 73 percent of every dollar we pay for gasoline is the price of 
producing crude oil. Almost two-thirds of it comes from foreign 
countries, including OPEC nations and dictatorships like Hugo Chavez's 
Venezuela.
  Congress could vote today to unlock huge American onshore oil and 
natural gas reserves on public lands in the United States. In a study 
just released by the Bureau of Land Management, while onshore public 
lands in the United States are estimated to contain 31 billion barrels 
of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, some 60 percent of 
these lands are completely closed to leasing because of the actions of 
Congress.

                              {time}  1330

  Once such example is the oil reserves in Alaska, where in 1980 
President Jimmy Carter set aside 2,000 acres specifically for energy 
production. According to the U.S. Energy and Information 
Administration, the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil on 
those section 1002 lands is 10.4 billion barrels. That's more than 
twice the proven oil reserves in all of Texas and almost half of the 
total U.S. proven reserves of 21 billion barrels. The recoverable oil 
within these lands represents a possible 50 percent increase in total 
U.S. proven reserves.
  Congress must act to lift the restrictions on America's energy-rich 
public lands and increase exploration and production of American crude 
oil and natural gas. We can do this in an environmentally friendly 
manner. But we have to act and we have to act now. Of that there can be 
no dispute.
  With those pressing needs before us, why would Congress act on this 
bill to give a permanent authorization and increase the amount of money 
to go to the subject of this legislation when the administration has 
told us that no Federal funds are even needed? Mr. Speaker, we can and 
we must do better.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I just want to note a couple of things. 
First, that this is a bipartisan bill, and I want to salute, as 
Representative Scott did, the partnership of Congressman Wittman from 
Virginia in helping to marshal support for this bill.
  I also want to point out that the annual appropriation process will 
determine the funds that go to support this authorization. Otherwise, 
the claims that it's sort of breaking through the cap or not are not 
correct.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who is another 
leader with respect to the Chesapeake Bay and co-chairs the Chesapeake 
Bay Watershed Task Force.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending my colleague 
from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for taking the initiative on this 
important piece of legislation and for all his leadership in our effort 
to clean up the

[[Page 11486]]

Chesapeake Bay and to Mr. Wittman for joining him in this bipartisan 
effort.
  Before I say a few words about this bill, I do think it's important 
to point out that this body has now passed numerous pieces of 
legislation to try to address the energy crisis and the rise in gas 
prices around this country, including legislation to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil by diversifying our energy portfolio. One of 
the things we passed out of this body to do that was to say we 
shouldn't be giving taxpayer subsidies, giveaways, to the oil and gas 
industry at a time when they're already making record profits and 
Americans are facing record prices at the pump. We should instead be 
using those resources to invest in renewable energy and energy 
efficiency. That's the direction this country needs to go.
  The President was in Saudi Arabia recently having tea with the 
leaders of the Saudi Royal Family asking them to reduce prices. They 
said no. We need a long-term strategy. We passed that out of this 
House, and, unfortunately, the President said he's going to veto it 
because he wants to keep giving those subsidies to the oil and gas 
industry rather than taking a new and different approach to our energy 
crisis. That's what this House did. Unfortunately, the President 
continues to block those efforts.
  Now, we do need, as a country, to protect our beautiful and vital 
natural resources like the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay, as my 
colleague Mr. Sarbanes has pointed out, is the Nation's largest 
estuary. It is a national treasure; it's a natural treasure. And that's 
what this bill is about because the Chesapeake Bay is currently under 
assault from a whole host of sources of pollution. Point sources of 
pollution like the kind of pollution that comes out of a sewage pipe 
when it's not being adequately treated before it gets into the 
tributaries, like the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, the 
Susquehanna River; and nonpoint sources of pollution, the kind of 
pollution that washes off our driveways from oil dripping from cars or 
the pollution that comes off of fields that are under agricultural 
production.
  Now, not long ago we passed in this legislature, in this Congress, 
the farm bill, and that farm bill provided vital additional help to our 
farmers, who are good stewards of our land. It provided them with vital 
new tools to help prevent that kind of nonpoint source pollution. And 
that will give them a vital boost in the years ahead in our effort to 
clean up the Chesapeake Bay and meet the goals that have been set.
  But the other key element to sustain that support is to engage the 
public. And we mean not just the Department of Agriculture but the 
other departments and agencies of the United States Government like the 
Department of Interior and the National Park Service, who has played 
such an important role in raising the understanding of the public that 
we all need to be part of this effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
  In our State of Maryland, when you go down your roads and you see the 
systems where the water dumps into the pipes to take it out to rivers, 
it says this drains into the Chesapeake Bay. We have done a good job of 
trying to raise that public support. But this system, this whole 
effort, the Gateways effort that we are talking about in this bill, has 
also been a vital component of that to let people know what the 
Chesapeake Bay means to our region and to our country.
  And it would be very shortsighted to end this program. What we need 
to do instead is to say, as has been said by others, that this program 
has worked in raising that public awareness, enlisting the support of 
students and adults, young children and senior citizens in this big 
effort to protect this vital estuary. And this Gateways program has 
been a very important component in that effort. We need to keep it 
going, and we need to make it permanent.
  I salute my colleague from Maryland, John Sarbanes, for his 
tremendous effort in this region and for reaching out and making this a 
bipartisan effort along with Mr. Wittman, and I urge adoption of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, the other gentleman from 
Maryland, for working on this project, the Gateways and Watertrails 
system. It is a system, Mr. Speaker, that provides, as the gentleman 
from Maryland described, public education about the ecology of the 
Chesapeake Bay and what an individual can do not only to enjoy the 
landscape, not only to explore and paddle the landscape, but to 
understand the landscape.
  Now, a lot of discussion here recently has been about energy, fossil 
fuels, should we drill for more oil? The issue of the Gateways is about 
education. A quote from Norman Cousins, the editor of the Saturday 
Evening Post some 30 or 40 years ago, said, ``Knowledge is the solvent 
for danger.'' So let's focus on a little bit of information, knowledge. 
The United States can never become energy independent if it continues 
to be dependent on fossil fuel. There is simply not enough here. We 
peaked in the 1970s. Energy from fossil fuels has created the situation 
we now call ``climate change'' or ``global warming.'' Global warming 
creates a transition for the Chesapeake Bay. This is not a geologic 
transition. This is not a natural forces transition from a changing 
ecology. This is a human-forced transition for the Chesapeake Bay that 
will continue to degrade the water. What can we do about it? One of the 
things is a source of education, a source of knowledge.
  The Gateways program involves the public in understanding some 
amazing things. Number one, the geology of the Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed. Why is the Chesapeake Bay here? Why is the Delmarva 
Peninsula here? An understanding of how geologic forces created this 
magnificent estuary over millions of years.
  Number two, Gateways helps people understand the ecological evolution 
of the Chesapeake Bay. Why are there forests here? Why is there a whole 
range of song birds or water foul or marine life? It is a magnificent 
place unknown anywhere else on the continent but the Chesapeake Bay. 
The ecological evolution of the Chesapeake Bay.
  And the other thing the Gateways program does is help us understand 
human history, when the first Native Americans got here about 10,000 
years ago, to John Smith 400 years ago, to the transition that we see 
today in the Chesapeake Bay. The Gateways and Watertrails program is an 
educational program.
  To understand the transition that the bay is now going through is not 
a geological change. It's not an ecological change. It's that human 
activity is not compatible with nature's design. And this program helps 
us understand those views so we can be a part of the solution and not 
part of the problem.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest) for his career's work on behalf of the environment and the 
Chesapeake Bay and thank him for his support.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my extreme pleasure now to yield 1 minute to the 
majority leader, another champion of the Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, I had the great 
privilege of being elected to the Maryland State Senate in 1966. There 
were two other individuals--there were a lot of other individuals, but 
there were two other individuals who were elected with me. The other 
two were elected to the House of Delegates. One of those was Benjamin 
Cardin, who is now Maryland's junior United States Senator. The other 
individual elected that had same year was Paul Sarbanes.
  Paul Sarbanes served for 4 years, then was elected to the House in 
1970, served in the House for 6 years, and in 1976 was elected to the 
United States Senate. I was in the State Senate and had the privilege 
of working hard for

