Tsunami Warning and Education Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in just about 2 weeks, we will reach the second anniversary of the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami that began off the coast of Indonesia and resulted in the deaths of at least 150,000 people and injuring and dislocation of millions more. It was an event that stunned the entire world and eventually prompted an enormous outpouring of international aid. Among other things, the event was a reminder of the often forgotten but awesome power of nature, which we ignore at our own peril.

But an acknowledgement of nature's power does not mean that we are powerless. Quite the contrary, we needlessly seal our own doom if we fail to take steps that can reduce the significant impact of natural disasters at home and abroad. And in the case of tsunamis, which by definition travel across the seas paying no mind to international borders, the approach has to be global to be effective.

The tsunamis that can cause damage in the U.S. are just as likely to begin overseas as off our own coast. And in addition to humanitarian concerns, the U.S. pays a high price both in aid and in threats to international stability when cataclysmic death results from tsunamis overseas. So we need to take action to improve the understanding of tsunamis by both scientists and the general public, to improve our detection of tsunamis, and to improve our ability to issue warnings about approaching tsunamis, and to ensure populations know how to respond to such warnings.

Happily, we are not starting from scratch in any of these areas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration already runs research, detection, warning, and outreach programs, and the administration began augmenting those programs in 2005 after the Indian Ocean tsunami. But we need to ensure that the focus on tsunamis continues even as memories of the 2004 tragedy fade, and we need to further strengthen the administration

program along the lines of expert advice we have heard at Science Committee hearings. The experts were particularly concerned that more be done in the area of outreach so that the public understands more about tsunamis and what to do if one is approaching. They also called for more research so we could predict tsunamis and their paths more accurately.

I should add that tsunamis are not a theoretical threat for the U.S. The seismically active west coast is particularly vulnerable and has experienced tsunamis in the past. Even a small tsunami can cause damage. An earthquake off the coast of Japan last month produced a tsunami that hit California with wave surges of only 5 or 6 feet, but it caused an estimated $700,000 in damage in just one town.

So we need to maintain and strengthen the Nation's tsunami programs. That is exactly what H.R. 1674 would do; it would give specific continuing congressional direction to efforts in tsunami research, prediction, detection, warning, and outreach, the full spectrum of needed activities. The bill would also improve congressional oversight of the program by requiring updates on the condition of tsunami monitoring equipment and several studies of the overall effectiveness of the tsunami program.

This is a good, carefully targeted, economical, bipartisan bill. I wish to thank my cosponsor, Jay Inslee, for all his hard work and persistence on this bill. He understands well how his constituents in Washington State could be in harm's way for a tsunami. I also want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Science Committee who, as usual, contributed to the bill which passed the committee long ago by voice vote. I also want to thank the Transportation and Infrastructure and International Relations Committees for working with us on their jurisdictional claims. And, finally, I want to thank Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Dan Inouye and their staffs for working with us to put together a compromise bill. This bill is ready for Senate action and should go to the President for signature this week.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to act now to prevent future tragedies from tsunamis. We can't prevent tsunamis, but we can greatly limit the loss of life from them. This bill will help us do just that, not just in the U.S., but abroad, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1674, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to Mr. Wu how much I appreciate his kind remarks. We are partners on the Science Committee in a bipartisan manner to bring forward an agenda from that committee that not only does the committee proud, does this Congress proud, but does this Nation proud.

And one of the privileges of being the chairman of the Science Committee is to work with my fellow chairmen like Don Young, and I happen to be a senior member of that committee. I appreciate his leadership, don't always follow it, but I really do appreciate his leadership. We have had a good, constructive working relationship in so many areas, and particularly on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who is a real leader not just on the Science Committee but in this Congress. We benefit greatly from his special experience as a scientist, a physicist, a respected member of his profession, but also a respected colleague. When Vern Ehlers talks, we listen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. Inslee for those very kind comments. I want to thank all my colleagues. It has been a great privilege to work with you and for you and for this great institution.

I also want to observe, before we bring this to a close, the great work of the staff on both sides of the aisle who have labored long and hard, almost 2 years on this bill alone. We don't give enough recognition to the staff. Those of us who are more visible, we come before the House and we are recorded on C-SPAN and everybody says they are doing some good deeds. But the real driving force behind so much of what we do is the very able professional staff that we literally are blessed with, both Democrat and Republican.

