August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5609 

This is more than 1.5 million farms in 

the SPCC regulatory net next year 

alone. 

The University of Arkansas, Division 

of Agriculture did a study recently 

concluding that the FUELS Act would 

exempt over 80 percent of producers 

from SPCC compliance. It could save, 

in my home State, up to $240 million in 

costs. Over the entire country, it could 

save small farmers up to $3.36 billion. 

This year, the ag sector of the economy is facing a crisis. Over two-thirds 

of the Nation is being impacted by 

drought, and farm revenue has dropped 

substantially. Food costs are projected 

to skyrocket for consumers. On top of 

that, the fate of a multiyear farm bill 

is still unknown, creating long-term 

uncertainty for the agriculture community. The last thing the government 

should be doing right now is imposing 

a regulation on producers that could 

cost our Nation’s family farmers up to 

$3.36 billion during next year’s planting 

season. There is absolutely no justification for such an expensive regulation, especially when the EPA cannot 

provide data or even anecdotal evidence of agriculture spills. 

By nature of occupation, family 

farmers are already careful stewards of 

the land and water. No one has more at 

stake than those who work on the 

ground from which they derive their 

livelihood. 

I urge adoption of H.R. 3158 and reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. CRAWFORD, I believe that you 

pretty much covered the details of this. 

And I see the gentleman sitting beside 

you there and I’m sure he’s going to 

add to it, so I don’t think I’ll spend a 

lot of time repeating what you said. 

But I want you to know that as a 

hands-on farmer producer, I appreciate 

the efforts you put into this to bring 

this forward because there are just too 

many times we see where the farmers 

in your State, my State, and across the 

country are burdened with these extra 

expenses and criteria that they don’t 

really need. Because you know, I know, 

and I think those of us that are familiar with the farming industry, we are 

stewards of the land. We don’t want to 

ruin the land; we certainly don’t want 

to ruin the water. 

So this is a good thing to come forth 

with this piece of legislation, to put a 

practical sense, practical application 

to the situation. It’s been delayed and 

delayed and delayed. 

It refers to American farmers. American farmers are very much dedicated 

to what they represent. And again, 

those that, as I do and as I’m sure you 

do and others, when we have fuel on 

the farm for whatever reason—to run 

the tractors, the combines, the irrigation pumps, or whatever—we’re very 

careful. The cost of the fuel and the exposure of it being stolen or something 

is something we don’t have a lot of excess sitting around these days anyway. 

Those that are large operators, seems 

to me like quite a few of them have got 

a tank wagon. 

So I appreciate what you’ve offered 

up here, and I’m very supportive of it. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Again, thank you, 

Mr. BOSWELL, not only for your support, but your real-world common 

sense as an ag producer. I appreciate it. 

I’d just like to yield 2 minutes to my 

esteemed colleague from Oklahoma 

(Mr. LANKFORD) and thank him for his 

patience. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I may not even use 

all 2 minutes of that, but I do want to 

be able to just tell the story a little bit 

of an Oklahoma farm. 

The things that they’re up against 

right now are common to farms all 

across the Midwest. They’re dealing 

with drought right now. They’re dealing with the threat of new dust particulate rules coming down from the EPA. 

They just fought through a battle to 

try to be able to have family farms be 

able to function with their own kids 

working on their family farms or their 

grandparents’ farms, or their cousin’s 

farm down the road—is that permissible or not—point source pollution 

rules that are coming down on them. 

Farm truck distance rules, if they 

want to drive 151 miles in their farm 

truck and the new regulations they 

deal with on it. All these different regulations. 

And then imagine the Federal Government contacting them and saying, 

on top of all those rules and all those 

threatened rules, now you need to go 

find a professional engineer to check 

out your fuel tank, and we want to 

send a regulator to be able to evaluate 

it. And we want you to have a whole 

new set of rules around your tank as 

well. It assumes family farms and 

farmers don’t take care of their land. 

Nothing could be further from the 

truth. 

