Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2537) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to beach monitoring, and for other purposes.

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.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comments by the sponsor, and I support the commonsense approach to this amendment as well.

Coming from the great State of New Jersey, who has had when it comes to beach issues over the last 20-some odd years, during which time I had the privilege of serving in the State legislature and had to deal with some of the same issues that are being dealt with right here and now, I appreciate what is being done this evening with regard to realtime recovering and realtime information coming in. New Jersey, I think, is literally on the cutting edge of this information right now. New Jersey is on the cutting edge, having addressed these issues over the last decade, and I appreciate what is being attempted to be done for the rest of the country as well.

That being said, I just want to reiterate my point that I made earlier this evening that here we are back in Congress again this week, and a lot of people are asking me back in the district, what are some of the major issues that you will be working on when you return to Washington this week?

At a town hall meeting and discussions back over the weekend, I gave them a breakdown, this being one of them. And they asked me, wait, you are going to be talking about beach issues? You are going to be talking about some of these other suspension bills we had earlier in the week and I anticipate having later on in the week?

But each time, no matter where I was, my constituents asked me the same question: Well, when is Congress going to begin the debate, when is Congress going to begin the discussion, whether it is in committees or on the floor or elsewhere, to try to address the problem that is really hitting us the hardest here back at home in the Fifth Congressional District, that is the top of the State of New Jersey, the issue that is hitting us the most in the pocketbook here in the great State of New Jersey? And, of course, what they were referring to is the price of energy.

We have just gone through a little bit of a cold snap in the State of New Jersey, as other parts of the country have as well, so for that reason we have seen the use of home fuel oil go up, naturally. It is a scary thing now when you see the delivery truck come to your house to deliver oil to fill up your oil tank, because you know as soon as that man is done delivering that 100 gallons or 250 gallons to your tank in your basement or in the ground or what have you, he is going to hand you a bill at the end of that delivery, and that bill can wipe out your savings for the week, wipe out the dollars that you may have planned to set aside to buy food, to buy medicine, to pay other expenses you were looking forward to have to spend that week.

So the people are asking, when are we going to be doing something? Unfortunately, we are still not doing it right now. Here we are, 16 months into a Democrat-controlled Congress, and still nothing has been done about it.

I refer back, just to give a little element of time to all this, to the chart I have right up here in front of us, to the fact that we do not have a Democrat energy policy to try to address these seminal issues, major issues that are affecting us. Take a look at what the prices are and the result of not having an energy policy to address this.

As this chart shows, the price of a barrel of crude oil when the Democrats came to power just 16 months ago was $58.31 cents a barrel. Fifty-eight bucks a barrel. Here we are less than 2 years later, a year-and-a-half later, and the price of a barrel of crude oil today is $113 a barrel. It is because of that huge increase in the price of the barrel that you and I have to pay so much when that man comes to deliver the fuel oil for our house or when we go down to the gas station as well.

Fifty-three cents on the dollar when you buy gas at the gas station or are buying fuel oil for your house is the price of crude oil. So when you wonder why it is that you are paying so much at the pump or you are paying so much for delivery to your house, it is because it has gone from 58 bucks to 113 bucks. Not over the last 10 years. Not over the last 6 years, or something like that. Not over the period of time when the Republicans were in control. No, not over that entire span of time. But just in the last 16 months under Democrat control we have seen the price of fuel oil spike and go through the roof.

The result of that has been what? The result has been, besides the fact that you now have to spend most of your money going to your fuel costs, the price also has translated into a ripple effect on the price of food, so when you go to the food store, those are through the roof. It has a ripple effect with regard to the overall economy, and so that is why Alan Greenspan was on TV just about 2 weeks ago now saying that he too is agreeing with other economists in this country saying we have entered into a recession.

So if you remember back how strong the economy was, how strong Wall Street was just about 18 months ago, now we see under the Pelosi premium of no energy policy, the result is what you see today.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, the previous gentleman was most accurate in his portrayal of what the problem is. Let me just dig into it a little bit more.

Again, as I said before, I support the ideas of the amendment that we are discussing right now in the underlying legislation. My heart just goes out for my constituents at home who may not be able to enjoy the benefits of such, the beaches of the great State of New Jersey and others along the eastern seaboard, simply because, a very practical matter with the high price of energy, the high price of gas, they simply may not be able to afford to get there.

I think I saw it in some news report the other day, how it was characterized, the point that I made earlier and the previous gentleman just made, as the chart just shows, the lack of a plan to deal with the energy problem in this country by the Democrat majority has brought us in this 110th Congress, this huge spike, this huge increase in the price of oil.

As the gentleman explained, it went from $58 per barrel of oil now up to $113, almost $114 per barrel of oil. The paper I think I was reading the other day, I heard it someplace, was this can most appropriately be called, not a Democrat problem, a premium that we are paying for the price of oil. Perhaps, appropriately, the paper called it the Pelosi premium because it comes during the time of this Congress headed by the Democrats.

The previous gentleman from Georgia was saying that, and he laid out very eloquently, that the other side of the aisle had campaigned on, and the Speaker said frequently they had a plan. Well, would that it be that they actually had a plan and began to implement that was beneficial, that would be beneficial, but they have had some sort of a plan.

I have to point this out to the gentleman from Georgia. They have had some suggestions as to what we can be doing with the price of gasoline. Let me just run through a couple of them. One of their suggestions to deal with the price of gasoline was a 50-cent increase per gallon Federal gas tax, which was proposed by the Energy and Commerce chairman.