[[Page 11487]]

his election that year. He served longer than any other individual 
representing our State, and one of the programs that he fostered was 
the program that we are reauthorizing today.
  He can swell with pride not only on the substance of this legislation 
but also on the fact that his extraordinary son, who now represents a 
district that he used to represent, the Third Congressional District of 
our State, is now sponsoring and shepherding this legislation through 
the House of Representatives.
  My colleagues have spoken about the substance of this legislation. 
John Smith in 1607 came up a bay that was pristine and essentially 
unspoiled. In the next 400 years, man, in his somewhat 
irresponsibility, has not husbanded that asset that God gave us as he 
should or as she should.
  This legislation, sponsored by Senator Sarbanes many years ago, now 
shepherded by his son, Congressman John Sarbanes, was an effort to 
ensure that we understood what Congressman Gilchrest talked about and 
the importance of this asset we call the Chesapeake Bay, not just to 
Maryland, not just to Pennsylvania or Delaware or Virginia, but to our 
country. An extraordinary ecological resource.
  So I rise simply not to recite what my colleagues have already 
recited but to congratulate John Sarbanes, to say how proud we are, as 
I know he is as well, of the extraordinary service given to our State 
by his father, Senator Paul Sarbanes, the original author of this 
legislation, and to thank him for carrying this torch forward on behalf 
of a resource that is priceless, as the ad says.
  So I thank him for yielding this time, congratulate him for his 
efforts, and urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 5540, 
legislation introduced by Representative John Sarbanes which seeks to 
permanently reauthorize the National Park Service's Chesapeake Bay 
Gateways and Watertrails Network Program.
  Those of us fortunate to live in this region have been blessed with a 
multitude of magnificent natural resources, not the least of which is 
our Nation's largest estuary--the Chesapeake Bay, a body of water that 
has played such an important role in shaping the cultural, economic, 
political, and social history of our region.
  Unfortunately, the Chesapeake Bay of 2008 is not the pristine body 
that Captain John Smith first charted on his expeditions some 400 years 
ago. Indeed, earlier this year, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program released 
the Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment which found 
the overall health of the bay remains significantly impaired.
  In the 110th Congress, I have joined with my colleagues in 
successfully advocating legislation to improve the health of the bay.
  We've strengthened the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers to 
undertake bay oyster restoration, water pollution control, and 
environmental infrastructure projects in the 2007 WRDA bill. And, we've 
included approximately $438 million in mandatory funding to help 
Chesapeake Bay watershed farmers in their ongoing efforts to implement 
practices to prevent runoff and control shoreline erosion.
  H.R. 5540, the legislation we consider today, takes another important 
step forward in our efforts by permanently authorizing a program that 
has already done so much to raise awareness of the fragile health of 
the bay and directly engage our region's citizens and visitors to take 
an active role in fulfilling our shared goal of restoring the 
Chesapeake.
  The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which includes more than 156 
museums, State parks, wildlife refuges and other sites in 6 States and 
the District of Columbia, was established to link together these 
wonderful places in the hopes of enabling visitors to better understand 
and appreciate the role they can play in the bay's survival.
  The program enables sites to compete for grant funding--which must be 
fully matched--for projects that will help conserve, restore and 
interpret their roles in the bay's natural, cultural, and social 
history.
  The Gateways Program is a critical component to fostering a 
commitment among our citizens to restore the bay and I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  So here we are debating a bill under a rule which we all know should 
have best been under a suspension. It's not a perfect bill. If they 
accept an amendment later on, it will be a perfect bill. But for any 
imperfections that are here, this bill has far better drafting, far 
better intent, far more bipartisanship than perhaps some illogical 
partisan gamesmanship that produced vociferous debate under suspensions 
yesterday.
  But one would wonder why we are taking time on the floor to consider 
a bill which was passed out of the Resources Committee by a voice vote 
and a bill in which I intend to vote in favor? What is it about this 
bill that is actually so important that we are talking about it rather 
than other more pressing national issues such as an energy crisis? Why 
does such a relatively innocuous bill take precedence over finding 
solutions to gas prices that are now around $4 a gallon and probably 
going higher?

                              {time}  1345

  It must be that this bill accomplishes something so dramatically 
important that we are foolish to consider other issues, such as 
national security or our deepening dependence on foreign oil.
  This bill deals with an area that includes no Federal waters. There 
are no Federal assets that are a part of it. It could easily be done 
with an inter-local cooperating agreement, which many States in the 
West use. Instead, the Federal Government is involved in that. Despite 
that fact, I still intend on voting for this particular bill.
  This is a recreational bill. This bill provides moneys for trails, 
maps, signs, and all the nice things in the quest of healthy outdoor 
recreation in the Chesapeake Bay region. This program was originally 
authorized in 1998 as a 5-year program, and then reauthorized for 
another 5 years in 2002. And now the authorization, not for the program 
but for the appropriations for this program, are set to expire and the 
proponents are offering this legislation to authorize funding this 
program for eternity.
  There will be no caps on the funds that can be appropriated for this 
program, no time limit. Maybe this is such a big priority for the 
Democratic majority because the National Park Service testified this 
program has received $7.7 million in earmarks since its creation. Maybe 
the Democrats wish to preserve a conduit for earmarks masquerading as a 
recreation bill. This is what takes precedence over national security 
and the energy crisis here on the floor of the House.
  Yet, I don't object to the earmarks that were made for this 
particular bill, even though some of them are different. Part of the 
money that goes to this particular bill or has been earmarked in the 
past has been $20,000 dollars for a Native American interpretive 
brochure. I don't oppose that. Funds go into this for a Dino-Mania! 
Camp-In so that people can delve into the world of dinosaurs as your 
family spends the night in a Virginia Living Museum, explore how big 
some dinosaurs were, find out what might have caused their extinction, 
and it also comes with an evening snack and a breakfast.
  My favorite, the Tree Spirits. The ancients believed the trees had 
spirits, and if you look hard enough, you see them in this woody bark. 
This workshop will focus on the old beliefs to trees, their meaning, 
their practical purposes. Fathers and sons will join the rangers on a 
hike as we scavenge the materials to make our own Tree Spirits for you 
all.
  I actually don't object to that. I still intend to vote for this 
particular bill.
  Nature hikes, picnics in the park, learning about ecology are causes 
to champion, and I'd be happy to support those things, but this bill 
doesn't solve the major threat to those activities. How will one be 
able to afford to get to these outdoor locations, enjoy these earmarks 
when the gas is too expensive to allow them to travel anywhere. At this 
point, Americans are not working to live, they are working to pay for 
the gas to get to work and back home. With gas at $4 a gallon, weekend 
family visits to the Chesapeake are becoming less and less of a 
possibility.
  Unfortunately, our unwillingness to address the dramatic spike in 
energy