A family farm, and farms all around 

the country, these are individuals that 

they farm that land, they take care of 

that land, that water is very important 

to them. Many of them live on well 

water itself, and so a spill into their 

groundwater is incredibly important to 

them for their own personal family as 

well. They’re great stewards of the 

land; that’s how they make their living. 

In addition to that, they’re careful 

guardians of their storage tank because 

that tank itself, if it spills, they lose a 

tremendous amount of money; and the 

margins on a farm are not very high. 

I’d like to stand with my colleagues, 

as well, to say let’s respect the farmer 

for what they’re doing already on their 

land and not send someone from Washington to come check out their farm 

and check out their tank and be able to 

evaluate all those things. Let’s allow 

some trust to the commonsense folks 

in the country that take care of our 

food and take care of the land and 

water every single day. 

With that, I’d urge my colleagues to 

support this. 

b 1950 

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, we have 

no other speakers. 

In closing, I feel like we’ve defined 

what the need is. This will be very 

helpful to the Nation’s producers, and 

it’s a step in the right direction. So I 

will urge agreement and support of 

H.R. 3158. And thank you again for 

bringing this forth. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, again 

my thanks to the gentleman from Iowa 

and to those who spoke tonight. I just 

urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 

CRAWFORD) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3158, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 

H.R. 6233, AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2012 

Ms. FOXX, from the Committee on 

Rules, submitted a privileged report 

(Rept. No. 112–644) on the resolution (H. 

Res. 752) providing for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance 

available for fiscal year 2012 with the 

costs of such assistance offset by 

changes to certain conservation programs, and for other purposes, which 

was referred to the House Calendar and 

ordered to be printed. 

f 

MARINE DEBRIS ACT 

AMENDMENTS OF 2012 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 1171) to reauthorize and 

amend the Marine Debris Research, 

Prevention, and Reduction Act, as 

amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 1171 

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 ‘‘Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Except as otherwise expressly provided, 

whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed as an amendment to a section or 

other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et 

seq.), as in effect immediately before the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 3. SHORT TITLE AMENDMENT. 

Section 1 (33 U.S.C. 1951 note) is amended 

by striking ‘‘Research, Prevention, and Reduction’’. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

SEC. 4. PURPOSE. 

Section 2 (33 U.S.C. 1951) is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

‘‘The purpose of this Act is to address the 

adverse impacts of marine debris on the 

United States economy, the marine environment, and navigation safety through identification, determination of sources, assessment, prevention, reduction, and removal of 

marine debris.’’. 

SEC. 5. NOAA MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM. 

(a) NAME OF PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 (33 U.S.C. 1952) 

is amended— 

(A) in the section heading by striking 

‘‘PREVENTION AND REMOVAL’’; and 

(B) in subsection (a)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘Prevention and Removal 

Program to reduce and prevent’’ and inserting ‘‘Program to identify, determine sources 

of, assess, prevent, reduce, and remove’’; and 

(ii) by inserting ‘‘the economy of the 

United States,’’ after ‘‘marine debris on’’; 

and 

(iii) by inserting a comma after ‘‘environment’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph 

(7) of section 7 (33 U.S.C. 1956) is amended by 

striking ‘‘Prevention and Removal’’. 

(b) PROGRAM COMPONENTS.—Section 3(b) (33 

U.S.C. 1952(b)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) PROGRAM COMPONENTS.—The Administrator, acting through the Program and subject to the availability of appropriations, 

shall— 

‘‘(1) identify, determine sources of, assess, 

prevent, reduce, and remove marine debris, 

with a focus on marine debris posing a threat 

to living marine resources and navigation 

safety; 

‘‘(2) provide national and regional coordination to assist States, Indian tribes, and regional organizations in identification, determination of sources, assessment, prevention, 

reduction, and removal of marine debris; 

‘‘(3) undertake efforts to reduce adverse 

impacts of lost and discarded fishing gear on 

living marine resources and navigation safety, including— 

‘‘(A) research and development of alternatives to gear posing threats to the marine 

environment, and methods for marking gear 

used in specific fisheries to enhance the 

tracking, recovery, and identification of lost 

and discarded gear; and 

‘‘(B) development of effective nonregulatory measures and incentives to cooperatively reduce the volume of lost and discarded fishing gear and to aid in its recovery; and 

‘‘(4) undertake outreach and education of 

the public and other stakeholders on sources 

of marine debris, threats associated with marine debris, and approaches to identify, determine sources of, assess, prevent, reduce, 

and remove marine debris and its adverse 

impacts on the United States economy, the 

marine environment, and navigational safety, including outreach and education activities through public-private initiatives.’’. 