So we are already paying $3.50 or so for a gallon of gasoline at the pump. The Energy and Commerce chairman said how do we deal with that issue? Let's add a 50-cent increase per gallon Federal gas tax on top of that. That's one part of their plan.

The second plan the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority proposed to deal with the high price of energy, was a $150 million war surtax. That was under a plan proposed by the Appropriations chairman, David Obey. We are already paying a high price for gasoline, we are already paying a high price for diesel, home heating fuel. Let's add insult to injury and add a $150 billion war surtax on top of that that you and I would have to pay.

Was that the end of their plan? No, they had a couple of other ideas. Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha and Representative Jim McGovern said low- and middle-income taxpayers should have to pay 2 percent added to their tax bill while higher income taxpayers would take an additional 12 to 15 percent added tax as well. There again, how do you deal with this problem, higher taxes.

Finally, a final proposal to deal with this situation from the Democrat majority, a 5-cent increase per gallon gasoline gas tax was proposed by Representative James Oberstar to pay for infrastructure. This proposal, as you may recall, would raise the Federal gas tax to 23.4 cents a gallon from the current 18.4 cents. This was made last summer.

So every proposal that they have had suggested, every proposal that we have heard from the Democrat side of the aisle to deal with the energy crisis in this country, to deal with the fact that energy costs for a barrel of oil going $58 up to $114, their solution to the fact that we are paying $3.25, $3.50, $4 for diesel, their solution so far has done nothing to lower the price. It has done everything to raise the price.

To add insult to injury, their proposal is to add even more by adding additional taxes and surtaxes on top of that.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the Chair. And I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee having come to the floor a moment ago to address this energy and the like. To be honest, that's the only way that we are going to be able to find solutions to these major issues that we need to address, whether it is the Iraq war situation, or this major issue of energy costs in this country.

Obviously, we have been able to find common ground when it comes to, I would catch it, slightly less significant issues dealing with beach quality and what have you. Now if we can find that same comity when it comes to the Iraq war and energy, then we'll be moving in the right direction.

That being said, the gentleman can't disagree with some of the facts that have been set out here for the last evening, and this will probably be my last comment for the night; and that is that the Democrat majority, prior to becoming the majority, did point out some problems with regard to energy prices prior to coming into the majority.

And the gentleman from Georgia went through a litany of quotes from Democrat leadership citing the problem, and making a promise that the Democrat majority had a solution to those problems. I'm eager to see what those solutions are. I would like to extend a hand across the other side of the aisle to work with them, if those solutions were ever forthcoming.

As I indicated in my last comments, the only proposals that I've seen so far from the other side of the aisle have been restrictive or increasing to the cost of energy. They were the two or three tax increases that I ran through before, the 50 cent increase per gallon gasoline Federal gas hike proposed, the $150 billion war surtax or the 5 cent increase per gallon tax hike, all proposals from the other side of the aisle. None of those things will lower the cost of energy. All of those things will raise the price that you and I and everyone else have to pay at the pump.

What we may want to do is look to see what other countries are doing with regard to energy costs in general. Let me just run down real quickly some of these.

Over in China, three or four things. One, China has expanded its natural gas infrastructure by constructing pipe lines. Unfortunately, the Democrats have opposed natural gas production in this country and natural gas infrastructure improvements in the country in general. And the chart that we had up previously showed that as far as offshore.

Secondly, China is rapidly expanding its refining capacity. Unfortunately, Democrats have repeatedly voted against expanding America's refinery capacity. I don't think we've had any new refineries built in some several decades.

Thirdly, China is ambitiously developing its nuclear power energy which plans to spend $50 billion on 30 additional nuclear reactors within the next 15 years. Again, unfortunately, Democrats consider the notion of increasing nuclear power generation in the U.S. basically as off the table.

And finally, China's planning on constructing many new large scale hydro electric projects over the forecasted period, including an 18.2 gigawatt Three Gorges dam project which is expected to come in in 2009. Again, unfortunately, Democrats have actively opposed new hydro electric power plants here in the United States.

So I will end where I began. The gentleman said that we should be concerned about how much money is going to Saudi Arabia and Dubai and all of the things that they're able to build with that oil. I agree.

I wish all of our American tax dollars and American gasoline dollars that we pay at the pump weren't going overseas. But right now, 63 percent of our energy sources are dependent on foreign sources of energy and growing more every year.

What we need to do is make America more self-reliant when it comes to energy. You do that by what we've talked about all evening. Don't tax it, don't raise the cost of production, don't restrict the production here in the United States, don't restrict the ideas of new efficient energy alternatives and the like, but allow it to grow using ingenuity of Americans insight and entrepreneurs, so that we do not have to be more dependent every day on foreign, unreliable sources that are a threat to this country, are a threat to our national security, and put our young men and women in harm's way on the points with regard to war, as the gentleman from Tennessee was pointing out.

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

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I too want to thank the gentlelady for this commonsense amendment. I think it does put the responsibility, at least partially, back on those local governments to control themselves. But it is for the same reason that the gentleman from New Jersey got up. My constituents also are concerned about the ability to go to the beaches. No matter how clean we can make them, if they can't get there, then they can't enjoy them.

And we had demonstrations the other day, Madam Chairman. We saw truckers driving around the Capitol, at least along the highway here, protesting the price of diesel fuel. And diesel is over $4 a gallon. And it's costing some of these truckers, independent businesspeople, over $1,000 to fill their trucks up.