[[Page 11488]]

prices today hurts American families, not only by putting some 
recreational activities beyond their reach, but by wrecking the 
household budget for basics, such as food, electricity, and medicine. 
Some people talk about our goal should be to get revenge on companies 
that produce energy, but such a program does not add one barrel of 
energy to meet the demands of the present time.
  The Resources Committee, from which this legislation originated, is 
the same committee that has jurisdiction over domestic resources, 
resources on public lands, such as the Outer Continental Shelf and 
ANWR. It's past time for the Resource Committee to stop in its quest to 
become merely a ``Recreation Committee.'' This country has locked up 
more resources in America than other nations have in their entire 
country. America is blessed with a wealth of natural resources and 
historically we have had the unique ability to develop and continuously 
improve the technology needed to use these resources.
  We have faced and overcome bigger challenges in the past, but we in 
Congress must act now to meet the critical energy needs of today. We 
need to stop creating obstacles to domestic energy production so the 
American people can get to work and solve the problem. That should be 
the priority of the people, that should be our priority as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. How many minutes remain?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have 15 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I am gratified that Representative Bishop intends to vote for the 
bill. I did want to point out that this is about as far as from an 
earmark as you can get. The projects under this particular Gateways 
program are determined at the discretion and based on application to 
the agency by the National Park Service.
  At this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to 
another champion of the Chesapeake Bay and someone who understands the 
importance of reaching out to partners throughout the watershed, and 
that is the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for 
yielding. I want to thank him for his tremendous leadership, 
outstanding leadership with regard to such a critical issue.
  As I listened to the last speaker from the other side, I could not 
help but think about how many people in our country simply want to have 
an opportunity to have a little life brought to their lives. This is 
not a major measure, but it is one that will bring spice to life.
  We are very blessed to have the Chesapeake Bay. We are very blessed 
to have this program. When you think about my favorite saying, and that 
is, That we did not inherit our environment from our parents but we 
borrowed it from our children, I think this program goes a long ways to 
making sure that we leave an earth better than the one we received when 
we came upon the earth.
  This Gateways program and its reauthorization are very important 
because through its partners it can continue to educate people about 
the natural, cultural, historic, and recreational sites throughout the 
bay region and about how their communities relate directly to the 
health of our largest estuary and national treasure, the Chesapeake 
Bay.
  And so what will happen as a result of this is that children will 
have an opportunity to learn about what part the bay plays in their 
lives and how important it is and, believe it or not, some of them even 
being exposed to the bay to really understand that it is indeed a very, 
very wonderful feature of their State and their backyard.
  So, again, I congratulate Mr. Sarbanes and all of those who have 
anything to do with making this happen. I think it's very important, as 
I said before, that we bring spice to the lives of our citizens, and 
this bill goes a very, very long way in doing that.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the newest 
member of the Virginia delegation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) for yielding time to me on this important issue.
  I rise in support of H.R. 5540, legislation to reauthorize the 
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. I represent Virginia's 
First Congressional District, which is largely defined by the 
Chesapeake Bay. My constituents live, work, and play in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. My district also includes many components of the 
Gateways Network, including historic Yorktown, Colonial Williamsburg, 
historic Jamestown, all the way to Washington's birthplace in 
Westmoreland County.
  This is a fantastic effort here that, as you have heard, was spawned 
by lots of great ideas and leaders in the past, and one of those that 
was part of this effort was the late Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis. She 
did a tremendous amount of work to put together the ideas to help in 
creating this network. She had a passion for the Chesapeake Bay and all 
the assets that are there in the Chesapeake Bay and passion to make 
sure people knew about those so they could appreciate the bay, they 
could appreciate the culture that it brings to our region, that folks 
could appreciate the natural resources there, and that they could 
understand how all of those parts are interrelated to understand the 
importance of the bay to our region.
  The Gateways Network links together over 100 parks, museums, wildlife 
refuges, and other cultural and historic sites into a comprehensive 
system so that people can understand it and so that they realize the 
parts of the things that make the Chesapeake Bay important.
  This Gateways program connects visitors with the natural beauty, rich 
history, and the recreational opportunities there within the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. That's extraordinarily important so that folks can make 
the effort to understand the bay and be part of the effort to preserve 
and protect the bay.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, my constituents, like everybody else, are 
dealing with the cost of rising prices for gasoline. These increasing 
cost are impacting their budgets and cutting into their planned summer 
vacations. I am strongly in support of this bill. But I do join Mr. 
Bishop and many of my colleagues to call on Congress to take action on 
a comprehensive plan to rein in gas prices.
  We should take a number of steps to promote American-made energy. We 
need to encourage next-generation technologies, we need to promote 
conservation, we need to look at bridging from the present and the use 
of fossil fuels to the future. But, let's face it folks, fossil fuels 
is going to be part of that bridge to the future. So we need to make 
sure that we have them available for us to get to this next generation 
of energy.
  We need to make sure that we, as part of that, look at our dependence 
on foreign oil, while keeping in mind the environment that we must 
protect in all parts of that puzzle in creating a comprehensive energy 
policy.
  Unfortunately, unless gas prices come down soon, I am concerned that 
families that may want to come to the Chesapeake Bay and enjoy the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed and enjoy the Chesapeake Bay network may not 
have the opportunity to do so. That means it's incumbent upon us to put 
together a responsible, comprehensive energy policy the make sure that 
folks can indeed enjoy the Chesapeake Bay, enjoy the network that this 
program provides so they can understand the importance of the different 
cultural and environmental and economic aspects of the Chesapeake Bay.
  So let's not miss this opportunity as we work to extend this 
particular network system to make sure that we also use this as a 
conduit to talk about energy policy, energy issues that are important 
to this Nation and to the Chesapeake Bay. Let's face it, the bay these 
days is being affected by the impact of man, and energy is part of 
that. So let's make sure that across the board we address these 
particular issues and make sure that we provide some relief to our 
hardworking American families that are dealing with