(c) REPEAL.—Section 2204 of the Marine 

Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act 

of 1987 and the item relating to that section 

in the table of contents contained in section 

2 of the United States-Japan Fishery Agreement Approval Act of 1987 (33 U.S.C. 1915) are 

repealed. 

(d) GRANT CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES.—Section 3(c) (33 U.S.C. 1952(c)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘section 

2(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 2’’; 

(2) by repealing paragraph (5); and 

(3) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) 

as paragraphs (5) and (6). 

SEC. 6. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISIONS. 

Section 4 (33 U.S.C. 1953) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘(a) STRATEGY.—’’; and 

(2) by repealing subsections (b) and (c). 

SEC. 7. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS. 

(a) INTERAGENCY MARINE DEBRIS COORDINATING COMMITTEE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), section 2203 of the Marine Plastic 

Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 

(33 U.S.C. 1914) is redesignated and moved to 

replace and appear as section 5 of the Marine 

Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1954). 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 2203 in the table of contents 

contained in section 2 of the United StatesJapan Fishery Agreement Approval Act of 

1987 is repealed. 

(b) BIENNIAL PROGRESS REPORTS.—Section 

5(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1954(c)(2)), as in effect immediately before the enactment of this Act— 

(1) is redesignated as subsection (e) of section 5, as redesignated and moved by the 

amendment made by subsection (a) of this 

section; and 

(2) is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS.—’’ and all that follows through 

‘‘thereafter’’ and inserting ‘‘BIENNIAL

PROGRESS REPORTS.—Bienially’’; 

(B) by inserting ‘‘Natural’’ before ‘‘Resources’’; 

(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) 

through (E) as paragraphs (1) through (5) of 

such subsection; and 

(D) by moving such subsection 2 ems to the 

left. 

SEC. 8. CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUBMITTED INFORMATION. 

Section 6(2) (33 U.S.C. 1955(2)) is amended 

by striking ‘‘by the fishing industry’’. 

SEC. 9. MARINE DEBRIS DEFINITION. 

Section 7 (33 U.S.C. 1956) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (9), and moving such paragraph to appear after paragraph (8); and 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: 

‘‘(3) MARINE DEBRIS.—The term ‘marine debris’ means any persistent solid material 

that is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, and intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into 

the marine environment or the Great 

Lakes.’’. 

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 9 (33 U.S.C. 1958) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘are’’ and inserting ‘‘is’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘2006 through 2010’’ and all 

that follows through ‘‘(1)’’ and inserting 

‘‘through fiscal year 2015’’; 

(3) in paragraph (1), by striking 

‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,900,000’’; and 

(4) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and all that follows 

through the end of paragraph (2) and inserting a period. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) and the gentleman 

from Washington (Mr. LARSEN) each 

will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Alaska. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I 

ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to 

revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 

1171. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Alaska? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

H.R. 1171, the Marine Debris Act 

Amendments of 2012, reauthorizes the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s, NOAA, Marine Debris 

Program at currently appropriated levels through 2015. The program has 

played a crucial role in preventing and 

reducing the amount of trash on our 

beaches and in the ocean. 

I think it’s important to note that 

this program is not regulatory in nature. It takes a voluntary approach to 

improving the conditions of our marine 

environment. 

Failure to adequately address marine 

debris has major consequences on our 

economy. Large objects floating in our 

oceans threaten the safe navigation of 

cargo ships and recreational boaters. 

Derelict fishing gear costs commercial 

fishermen millions of dollars in lost 

revenue. And debris washing up on our 

shores forces the closing of beaches, a 

major blow to local economies reliant 

on tourism. 

