Beach Protection Act of 2008

Madam Speaker, during the week of February 25-29, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 69-87.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 69, H. Res. 978, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 70, H. Res. 930, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 71, H. Res. 944, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 74, H. Res. 974, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 75, H.R. 3521 the Sires of New Jersey Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 76, H.R. 3521 the Meek of Florida Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 81, H. Res. 1001, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 83, H.R. 5351 on Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 84, H.R. 5351, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 85, S. 2272, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 86, H.R. 4454, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 87, H.R. 4454.

Madam Speaker, during the week of March 3-7, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 88-106.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 88, H.R. 1143, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 89, H.R. 1311, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 90, H.R. 816, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 91, H.R. 4191, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 92, H. Con. Res. 278, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 93, H. Res. 951, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 96, H. Res. 1014, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 97, H.R. 4774, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 98, H. Con. Res. 286, ``nay'' on rolicall vote 100, H.R. 1424 the Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 101, H.R. 1424, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 102, H.R. 5400, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 104, H. Res. 1015, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 105, H.R. 2857 the Flake of Arizona Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 106, H.R. 2857 the Inslee of Washington Amendment.

Madam Speaker, during the week of March 10-14, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 108-145.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 108, H. Res. 537, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 109, H.R. 3196, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 110, H.R. 4166, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 115, H. Res. 924, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 116, Motion, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 117, H.R. 2082, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 118, H. Res. 948, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 119, H. Res. 493, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 122, H. Res. 1031, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 130, H. Res. 1036, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 131, H.R. 5563, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 132, H. Con. Res. 316, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 133, H. Res. 936, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 134, S. 2733, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 137, H. Con. Res. 312 Kilpatrick of Michigan Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 138, H. Con. Res. 312 Lee of California Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 140, H. Con. Res. 312 Ryan of Wisconsin Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 141, H. Con. Res. 312, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 142, H. Res. 991, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 143, H. Res. 1041 On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 144, H. Res. 1041 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 145, H.R. 3773.

Madam Speaker, during the week of March 31-April 4, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rolicall votes 147-160.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 147, H.R. 3352, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 148, H.R. 2675, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 149, H. Con. Res. 302, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 150, H. Con. Res. 310, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 151, H. Res. 1005, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 152, H. Res. 1021, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 154, H. Res. 1065 On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 155, H. Res. 1065 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 156, H.R. 5501 Carson of Indiana Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 157, H.R. 5501 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 158, H.R. 5501 On Passage, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 159, H.R. 4847 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 160, H.R. 4847 On Passage.

Madam Speaker, during the week of April 7-11, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 161-182.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 161, H.J. Res. 70, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 162, H.R. 2464, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 163, S. 793, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 164, H. Res. 1084 On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 165, H. Res.

1084 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 166, H. Res. 1077, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 167, H.R. 2016 the Grijalva of Arizona Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 168, H.R. 2016 the Bishop of Utah Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 169, H.R. 2016 the Bishop of Utah Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 170, H.R. 2016 the Bishop of Utah Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 171, H.R. 2016 the Altmire of Pennsylvania Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 172, H.R. 2016 the Pearce of New Mexico Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 173, H.R. 2016 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 174, H.R. 2016 On Passage, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 175, H.R. 2419, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 176, H.R. 5489, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 177, H.R. 5472, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 179, H. Res. 1083, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 180, H. Res. 1038, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 181, H. Res. 1092, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 182, H.R. 2537 the Flake of Arizona Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader from Maryland, for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.

I would ask my friend on the last bill you mentioned, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loan Act of 2008, H.R. 5715, is that the bill that was introduced this week?

That is a problem, and part of what I used to do before I came here involved that. I am anxious to see what the bill looks like. It is clearly a major problem out there.

On the vote we took earlier today, the rule vote on Colombia trade, if you listened to the debate, you heard two very different views of that debate. The view of my side was that this likely ends this discussion for this year, and the view I heard from the other side was not quite there at all. I am wondering if as the majority leader you have a sense of this bill, this agreement, whether it can come back to the floor this year or not.

I thank the gentleman. That was going to be my second question. There are two other negotiated agreements, and I believe what you just said was that this vote today was about the Colombia agreement only and those other agreements should not be prejudiced by the vote we took today, and perhaps the Colombia vote will not be either.

I felt strongly about this. I still do, but I hope my friend's comments are correct and there is some way to now actively pursue whatever discussions need to be had on Colombia.

But on the final two if I heard you right, the two that have been negotiated and have not been sent up yet, I think I am hearing you say this does not establish any new way of doing this, and I yield.

I hear your answer and the explanation of your answer, and I understand that.