[[Page 11489]]

these high energy prices. Again, it needs to be a long-term energy 
solution to make sure that we are able to address this in a way that is 
important for our future.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank, again, Congressman Wittman for his 
support and his lifelong commitment to the Chesapeake Bay.
  Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger has been a champion of the Chesapeake 
Bay throughout his career, earlier in his career as county executive 
for Baltimore County, Maryland, and now as a Congressman from the 
Second District of Maryland. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I thank you for yielding. Congressman Sarbanes, 
thank you for your advocacy. The Chesapeake Bay is so important to our 
region, to our country.
  I do want to respond though to my colleagues on the other side about 
the issue of oil prices. We are talking about the Chesapeake Bay, which 
is very important to our country. We all know that the oil prices and 
energy is a very important issue. Believe me, we have had 8 years 
trying to deal with that issue. And we will continue to deal with it 
because we know people are suffering. But we are talking about the 
Chesapeake Bay today.
  The Chesapeake Bay is very important to those of us who live in the 
Chesapeake Bay. We feel that we are stewards of the Chesapeake Bay. 
There are 16 million people that live within the watershed of the 
Chesapeake Bay, and that is very relevant. It's very relevant that we 
generate millions of dollars in seafood from the Chesapeake Bay. It's 
very relevant that our citizens who work around and within the 
Chesapeake Bay are also paid money for their jobs.
  But, more importantly, it's also about an issue of the environment 
too. The watershed. Right now, the Chesapeake Bay is having problems. 
We have to deal with those problems. This bill is a very important bill 
because if we don't move forward with this bill, we will not be able to 
educate our peers, 16 million people who, unfortunately, don't 
understand that when you pour a toxic substance down the drain, that it 
could go to the Chesapeake Bay.
  We need to educate our farmers to let them know that we need to have 
no-till farming, make sure that the fertilizer don't go to the 
Chesapeake Bay and kill the fish and the crabs and the oysters that are 
generated through the Chesapeake Bay.
  So I feel very, very strongly that we need to pass this bill. It's a 
relevant bill. We will deal with the issue of energy. We need to. We 
can't keep relying on other countries for our oil. I urge all my 
colleagues to vote in favor of reauthorizing this critical program to 
continue and expand the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network and make sure 
that the treasures of the Chesapeake Bay are preserved for future 
generations.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of other points I wanted to 
make. First of all, I am pleased to indicate that we have a letter that 
came to Chairman Rahall and to Ranking Member Young from the six 
Governors of the six States that make up the watershed and from the 
Mayor of the District of Columbia. So that is the Governors of 
Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia, 
and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, who have written to indicate 
their very, very strong support for this legislation.

                                                     June 5, 2008.
     Hon. Nick J. Rahall,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington DC.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Natural Resources, 
         Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young: We are 
     writing to express our strong support for H.R. 5540, the 
     Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing 
     Authorization Act.
       The Chesapeake Gateways Program (``program'') plays a 
     vitally important role in our efforts to restore the 
     Chesapeake Bay by improving public access, enhancing public 
     education, and fostering citizen stewardship of the many 
     natural, cultural and historical resources of the Bay region. 
     Since its establishment in 1998, more than 150 sites and 
     water trails have been designated as Gateways throughout the 
     watershed in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West 
     Virginia, New York, and the District of Columbia. These 
     Gateway sites are helping to promote a greater understanding 
     and appreciation of the Chesapeake Bay and a greater 
     commitment to the Bay's restoration. The relatively modest 
     federal investment in the program has leveraged substantial 
     matching contributions--both financial and in-kind--from our 
     States, community organizations and other partners. For these 
     reasons, among others, the program was recognized by the 
     White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in 2005 as 
     a cooperative conservation success story.
       However, there is still a tremendous need for improved on-
     site interpretation, enhanced public access, and additional 
     strategies to engage visitors and residents alike in the 
     Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection effort. In 2004, 
     the National Park Service completed a Chesapeake Bay Special 
     Resources Study which recommended, as its preferred 
     alternative, that the Gateways Program be made permanent and 
     expanded. The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrail Network 
     Continuing Authorization Act would codify this recommendation 
     as well as enable implementation and fulfillment of the 
     original vision for an expansive Gateways and Watertrails 
     Network. It is critical that the Congress reauthorize this 
     important program and reject efforts to weaken the 
     legislation or sunset the Network. Doing so will pay 
     significant dividends in the years ahead by helping to 
     preserve and enhance our nation's largest estuary.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
           Sincerely,
     Martin O'Malley,
       Governor, Maryland.
     Timothy M. Kaine,
       Governor, Virginia.
     Ruth Ann Minner,
       Governor, Delaware.
     Edward G. Rendell,
       Governor, Pennsylvania.
     David A. Paterson,
       Governor, New York.
     Joe Manchin III,
       Governor, West Virginia.
                                               Mayor Adrian Fenty,
       Mayor, District of Columbia.

  Mr. Speaker, I did want to just mention one site, because we talked 
about the 156 sites and I wanted to bring that to life a little bit. 
The Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, which is not far from here, located in 
Maryland between Baltimore and Washington, is the oldest and really 
only National Wildlife Refuge that conducts wildlife research. It is 
13,000 acres. It is the largest contiguous block of forest in the 
Baltimore-Washington corridor and it is the site of a tremendous amount 
of environmental education.
  Not too long ago we had the opportunity in connection with some other 
environmental education legislation that I have sponsored to do a field 
hearing at the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, and in the morning we had six 
schools represented from Maryland that came there with busloads of 
children to participate in activities of environmental education. If 
you could have seen the look on their faces and how excited they were 
to be outdoors and engaged in this kind of learning you would have I 
think been very, very impressed with the resource that exists there.
  That is just one site of 156 sites across the bay watershed that are 
providing a tremendous opportunity to our citizens to connect not just 
to the environment, but to the heritage and cultural history of this 
area.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, if you recall back to the movie 
``The Natural,'' if you remember there is that one wonderful scene 
where this mythical team, the New York Knights, have called in a 
psychologist to talk to the team to try to get them out of their losing 
slump. And as they are sitting there, talking to these ballplayers he 
says, ``The mind is a strange thing, men. We must begin by asking, what 
is losing? Losing is a disease that is as contagious as syphilis. 
Losing is a disease as contagious as the bubonic plague, attacking one, 
but infecting all. But curable. Now I want you to imagine you are on a 
vast ocean. You are on a ship at sea gently rocking, gently rocking, 
gently rocking, gently rocking.''