And we've had some promises. And those seem to be empty promises that we've had. And I wanted to come today because, as you know, the average price of gas today is about $3.44 a gallon. The price of a barrel of oil is $114 a barrel. And I wanted to just kind of remind some people, maybe we have forgotten that we have had some promises made to the American people to really bring about some change in our government.

I want to read a press release that was dated September 21, 2005 by Speaker Pelosi. ``This is of the highest priority to our House Democratic Caucus because it is a high priority for America's working families. Some people have to work 2 more hours a day to cover the cost of gas that takes them to work, if they are making minimum wage.''

Well, we raised the minimum wage, but gas has gone up well over $1 a gallon since the Democrats took control and since Ms. Pelosi became Speaker.

September 28, 2005, another press release by the then-Minority Leader Pelosi, ``Democrats have been working for months to bring down the price of gas at the pump and home heating oil.''

Well, you've been in charge for 16 months, and I don't see what we have done to bring down the price of gas or the price of oil, except we have had some hearings where we question the heads of the oil companies about the profits they are making.

The point is, is that gas has gotten so high that the average person is now having to look at exactly where and what meets the best needs of their family, if they can go to the grocery store or not. That is a consideration that it seems like the Democratic leadership wanted to have for the working family. So why are we doing that? We are spending a lot of time on other issues. But we need to be working on this, something that affects the everyday person.

April 18, 2006, in another press release, Ms. Pelosi said: ``But the Republican bills clearly have done nothing to lower gas prices, as the price of a barrel of oil today has settled above $70 a barrel.'' Man, don't we wish for those days again? At the time it was the highest price in history.

Here is the quote that I think that we really need to get an answer to. ``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new direction.''

There is a new direction. And there is a song that goes with that direction. But I don't see a new direction. Or if we were going in a new direction, it's the wrong direction. Where is the Democratic plan for lower gas prices? Is it on the shelf somewhere? Are we saving it for a time when gas gets above $4 a gallon? Five dollars a gallon? What are we saving the plan for?

Let's bring the plan out tomorrow. Let's vote on it tomorrow. You can waive the rules. As we have seen in this Congress, we can change the rules at any time that it's convenient when we need it, and we really don't have to pay attention to the rules we adopted when you became the majority.

So why don't we bring out this plan? Why don't we have a plan that tomorrow we can tell the American people that the Democrats are going to finally unveil the plan?

Now the plan that we have heard so far from the Energy and Commerce chairman, Mr. Dingell, is to raise the price of the motor fuel tax 50 cents a gallon. That just doesn't sound like a good plan. One of the other plans that we had was to buy 30 bicycles at a cost of $30,000. I don't know that that's the plan that the American hardworking family is looking for. I mean, I live in Grantville, Georgia, and I would love to ride a bicycle to work, but that would take me quite a bit of time. I don't know. It might take 24 hours for me to ride a bicycle to work. But I don't know how families are going to ride bicycles to work to get groceries, or to go to the store, or whatever they have to do. Riding bicycles to me is just not that new plan.

Now if that is the Democrats' plan, then let's go ahead and unveil it and let the American people see it. I think they want to know what it is.

Madam Chairman, I need to continue with some of these quotes, because I think they are pretty interesting as to our energy policy that we have, I guess, or the lack of an energy policy that we have right now.

July 25, 2006, Mr. Hoyer, then the Democratic whip, says: ``Republicans' failure to craft a forward-looking strategy to deal with the rising costs of fuel over the last 5 years has helped ensure that my constituents would pay a very high price at the gasoline pump today and for at least the next several years.''

Well, I guess he is trying to make that statement come true, because it is continuing to rise over the next years. But it is not under our watch. So, Mr. Leader, I want to tell you that the ball is in your court. You didn't think that we could do a very good job with it. And I am reading these quotes. Evidently the now-Speaker didn't think we could do a very good job with it. So the ball is in your court, and I don't see the ball going anywhere except in the wrong direction. The price continues to go up, and I just think we need to see that secret plan that the Democrats have for bringing down our gas prices.

August 16, 2005, a press release by Ms. Wasserman Schultz: ``The unacceptable rise that we have seen in gasoline prices over the past year can be linked in part to the lack of consumer-oriented energy policy in this country. Gas prices have remained at record levels for about 4 months at $2.25 per gallon nationwide.''

Well, I don't know if I am the one that is going to break the news, but right now gas is at $3.44. And this lack of policy that evidently was in effect when gas was only $2.55 a gallon, where is your policy? I challenge you, where is the policy that you had that was supposed to bring these gas prices down that you continually talk about. If you

could just get a chance to get your hands on the ball, that you could score. You could score for the American people and you could get gas prices down. You have got your opportunity. You have had your opportunity for 16 months.

September 29, 2005, in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Tanner said, ``Gas prices in Tennessee and the rest of the country have literally skyrocketed. Our ever-growing dependence on foreign oil only guarantees that we will have to continue dealing with potentially unfriendly countries.''

News flash, Mr. Tanner and Madam Chairman: I would like to say that there they are still skyrocketing, and we are still more dependent now on foreign oil than ever before, because the majority does not want us having domestic production. They don't want us drilling in our own territory, on our own Outer Shelf or in Alaska, anywhere, really, to get more dependent on our own oil and our own energy. They decided that riding bicycles was the way to go.