On the supplemental defense budget that we talked about last week, it would seem that during this period of time between now and the work period at home during Memorial Day, that the supplemental budget will move. I think last week it was your anticipation that it might move in committee as early as this week. That didn't happen. I also read this week that following the Petraeus-Crocker testimony, that a number of Members, including the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, indicated that they thought that this supplemental would have not only extraneous spending, but also some restrictive language. Have you had any further discussions about either timing or whether this supplemental will get, in my opinion, bogged down and held back by any restrictive language?

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, I thank the gentleman for that. I would say that my sense of that is that the troop supplemental should be that, and that we should be willing to work together on these other issues, as we did the stimulus package earlier this year. That's a package that the tax provisions are already beginning to have some impact. The rebate provisions will begin to have impact when people get their money in May, June and July.

But I think we proved, with that effort to work together, that when both sides decide we want to make something happen, we don't have to use the troop funding or any other issue. We just have to get together and make something happen. I think that would be, generally, the view on this side of the House about how to move forward on those two issues, and we can and will probably debate this for some time.

One of the issues that puts people in crisis, we saw a discussion on the floor today, a bill out of transportation that dealt with beach nutrition. Many of our Members thought that the Transportation Committee and the Energy Committee would be better spending their time focused on gasoline prices, which are $1 higher today, per gallon, on the average, than they were a year ago today. And I wonder if the gentleman has any sense of when we might see some legislation on the floor that would deal with gasoline prices.

The debate today, I thought, was important and, you know, certainly, the numbers you cited about what's happened in the last 7 years, I don't fault those numbers at all. But we took a lot of responsibility for all of that when we were in the majority. And I haven't seen anything coming from this majority that would have stopped that $1 increase we've seen since the majority changed. I just hope we can work together to do that. And some of it's shorter term rather than longer.

Our long-term energy needs are clearly going to be met with some long-term solutions. But things that encourage more production here, more and better use of the fuel sources we have as we develop alternatives, I think, are part of that solution. I hope that the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Transportation Committee both are encouraged by both sides of the aisle to get some legislation to the floor that would let us deal with that. And I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

Actually, the debate today may have related more to the committee than it did the bill, but I thought it was a debate that the American people want to see us have on the floor of the House.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I deeply appreciate the recognition, and I do appreciate the chairman of the full committee and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Boozman, for the legislation we are discussing today; but I cannot sit idly by and listen to the people talk about the high cost of energy when there has been little action in this Congress, and I will say ``this Congress,'' the past Congresses and this present Congress about solving the high cost of energy to the American consumer, the $4 a gallon that they're going to have to pay.

The last time we passed any energy legislation on this floor was 1973. We passed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That's the last time. At that time, we were importing 38 percent of our fossil fuels. Today, we are importing 70 percent of our fossil fuels. Mr. and Mrs. America, keep in mind 50 percent of that fossil fuels is coming from countries that are not friendly to the United States of America. We are sending them over about $500 billion a year because this Congress, this Congress, has not acted to try to relieve the dependency on fossil fuel from abroad.

Now some people will say, and I listened to the young lady, we are going to take up alternate forms of energy, and I'll buy that. I'll put the little curlicue lightbulbs in. I'll do that. I'll save and turn down the thermostat. I'll do that. I'll, in fact, drive my automobile slower. Most people do not. But that doesn't solve the problem of the energy we need to move product.

The chairman knows full good and well, being the chairman of the Transportation Committee, our economy is based upon the ability to move product to and fro within this Nation.

The ship it brings us is driven by fossil fuels. The truck, the plane, the automobile, the train is driven by fossil fuels. And if we continue to become more dependent, which we apparently are going to do under the leadership of this Congress, we'll be in the point where we cannot move our product, ship them abroad which we produce, nor receive them. Seventy percent, again from foreign countries.

And yet we have a tremendous amount of fossil fuels, the United States of America, that's not being developed. It should be developed. Offshore. Chukchi Sea, there's more oil in Alaska than there is in the Gulf of Mexico at a relatively shallow depth. The coasts of California, the coast of Florida, the Rocky Mountains, the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina has a tremendous amount of oil in the realm of about, I would suggest, 500 billion barrels of oil.

That's available to the American public. But we have a leadership now in this Congress that believes that the world is coming to an end, led by Al Gore, that the world is coming to an end if we burn fossil fuels.

I suggest respectfully, Mr. and Mrs. America, if we do not lower that price to the small business community and to the person who has to commute to their work site, we are in a dire shape in this Nation as a whole. We have to address this issue.