[[Page 11490]]

  In that scene Roy Hobbs, now in disgust, breaks out of that and 
leaves this therapy session, because he recognizes that the solution to 
their losing season is not sitting there talking philosophically about 
it, but actually going out on the field and doing something.
  We today in the issue of energy are in the mode of simply talking 
about it. All we are doing is coming here and talking about these 
theoretical approaches, gently rocking, gently rocking. We are talking 
about building straw men that we can then knock about, whether it is 
big oil or a so-called bubble, or yesterday someone said the reason we 
are paying so much at the pump is because of Enron. Ken Lay has somehow 
reached up from the dead and somehow hiked up the price of gasoline. 
And our only solution to this entire situation so far is we have passed 
a piece of legislation that allows lawyers to go out and sue OPEC, in 
the hopes that maybe they might give us some more energy money.
  It is almost as if what we are trying to say is we are going to have 
everyone sit down and listen to a psychologist that will try and 
convince us that freezing in the dark can be an enjoyable thing if we 
just have the right attitude towards it, because losing is simply a 
mind game and it is contagious.
  What Roy Hobbs did is the exact opposite. He left that stuff. He went 
out on the field, he knocked the cover off the ball, and when they 
actually started doing something, that is when this mythical New York 
Knights team started to win.
  If we want to solve the problem of energy for American citizens, we 
have got to stop, quit talking about it and our secret plans and coming 
up with these mythical enemies which we want to attack, and we simply 
have to go out and do something. And that means production now. We 
cannot sit here simply idly by while American people are suffering 
without actually doing something in reality. And that means yes on 
conservation, but it also means we have to increase production. If we 
don't do that, recreational opportunities like this particular bill 
have no purpose and have no meaning. There is nothing left for them to 
do.
  If I could give a few statements that have been given by people who 
live in this area and who will be impacted by this particular bill and 
what they are saying about the energy issues and how it impacts and 
affects them.
  ``Repercussions,'' a quote here, ``from the escalating price of fuel 
are felt everywhere. Sportsfishing is no exception. Neither is the 
business of chartering, headboating or commercial fishing. The same 
applies to businesses associated with fishing. One big tackle shop 
proprietor told the other day, `I have four people and myself working 
now and not a single customer in the shop. Haven't seen one in 10 
minutes.'''
  ``Alex DeMetrick reports gas prices are soaring, having an impact on 
those who depend on boats and the Bay to make a living. Naming a work 
boat the `Last Penny,' which may have been a stab at some kind of 
subtle humor, it is striking a little too close to reality at the fuel 
docks around the bay as diesel is now at $4.50 a gallon and climbing. 
`Gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going down,' said one of 
the watermen who works there. `Working the water takes constant moving, 
but with crabs spotty and fuel high, watermen are trying to conserve. 
They are hurting us bad,' he says. `It's almost double in the past 
year, so it is taking a right good bite out of us,' says another one of 
the watermen who works there.''
  Over at Dredge Harbor, New Jersey, another one of those people who 
work there said high gas prices are also affecting his customers. 
``Instead of taking four trips down the Chesapeake Bay, they now might 
take two trips this year, and most of their customers use their boats 
as homes afloat so they can conserve as much fuel as possible. High 
prices are somewhat affecting the sales.''
  Another one of the reports from this area, ``Elevated prices are 
causing some charter fishing captains to want to jump overboard.'' As 
one said who owns a yacht yard, he is selling gas for $4.20 per gallon 
at his fuel dock, and he has noticed fewer and fewer small power boats 
on the water.
  What we are simply doing as we go along with this, there are other 
people that simply say, ``Now I can see no way of getting over the hump 
of fuel costs. We have got good fishing, but we have fewer and fewer 
customers. With gas prices going this way, we are simply losing the 
opportunity of using this resource for the purpose in which it was 
therefore designed. High costs not only affect the fishing industry on 
the water, local businesses are also feeling the gas price pinch. A 
local tackle shop simply said, `I still got people working there and no 
one is coming in there.' Gas prices are dipping into his resources and 
his ability to make a living.''
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. One of the things we have to deal with if we are 
actually going to deal in a proper way with the reauthorization of this 
entire program is to understand that if we are going to have these 
types of opportunities, either for people to recreate, people to learn, 
people to enjoy, people to enhance their entire environment, we have 
got to be able to get them there. Kind of like today. We seem to be 
needing to get people up from the White House, in which case they are 
walking because we can't afford the fuel to put them on buses to get 
them here. Therefore, things change because of those circumstances, and 
it is one of those concepts in which we are working.
  If we really need to be serious about this, we have to realize that 
our energy crisis today is limiting the ability to experience this type 
of an environment, this type of attitude and this process. And if we 
want to make full use of the Chesapeake Bay resources that are there, 
we have to make sure that real people have the opportunity of going 
there and experiencing it. Because when we talk about oil prices, we 
are not simply talking about some concept, some ethereal project that 
is out there. We are talking about real people, how they live, how 
their jobs work, how they get to the chance to recreate and make their 
lives fuller and better. And that has to be an integral part of this 
discussion, ought to be an integral part. In fact, it is a more 
significant part of this discussion on a bill that still is a decent 
bill that should have been done as a suspension, not as a rule here on 
the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, a couple of points.
  First of all, the gentleman from Utah spoke to the livelihood of 
people who work on the Chesapeake Bay, but the biggest threat to those 
who make their living on the Chesapeake Bay is the decline in the 
health of the Chesapeake Bay and the fisheries in particular that are 
in the Chesapeake Bay. So if we have the interests of those people at 
heart, we ought to be committing ourselves wholeheartedly to this 
continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails 
Network, because it is designed to enhance and improve and protect over 
the long term the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
  To address another point, one of the reasons that the Democratic 
majority has been so steadfast in urging the pursuit of alternatives to 
fossil fuels in terms of energy sources is to reduce our dependence 
there, which obviously could go a long way towards the concern over 
fuel prices and gas prices. But another reason is because it will 
reduce these greenhouse gas emissions, which, again, impact the 
environment. If we don't take steps to do that, then there is not going 
to be any environment for us to enjoy.
  The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program, it has been alluded to the fact 
that this is noncontroversial bill, that it should have come up on 
suspension. I agree. The minority resisted our desire to have it 
permanently authorized, and that is why we are in the process we are in 
today. But that permanent authorization I think is very much a part of 
the strong statement that we are seeking to make to the citizens in