In Alaska, NOAA’s Marine Debris has 

worked with local partners to conduct 

more than 20 projects that have removed 750,000 pounds of debris from our 

shoreline since 2006. But the problem of 

marine debris is about to get worse for 

Alaska and other Pacific coast States. 

NOAA estimates there’s 1.5 million 

tons of debris headed our way as a result of the 2011 Japanese earthquake 

and the tsunami. 

Alaskans are already finding 

Styrofoam, plastic, wood, and other 

lightweight debris washing up on our 

islands. In May, the Coast Guard was 

forced to sink an abandoned Japanese 

vessel laden with fuel oil before it 

broke open on the Southeast panhandle. 

Reauthorization of the Marine Debris 

Program is critical to help Alaska and 

other coastal States protect our economies and ecosystems and ensure the 

safety of those transiting our waters. 

I want to commend Representative 

SAM FARR from California for introducing this bill. As an original cosponsor of this important bipartisan effort, 

I urge all Members to support the bill. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself as much time 

as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 

1171, bipartisan legislation that reauthorizes the Marine Debris Research 

Prevention and Reduction Act through 

fiscal year 2016. 

Just this June, on the Pacific coast, 

an entire 70-foot dock washed up on the 

coast of Oregon. This is only one piece 

of the estimated 1.5 million tons of marine debris from the disastrous 2011 

Japanese tsunami that will wash up on 

the west coast. Disasters like this are 

why it is so important that we reauthorize this legislation today. 

Marine debris remains a persistent 

threat to maritime safety and to the 

health of our oceans and to our lakes. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5611 

Thanks to the enactment of the Marine 

Debris Research Prevention and Reduction Act in 2006, we now have a much 

better understanding of marine debris 

and its impact on our shorelines. 

This law led to the establishment of 

effective partnerships between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, and the United 

States Coast Guard. It has led to better 

coordinated research and debris removal activities, and it built greater 

understanding of the challenges we 

face in addressing this threat. 

Marine debris is a much larger and 

growing problem than we first thought, 

and with the recent disaster in Japan, 

it will continue to grow. Cleaning up 

marine debris takes coordination between several agencies and States and 

requires expensive resources to clean 

up. 

Earlier this week, NOAA provided a 

new analysis estimating that it now 

costs the agency, on average, more 

than $4,300 to remove 1 ton of marine 

debris from the environment. NOAA 

also said that the dock that washed up 

on the shores of Oregon will cost $85,000 

alone. 

Despite what we’ve learned, and despite the fact that States on the Pacific coast and Hawaii will have to contend with 1.5 million tons of marine debris from the 2011 Japanese tsunami for 

years to come, the majority has insisted on cutting authorized funding 

levels for this program in half. Cutting 

authorized funding for this program at 

this time seems shortsighted, and I’m 

confident that the Senate will insist on 

the higher authorized funding level in 

any final compromise bill. 

But despite those reservations about 

the reduced funding levels in this bill 

as reported by the majority, it is imperative that we reauthorize the Marine Debris Act today to address this 

growing threat in our future. 

I want to thank the sponsor of the 

legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. FARR), for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. I urge 

my colleagues to join me in supporting 

H.R. 1171. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I continue to 

reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield as much time as he 

may consume to the gentleman from 

California (Mr. FARR). 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the support we’ve seen in a bipartisan fashion here for this legislation known as the Marine Debris Act 

Amendments of 2012. 

This bill was first carried and introduced in the United States Senate by 

Senator INOUYE and the late Senator 

Ted Stevens. They recognized, Senator 

INOUYE from Hawaii, the entire island 

surrounded by ocean, and so much 

washes up on the shores of the islands, 

and Alaska, with probably one of the 

longest coastlines in the United States, 

certainly impacts from the ocean on 

them. And that’s why it’s so nice and 

wonderful to have my colleague DON

YOUNG from Alaska, the only Representative in the House from Alaska, 

to be a strong proponent of this. 