I ask my colleagues, please quit buying this concept that we are going to do it with windmills and with sun power. Yes, we could use those things. Yes, we ought to use nuclear, and yes, we ought to use hydro. The wheel of energy should be developed, and this Congress has not done it. Has not done it. We have this idea we are going to solve the problem. Look at the energy bill we passed this year through this leadership. It produced nothing. Period. Nothing. That's why the consumer today, in America, is going to that gas pump, and by the way, it's a tax to him. Every man, woman, and child is paying $2,000 a year to Saudi Arabia and countries such as because we sit idly on our hands doing nothing.

Madam Chairman, I suggest respectfully this Congress has to wake up. I listen to the political rhetoric of all of the presidential candidates, and nobody is addressing the energy issue other than the fact that we can't burn fossil fuels because we are losing the icecap and the polar bears are in danger.

Think about this for a moment. Think about the American public and the need for economy-based, fossil fuel driven because it moves an object. We must address this. I'm asking my colleagues to understand that. Quit pandering. Quit pandering to the interest groups that really are trying to socially structure our Nation through fear.

We have the fossil fuel. It is here. It should be developed. We should give the opportunity instead of restricting it, and that's what we've done in this Congress. In my state alone we have ANWR. It's passed this House 12 times. It passed the Senate once and Bill Clinton vetoed it. It's got about 36 billion barrels of oil available 74 miles away from an existing pipeline. And this Congress will not step forth and address that issue alone because they say it's going to hurt the environment, 74 miles away from the existing pipeline.

Madam Chairman, I suggest respectfully let's get off our duffs, and let's do the job we should for this nation.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I come to the floor in appreciation of the underlying intent of both the amendment and the underlying bill as well.

But I am mindful of the fact, as I come from the great State of New Jersey and as we think about the issue at hand, and that is our beaches and the shores generally, I was just talking with someone recently that due to the high cost of energy and the high cost of

gasoline, a lot of my constituents, quite honestly, won't be able to even enjoy the Jersey shore this summer, to ``go down below,'' as we call it, down to the Jersey shore to enjoy it and enjoy whatever improvements that this amendment, which I support, and the underlying bill, which I support, would bring to us.

So the point I just want to spend a moment on is the fact that while we debate these tertiary issues, the fundamental issue that folks back in my district are concerned about is how are we going to afford in the first place to get about our State of New Jersey, to get to the shore, to enjoy our vacation, to enjoy the beaches if Congress is not doing anything whatsoever to address the high cost of gasoline and to address the high cost of energy in the State of New Jersey and the rest of the country as well.

Here we are now in the ides of April, the middle of April. This is about, let's see, 12, 13, 14, 15, the 16th month now into this, the 110th Congress under the Democrat leadership. And we have to ask ourselves one seminal question, one basic question: What has the 16th month of Democrat leadership brought us in a whole host of areas? And I will get to the energy issue in a minute.

Well, we see in the area of food prices, my constituents also tell me that the price of food, when they go to the A&P or the grocery stores every day, whatever the store is, are going through the roof. The housing crisis. We will go to any committee here. I serve on the Financial Services Committee. We know we are in a terrible housing crisis right now, a subprime crisis affecting credit markets across the country. Fuel costs I have already mentioned. A recession. You know, for the first time in years, we're talking about an economic recession. For all the time that the Republicans were in control of this House and in control of this government, we saw that they were in booming economic times. Sixteen months now into the 110th Congress in a Democrat leadership, off the map on food costs, housing costs, into recession. If that has happened in 16 months, we wonder what will happen if they have another 16 months.

So I would ask whether this Congress could do what my constituents are asking us to do. Maybe address these issues such as beach issues and where we can go on vacation, but can we do those after we get to the more seminal issues, the more fundamental issues, issues that strike at the heart of where America is living right now, issues that strike at, well, their pocketbook and where their money is really going to right now, and that is energy costs.

The other day I just drove out in my driveway of my house. I went down to the main road. And there at the gas station, the price of a gallon of diesel fuel was $4 a gallon. Amazing. $4 a gallon. That means that truckers--those same truckers who have to get down to the Jersey Shore to bring supplies and what have you for vacationers who want to enjoy the beaches and what have you--truckers, I am told, have to spend upwards of $1,000 to fill up their diesel tanks in their trucks to get about our State.

New Jersey is a commuter State. New Jersey is a hub State, a transportation State. Unless Congress is ready to commit itself to really fundamentally look at the underlying causes of the high cost of energy, of the high cost of gasoline, of the high cost of diesel fuel, unless we are ready to work across both sides of the aisle on these issues, these other issues will come to naught, will be of little importance to my constituents if they are stranded at home, if their husbands or their wives don't have jobs because they can't afford to put gas into the car or diesel into the trucks.