September 9, 2005, a press release, Marion Berry: ``We can barely afford to fill our gas tanks to get to and from work each day, and our farmers are spending everything they have on diesel fuel just to keep their crops alive. These people deserve some answers and a fair price for their gasoline.''

You know, Mr. Berry, I couldn't agree with you more. You made that statement not quite 3 years ago. Where is your answer? You have been in the majority party for the last 16 months, and I don't see any answers to the questions and the comments and the concerns that you brought up for your constituents or these farmers that were spending way too much money then when gas was $2.50 a gallon.

May 22, 2005, in a press release by Mr. Pallone: ``Republicans chose to commemorate the 35th anniversary of Earth Day by approving an energy bill yesterday that raises gas prices. The average price of a gallon of regular gas in New Jersey has increased 40 cents, from $1.66 to $2.06.''

I wish we were back to those $2.06 days, don't you? And I don't know what we are going to do to celebrate Earth Day today, but gas, Mr. Pallone, is at $3.44. So the celebration won't be near as sweet because of the promises that you made to the American people that you were going to bring gas prices down, and they continue to go up.

Madam Chairman, I wanted to continue on to read some of these quotes about the outrage that the majority party had about the prices of gas and oil, and now, as to the outrage of the American people because evidently they felt like there could be a change and that there could be some solution to the price of higher fuel.

On September 9 of 2005 there was a press release sent out by Mr. Doyle that said, ``Supply and demand can't account for the spike in gas prices we've seen.'' ``Americans want and deserve stable, affordable gas prices.''

I agree, they do. There have been some broken promises given to the American people about who could produce, because at the time this press release was written, gas was about $2.25 a gallon. It's $3.44 a gallon now.

The party of Mr. Doyle has been in charge for 16 months. Where is that accountability? Where is the stable, affordable gas prices that Mr. Doyle said the American people deserved?

We haven't seen them. They are in that secret plan that we are waiting to see unveiled.

June 7, 2006, press release by Mr. DeFazio, ``Americans deserve an effective, comprehensive solution to the problem of high gas prices and growing dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, all they get out of this Republican Congress is a lot of hot air.''

Well, Mr. DeFazio, I think there's enough hot air to go around because evidently this press release was a lot of hot air.

Gas prices have done nothing but go up. The majority has changed. There is a new sheriff in town, so to speak, that I have heard when this takeover took place, but what is the sheriff doing?

The sheriff must have lost his gun or something, because, Madam Chairman, there has been no action. There has been nothing. We have discussed a lot of things on this floor, but I don't think there has been anything about higher gas prices.

July 13, 2006, a press release by Rosa DeLauro: ``The Bush administration and congressional Republicans have failed to bring up comprehensive energy reform, or any piece of legislation, for that matter, that would lower gas prices.''

Well, here it is 2 years later, and I haven't seen anything from the new majority that does anything to lower gas prices or, to quote her, ``or anything else.''

It goes on, ``Addressing these gas prices should be a priority for the congressional Republicans. I urge the Republican leadership to take action to reduce gas prices for consumers.''

I want to do the same thing. I want to encourage the congressional Democrats, Madam Chairman, to do something about gas prices and oil prices. I want to see the magic plan.

April 8, 2005, a press release by Ms. DeGette: ``Thanks to the shortsighted policies of the Republican Congress, our economy and the budgets of all Coloradoans are being hurt by skyrocketing gas prices. In Colorado, gas is up to $2.15 a gallon.'' Man, don't we wish we had those days when Republicans were in charge and gas was $2.15. Democrats have been in charge for 16 months, and it is $3.44 a gallon.

May 14, 2004, a press release by Mr. Etheridge: ``Gas prices in North Carolina and throughout the Nation are at record high levels.

``A major reason for these prices is the high price of crude oil, which has reached $40 a barrel.''

Man, don't we wish we had $40 a barrel back.

``We need immediate action to lower gas prices.''

Where is the outrage from these people that I am reading quotes from today demanding lower gas prices? I can't hear them. I haven't heard them. I haven't even seen them.

April 27, 2006, a press release from Ms. Herseth: ``We have heard strong words this week about rising gas prices, but words are not enough. Families across America are struggling to fill their gas tanks. They deserve answers and concrete actions, not just lip service.''

Lip service, that's what we've got.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague bringing up the issue of energy and the connection of energy to this bill because that is what we intend to do here today.

The irony behind this debate is that Americans really appreciate healthy beaches; but what they are really mad about is high gas prices. I have three kids, 15, 13 and 8. My wife is driving them all over the world to attend every event that kids do today, and the soccer moms of the world are outraged over the price of gas that they are paying.

And what has this Democrat majority been doing to continue to affect the price of gas, we just heard it, let's take more assets off the ability to explore. We just heard it from my colleague who just said no more exploration for oil. Where is the plan that the Speaker touted would lower gas prices? That was over 700 days ago. We want answers. We want this majority to do something about the high cost of gasoline.

We have truck drivers prepared to strike over the price of diesel, $4 a gallon gasoline is on the horizon, and this majority is doing nothing, nothing.

Here is the energy plan: When you have no energy plan, you plan to fail. When this majority took over, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58. What is it today, $110 per barrel. That translates into a gasoline price of originally $2.33 a gallon to now, $3.34, $3.50, $3.75, and $4. At $3.44, that is a $1.01 increase since this majority took over. Where is the energy plan to lower gasoline prices? The Speaker's plan means that you pay more in energy costs in this country.