As he pointed out, Alaska has already seen the consequences of not 

having reauthorization when the Japanese tsunami has started to wash up. 

They’ve spent, in the first wave of the 

tsunami debris, Alaska’s already spent 

over $200,000 of State money in just 

aerial monitoring of the local debris 

from the Japanese tsunami. 

What this legislation does in reauthorization is allow States to receive 

grants from NOAA so that the States 

can deal with their coastline debris 

problems. 

b 2000 

It is important we do this for an even 

bigger purpose, which is that, frankly, 

life on land is dependent on the quality 

of life at sea. We know that we have 

over the years and decades been dumping everything we don’t like on land— 

and can’t figure out where else to dump 

it—into the ocean. At the same time, 

we take whatever we want out of the 

ocean. Dumping and taking can upset 

the system so badly that you have 

oceans die; and, certainly, we have big 

parts of the ocean that are dying because of all the debris and waste that 

are in the oceans. 

What this bill does is allow the Coast 

Guard, in working with NOAA, which is 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, to jointly look at, 

monitor and figure out ways to clean 

this stuff up. If we don’t do that, we’re 

going to suffer. It’s like living in pollution in your own backyard. Eventually, 

there are consequences. 

I think that those of us who have 

done ocean legislation over the years— 

and DON YOUNG has been one of the 

greater ones to understand it—realize 

that, in solving the problem, it’s going 

to require local action and that it’s 

going to require national and international coordination. It’s not our 

ocean alone. It goes all over the world, 

and things in the ocean go all over the 

world. Just think of the old stories 

about bottles and where they wind up. 

Now we see with the tsunami that all 

this Japanese land mass stuff that was 

washed into the sea is now showing up 

in Alaska and is showing up in Oregon 

and has shown up on the beaches in 

California—in Capitola, where I live. 

This problem is also going to require 

some partnerships between the private 

sector and the fishermen community, 

in that it knows where some of these 

drift nets are, and between the public 

sector. It’s going to require innovative 

technology. You have to detect it. We 

have found nets that have been left in 

Monterey Bay that are too heavy to 

lift out with conventional craft. We’re 

going to have to go back to the fishing 

boats and to the families who lost 

those nets and use their fishing boats, 

which is a private enterprise supported 

by the public know-how of how to retrieve those nets. I think it’s very exciting. It’s certainly going to require 

education so that people don’t keep 

dumping things they don’t want into 

the ocean. 

There are consequences for dumping. 

California is now addressing it in every 

local community by just storm water, 

the fact that all the water that falls on 

our streets and roads picks up oil and 

picks up other stuff that isn’t compatible with ocean life and washes into it. 

We have done a lot to clean up sewers 

and to say we’re not going to dump 

that stuff out into the ocean anymore, 

but we’re still allowing other storm 

water to get out there. California is addressing this almost community by 

community, that being: How do we 

stop storm water and polluted storm 

water from getting into the ocean? 

So this legislation of reauthorizing 

debris cleanup is much more than just 

giving NOAA some money to go out 

there and figure it out. It’s really an 

entire program of figuring out how to 

keep oceans healthy. 

I appreciate the bipartisan support. I 

appreciate the leadership of Mr. YOUNG, 

and I appreciate the leadership on the 

committees. This bill went to two committees—to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and to the 

Natural Resources Committee. Both 

committees passed it out in bipartisan 

fashion, and now we have to pass it in 

the Senate. I hope it’s not too late, and 

I hope Congressman YOUNG will work 

with me in getting bipartisan support 

in the Senate so that we can get this 

bill to the President and get it signed 

before the calendar year runs out. 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I want to thank the gentleman from 

California. Mr. FARR has been one of 

the leaders who has been concerned 

with the oceans, and this debris bill is 

crucially important to the State of 

California and especially to Alaska. 

Mr. FARR came to me many months 

ago and said we’ve got to get this done. 

We’ve got to get this done. A lot of people weren’t interested, and now we finally get to a point where we see 

what’s occurring from the tsunami, although we may not have that recur 

again. 