So I just come to the floor to raise these issues now and ask that, as important as these beach issues are, can we not really begin to address what the constituents are addressing?

Later on in the evening, I would like to say that there are some solutions, there are some solutions that the American public would like us to begin to address. There are some answers to the fundamental reasons of why the price of gasoline and diesel fuel is going through the roof. There are some basic changes that Congress, this Congress, could be making right now to the energy supply in this country that would help to drive down the cost of energy in this country so that Americans, families in my district and in yours, will be able to address this problem and not have a problem of high energy cost anymore.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment brought to us by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). It essentially would allow us to attach the FISA bill to the underlying bill.

And some would say, what connection could there possibly be?

Well, you have to understand the underlying bill, in at least four places, refers to the concern of pathogens, pathogens in our water.

And what are pathogens? According to greatlakes.net, pathos is Greek for suffering, and gen is a suffix meaning producer, also from the Greek. Thus, a waterborne pathogen is a disease maker that occurs in the water. These germs are living microscopic organisms, microorganisms or microbes that take in food, give off waste, grow, reproduce and die. And the most common types of waterborne pathogens are bacteria, but they're also viruses, protozoa and certain kinds of algae.

So why would the gentleman from New York's amendment be in order, from a germaneness standpoint, and why would it be important for us?

All you have to do is go to the INTERPOL Web site where it discusses the threat and prevention of bioterrorism. And therein, INTERPOL states, ``an effective biological weapon

is potentially devastating and much easier to make and transport than a nuclear weapon. Bio weapons are, however, relatively safe for the terrorists. Pathogens are virtually undetectable and can be brought reasonably easily into a country by an individual and can then be propagated in large quantities.'' INTERPOL says this.

``Recognizing the imminent dangers represented by this lethal form of crime is the first step in countering the threat. Thereafter, it is vital to put in place the tools which will enable society to take appropriate measures.''

If you go to the CDC and you ask, what are the bioterrorism agents, they list 27 of them, waterborne bio agents: Anthrax, Brucellosis, Cholera, Botulism, Glanders, Plague, Q fever, smallpox, and it goes on and on and on.

Now, we have a bill before us which says we have to be concerned about our beaches. By the way, it's not just the coastline. Under this bill this includes the Great Lakes. And it says we should be concerned about pollution, and they define pollution by the number of pathogens per volume. And I see nothing in this bill which says we're only concerned about industrially produced pathogens or accidentally produced pathogens. And if that's the case, we ought to be concerned about terrorist produced and introduced pathogens. And that's why the gentleman's amendment is both germane and appropriate and ought to be supported, because what it says is that we need the intelligence to understand which pathogens that the terrorists are attempting to introduce here, where they might introduce it, and to make sure that our first responders, which are referred to in the underlying bill, understand what it is they're faced with, how they prevent it, and if they can't prevent it, how they deal with it.

So this is a serious amendment. It says that the only way we can protect our coastal waters and the people who live in them, swim in them, work in them, is if we know the information ahead of time. And we don't have that information. That information is held by the bad guys.

The only way we can find out what the bad guys intend to do is, frankly, by listening to them, capturing their communications. That's why this FISA bill is important generally, but it is important specifically to this bill, a bill which tells us we are trying to protect our coastal waterways, the coastline, the Great Lakes and our estuaries. And the only way we can do that is to know who intends to damage it, who intends to introduce these pathogens as a direct threat to us and how we respond to that.

So I would hope that the gentlelady's point of order is rejected, and I hope that we will be able to vote on this bill, support this bill. And if we can't have FISA for anything else, let's at least protect our coast lines, protect the Great Lakes, protect the estuaries and everybody therein.

Sounds like a silly argument that we would limit it to that, but we have, under the rules, not been allowed to bring the FISA bill to the floor. Let us add it to this bill, where it's germane, where it would go to the actual intention of the bill and, in fact, refers to the major parts of the bill, that is, how do we know what pathogens are introduced; how do we respond to them; how do we make sure our American citizens are protected from them; how do we close down those waterways and those beaches when they've been introduced, whether or not they've been introduced accidentally, by industrial pollution or, it seems to me, something we ought to be concerned about, by those who wish to kill you and me, our children, and our grandchildren.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, while we debate a bill about beaches today, I am again appalled that the majority has once again missed an opportunity to address one of the biggest problems confronting our constituents, rising energy costs. It is reported today that gasoline prices reached a new all time high of $112 a barrel. Yet, we have let another week here pass without doing anything to confront this challenge.

Not a week goes by when I am not asked about rising energy prices. These increased costs affect everyone in our society. But none are more affected by these increased costs than some of our nation's most poor. On average, the nation's working poor spends approximately 13 to 30 percent of their yearly income on energy costs, and as prices rise so will the amount of their income spent on energy.