And this comes from a former staff member, but I came to Capitol Hill 42 years ago as a starry-eyed young staffer. I got 3 years off for good behavior. I was elected county executive back home, and for the past 24 years I have been privileged to serve in my own right as a Member. But in those 42 years, one of the most dramatic changes, and people are asking me this all the time as I am taking leave, what has changed about the House and about Congress, this institution? One of the most dramatic changes that is so often overlooked is a change for the good, for the positive, the very high degree of professionalism so evident in the staffs of the committees. And I take the Science Committee as a classic example of how it should be done by all. The professionalism, the hard work, dedication on both sides of the aisle.

And we are going into a new chapter. We as Republicans are going from the majority to the minority. The Democrats are going from the minority to the majority. And people are saying, well, what is going to change? Well, I will tell you what is not going to change in the Science Committee. It is the working relationship across that center divide, the professionals who day in and day out prepare us for the debates, the hearings, and for the activities that we are about. That is not going to change. The Democrats will have a few more and the Republicans will have a few less, but I guarantee you this: As the next Congress comes to a close and people are looking back on its performance, I fully expect that the Science Committee once again will be one of the stars in this Chamber.

So with that, let me say to my colleagues on the committee how fortunate I consider myself to have had the privilege of working with and for you over the years, and as I say to all my colleagues in this Chamber, I urge your support for H.R. 1674, as amended. It is a bill that demonstrates that when we work together, we can accomplish so much for so many.

Mr. Speaker, I insert an exchange of letters between the Committees on Science and International Relations in the Record.

I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle, who have labored for more than 2 years on this bill. That includes Eric Webster, who has since moved on to NOAA, and David Goldston, Sara Gray, Chad English, and especially Amy Carroll, who has worked tirelessly to keep this bill moving forward.

Congress of the United States, Committee on International

Relations,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2006.

Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on International

Relations in H.R. 1674, the Tsunami Warning and Education

Act, as proposed for consideration under suspension of the

Rules of the House.

The Committee on International Relations recognizes the

importance of H.R. 1674 and the need for the legislation to

move expeditiously. Therefore, I will not stand in the way of

floor consideration. This, of course, is conditional on our

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my

decision to allow the bill to come to the floor waives,

reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the

Committee on International Relations, and that a copy of this

letter and your letter in response will be included in the

Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House

Floor.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the pending measure, as passed by the Senate, may be one of the last items on our schedule this Congress, but it is certainly not the least important. The bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in order to guide the management of our marine fisheries through 2013. We would not be here today if Senator Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye had not extended an olive branch. I am extremely appreciative of the hard work that they and their staff put into this legislation. I also commend our colleague on this side of the aisle, Tom Allen from Maine, who worked tirelessly on behalf of the fishermen in his district to improve this legislation. And while the pending measure does not do everything I would have liked, it does not roll back the conservation principles in this important fisheries management law. The legislation actually strengthens the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

I support the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was going to wait until the very end to respond, but I want to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of the House Resources Committee, that it has truly been an honor to work with him during his tenure as chairman of our committee. The gentleman has fought hard for those principles that he has believed in. He has accomplished a great deal during his tenure here. I commend him for his tenacity, and he truly has been a fighter for that which he believes. As he has said, we have not agreed on every issue, but we have had our respectful disagreements and we have worked in good faith as well. I believe we have during his tenure as chairman.

I do welcome the incoming ranking member, Mr. Young. I have served on both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Resources Committee for my entire tenure in this body. Thirty years we have worked together, and now I am glad to have him as the ranking member on my committee and may he stay that way for a long, long time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been a true leader on this issue and fought very hard for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a valued member of our committee.

If the gentleman would yield.

The gentleman from Oregon is entirely correct. It is my understanding that the bill would permit the Pacific Council process to continue. We recognize that the Pacific Council has made substantial progress and do not intend to disrupt their efforts to develop and implement an appropriate groundfish management program, consistent with this act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's question. I would say that he is entirely correct. In order to help ensure that affected stakeholders have the maximum degree of confidence in the management measures developed by the councils and that those measures are as effective as possible, it is vital that the Science and Statistical Committees operate in an open manner that is receptive to a full spectrum of scientific opinion. Accordingly, it is our expectation that under this legislation, the Science and Statistical Committees would gather information and prepare recommendations in a way that takes into account the research and expertise of a wide range of scientists.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, this concludes debate on our side of the aisle. Again, commending our chairman, Mr. Pombo, wishing him the best on whatever avenue he pursues in the future. I know that he will be spending a great deal of time on the ranch with his lovely wife, Annette. I wish him Godspeed there.

