House Proceeding 04-15-10 on Apr 15th, 2010 :: 1:49:10 to 2:04:39
Total video length: 2 hours 4 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:1,297 Duration: 0:15:29 Discussion

Previous speech:

1:46:10 to 1:49:10( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Carol Shea-Porter

1:49:05 to 1:49:12( Edit History Discussion )

Carol Shea-Porter: to account when the comprehensive conservation and management plan are constructed. these estuaries are important parts of our coastal communities

1:49:13 to 1:49:33( Edit History Discussion )

James L. Oberstar: and their economies and we need to help them survive. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my te. the chai the gentlewoman from new hampshire reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. boozman: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. boozman: mr. chairman, we do not oppose this amendment and

1:49:15 to 1:50:30( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James L. Oberstar

1:49:34 to 1:49:57( Edit History Discussion )

James L. Oberstar: with that ield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance ohis time. the gentlewoman from new hampshire. mr. oberstar: would the gentlewoman yield? ms. shea-porter: yes, i would yield. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. oberstar: i rise in support of the amendment. it does not add cost, it does

1:49:58 to 1:50:22( Edit History Discussion )

James L. Oberstar: not add any burden on the process, but it does add an element of review in the evaluation of these plans and that is to take into consideration sea level rise. that's already happening on our sea coast. on our saltwater coasts. and the addition of this factor, i think, will make al of the

1:50:23 to 1:50:31( Edit History Discussion )

James L. Oberstar: planners sensitive to the effects, the erosion effects, the water levels, and their consequential effects on the

1:50:32 to 1:50:52( Edit History Discussion )

Carol Shea-Porter: health of the estuaries. i appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman from new jersey -- i mean, new hampshire. ms. shea-porter: thank you, mr. chair. again i want to thank chairman oberstar, mr. bishop and mr. lobe yodow for their -- lob beyondow for their -- lobiondo for their work and leadership on this bill. i yield back the balance of my

1:50:35 to 1:51:15( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Carol Shea-Porter

1:50:53 to 1:51:14( Edit History Discussion )

Carol Shea-Porter: time. the chair: the gentlewoman from new hampshire yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new hampshire. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. shea-porter: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

1:51:15 to 1:51:16( Edit History Discussion )

Carol Shea-Porter: of rule 18, further proceedings

1:51:17 to 1:51:37( Edit History Discussion )

on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new hampshire will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 precipitationed in house report 111-463. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition?

1:51:38 to 1:51:58( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: mr. kratovil: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-463 offered by mr. kratovil of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1248, the gentleman from maryland, mr. kratovil, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the charity recognizes the gentleman from -- the chair

1:51:40 to 1:54:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Frank Kratovil

1:51:59 to 1:52:20( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. kratovil: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 4715, the clean estuies act, and to voice my support also for the underlying bill. let me begin by thanking the chairman, mr. oberstar, who as the chair knows has the finest voice of all in congress and should he ever leave congress could certainly go forward in

1:52:21 to 1:52:42( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: doing commentating somewhere. in any event, mr. chair, maryland's first congressional district is defined by the chesapeake bay and its waterways. although not directly part of the national estuary program, the program was developed from efforts to protect our nation's largest estuary, the chesapeake bay. estuaries are bodies of water that, as you've heard, have received both outflows from

1:52:43 to 1:53:04( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: rivers and title inflows from the ocean. they are transition zones between freshwater from rivers and saltwater fromhe ocean. the mixing of fresh and saltwater provides a unique environment that supports diverse habitats for a wide variety of living resources including plants, fish and wildlife. estuaries are critical economic engines that generate billions

1:53:05 to 1:53:25( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: of dollars in revenue each year from fishing and tourism. the sad truth is that along with many of the nation's estuaries, the chesapeake is in poor ecological health as well, although we did have, mr. chair, some good news yesterday in terms of the blue crab population which i'm happy to report is rebounding.

1:53:26 to 1:53:46( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: on healthy estuaries -- healthy estuaries impact the industries but threaten industries such as tourism, restaurants and charter boats among others that generate revenue and create good-paying jobs. this bill includes effective reforms to that program that will bolster the health of estuaries as well as the economic and infrastructure of effective communities by

1:53:47 to 1:54:08( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: increasing transparency, requiring establishment of performance measures and goals and introducing much-need accountability to the program. this legislation will support and maintain the maryland coastal bays program as one of the most effective estuary programs in the nation. and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used effectively in the fight to do so. i have introduced an amendment

1:54:09 to 1:54:30( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: that i believe will bolster the oversight and accountability of these programs by ensuring a collaborative process involving all stakeholders. the national estuary program is comprised of initiatives across the country that under my amendment will be subject to a streamline management plan that will ensure all stakeholders play a role in the implementation. my amendment calls for the

1:54:31 to 1:54:51( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: equitable inclusion of all relevant estuary stakeholders, the use of neutral facilitators and processes to resolve any conflicts and the inclusion and use of up-to-date information. including among these stakeholders will be the region's farming and agricultural representatives as well as environmental groups so that all parties will come to the table and reach a consensus

1:54:52 to 1:54:56( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Kratovil: agreement about our mutual interests and goals. while some programs may have

1:54:57 to 1:55:17( Edit History Discussion )

James L. Oberstar: used collaborative processes in the past, this amendment will ensure -- ensure tt all new programs and all existing programs undergoing management plan updates will had collaborate in going forward. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment as well as the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves thealance of his time.

1:55:00 to 1:56:30( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James L. Oberstar

1:55:18 to 1:55:38( Edit History Discussion )

James L. Oberstar: the gentleman from arkansas. mr. boozman: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. chairman. again, we do not oppose the amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland.

1:55:39 to 1:56:00( Edit History Discussion )

James L. Oberstar: mr. kratovil: mr.hair, i yield to the chair, mr. oberstar, as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. oberstar: i thank the gentleman for this amendment, a very thoughtful, well crafted amendment, to resolve conflicts. that is really what the congress should be doing, resolving conflicts and creating

1:56:01 to 1:56:22( Edit History Discussion )

James L. Oberstar: structures within our programs within which conflict can be resolved. and that is particularly important in the development of manage am plans. there's so many -- management plans. there's so many different parts, some, this idea will ensure that we bring these management plans of development of these

1:56:23 to 1:56:30( Edit History Discussion )

James L. Oberstar: management plans to a reasonable and productive conclusion and so i thank the gentleman for this amendment.

1:56:31 to 1:56:51( Edit History Discussion )

perhaps if it works we can apply it to our work with the other body. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. kratovil: i thank the chair. i also thank the gentleman from arkansas for his support of the amendment and, again, mr. chairman, thank you for your

1:56:52 to 1:57:13( Edit History Discussion )

support and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is is agreed to.

1:58:49 to 1:59:11( Edit History Discussion )

-- the amendment is agreed to. the chair: does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. oberstar: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. thosen favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

1:59:32 to 1:59:52( Edit History Discussion )

accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the chair: madam speaker, the committee of the whole on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 4715 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon.

1:59:53 to 2:00:13( Edit History Discussion )

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4715 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the

2:00:14 to 2:00:35( Edit History Discussion )

gentleman from arina seek recognition? mr. flake: i rise to a question of the privileges of the house and offer the resolution previously noticed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: committee on standards of official conduct, initiated an investigation into allegations related to earmarks and campaign contributions and the -- in the spring of 2009. whereas on december 2, 2009,

2:00:36 to 2:00:56( Edit History Discussion )

reports and findings in seven separe matters involving the alleged connection between earmarks and campaign contributions were forwarded by the office of congressional ethics to the standards committee. whereas on february 26, 2010, the standards committee made public its report on the matter wherein the committee found through a --, though a

2:00:57 to 2:01:19( Edit History Discussion )

widespread perception exists that campaign contributions provide a greater chance of obtaining earmarks, there was no evidence that members or their staff considered contributions when requesting earmarks. whereas the committee indicated that, with respect to the matters forwarded by the office of congressional ethics, neither the evidence cited in the o.c.e.'s findings nor the

2:01:20 to 2:01:40( Edit History Discussion )

evidence in the record before the standard committee provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of applicable standard for conduct occurred. whereas the office of congressional ethics is prohibited from reviewing activities taking place prior to march, 2008, and lacks the authori to subpoena witnesses and documents. whereas for example the office of congressiol ethics noted

2:01:41 to 2:02:01( Edit History Discussion )

that in some instances documented were -- documents were redacted or specific information was not provided and that in at least one instance they had reason to believe a witness with held information requested and did not identify what was being with held. whereas the office of congressional ethics also noted that they were able to interview

2:02:02 to 2:02:24( Edit History Discussion )

only six former employees of the p.m.a. group, with many former employees refusing to consent to interviews and the o.c.e. unable to obtain evidence within p.m.a.'s possession. whereas "roll call" noted that the committee report was five pages long and included no documentation of any evidence collected or any interviews -- conducted by the committee

2:02:25 to 2:02:46( Edit History Discussion )

beyond a famous of the investation, included extensive document reviews and interviews with numerous witnesses, "roll call," march 8, 2010. it's unclear whether the standards committee included in their investigation any activities that occurred prior to 2008. whereas it is unclear whether the standards committee interviewed any members in the course of their investigation. whereas it is unclear whether

2:02:47 to 2:03:07( Edit History Discussion )

the standards committee and the -- in the course of their investigation initiated their own subpoenas or followed the office of congressional ethics recommendations to issue subpoenas. therefore be it resolved that not later than seven days after the adoption of this resolution the committee on standards of official conduct shall report to the house of representatives with respect to the activities

2:03:08 to 2:03:28( Edit History Discussion )

addressed in its report of february 26, 2010, one, how many witnesses were interviewed, two, how many if any subpoenas were issued in the course of their investigation and, three, what documents were reviewed and their availability for public review. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution qualifies.

2:03:29 to 2:03:49( Edit History Discussion )

>> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. oberstar: i move the resolution be referred to the committee on standards of oficial conduct. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one hour on the motion to refer. mr. oberstar: this belgs to the committee on the standard of official congress. i yield back the balance of my

2:03:50 to 2:04:11( Edit History Discussion )

time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to refer. the question is on adopting the motion to refer. those in favor say aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.