The beaches that are affected in this legislation, Great Lakes, the coastal beaches, guess what, if I want to take advantage of these healthy beaches, I would have to drive about 285 miles to get to the Great Lakes. I would have to drive a lot farther, almost 745 miles to get to the gulf coast. Last year the cost to Chicago would be about $53. This year the cost is $76. We lose discretionary income when we allow gas prices to go up.

Another connection, to go to the great State of Florida to take my family on a vacation, that would have cost me last year $138 to drive. This year, $200 to drive. Do you think that is not going to affect the economy of the Florida coastal areas? Do you think that is going to halt our folks going to your State, my friend from Miami, to enjoy these great, healthy beaches. My folks can't afford to drive to these beaches to enjoy them anymore.

And what is the Democrat plan for gas prices? Silence. Nothing. The only plan is the plan to fail. The only plan is higher prices. Here it is: $58 a barrel when you came in, $110 a barrel today.

Let me give you some quotes. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on April 24, 2006, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Well, these skyrocketing prices aren't going down, folks. Speaker Pelosi's plan is to have skyrocketing price increases for gasoline, not decreases. We got it wrong.

It's this whole change mentality. Change is good. Change can be bad. The change in this majority has been bad for the cost of energy in this country.

And what are we doing? We're talking about healthy beaches. Healthy beaches. We ought to be talking about the price of gasoline. We ought to be talking about the price of diesel fuel. We ought to be talking about the price of electricity generation, nuclear power, clean coal technology. But no, healthy beaches. I hope my folks can enjoy and benefit by these healthy beaches.

It's been days since Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.'' Mr. Majority leader, what did you do? You raised prices. You didn't decrease prices. You raised prices. Everyone knows that prices have gone up.

Truckers are going to strike over record diesel prices. Diesel this week was at an average of more than $4 a gallon in Oregon and Washington, and nearly $4.12.

In California, according to the American Trucking Association, if a trucker is filling up a 300-gallon semi, that bill could top $1,200.

We want to talk about competitive nature. We want manufacturing jobs in this country. Energy prices are killing our ability to compete in the world economy. It's killing our ability to get or product to the ports to ship them overseas to be competitive. It's killing our ability to manufacture the goods using innovation and technology, because that requires energy.

No energy plan is a plan to fail. Change is not always good. This is a change that the Democrat majority has brought us. $58.31, the price of a barrel of crude oil upon the assumption of the leadership here in this chamber. Current price today, $110.61. I have those on Velcro tabs so I can just keep following that price as it keeps going up.

Sometimes a barrel of crude oil is hard to follow. People don't know what it translates into. Well, I translated it earlier, from $2.33 a gallon, to, on average, $3.34 a gallon, and we know it's going to hit 4. We know it's going to hit 4. And when it hits 4, who are they going to call? They're going to call us. And what are we going to say? We're going to say, ``Oh, the Democrats promised a plan in 2006 to lower prices.'' They're in the majority now. Let's see their plan.

A failure to plan is a plan that fails. You have no plan. We're increasing our costs. The economy is hurting, and we bring healthy beaches to the floor. Healthy beaches. High energy costs.

And my colleague who just followed me talked about excluding exploration of energy. She tied this debate to energy. She understood the importance.

Democrats have voted, not once, not twice, but four times to raise energy taxes on the 110th Congress.

There's a debate in the State of Illinois to lower our gas tax. Why? So the average American citizen can afford to do the job. In rural America, when we have to drive long distances, this directly affects the pocketbook of every citizen in rural America. Every citizen. They're going to drive 20, 30, 40 miles just to go to work.

Talk about the inner cities and the traffic congestion, the people who are idling, they're going to end up paying more.

Four times the Democrats have said we're going to change the gas price debate here in America and we're going to lower prices. We know that that hasn't worked. Not only have they added insult to injury, they said not only aren't we paying enough in gas prices now, but we want to put more taxes on gasoline. Shoot, $3.50 is not enough. Let's get to 4. Let's pay $4.50 a gallon. Let's pay higher energy costs.

And what do we see? The periodicals and newspapers, the print media are starting to understand. In the Buffalo News, April 9: $4 Gasoline Seems Possible This Summer.

There used to be a time when Americans got outraged at $3 a gallon. Well, we've sensitized them to over $3 a gallon. They were promised by the Democrat majority they would lower gas prices. They've increased gas prices. Now we have to get prepared for $4 a gallon.

What's next?

No energy plan is a plan to fail. The Washington Times: Price at the Pump Likely to Reach $4. Fox News, Denver, Colorado: $4 Per Gallon Creeps Closer.

Friends, healthy beaches are important. We all want to benefit from them. I'd like to take my family to a beach. A lot of my constituents like to go there. But if they can't afford the gasoline in the minivan to get them to appreciate these healthy beaches, for what benefit?

The Democrats, when they were in the majority, promised us, I've got the quotes, they promised us lower gas prices, lower gas prices. I read the quotes. Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, I've got one from Jim Clyburn. Lower prices.

What do we have? Higher prices? And it's about time you started accepting responsibility and do something about these high prices.

Mr. Speaker, I would understand my colleague would be upset about speaking. I would understand why you would be ashamed about talking about healthy beaches and not addressing the real concerns of America which is high energy costs.