A large number of factors combine to put pressure on energy and gasoline prices, including peaked U.S. oil production, increased world demand for crude oil, and U.S. refinery capacity that is inadequate to supply gasoline to a recovering national economy. These are serious problems that will not go away with time, and they require real solutions that will restore American energy independence and help ease the pain of record price fill-ups. However, the majority in Congress has failed to do anything that would address any of these factors contributing to high prices.

When many are citing U.S. production numbers and refinery capacity as a reason for increased gas prices, the Majority has proposed additional taxes on these domestic energy suppliers. We have voted on several bills that would impose up to $15 billion in tax increases on domestic energy suppliers. These taxes will impede domestic oil and gas production, discourage investment in refinery capacity, and make it more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in America than their foreign competitors, actually increasing America's dependence on foreign oil.

Let's make no mistake, an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed on to consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises energy prices for consumers. I have voted against these attempts to raise taxes, and luckily none of these bills have become law.

Unfortunately, too often in the 110th Congress, the majority's solution has been to place restrictions on the marketplace. Policies that increase supply, not those that place restrictions on the marketplace, are the solutions to today's energy concerns. For example the dramatic expansion of the Renewable Fuels Standard to require 36 billion is an artificially created government mandate. While I am supportive of renewable energy, we should develop a policy that is technology neutral and allows the market to develop new sources of renewable energy. The RFS provisions create an unrealistic mandate for advanced biofuels technology that doesn't yet exist and creates hurdles for the development of second generation biofuels. These restrictions will undoubtedly lead to a consumer tax to help bridge the gap in production.

However, there are many things we could actually do here in Congress that would help ease the prices at the pump. Many Americans don't know that the U.S. is the world's largest energy producer. Over the past 25 years we have pumped 67 billion barrels of oil, and strong reserves remain. The fact is the energy sources are there--in Alaska, the Rockies, and offshore--but political roadblocks keep it in the ground instead of in use in the economy.

We should also be focusing on the development of clean Coal-to-Liquid technologies. This is one of the most promising advancements in coal research and produces liquid transportation fuels synthesized from coal. Even using conservative estimates, our country has enough coal to last over 200 years. Coal is one of our nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of Coal-to-Liquid technologies has been completely ignored by this Congress. Producing liquid transportation fuels from coal will be a major catalyst in helping our country become energy independent.

Energy costs are affecting the daily life of all of our constituents. We must change the direction this Congress has been headed in addressing this issue. We must reject the politics that put restrictions on the marketplace and keep energy in the ground instead of in our gas tanks. Instead, we must develop a long-term strategy that allows us to access our traditional energy sources, while developing alternative and renewable energy sources that seek to increase energy supplies and encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use.

I certainly appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Madam Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection Act, and I want to applaud Chairman Oberstar for his leadership in bringing this to the floor and working with Ranking Member Mica. Certainly our subcommittee Chair, Eddie Bernice Johnson, has done extraordinary work on this, and our ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Boozman, as well, for bringing it to the floor, I think, in a very bipartisan way.

I actually was not in the Congress in 2000 when the original BEACH Act became law, but I really feel this program could have been designed with my district in mind. In Michigan, we are unbelievably blessed to be surrounded by the Great Lakes which provide incredible recreational opportunities for boating or fishing or swimming.

Millions of Michigan residents from all over the world come to Michigan to enjoy our magnificent Great Lakes. In fact, there are more than 30 million people who find their way every year to our beaches.

We also have some especially unique challenges in the Great Lakes region in regards to quality. Unfortunately, due to inadequate underground infrastructure, many areas suffer from combined sewer overflows during our wet weather events. We often see sewage discharges right into the Great Lakes, right along the beaches near big cities like Detroit or Chicago, other populated areas.

My district faces additional challenges in that we have a very long liquid border that we share with Canada. In fact, on the Canadian side of the river next to my district is an area which we call Chemical Valley, which is the largest concentration of petrochemical manufacturing plants in North America. So we need to worry not only about discharges on the American side, but on the Canadian side of the border as well.

Frequent and proper monitoring is a critical tool in this area to ensure that those who come to enjoy our State's natural beauty can do so knowing that the waters are clean and pure.

The BEACH Act has provided resources to help State and local governments ensure that our beaches are safe for recreational activity. In many ways, the BEACH Act has been successful and this reauthorization bill and the bipartisan cooperation that went into it has improved an already outstanding Federal program, but I do believe that we can do better.