I thank Mr. Gilchrest for his work on this legislation, those that have spoken on it for the help they have been, especially, as I started out my remarks, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye who truly extended the olive branch that broke the logjam on this legislation.

As Mr. Allen has already done, I also want to recognize our committee Democratic staff who helped make this bill possible. Chief among them is Lori Sonken, as well as Jeff Petrich and Charlotte Stevenson.

I thank Mr. Pombo's staff as well. His staff has put in numerous hours on this over a long, long period of time. Without their work we would not be here today celebrating the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Everybody has been thanked on the floor. I double that.

This is a good piece of legislation. It has been a long time coming. I want to thank the ranking member, of course, Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Oberstar, and the chairman. This bill will do good for our oceans and for our fisheries. Although it is far from being perfect, we expect to have this finalized tonight and, as has been mentioned before, because it originated in Alaska, the 200-mile limit, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we will continue to work to improve it. Because it is very, very important that we keep our fisheries sustainable and also to make sure that our oceans are not only protected and conserved but provide the food that is necessary for this Nation of ours.

Again, a lot of work was done, but I can tell you frankly it was the staff on both sides of the aisle, especially on this side, as has already been mentioned. Dave Whaley, who actually used to have hair before he started working on this bill. He doesn't have it anymore. Bonnie Bruce. She is still, I think, relatively attractive and she has been through agony for all types of activity to get this bill done.

I again thank the people that understand the importance and the staff does the majority of work on this. We did do it. The Senate side did it. Now it is the

House side's turn to do what is right for the oceans.

Mr. Speaker, while I support this legislation, there are several provisions which need further explanation.

Section 107 provides that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Regional Councils and the Council on Environmental Policy, shall revise the procedures for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Those procedures shall integrate NEPA's environmental analytical procedures with the procedures for preparing and approving fishery management plans and amendments under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and shall conform the timelines for NEPA compliance with the timelines for the approval of fishery management plans and amendments established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The only way those requirements can be met for plans developed by a Council is to use the Council's plan development processes. That means NEPA procedures must be integrated into the Council process which will be the vehicle for identifying the problem to be addressed, identifying the reasonable alternatives to address that problem, identifying the preferred alternative, and examining the environmental consequences, positive and negative, of the preferred alternative and the reasonable alternatives. After the Council completes its processes, the Secretary will have the final responsibility for determining if NEPA has been complied with and may disapprove the plan, plan amendment, or regulation pursuant to section 304(a)(3) of this act.

In addition, there are a number of provisions in this legislation which deal with the, amount and type of information which needs to be submitted to the Secretary by a variety of entities and how that information is to be treated by the Secretary. It is important that proprietary information, confidential economic information, personal information such as tax forms, and other sensitive information be maintained in a manner which does not compromise an individual or a company's reasonable expectation for privacy. The Secretary must develop regulations for the use and the protection of such information which weighs the need for the information for management purposes with a reasonable person's expectation for privacy.

I am also concerned that the provision requiring that harvest levels be set to prevent overfishing not be interpreted to shut down entire fisheries if one stock of a multi-species complex is experiencing overfishing. The purpose of the act is to provide a healthy fishery resource, but it is also to promote commercial and recreational fishing and support communities dependent on the fishery resources. The act should not be used as a tool for stopping all fishing activities in U.S. waters. The keys to achieving these goals are balance, flexibility, and common sense by the fishery managers. The provisions dealing with ending overfishing, rebuilding overfished fisheries, and setting harvest levels to prevent overfishing all need to be taken in the context of the National Standards and need to be viewed with an eye toward balance, flexibility, and common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 5946) to amend the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize activities to promote improved monitoring and compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries governed by international fishery management agreements, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5946, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2006. I want to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their hard work in getting this authorization to the Senate and to the House. I also want to thank Chairman Richard Pombo, who has been a champion for the recreational and commercial fishermen of this Nation. We will miss his leadership greatly. And I want to thank and support all the other Members and their staff that have been involved in this process.

At this point I will insert in the Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Pombo and Chairman Boehlert regarding this bill and between Chairman Pombo and Chairman Thomas regarding the polar bear provisions

contained in title IX, originally part of H.R. 4075.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2006.

Hon. William M. Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I ask your cooperation to help schedule

consideration by the House of Representatives of H.R. 4075,

the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 2006, during

the week of July 17-21, 2006. I have proposed an amendment to

this bill which includes text from S. 2013, the United

States-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of

2005. The Committee on Ways and Means has a jurisdictional

interest in this Senate bill because of its inclusion of

trade measures.