I've been on the floor numerous times, motions to recommit over the past year and a half to talk about energy crises. One the big things I've talked about is coal to liquid technologies.

You know what? It was your colleague who stepped on the floor and talked about we don't want oil exploration off the coast. We don't want more crude oil supplies.

Well, I have a solution that would help keep our beaches healthy. Let's use coal to liquid technologies. Let's mine our vast abundant resource of coal right here. Let's build a coal to liquid refinery. In fact, Sasol, the South African energy company, just announced that the Brits are going to buy synthetic aviation fuel.

You know, we had all these aviation industry folks just go bankrupt, these low cost airlines that could get to these healthy beaches. You know one reason why they went bankrupt? The high cost of aviation fuel. Those are jobs gone. Those are the inability of me and my family on a low cost airline to appreciate these healthy beaches.

Well, I have a solution. They've been to the floor on motion to commit coal to liquid technology. Get our coal, refine it in to liquid fuels, put it in a pipeline and ship it to our commercial and military aviation.

I've been using this chart for a year and a half. Has this majority moved on decreasing our reliance on imported crude oil? Negligibly. Zip, zero. Maybe on the RFS. I voted for it. I appreciate that.

But doing anything to expand our ability to get our own resources, no, we're here talking about healthy beaches. We don't want to talk about crude oil exploration. We want to talk about pristine beaches. We don't want to talk about that we're paying $110 per barrel of crude oil when it was $58 when you all came into the majority. Translates to a dollar more in gas. It's going to reach 4.

So we have some options. We can be here spending all day talking about healthy beaches while our businesses and industries fall further behind, fail to compete because of high energy costs.

I haven't even got involved in climate change. Climate change is going

to bring additional cost to your gas tank, to your electricity. In fact, the only one who's been intellectually honest about this is Chairman Dingell. What does he say? Fifty cents a gallon more to comply with climate change.

Now, if we want to do that, then let's vote on it. But you know what? You won't do it because it'll take that $4 a gallon a gas and move it up to $4.50.

Guess what? People are going to say, let's re-evaluate this. Let's understand if all the world nations are going to comply. Do we want all this pain, all that job dislocation, all these higher energy costs and no benefit?

If India and China do not comply, we get no benefit. All pain, no gain. All pain, job dislocation, higher energy costs, no gain. We ought to insist, before we go into any climate change agreement, that India and China sign on the dotted line verifiable that we know they're going to comply.

You know what? I've talked to them. They're not going to do it. They are not going to do it.

So why assume these costs? Why burden the American consumer? Why deplete our hotel and tourism industry by people not being able to get there, either through airlines who have failed or the ability to drive the long distances to get there.

This majority has had no plan to address. Well, they have. They've promised, lower gas prices, 2006. This Democrat majority promised lower gas prices, lower gas prices. What do we have? Higher gas prices. And no plan to mitigate.

You know how you mitigate it? You bring on more supply. And you all won't do that.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2537, the Beach protection Act of 2008.

This legislation, and the underlying statute that the Beach Protection Act amends, are vital to ensuring that the public is aware of, and protected from coming into contact with, potentially harmful pollutants and contaminants in our coastal recreational waters.

I applaud the efforts of the primary sponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, and our colleague on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Bishop, for shepherding this important legislation through the hearing process, through Committee markup, and to the floor of the House today.

I also applaud the efforts of the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, for his efforts back in 2000 to move the initial BEACH Act to the President's desk.

The BEACH Act that was signed into law in October 2000 authorized $30 million annually for beach monitoring and assessment programs and public notification programs for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. It required States and tribes to determine minimum water quality standards that were considered ``safe.''

In many ways, the BEACH Act has proven successful in making the public aware of the presence of potentially harmful water contamination at local beaches, and has brought about a revolution in terms of States creating and implementing coastal recreational water monitoring and notification programs. The benefits we have seen over the last 8 years include uniform standards for coastal recreational water quality, and increased monitoring and notification of such waters.

However, inasmuch as the BEACH Act has been successful in providing more information to the public, the Bush administration's track record on utilizing all of the tools contained in the BEACH Act to protect human health has been far less successful.

For example, the EPA was given authority to promulgate standards for States that did not have sufficient standards as compared to

those in the 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA was given further direction to continue to study the impacts of waterborne pollutants and bacteria to human health, and to revise the criteria every five years as needed.

Unfortunately, EPA failed to complete this task, as demonstrated by a lawsuit by advocates for safe beaches, and more recently, in a report of the Government Accountability Office (``GAO'').

This GAO Report, entitled ``Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection,'' established that more work could be done to ensure the safety of our beach waters.

Just this week, a Federal District Court judge in California ruled that EPA, again, violated its ``non-discretionary duty'' to complete required studies on revising coastal water quality criteria and standards. Even after losing a similar lawsuit in 2006, EPA continues to argue that the statute gives the Agency the discretion to ``conduct the studies as it sees fit.'' This is contrary to the law, and has once again been dismissed by the Federal District Court judge.

Similarly, the Bush administration has failed to utilize the authorities and direction of the initial BEACH Act to ensure the public has the best, most accurate, and timely information on the condition of their favorite beaches. For example, the BEACH Act called for a creation of a ``National List of Beaches'' that would provide the public with information on which beaches had in place monitoring and notification programs, and which did not. EPA was given the direction to periodically revise this list, based on the availability of new information.