A 2007 GAO report about the impact of the BEACH Act on the Great Lakes noted that there were some important successes, but also some areas where we need to improve. First, the GAO found that the formula EPA has used to distribute the BEACH Act grants does not accurately reflect the monitoring needs of the respective States. The EPA takes into account three factors to determine the allocation of these grants: beach season length, beach miles, and then beach usage.

At the current funding levels, the beach season factor has a much greater influence than the factors of beach miles and coastal population. Great Lakes States, which have beach seasons of little longer than 4 months, lose out when compared to southern and western States, of course, that have a full year season, even though the number of people who use the beaches might be similar.

Just an example, my home State of Michigan is disadvantaged by the minimal consideration given to beach miles. In 2006, Michigan, that has 3,224 shoreline miles, received a grant out allocation of only $278,000. By contrast, one of our neighboring States, that has only 63 shoreline miles, received $243,000. Due in part to this funding disparity, Michigan is only able to monitor 212 of its 905 beaches.

I am glad that this legislation helps address this problem by requiring the EPA to conduct a study of the formula for the distribution of grants in accordance with the needs of the States. EPA must report their findings back to the Congress and suggest possible revisions for a more equitable distribution of the funds.

A second recommendation from the GAO report was that Congress should consider providing more flexibility for the grant so that they could be used to investigate and remediate contamination sources. Because of the increased monitoring, we are better able to predict which beaches would be contaminated.

But most cases local officials do not know the source of the contamination and are unable to take the action to address the cause. If they did they would still not have adequate funds to address the issue.

This legislation will allow States to use their BEACH Act grants to track sources of pollution. This change will provide the valuable information that we need to help clean up our waters and reduce pollution before it gets into our waters.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong support of the Flake amendment because the American people need taxpayer protection more than we need beach protection. Now I understand this is important legislation that Congress is considering today. And I do not rise to trivialize this bill. It has its moorings in and its heritage in bipartisan foundations. I rise, rather, to say that the time has come for this Congress to get serious in large ways and in small ways about the epidemic of earmarking that has taken hold of the Federal budget process.

In fiscal year 2008, according to one estimate, legislation that passed in one catch-all omnibus bill included some 11,610 earmarks in all of those different appropriations bills in the course of the year costing taxpayers some $17.2 billion. It was the second highest number of earmarks any Congress has ever approved. It represented a 337 percent increase above fiscal year 2007.

What the Flake amendment says, in effect, is that none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this section may be used for a congressional earmark as defined by the House rules. Now, this is part and parcel of an effort by many of us that I believe, while it is being led by Republicans, I believe there are many in the other party who understand that earmarks is a cancer in the belly of the Federal budget. And we must address it.

The Flake amendment seizes this opportunity and this moment of this legislation that says that should the Beach Protection Act of 2007 be signed into law, that at no point in the future may it be used as a vehicle for earmarking. And as the author of this amendment has suggested, we have been assured in the past before that those things pertaining to homeland security, the Department of Homeland Security, would not become vehicles for earmarking, and they have.

And for my part, let me say this is not an issue that I am interested in demagoguing, Madam Chairman. For my part, through the course of my career up until very recently, I have requested earmarks and special projects for my district. But I must tell you, having negotiated when Republicans were in charge for earmark reform, having supported Democrat efforts for earmark reform, at the end of last year when I saw a catchall omnibus bill come to the floor of this Congress with hundreds of unexamined earmarks dropped in at the last minute in the dead of night that hadn't been subject to the scrutiny the American people demand, I knew it was time for a change. And so I had to tell the people of my district that I could no longer be a part of this flawed system. And I commend the gentleman from Arizona for his extraordinary leadership on this issue.

I want to challenge my colleagues to support the Flake amendment. But

let's just begin there. Let's support a moratorium on earmarking in this Congress. The American people know there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we spend the people's money, especially when it comes to earmarks.

Frankly, I used an analogy not long ago, Madam Chairman, of an airplane. When you're flying an airplane through the air, and the meters on the control panel tell you that something is wrong with the engine, the first thing you do is put the plane on the ground and get the hood open and find out what is wrong. Well, many of us who are advocating an earmark moratorium believe the time has come for us to put the plane on the ground in a bipartisan way, embrace an earmark moratorium and reform this system in the way that Congressmen Frank Wolf and Jack Kingston have suggested in their commission format.

And let me say, as I close in strong support of the Flake amendment, that there is enough blame to go around on this earmarking business. I recognize earmarking came of age under Republican control of the Congress. And I am not rising here to point fingers. I am, however, rising to say that we need to change the way we spend the people's money. The only way we will do that is by embracing the bold leadership that Congressman Jeff Flake has brought to this Congress in connection with the Beach Protection Act, but it also means embracing a moratorium and coming together, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and saying we are going to push away from the table, and we are going to bring fundamental earmark reform to the American people. And that's my hope.