[[Page 11491]]

the watershed and to the many millions of visitors who come to the 
watershed every year, that our national government stands steadfast in 
this partnership with our citizenry.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would still like 
to try and reemphasize as we are talking about this particular bill is 
this bill deals with the reauthorization of the appropriations concept. 
This is not about cleaning up the environment. Several of the speakers 
who have spoken today talked about the necessity of environmental 
protection. This is not the EPA's program. This is a wholly separate 
issue and a separate concept.
  One of the things that we should keep in mind is the purpose and the 
concept of an authorizing committee, is an authorizing committee should 
be reviewing what we are trying to do at periodic bases. That is our 
purpose.
  One of the things in this particular bill that is a problem, is 
problematic to the future, is that it rejects the ability of Congress 
to take periodic reviews of this particular program. When it was first 
initiated in 1998, there was a 5-year statute in which we would then 
review it. In 2002 we reviewed it. We are now looking at a bill that I 
think we are all going to agree is needed to go forward, but there 
still should be some kind of review.
  It should not be forgotten that when we voted this particular bill in 
the Resource Committee on a voice vote, there were six other bills at 
that time similar in scope, similar in fashion, similar in funding, but 
each of them had a periodic review attached to it. So a bill by Mr. 
Udall, a bill by Ms. Baldwin, a bill by Mr. Bilbray, by Mrs. Bono Mack 
and Ms. Bordallo, all of them had the responsibility of allowing 
Congress to do what it is supposed to do and try to take some kind of 
review at regular basic intervals.
  That still is the wisest approach to it. It is one of the few flaws 
that I actually find in this particular bill, and it is one of those 
flaws that probably should be addressed.
  We talked about the kinds of grants that have been awarded in the 
past. There are $7.7 million worth of earmarks not asked by the agency 
that have been added to this. We have added grants in certain years 
that have been, for example, $34,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Marine 
Museum, $21,000 for the Stratford Hall Plantation; $12,000 for the 
Mason Neck State Park; and $18,000 for the Annapolis Maritime Museum. I 
am not objecting to these as being inappropriate. In fact, I could 
probably argue they were appropriate and they were needful. They are 
useful. But I am saying that what Congress should do if we actually 
fulfill our responsibility is make sure that we look at these on a 
periodic basis, and that should be part of the statute. That is what we 
commonly do in most pieces of legislation, and it all should be part of 
this legislation at the same time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 1 minute. The 
gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, one more time, if we can try and 
emphasize the point of this.
  This is still a decent bill. There are a few flaws, but it is a 
decent bill and I support it going forward with this particular bill. 
There are still some changes I would like to see in that bill.
  Also, we must realize, though, that if we are talking about the 
overall use of this bill, we are taking time on the floor when we 
should be talking about much more significant and vital issues than 
this particular bill.
  Having a rule on this bill is a strange use of the time of Congress, 
especially when there are much more significant issues that need to be 
debated and discussed at this particular time. And even though I plan 
on voting for this bill, it is one of those things that is still sad 
that we are as a Congress not addressing the core issues for which the 
people have sent us here and not looking at what should be the core 
issues for which the people have sent us here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, again, I am gratified the gentleman from 
Utah plans to vote for this bill. I do note that the reason that we are 
here, the reason this was under a rule in part was to allow the 
gentleman to present an amendment, which I guess is going to be coming 
next.
  In terms of safeguards, the appropriations process provides that on 
an annual basis in terms of looking at the program and deciding what 
kind of support ought to be given to it. The permanent authorization is 
about making a statement, making a statement to the citizen partners 
that we are asking to step up and be part of this effort to preserve 
the Chesapeake Bay.
  The way we are going to save the bay, the way we are going to enhance 
its health over time is not by turning it over to experts, but by 
taking ownership at the community level, having every citizen 
understand what they can do in their own backyard, working with 
nonprofit groups, working with museums, with wildlife refuges, with 
historic sites, et cetera, to stake a claim in the future of the bay. 
And that is what the Chesapeake Bay Gateways program is all about; it 
is a gateway to this national treasure, 156 sites, 1,500 miles of water 
trails, and a tremendous investment on the part of ordinary citizens in 
the future of this national treasure. That is why we sought a permanent 
authorization. That is why we continue to seek it. That is at the heart 
of H.R. 5540, and I urge my colleagues to support it when it comes to 
the vote.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Natural 
Resources, I would like to commend our colleague, Representative John 
Sarbanes, for his tireless efforts on behalf of the pending 
legislation.
  This bill is a simple, straightforward measure that would permanently 
authorize the highly successful Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails 
Network, which would otherwise expire at the end of this fiscal year.
  Over 10 million people each year visit one of the 156 gateway sites 
supported by this program. They come to kayak or canoe, hike or bike, 
picnic, hunt or fish or to watch wildlife. Others come to visit the 
Chesapeake's many maritime museums or to renew their acquaintance with 
turning points in our Nation's history at sites such as Fort McHenry 
and Yorktown Battlefield.
  Each of those visitors comes away with a strengthened awareness of 
the crucial role of the Chesapeake in our national story and as the 
ecological and economic heart of the mid-Atlantic. And that is the goal 
of the Gateway Network, to renew our connection with that great bay.
  The program is so successful that the National Park Service has 
heaped praise upon it, and the White House, in 2005, declared it to be 
a ``cooperative conservation success story.''
  Congress originally authorized this program for 5 years, and renewed 
that short-term authorization in 2002. In 2004, a National Park Service 
special resource study concluded that a permanent commitment to the 
program would ensure its long-term viability and enhance the 
Chesapeake's status among America's national treasures.
  Anyone who saw the Washington Post article on Monday knows that the 
bay's oyster population is in trouble. That situation is both a symptom 
and one of the causes of the precarious health of the bay. Keeping 
people connected with and concerned about the Bay is vital to each step 
in restoring that great estuary--from its headwaters to its oysterbeds.
  The Gateways Network does just that. The program is a proven success, 
and should be permanently authorized. I commend the gentleman from 
Maryland, a valued member of the Natural Resources Committee, for his 
advocacy of this measure.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5540.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, my district is home to many beautiful 
American treasures and one of them is the Chesapeake Bay. ``Save the 
Bay'' is one message that reaches beyond all political boundaries.
  Working alongside my longtime colleague and friend Jo Anne Davis in 
the 109th Congress, we passed legislation to create the Captain John 
Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail--which is part of the 
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network we are reauthorizing 
today. As many of you know, this initiative falls under the larger 
Chesapeake Bay Program, which was created in 1983 to restore and 
protect the bay.