I can assure my colleagues that latest list, published in 2004, is not the most up-to-date assessment of the condition of the Nation's beaches. Again, the administration has failed to utilize the tools provided by Congress to ensure the protection of human health and safety.

Despite the current administration's track record, the BEACH Act is an important law for protecting the public from the presence of harmful pollutants and contaminants in the Nation's recreational waters.

The Beach Protection Act, under consideration today, will further enhance these authorities by working towards real-time, same-day information on the condition of local waters to safeguard against unintentional contact with contaminated waters.

Again, I strongly support the efforts of our colleagues in drafting this important piece of legislation, and urge its adoption.

I'm surprised at the remarks, Madam Chairman, of the gentleman from Georgia, about bicycling. I think we need to pay more attention and do more work for bicycling. And we would all do better burning 86,000 calories a year on the seat of a bicycle than eight barrels of oil a year in our cars.

Madam Chairman, I have sat here patiently and listened to a litany of speakers come here and address the Committee of the Whole on subjects important to them but irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. And one or another, maybe several of them, said ``this Democratic Beach bill.''

I just want to remind the colleagues that this is the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who has labored for several years on behalf of this legislation. We finally move it through committee, bring it to the floor, and now it's laid on our doors to be the Democratic bill and why are we

wasting the House time. We bring it under an open rule, and then someone said, you should have brought it on suspension. If we had brought it on suspension, they would have complained because they didn't have an opportunity to offer the eight amendments that they're bringing to the floor. I am just perplexed by this tactic. It's unworthy of the legislation pending.

And we've worked hard to accommodate the gentleman from California who has a legitimate concern. I concur with his concern. We bring the bill out, and we do it in good faith, and we expect at least a good- faith response from the other side.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

In the 109th Congress, we considered the reauthorization of the Appalachian Regional Commission. During consideration of the bill in committee, I proposed language to prohibit earmarks, which have been done time and again in the appropriation process, prohibit earmarks in the Appalachian Regional Commission appropriation process. The gentleman from Arizona supported my initiative, and I appreciated his support. It was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, the committee did not include that language. When the bill came to the floor, I worked to defeat the bill because it did not have that prohibition on earmarks, and the gentleman from Arizona supported my initiative.

In the BEACH bill, or the Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, proposed by the gentleman from California, with whom I worked on this matter for a period of 6 or 7 years, both in his previous seating in Congress and during the time he was out of service in the Congress and when he returned, it's a good bill. The initial BEACH Act authorized $30 million. About $10 million has been appropriated each year. And the money goes out by formula to the States. There have never been earmarks. In the Appropriations Committee nor on the House floor have there ever been attempts to suballocate the funds. Each State receives a portion of annual appropriations based on a calculation of each State's varied beach monitoring and notification efforts.

Now, we know very well that $10 million is insufficient, and because money is insufficient for a bill, that's often why, Madam Chairman, Members come with a proposal for an earmark to designate money so they are sure that their State or their beach or their city gets their, at least, perceived fair share of funding.

But it's never been done on this legislation, and we don't need any such limitation language. I think we have a fair formula, a specific focus on the base cost of the States of developing, maintaining water quality monitoring, notification programs, the mileage of the beach, beach use, the length of the season, and other factors that the administrator of the agency determines to be appropriate. That is fair, and I think Members of this body and of the other body recognize that it's fair; so they haven't attempted to tinker with it, and we shouldn't do that in this bill. This is a good piece of legislation, a fair piece of legislation.

Look, we bring this bill to the House floor under an open rule. It's one advocated by a Member from the other side, a Member for whom I have the highest personal regard, and then we have a succession of Members standing here complaining that we bring a bill to the floor under an open rule that should have been brought under suspension. If we had brought it under suspension, I suspect the same people would come to the floor, Madam Chairman, and complain that we didn't have an open rule.

So we're trying to the do the right thing on the right piece of legislation, and we ought not to gimmick it with this proposal that is totally unnecessary for a limitation on earmarks. We ought not to adopt this amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his very thoughtful comments, which I fully concur. But I also would like to take this opportunity to compliment the gentleman from Indiana for a very thoughtful, reasoned, balanced and principled statement that adhered to the purpose of the amendment and stuck to the principle that the underlying amendment addresses. Though I disagree with the outcome of his reasoning, it was a very thoughtful and a principled statement, more of the kind of discussion we ought to have on this floor.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chairman, I wanted to read some quotes. This is a quote from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 4/24/06: ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Another quote from Majority Leader Hoyer: ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.'' This was 10/4/05.

On 7/26/06, Mr. Jim Clyburn, the Democratic Whip, said, ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.''

We need to see those plans. We need to hear what those ideas are.

April 16, 2006, press release, Speaker Pelosi:

``The Republican Rubber Stamp Congress has passed two energy bills, costing taxpayers $12 billion for giveaways to big oil companies. But the Republican bills clearly have done nothing to lower gas prices, as the price of a barrel of oil has sailed over $70 a barrel,'' and I believe it closed over $110 today, ``the highest price in our history.''

``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new direction that works for everyone, not just a few. Our plan would empower the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on price gouging, to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices, increase production of alternative fuels, and rescind the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to the big oil companies.''

Madam Chairman, I'll say that we have not had any relief from gas prices. Gas prices are a dollar a gallon more today than they were when the new majority took over.

We have paid too much attention to windmills, bicycles and solar panels. We need to pay attention to domestic drilling. We need to pay attention to promoting alternative fuels.

We have been going in the wrong direction. And if you ask the American people right now, 78 percent of the people say this country is headed in the wrong direction.

And, Madam Chairman, I promise you, our gas prices are heading the wrong direction.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, you know, it's interesting that we came here to talk about a beach bill, and we're finally getting a chance to talk about some energy because most American families are not going to have the money to drive to the beach this year.

We look at the price of gasoline right now. And I earlier quoted some of the quotes from the Democratic leadership about how they were going to get a grip and get ahold of the gas prices and bring them down. Well, since they've been in the majority, they have actually gone up $1 per gallon, oil has gone up about 100 percent. And what are we

telling our people at home? I've got to go back and explain to the people of the Third District of Georgia that this week, rather than addressing the price of gas and our energy situation, that we did some beach restoration, which is a very worthy bill; we did some landscape conservation; we named some post offices; and we did some several other suspensions. But I've got to go back and tell them that, when they're standing there at the gas pump almost pumping $4 a gallon into their car, that they need to realize something, they need to realize what the majority plan for our future price of motor fuel is.

The chairman, who I have a great deal of respect for, on the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, who's been here a long time and is very wise, but he projected or at least proposed a 5 cents a gallon hike for our infrastructure and $1 per barrel on oil. The Energy and Commerce chairman is talking about a carbon tax. He's also talking about a 50 cent per gallon tax on fuel.

We're talking about taking away these tax breaks from Big Oil. You know, we can take away tax breaks from anybody, but I'm telling you, if you take a tax break away from a company that is manufacturing products in this country, they're not going to just absorb that loss, they're going to go up on the price of their product. So we're talking about maybe 55, 60 cents more a gallon.

So I've got to go back and tell my constituents, look, here's their plan: Their plan is to go up another 55 cents or so a gallon on your gas, another dollar on a barrel of oil, take away any tax breaks that the big oil companies have that hopefully they're passing on to you, and your Congress just spent $30,000 to buy 30 bicycles. So they've got a great plan.

And I guess this is the great plan that we've heard about in so many of these quotes about how they were going to fix the price of gas. We've bought 30 bicycles at a cost of $30,000; we're going to increase the price of gas 55 cents; we're going to take away the tax breaks for Big Oil so they can go up, increase the price on a barrel of oil. We're not going to do any domestic drilling. We're going to depend on changing light bulbs. We're going to depend on solar power. We're going to depend on windmills.

Now, Madam Chairman, I just don't know how much comfort that's going to give the people of the Third Congressional District of Georgia. In fact, I don't know that if I tell them that, that they're even going to believe that, that this body, this House, that is their answer to them paying $4 a gallon for gas. It's just going to be hard for me to sell it. But if they will pay attention to what's going on up here, then I think they'll be convinced that these are the only things that the majority has brought forth.

We need to concentrate on being less dependent on foreign oil. We need to look at our own future, our own lands, our own prospects of what we're doing. And as the gentleman from Alaska said, regardless of what you think about fossil fuels, we're going to be using it. And so we need to provide for ourselves.

And I think it's a shame that each and every one of us, and I know we're going to be through by 4 o'clock because, you know, we do need to get home, but we're not doing our job. We're not doing the business of the people when we constantly go home and people ask us, help us, help me, help me be able to put gas in my car to take my children to soccer practice, or go to school, or go to the beach.

So I'm going to go back and I'm going to say, I'll tell you what, we gave you some help. We're going to raise the price of gas and oil and we're buying bicycles.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for bringing that up because I think every bill needs to be brought to the floor like this, an open rule, so we can have debate. This is a breath of fresh air to have an open rule. I can't remember the last time we had one. So this is a great thing that we have this. This is our republican action in letting people, our constituents, hear our different views on these bills rather than just having it jammed down our throats. So I agree with the chairman on this, and I hope more of these can be brought under an open rule.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

And I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment because a little ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And so I think what we are doing, like he said, is just making sure that we are perfectly clear to anybody on the conference committee, or any other process that this bill goes through, that we're not to air-drop these earmarks that we never get a chance to discuss. It is very seldom that we get to discuss anything on the floor in the manner that we are being able to talk about this beach restoration bill as we are today. And so I think it is a great thing that we are having this open discussion.

Again, I want to comment that I hope that one day my constituents from Georgia's Third Congressional District, which is not that far away from the beach, will be able to have the money that won't pinch their budget to be able to drive to the beach. Right now in Georgia you're paying $3.29 per gallon, which is $1 more a gallon than we paid when the 110th Congress started. And we had all the empty promises and the smoke-and-mirror gadgets that came from the majority that they were going to somehow, that they had some kind of miraculous plan to lower gas prices.

We have yet to see that plan. We've talked about raising the fuel tax. We've talked about raising the price of a barrel of oil. We've actually purchased bicycles. And we have done a lot of different things. But the price of gas and oil continues to go up.

We had a bailout that caused our dollar to deflate. And that, itself, probably caused the price of a barrel of oil to go up. So I am waiting on that magic wand. I am waiting on that secret that Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer and the whip, Mr. Clyburn, all talked about prior to getting in charge.

It almost reminds me of a dog inside a fence that is really barking and yelping and wanting to get out and wanting to convince its master that it can go out and do the things that it wants to show that it can do. And then once it gets out of the gate, it just kind of lays down under a tree and scratches its ear or something.

So I am ready for some action. I think the American people are ready for action. Bring out this magic plan. Unveil it. Let's see it.