And I urge support for the amendment as a first step in that direction.

I yield back.

I thank the subcommittee Chair, the gentlewoman from Texas.

Let me say I appreciate the bipartisan support that this legislation has, and certainly the efforts, not only of Mr. Tim Bishop of New York, but of our chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and the subcommittee Chair, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, for moving this legislation today.

Madam Chairman, our Nation's beaches are vital, not only to residents of our coastal States, but also for countless visitors who come to visit each year. America's beaches are a tremendous resource for those who come to enjoy them, and they are a huge economic engine for our coastal States.

In New Jersey alone, beaches are the primary driver of a tourism economy that provides nearly 500,000 jobs and generates nearly $36 billion in economic activities to the State each year. All summer long thousands of people flock to the beaches.

It's my intention to assure that these beachgoers that are there in New Jersey and elsewhere, that not only are they visiting clean beaches, but they are also swimming in safe waters.

Thanks to the BEACH Act, a law that I helped to author back in 2000, we have made major strides over the last 8 years. The BEACH Act of 2000 helped us improve water quality testing and monitoring of beaches across the country, which is critical to protecting the health of beachgoers.

The act has three provisions: one, requiring States to adopt certain EPA water quality criteria to protect beachgoers from getting sick; two, requiring the EPA to update these water quality criteria with new science and technologies to provide better, faster water testing; and, third, to provide grants to States to implement coastal water monitoring programs.

In New Jersey we used some of this grant money to become the first State in the Nation to launch a real-time Web site that notifies beachgoers of the state of our beaches. Essentially, this bill is a right-to-know piece of legislation.

Now, despite the actions New Jersey and other States have taken since the BEACH Act was signed earlier in the year 2000, this act must be improved. That's why I have introduced the Beach Protection Act of 2007.

This bill not only reauthorizes the grants to States for 2012 but adds to the annual grant levels from a total of $30 million to a new level of $40 million annually.

We also expand the scope of BEACH Act grants from water quality monitoring and notification to also include pollution source tracking efforts. The bill requires that beach water quality violations are disclosed not only to the public but all relevant State agencies with beach water quality authority.

I want to mention the rapid testing methods. This act calls for the use of rapid testing methods by requiring the EPA to approve the use of rapid testing methods that detect bathing water contamination in 6 hours or less. This is something that I have been advocating for the last couple of years.

Current water quality tests, like those used in New Jersey, only test for bacteria levels and take 24 to 48 hours to produce reliable results, during which time many beachgoers can be unknowingly exposed to harmful pathogens. More immediate results would prevent beaches from remaining open when high levels of bacteria are found.

The legislation also requires prompt communication with State environmental agencies by stating that all BEACH Act grant recipients make decisions about closures or advisories within 24 hours in order to ensure coordination in response to activities.

We are also requiring each State receiving grants to implement measures for tracking and IDing sources of pollution, creating a public online database for each beach with relevant pollution closure information posted, and ensuring the closures or advisories are issued shortly after the State finding that coastal waters are out of compliance, so, again, right to know, information to the public.

We are also holding States accountable by requiring the EPA administrator to do annual reviews of grantees' compliance with BEACH Act process requirements. The Beach Protection Act will strengthen current law by requiring States to use expedited testing.

This is a right to know for our beachgoers. It's very important, and I want to thank everyone on a bipartisan basis for supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for information about the schedule for next week.

I thank the gentleman for that.

I have a couple of questions on things that we haven't discussed. First of all, the supplemental budget, I know General Petraeus is in Washington next week, and I believe Ambassador Crocker. The President sent up a supplemental request in February of last year. By approximately June of this year we're told that the Army will run out of money, and that by July, their ability to use transfer authority will be exhausted. I wonder at what point, in conjunction with or following the Petraeus visits next week, does the leader think we will be talking about that supplemental request.

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that. I think that date is important, and we need to be sure and be aware of it as we move through this process, as you are.

The spending bill, I know as this administration comes to an end, I'm confident that the White House has had lots of requests from the administration side for additional spending, which I believe they have held the line on. Does the gentleman have a sense of whether this bill will be able to be contained to the defense supplemental, or will it possibly get bigger than that?

And I would yield.

Well, I do appreciate that. And I just say for my friend's information that we've certainly discouraged the White House, we're hoping, not only discouraged them from moving forward with any new additions, and I think they have decided not to do that and will be concerned about this going as quickly as possible and meeting these defense needs rather than being tied down.

Another topic is housing. On the other side of the building they've been talking about housing this week. I know that Chairman Frank has some proposals on housing. I really have two questions there: One, when do you anticipate some housing legislation on the floor? And two would be, do you expect that that housing legislation will follow the PAYGO rules of this Congress, or will those rules be suspended for that housing discussion?

And I would yield.

I think in that time frame there is a chance there will be some administrative actions taken as well, and that may be an important part of that debate.

I do know that this week Mr. Bernanke testified before the Joint Economic Committee, and part of his testimony was that he thought that this would be the wrong time for any tax increases. And I would hope we could maintain some openness on that PAYGO discussion as it relates to this housing concern that people are facing.

I would yield.

Well, I wouldn't quarrel with the gentleman about not having a good time for tax increases since '01 and '03, but revenue actually has increased during that period of time. I think in '05, '06 and '07 we may have set records of increased revenues, percentage over last year. So, you used the term revenue, and I think you meant taxes, because we did see some revenue increases during that time, and they were significant. I think over 14 percent in FY05, and double digits in the next 2 years.

I would yield.

Well, while we don't want to enter into this debate too fully, on the projections, even though

we still had deficits in those years, which I regret for a number of reasons, those deficits were always less at the end of the year than we had thought they were going to be at the beginning of the year because revenues exceeded projections. That's why the deficit was less.

The third topic, I think my last topic today, is, we're at a point in the congressional calendar where it's at least possible that, under the TPA, the Trade Promotion Authority rules, the President will send the Colombia Trade Agreement up because of the number of days left that under TPA would require a vote during the calendar we've put in place. And I wonder if the gentleman has a sense of whether the Colombia Trade Agreement process will go through the normal Trade Promotion Authority process, or if that process could possibly be shut off.

And I would yield.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate that, and I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor today to talk about an issue that is of vital concern and importance to the American people. It may not have been what the majority party wanted to talk about today, but it's what the American people want to talk about and that's energy.

I don't know if anybody had an opportunity to walk outside the United States Capitol today, but you heard trucks with their horns blaring outside the Capitol, and they were doing so because they were objecting to the leadership in this Congress and the lack of action on energy prices and gas prices. That noise resonates across this land, Madam Chairman. Resonates across the land.

I had a group of high school students in my office today, and they wanted to know what we were doing about energy. They'd heard that this Congress had passed the Energy Efficiency Act. They wanted to know about the particulars of that act. And so we reviewed the particulars of that act, and I said, how much more gas do you think will get to the pumps in communities across this Nation if we increase the taxes on American oil companies? Well, these are bright high school kids. They said, well, not much more. And they're absolutely right, Madam Chairman, because the Energy Efficiency Act that this Congress passed in this session, in this term, will produce no energy. No new energy.

I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate your comments.

And if you think about what has changed in the last 15 months in terms of leadership here in Washington, it's not the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The only thing that's changed during the period of time when crude oil has gone from $56 a barrel to $112 a barrel, the only thing that's changed in terms of the leadership in Washington is the leadership in Congress. That's the only thing that's changed. There must be a cause and effect here somewhere, Madam Chairman, because gas prices are increasing, and the leadership has been woeful in not attempting to deal with this issue.

And so I would ask my colleagues to bring to the floor issues that are of paramount importance to the American people. The issue that's of paramount importance in my district is energy and gas prices. And this Congress is doing nothing about it, in spite of the proclamations and promises made during the previous election.

So, Madam Chairman, there are wonderful solutions out there, there are positive solutions. Conservation: We can do a whole lot more to incentivize individuals to conserve. Utilizing American resources for Americans, there's a novel thought, Madam Chairman. There are incredible resources that we have. And we've got the technology and the American ingenuity to do it in an environmentally sensitive way, and we ought to. We ought to. This leadership ought to allow that kind of issue to come to the floor.

And finally, alternative fuel. It's imperative that we have the kind of research and development and incentivizing alternative fuel formation in this Nation in ways that we've never done before, not pick winners and losers, which is what Washington tends to want to do, but to incentivize a system that would provide for wonderful, entrepreneurial, visionary, enthusiastic individuals all across this Nation who have the intelligence and the foresight and the desire to help America prevail in our energy independence.

So, Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today with a level of frustration by the inability of this leadership, apparently, to address the concerns of the American people, to address the concerns of those high school students that were in my office this morning, to address the concerns of those truckers, who continue out there outside the Capitol blaring their horns and saying, wake up. Wake up, Madam Speaker, wake up leadership in this Congress, wake up and address the issues that are of paramount importance to the American people. The paramount issue today is energy and gasoline prices, and we must, as a Congress, address that issue in a positive way.

Announcement by the Chairman