My staff has worked with yours to develop a mutually-agreed

on text for this amendment, and I have enclosed this

amendment for your review. I ask that you not seek a referral

of H.R. 4075 based on the inclusion of this language to

expedite Floor scheduling. Of course, this action would not

be considered as waiving or affecting your jurisdiction over

the subject matter of the amendment, nor as precedent for any

future referrals of similar measures. Moreover, if the bill

is conferenced with the Senate, I would support naming Ways

and Means Committee members to the conference committee for

the trade provisions. I would also be pleased to include this

letter and your response in the Congressional Record during

consideration of the bill on the Floor.

Mr. Chairman, I have been very pleased with the tremendous

degree of cooperation between our two Committees. Your staff,

especially Angela Ellard and Steven Schrage, has been

responsive and thoughtful, and my staff very much appreciates

their support and teamwork. I hope that you will give my

request serious consideration and I look forward to your

response.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Jim Saxton from New Jersey for his work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Resources Committee, Richard Pombo.

Thank you, Mr. Pallone.

I want to yield now to the part of the country that has the largest fishery, to Congressman Don Young.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I want to thank Mr. Rahall and his staff and the Members on that side of the aisle, and Mr. Pombo for his effort, Mr. Young, and Mr. Jim Saxton, and certainly the staff behind me for all their work.

This is not a perfect bill. There is no utopia in the legislative process. Through consensus and dialogue, we have tried to integrate the ideas of the Members, and we feel very strongly that we have come up with a bill that will improve, sustain and restore the ecology of the Nation's oceans.

I urge my colleagues for an ``aye'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment for an appreciation of Mr. Boehlert, the retiring chairman of the Science Committee. He is a consummate legislator; he has talked the talk and walked the walk of promoting the public good over partisanship. He has run the Science Committee in a gentlemanly, bipartisan fashion. And to me, as an aging junior Member of this body, when I think of who I would like to be when I grow up, one of those people is Sherry Boehlert.

I rise in support of H.R. 1674, the U.S. Tsunami Warning and Education Act. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I am proud to have worked with Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers on this important bill.

We cannot prevent earthquakes and tsunamis, but we can prepare for them. We can ensure that citizens of our coastal communities take appropriate safety steps when the inevitable occurs.

Detection and forecasting are not sufficient. State and local communities must be prepared to disseminate the warning and direct the public to safety areas. Individual citizens must know where to go when they receive a warning. All this must be done well in advance of a tsunami.

I am fortunate to represent a beautiful expanse of the Oregon coast. However, we are also well aware of the potential danger presented by the Cascadia fault located just offshore of Oregon, Washington and California.

In Oregon, we face the threat of a 9.0 Richter Scale coastal earthquake and resulting tsunami. Scientists warn it is not whether this natural disaster will occur, but when. Unlike hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there will be absolutely no warning of the earthquake. When the 9.0 Cascadia earthquake hits, it will rock the ground for 4 to 5 minutes, perhaps raising and dropping the ground level 4 to 8 feet at each rumble. After the quake, Oregonians will have only 10 to 30 minutes to reach high ground before the tsunami rolls ashore.

Oregon has already done a great deal to keep our coastline beautiful and our citizens safe. Cannon Beach, Oregon, was one of the first coastal communities to be designated tsunami-ready by NOAA. H.R. 1674 builds upon the successful partnership that exists between the Federal, State and local governments on the west coast to ensure that all U.S. coastal communities will be prepared to deal with tsunamis.

This bill authorizes the type of comprehensive system we must have if we are to avoid the catastrophic loss of life caused by the December 2004 Indonesian earthquake.

Previously, funding for tsunamis focused more heavily on detection and forecasting systems hardware. While this hardware will help protect the Chinese and Japanese across the ocean in the event of a Cascadia earthquake, it is only mitigation programs focusing on educating the public that are key to protecting Oregonians, Washingtonians and Californians from a Cascadia fault quake.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a specific percentage of funding for tsunami hazard education and mitigation. While I would like to see a more aggressive increase in funding over the lifetime of the bill, I believe these funding levels represent a good start. This program supports vital activities such as inundation mapping, public education and encouraging local communication networks.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers for working with me in a bipartisan and collegial manner on this legislation. H.R. 1674 is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my friend and colleague from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

(Ms. HOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.