The crisis in the ocean, though, is 

detrimental, as I mentioned in my 

opening statement, to the fishermen 

whom I represent and to the recreational people whom I represent. So 

to get it out of the ocean even before it 

reaches the beaches is crucially important. The beaches sometimes are sort 

of fun to beachcomb, but if there is 

something bad that’s in the ocean, we 

should try to retrieve it sooner, if possible; and when it gets there, we really 

want to be able to take care of it. 

There should be more money—I won’t 

disagree with the gentleman from 

Washington—but we’re moving this 

down the road. We’ll see what happens 

on the Senate side, and we’ll see if we 

can’t get a little more effort, because 

it’s a partnership program that makes 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

this thing work. A lot of people have 

interest in Alaska and in trying to 

clean the beaches after it arrives, and 

we’re trying to get more people interested in cleaning the ocean up before it 

does arrive. Hopefully, it will work together. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I have 

no more speakers, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have no 

more speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 

in strong support of H.R. 1171, the Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012. I want to commend my colleague and friend Congressman 

SAM FARR from California for introducing this 

legislation and continually working for its passage. As a member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, one of my top priorities was to take action on legislation to address our nation’s ocean environment. I am 

pleased to say that this legislation, H.R. 1171, 

would continue to combat the adverse impacts 

of marine debris on the United States economy, the marine environment, and navigation 

safety through identification, determination of 

sources, assessment, prevention, reduction, 

and removal of marine debris. 

This legislation will reauthorize NOAA’s existing Marine Debris Program to support important projects throughout the country, including beach cleanups, derelict fishing gear location and removal, and educational campaigns. 

The program helps to identify, determine 

sources of, assess, prevent, reduce, and remove marine debris, with a focus on marine 

debris posing a threat to living marine resources and navigation safety. This reauthorizing language would serve to streamline 

these programs by avoiding any overlaps or 

conflicts with other federal agencies. The legislation would help protect the environment and the economy of coastal communities throughout the Nation. Earlier this year, 

tsunami debris washed ashore the coasts of 

Oregon and Washington, calling attention to 

the need for a comprehensive plan to coordinate clean-up efforts. Indeed, the impacts of 

the March 2011 tsunami in Japan will continue 

to impact our shores over the coming months 

and years and this bill gives us the tools to respond to this situation. In particular, Guam 

would greatly benefit from the passage of the 

Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012 as it 

would give states and local communities the 

additional tools needed to effectively care for 

our marine environments and wildlife. 

Again, I applaud Representative FARR for introducing this legislation. I thank Chairman 

MICA, Chairman HASTINGS, Ranking Member 

RAHALL and Ranking Member MARKEY for their 

leadership in bringing this important bill which 

enhances our understanding of the marine environment to the House floor. I encourage my 

colleagues to continue supporting this important legislation that addresses one of the most 

serious threats to our oceans today. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 

YOUNG) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1171, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

RESPA HOME WARRANTY 

CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2011 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move 

to suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 2446) to clarify the treatment of 

homeowner warranties under current 

law, and for other purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 2446 

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 ‘‘RESPA Home 

Warranty Clarification Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF HOMEOWNER WARRANTIES. 

Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2607) is amended by 

adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(e) HOMEOWNER WARRANTIES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section, section 2, or section 3 shall be deemed to include, 

or be deemed to have included, homeowner warranties or similar residential service contracts 

for the repair or replacement of home system 

components or home appliances. 

‘‘(2) NOTICE BY HOME WARRANTY COMPANY.— 

Any person that pays another person not employed by the person for selling, advertising, 

marketing, or processing, or performing an inspection in connection with, a homeowner warranty or similar residential service contract for 

the repair or replacement of home system components or home appliances shall include the following statement, in boldface type that is 10- 

point or larger, in any such warranty or contract offered or sold as an incident to or as part 

of any transaction involving the origination of 

a federally related mortgage loan: 

‘‘‘NOTICE: THIS COMPANY MAY PAY 

PERSONS NOT EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY FOR SELLING, ADVERTISING, MARKETING, OR PROCESSING, OR PERFORMING AN INSPECTION IN CONNECTION 

WITH, A HOMEOWNER WARRANTY OR 

SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL SERVICE CONTRACT FOR REPAIRING OR REPLACING 

HOME SYSTEM COMPONENTS OR HOME 

APPLIANCES.’ 