[[Page 11492]]

  I am proud to lend my vote in favor of this bill today, however, I 
would like to call attention to one of the greater matters that this 
Congress should also be voting on: legislation to help the American 
people pay for the astounding cost of energy. One example is a 
comprehensive bill by Representative Peterson that creates a 
partnership between energy development and the environment. This bill 
opens up the OCS for natural gas exploration and uses an estimated $86 
billion dollars in royalties for environmental restoration efforts. The 
Chesapeake Bay Commission estimated that the total cost to restore the 
Chesapeake Bay is $19 billion. The NEED Act fully funds the Chesapeake 
Bay restoration effort at $20 billion. This energy bill is another way 
we can help Save the Bay, and the budgets of American families.
  I am an original cosponsor of the NEED Act and I believe it is an 
example of bipartisan energy legislation. We must all come together in 
a bipartisan manner to pass legislation that will increase our domestic 
energy supply and help alleviate soaring prices. I cannot speak for 
your districts, but families in Virginia's Second District need an 
energy solution now and it is our job to give them one.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). All time for debate on the bill 
has expired.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made 
in order under the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       Page 2, line 14, insert after ``section'' the following: 
     ``for fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1233, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I proposed here 
was actually proposed in the committee as well, and it is an amendment 
which in all sincerity is an effort to try and make a good bill into a 
very, very good bill. It has no intentions whatsoever of trying to 
derail the path of successful completion of this particular bill, but 
actually solve a problem and present a sense of comfort that might not 
necessarily be there as the bill proceeds to the other body.
  We are dealing, obviously, as some people have--not here on the 
floor, for all of us here on the floor who are Members, but some people 
have said that this is simply a sunsetting provision. It is not that. 
This program is not going to be sunsetted. But there is an 
authorization of appropriations which desperately needs that time to be 
looked at.
  My amendment is designed to bring this bill in line with all the 
other bills that we have passed out of the Resources Committee this 
year. Typically in the Resources Committee we review authorizations on 
specific periods of time. For this reason, I anxiously anticipate the 
support of Democratic colleagues, because this is good government. It 
is a fiscally responsible amendment.
  My amendment reauthorizes the review of this program after 5 years. 
This is a compromise between the National Park Service request, which 
was no authorization at all. They were fine about technical assistance, 
but they suggested there should be no more grants given to this 
program, as they said this program has matured enough and don't need 
any more, and the bill's sponsor who was asking for an eternal unending 
authorization of appropriations. Five years was good enough the first 
time this program was authorized, it was sufficient when this program 
was reauthorized, and it ought to be a sufficient time for Congress not 
to abrogate our responsibility but do our responsibility to review the 
programs that we authorize and how they are being funded.
  There is a reason we add these positions to bills. As I told you in 
the committee, the very committee that sent this bill out, there were 
six other bills in a similar status; and on each of those six bills we 
put in this process so that the committee could review that 
authorization and the funding source and what those programs were doing 
at 5-year intervals. Some bills we have passed out have no time limits, 
but in every situation they have funding limitations that are put on 
them. This particular bill in the course it is drafted right now has no 
funding limitation nor any review process to it. And that is where it 
can be improved.
  There is a reason we add these provisions to bills. Without them, 
programs have a tendency of languishing, depending upon Federal funds, 
where we want them to encourage recipients of these funds to use them 
wisely and to have an incentive to produce results. When programs 
expire, we have a chance to reevaluate them and conduct this oversight. 
That is our responsibility as an authorizing committee and as Congress 
as a whole, and we should not abrogate that responsibility. Without my 
amendment, we are relinquishing our oversight and leaving it simply to 
appropriators.
  Already this program has received, as I said earlier, $7.7 million in 
unrequested earmarks. This bill also eliminates the annual cap on the 
funds that are eligible to be received. I understand that this has been 
an excellent conduit for earmarks, but let us not lose the fiscal 
responsibility that we have to do and get away from simply handing out 
a blank check.
  I mentioned earlier parts of the program that are funded, somewhat 
sarcastically, I admit. They do sound on the surface humorous. I am not 
opposed to what they are doing; I am not opposed to those programs. I 
am simply saying that Congress should have the responsibility of 
looking at those at a regular period. That is our job.
  It is nearing impossibility for the average family to drive to any of 
these recreation areas; much of the responsibility for that lies here 
in Congress as well. Despite that fact, the other side of the aisle is 
unwilling to increase oil and gas reductions. I hope they will cut the 
taxpayers at least a small break by accepting this good government 
amendment, and allow us to review how the money is spent on a periodic 
basis as we traditionally do in most bills that come out of this 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
Bishop amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicated some anxiety that 
the program would languish if it was permanently authorized. And I can 
assure him that this is one program that will not languish, because it 
has so stimulated the interest and the engagement of so many citizens 
and volunteer groups across the six States and the District of Columbia 
that make up the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And that is the point. That 
is the point of permanently authorizing it, because the citizenry has 
stepped up and they have shown that they are ready to work in 
partnership with their national government, and it is time for the 
national government to make an equally powerful statement to the 
citizenry that, when it comes to the Chesapeake Bay, we are going to be 
here as a steadfast ongoing supporter of that partnership.
  Gateways has a proven track record. Initially authorized in 1998 and 
reauthorized in 2002, the Park Service conducted a special resource 
study on the program in 2004, and it concluded that Gateways should be 
made permanent and expanded. That is because the program is tested and 
proven. Park Service has already made the Gateways network a permanent 
unit of the Park System. Again, another reason it certainly will not 
languish, and a reason why the kind of oversight that the gentleman 
from Utah is concerned about will be there in terms of the agency's 
responsibility.
  The appropriations process, which he dismissed as a significant way 
of overseeing the program and providing scrutiny to it, is there on an 
annual basis and can certainly serve that purpose.

[[Page 11493]]

  So it is the essence of this bill in fact that we permanently 
authorize it, because we want to make the statement to those volunteers 
and citizens who stepped into this tremendous partnership to preserve 
the Chesapeake Bay that we understand the commitment they have made, 
and we are prepared to make an equal commitment from our side.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate one more time the 
opportunity of talking about this.
  It is one of the fundamental elements that we have as the concept of 
good government that Congress should exercise its right of oversight on 
programs. Even if we authorize a program, however good it should be, 
there still should be at a regular basis an oversight. It is not 
threatening to a program. It is the responsibility of Congress.
  We do have a bunch of programs that simply run without that kind of 
oversight. Some programs whose authorization has lapsed still function 
on. That is not the concept of good government. We have things 
especially in our area, Coastal Zone Management, Endangered Species Act 
whose reauthorization has lapsed, still functions on under their 
authorization by the appropriators, but it needs to be reviewed by the 
Appropriations Committee. That is its purpose.
  We have some programs that are permanent, that have no oversight 
whatsoever: Defense, food stamps, child health care, school lunches. 
But, once again, in each of those areas what Congress should be doing 
is exercising our responsibility, and simply saying there is nothing 
that we should pass that shouldn't ask Congress to relook at a bill and 
relook at a program, and evaluate the essence of that program if it is 
still the most significant thing we should be doing. Or perhaps our 
priorities have changed. That should not be seen as an attack on the 
bill, it should not be seen as something that is negative or 
unfriendly. It should be seen as something simply as reauthorizing and 
re-recognizing what we are supposed to be doing. That is our job as 
representatives of the people, is to constantly be looking at what we 
have authorized, reevaluate, and reappropriate. And we are doing 
something in this particular amendment in an effort to do that at a 5-
year basis. That is not illogical. In fact, that is the norm. That is 
rational. That is what usually happens in these particular situations, 
and it is what should happen in this particular situation. Again, it is 
nothing again to try to harm the bill in any way; it is simply an 
effort to try to move us forward to make sure that Congress does its 
job, and does its job on a regular, appropriate level. That is why we 
are here. We should not abrogate that responsibility. We should accept 
that. We should embrace it. And we should try to move forward from that 
position.
  I apologize for trying to elongate this in some particular way. I 
think I have said repeatedly what the crux of this issue is. This is 
not a proposition from Liechtenstein; this is simply the concept of, do 
we periodically review what we authorize. It is a plus thing that we 
should be doing.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I am new to Congress, but I have already 
sat through a number of hearings in the Natural Resources Committee 
where we scrutinize the appropriations requests and presentation of 
various agencies that are under our jurisdiction. So I have high 
confidence that the congressional oversight that is needed for this 
kind of program will be there through the annual appropriation process.
  And I say again that this is about making a statement to all of those 
citizens who stepped forward and have supported the Gateways program, 
that are there to back these sites, to preserve our environment and the 
Chesapeake Bay, its heritage, its cultural legacy. And if we vote today 
as I hope we will, to permanently authorize this program, we will be 
saying to all of those citizen stewards that we are thankful for the 
commitment that they are making, and that their national government is 
ready to step up and make an equal commitment to protecting and 
preserving the Chesapeake Bay.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1233, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 178, 
nays 232, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               YEAS--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carney
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Forbes
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)

[[Page 11494]]


     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boucher
     Campbell (CA)
     Carter
     Delahunt
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Everett
     Fattah
     Gillibrand
     Granger
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     LaHood
     McCotter
     McKeon
     Pascrell
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Shuler
     Tiahrt

                              {time}  1454

  Messrs. TANNER, MURPHY of Connecticut, CANTOR, ABERCROMBIE, COSTELLO, 
LARSON of Connecticut, SPRATT, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, and Messrs. 
SAXTON and SCOTT of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ISSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Sali

  Mr. SALI. I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SALI. In its current form I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sali moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5540 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House promptly in the form to which 
     perfected at the time of this motion, with the following 
     amendment:
       Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act 
     of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(B) to identify and utilize the collective resources as 
     Chesapeake Bay Gateways sites for enhancing public education 
     of and access to the Chesapeake Bay, including educating the 
     public regarding the effect of high fuel prices on access to 
     and use and enjoyment of all present uses of the Chesapeake 
     Bay Gateways sites and Chesapeake Bay Watertrails;''.

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, this motion is a straightforward one and one 
that I hope we can all support.
  Because the underlying bill is a permanent authorization of 
appropriations for this regional program, it is suitable that the 
Secretary of the Interior should use some of these funds to help the 
residents of the Chesapeake Bay better understand exactly how their 
recreational opportunities, their livelihoods and even their everyday 
lives are affected by the shocking gas prices affecting the country, 
prices which have skyrocketed over 71 percent since the current 
majority was installed in the House of Representatives.
  I have read several news reports that show exactly how high boat fuel 
prices have affected the watermen of the bay. They cannot afford to run 
their boats to catch seafood we all enjoy. In the meantime, the price 
of those delicious crabs is climbing almost as fast as gas prices just 
so these fishermen can make their costs.
  While this program creates popular Chesapeake Bay watertrails, tour 
operators have shuttered their boats because they cannot afford to fill 
up their tanks. Families are forced to stay home rather than 
vacationing on the Chesapeake Bay shore to enjoy its historic sites, 
education programs and Chesapeake Bay gateway sites supported by the 
authorization in this bill. This is a shame because the area has much 
to offer.
  I wish I could offer a motion to actually decrease these prices, but 
the majority won't allow a vote on a measure to open up secure, 
American supplies of oil and natural gas, or oil shale, on our public 
lands. In the meantime, we are occupying hours of our legislative day 
with this minor program.
  Our constituents, including the millions who live near, use, and 
enjoy the Chesapeake Bay, deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that we're going to hear from the other side 
of this body that there's a problem with this motion being made 
``promptly.'' As we also know, the majority controls the work of this 
committee and schedules the House. Just as they have scheduled this 
bill today, they can bring this bill back early next week. This motion 
is made promptly so that, in addition to the matters that are 
considered within this motion to recommit, that the committee can take 
up all of the matters and make sure that we have fully addressed all of 
these issues as they affect the people who live and work in the 
Chesapeake Bay area.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, this is an odd motion as you read it and 
one that I don't think takes full account of how aware people are of 
the effect of gas prices, which is the issue that the other side has 
talked about all day. It says that there will be education of the 
public regarding the effect of high fuel prices. I think the public is 
fully able to educate itself with respect to that impact.
  This is a distraction. It doesn't really connect to the underlying 
bill. It was not offered in committee. It was not offered as part of 
the rules process. But more importantly than that, this is styled, as 
was just indicated, as a ``promptly'' motion and, therefore, 
effectively would kill the bill. And I can't imagine why anybody would 
want to kill this bill.
  What this is designed to do is to recognize the incredible commitment 
that has been made by ordinary citizens on behalf of the Chesapeake 
Bay. It would reauthorize on a permanent basis the Chesapeake Bay 
Gateways Program and Watertrails Network, which was first enacted in 
1998. This is a successful, efficient and effective program. The White 
House Conference called it ``a cooperative conservation success 
story.''
  It includes 156 sites across six States and the District of Columbia, 
parks, wildlife refuges, museums, historic sites, watertrails, and most 
importantly, it reaches out to volunteer groups that have stepped 
forward to take stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay, millions of visitors 
from around the country and around the world every year.
  It's an efficient and effective program, and this reauthorization 
makes an important statement. And that's why I object to the motion 
because the ``promptly'' nature of it would effectively kill this bill, 
and we need to make a statement now to those citizens that have stepped 
forward, that just as they have made an important and steadfast 
commitment to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, so their national 
government will make a similar commitment to the Chesapeake Bay and the 
watershed by stepping forward and permanently authorizing this 
outstanding program.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on the motion to 
recommit.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that if this motion did 
pass, that this bill could be referred

[[Page 11495]]

back to the committee or committees of authority and be reported back 
the next business day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair reaffirmed on November 15, 
2007, at some subsequent time, the committee could meet and report the 
bill back to the House.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the motion to 
suspend with regard to H.R. 3058.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181, 
nays 223, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               YEAS--181

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Barton (TX)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boucher
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Delahunt
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Everett
     Fattah
     Gillibrand
     Granger
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     McCotter
     McCrery
     Pascrell
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Shuler
     Tiahrt
     Wasserman Schultz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1522

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 385, I was in an 
Intelligence committee briefing. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 321, 
nays 86, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 386]

                               YEAS--321

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick

[[Page 11496]]


     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--86

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gohmert
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (KY)
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Reichert
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boucher
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Delahunt
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Everett
     Fattah
     Gillibrand
     Granger
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     LaHood
     Linder
     McCotter
     Pascrell
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rangel
     Rush
     Shuler
     Tiahrt
     Walsh (NY)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1529

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________