‘‘(3) NOTICE BY REAL ESTATE AGENT OR

BROKER.—Any person who has contracted to receive payment from a provider of the services described in paragraph (1) for recommending the 

purchase of a home warranty or similar residential service contract, and is not an employee of 

such provider, shall provide the potential purchaser, upon first recommending the purchase 

of a homeowner warranty or similar residential 

service contract, a written notice containing the 

following language in boldface type that is 10- 

point or larger (with the bracketed matter being 

replaced with the information described by such 

bracketed matter): 

‘‘‘NOTICE: THIS IS TO GIVE YOU NOTICE 

THAT [the provider of the notice] HAS RECEIVED OR WILL RECEIVE COMPENSATION FROM [the home warranty company] 

FOR [the residential service for which the notice 

provider is being compensated]. YOU ARE NOT 

REQUIRED TO PURCHASE A HOME WARRANTY OR A SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL SERVICE CONTRACT AND IF YOU CHOOSE TO 

PURCHASE SUCH COVERAGE YOU ARE 

FREE TO PURCHASE IT FROM ANOTHER 

PROVIDER’.’’. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 

Illinois (Mrs. BIGGERT) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. DAVID

SCOTT) each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

may have 5 legislative days in which to 

revise and extend their remarks and 

add extraneous material on this bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Illinois? 

There was no objection. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

I rise in support of H.R. 2446, the 

RESPA Home Warranty Clarification 

Act, and urge my colleagues to support 

the bill. H.R. 2446 is a bipartisan bill 

that Mr. CLAY of Missouri and I introduced last year. The bill has 40 cosponsors, including 13 Democrats and 27 Republicans, and I thank the gentleman 

from Georgia (Mr. SCOTT) for managing 

this bill. 

On March 27, the Financial Services 

Committee reported out the bill by 

voice vote. The RESPA Home Warranty Clarification Act would amend 

the Real Estate Settlement Procedures 

Act of 1974, or RESPA, to clarify that, 

as long as a consumer or borrower receives specific disclosures about it, a 

fee paid to a real estate broker or 

agent related to the sale of a home 

warranty is not a RESPA violation. 

When Congress passed RESPA in 1974, 

it intended for the law to provide consumers or borrowers with timely disclosures related to the cost of real estate settlement services. Title insurance, a flood elevation certificate and 

homeowners insurance are a few examples of services required at a mortgage 

settlement. Unlike these settlement 

services, a home warranty is not a required service. For a borrower or a consumer, the purchase of a home warranty is optional. It is a service contract under which a home warranty 

company provides repair or replacement coverage for a home’s system 

components and/or appliances. A real 

estate broker or agent typically acts as 

a representative for the home warranty 

company that offers the home warranty, and the real estate broker or 

agent receives a commission from the 

home warranty company for presenting 

the home warranty to the home buyer 

if the homeowner chooses to purchase 

the warranty. 

Congress originally delegated RESPA 

rulemaking and enforcement authority 

to the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, HUD. For nearly 

20 years, from 1974 to 1992, HUD issued 

no rules or guidance related to the sale 

of a home warranty by a real estate 

broker or agent. 

b 2010 

In 1992, HUD issued regulations adding homeowners warranties as a settlement service, but was silent on the 

matter until recent years. Citing evidence to demonstrate a problem with 

home warranty-related sale practices, 

commission arrangements, disclosures, 

or the product itself between 2008 and 

2010, HUD issued an unofficial staff interpretive rule and the subsequent 

guidance. In short, after 34 years, with 

no apparent problem with a product 

that is not required for closing, HUD 

determined that, under RESPA, it is a 

violation for a real estate broker or an 

agent to be compensated by a home 

warranty company for offering a home 

warranty to a borrower in connection 

with the real estate transaction. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE