Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2010

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

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my Rules Committee colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from North Haven, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I sat and listened attentively as my colleague talked about the challenge of dealing with algal blooms and hypoxia research. And I am reminded, as I mentioned in the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon, of the rather famous vice presidential debate that took place in 1992.

Now, vice presidential debates, Madam Speaker, are not terribly memorable, but in 1992, for those who are old enough to remember, we saw three top-tier Presidential candidates, George H.W. Bush was running for reelection, Bill Clinton was the Democratic nominee, and H. Ross Perot was running as an independent candidate. In that vice presidential debate we saw Vice President Quayle, challenger Al Gore, who went on to become Vice President, of course, and this totally unknown figure, Admiral James Stockdale, a great man whom I was privileged to know. The famous line that came from that vice presidential debate, Madam Speaker, was from not Vice President Quayle or Vice-President-to-be Gore, but from Admiral Stockdale, who looked into the camera and said, ``I'm sure you're asking who am I and why am I here.'' That term went on to be used throughout the decade plus in our vernacular.

I was reminded of that as we look at what it is that we're doing right here, Madam Speaker. One can't help but ask, who am I and why are we here? And having listened to the very thoughtful statement on algal blooms and hypoxia research from my friend from North Haven, I would like to yield to her, if I might, Madam Speaker, to see if she could give us a really good description of why it is that we are here at this moment at 9:25 Friday morning when this was a measure that had been considered under a suspension of the rules and we had, mid-afternoon yesterday, completed the work and I know many of my colleagues have gone into their districts.

So I would like to yield to my colleague and ask her to provide us a clear, clear definition as to exactly why it is that we're here.

Well, Madam Speaker, let me reclaim my time and say that we had an emergency Rules Committee meeting yesterday to bring this measure up. Now, I understand the importance of dealing with algal blooms and hypoxia research, but in my State of California we have many counties, Madam Speaker, that tragically have an unemployment rate that is in excess of 20 percent. We have a nationwide unemployment rate that is hovering right around 10 percent, 9.7 percent--it's been around 10 percent for 7 months--and we know that millions and millions of Americans have lost their homes and many more continue to face either the threat of foreclosure or years of upside-down mortgages. Our deficit is $1.4 trillion, and we all know that our national debt has exceeded $12 trillion.

Credit remains very scarce. We hear regularly decried from both sides of the aisle about working families and small business owners who depend on a robust financial services system. We have serious, very serious issues as a Nation that the American people expect us to deal with aggressively and responsibly. And I would argue, Madam Speaker, that while we are considering the algal blooms and hypoxia research measure under an emergency structure that was put forth by the Rules Committee, I'm not in any way diminishing its importance, but I think these issues that I just mentioned are what are on the minds of Americans all across this country: job creation and economic growth.

So what is it that we do in response to the economic crisis that we're facing in the United States of America? It is, as I said, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments.

Now, Madam Speaker, I yielded to my colleague to say why it is that we are really here, which is the fact that we were promised transparency. You don't need a really, really good pair of reading glasses to know exactly why it is that we are here.

Very simply, we are here because the Democratic leadership is doing everything that it possibly can to twist arms and to line up votes. Based on public opinion polling and on three elections that have been held within the last couple of months in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, they are twisting arms to try and pass a very, very, very unpopular and, I believe, outrageous, horrible measure that would see us have the Federal Government take control of one-sixth of our Nation's economy.

The most recent maneuver they were considering to ram this thing through was something that has been dubbed the ``Slaughter solution.'' Many media outlets have tried to explain to the American people what exactly the Slaughter solution would be. Most explanations have left listeners more confused and outraged than when they started. It is a twisted and contorted process that can make anyone's head spin, but this is it in a nutshell:

Madam Speaker, the Slaughter solution is an end run around a vote in the House of Representatives on the health care bill. As the health care process has moved forward, the substance of what the Democratic majority is trying to accomplish has become ever more unpopular. The result is that they simply do not have the votes to pass a bill that can get to the President for his signature. We all know that.

In the last 30 minutes, the President has announced that he is delaying his trip to Indonesia and to Australia. We know that they are doing everything within their power to try and twist arms and to encourage people to vote for something that is extraordinarily unpopular and that, I believe, would be devastating for our Nation's economy.

So, Madam Speaker, what is it that you do if you don't have the votes? What is it that you do? Do you start over and work for a bipartisan solution, which is what the American people want? This is not a partisan issue on our part. We are saying let's take the commonsense approach that the American people have said we should take, a step-by-step approach. So is that the message that has come through?

Do you listen? Do you listen, as many of us have, to what it is that the American people are saying through town hall meetings and through other fora, and do you incorporate their ideas into this quest that we all share of trying to drive health care costs down so that we can increase access to health insurance for our fellow Americans?

Apparently, the answer to every single one of those, Madam Speaker, is ``no,'' for this Democratic majority; when you don't have the votes, you simply come up with a scheme to avoid

a vote altogether, which is what the Slaughter solution is. This so- called ``Slaughter solution'' would allow the House to wait for the Senate to pass a fix-it package to their flawed health care bill. When the fix would be passed by the Senate, the bill would magically be deemed passed by the House without our ever having a transparent up-or- down vote on the original bill.

Let's remind ourselves of a new direction for America, the document that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi put forward, one promising transparency, disclosure, accountability, and the kind of openness that we all aspire to, but which tragically has deteriorated over the past 3 years.

The approach that we have with the Slaughter solution is a hopelessly cynical attempt to completely upend the democratic process. It also, Madam Speaker, I believe, creates the potential for a real backfire. For months, the Democratic majority has blamed the Senate for their own inability to provide leadership and decisive action on the pressing challenges that we face, and now they want to put the fate of their convoluted plan on the ability of the Senate to pass a clean fix-it bill.

Madam Speaker, the Senate has disappointed my Democratic colleagues yet again. We got the report just yesterday which seemed to undermine the Slaughter solution. It appears that the Senate parliamentarian will insist on the enactment of the Senate health care reform bill before he will recognize the fix-it bill as reconciliation, meaning that reconciliation can only be utilized to deal with existing law. That means, if the Democrats won't take a straight up-or-down vote on the bill, their only option is the light version of the Slaughter solution, having the bill deemed as passed by the rule and sending the Senate bill to the President for his signature. Now, that's what the lawyers call, Madam Speaker, a distinction without a difference.

The reality is that a vote on the rule will be a vote on the Senate health care bill, complete with all of the special interest provisions that it contains--the Cornhusker kickback, gator aid, the Louisiana purchase, these kinds of things that we have heard about. Then there are all sorts of hidden items in there which some friends of mine have been discussing with me, like promises that there won't be a middle class tax increase. What does the measure do? It slashes FSAs, Flexible Savings Accounts, which have been utilized by people who are trying to address their health care needs. By doing what they do in this bill, it will be a slap to the taxpayers of this country who are middle-income wage earners. Their problems don't end there. There will be, Madam Speaker, challenges to some proposed fixes and, therefore, changes to the Senate package.

Then there is the question of the Federal funding of abortion. If this cannot be banned through reconciliation, would the Slaughter solution be further expanded to implement a fix on that issue as well? How would that fix make its way through the United States Senate?

Now, with serious unanswered questions like these, why would any Member of this House take the bait and support the Slaughter solution, even in its light version, by deeming a measure passed with the passage of a rule? There is a high probability that House Democrats would be forced into taking the tough votes they tried so hard to avoid after putting themselves on record as supporting an end run around a real transparent vote.

In the end, Madam Speaker, rank-and-file Democrats would be making themselves all the more vulnerable for having supported their leadership's egregious tactics. The Slaughter solution is bad policy, bad process, and bad politics. The fact that the Democratic leadership is pursuing this option exposes its unwillingness to abandon the most fundamental element of legislating. The most fundamental element of being a deliberative body is a transparent up-or-down vote, and they are doing that in order to achieve what everyone recognizes, based on public opinion polling. And I don't make my decisions based on public opinion polling; I make my decisions on what I think is right, but it just so happens that public opinion overwhelmingly has pointed to this as a very, very, very unpopular, unpopular proposal.

Today, on which I have just had an exchange with my colleague from North Haven, they are hiding behind blooming algae as they twist arms and try to work their backroom deals. But, Madam Speaker, your leadership cannot hide forever. If the Democratic majority proceeds with its plan to ram through their health care bill without actually holding a vote, it's going to take more than algae to protect them from the American public's outrage.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to yield to my colleague to engage in a colloquy, if I might, so we might have a discussion.

I found it very interesting, very interesting, Madam Speaker, that she talked about that amazing drug that is used for breast cancer, and, unfortunately, the huge disparity in the cost that that woman she was riding on the bus had in Canada versus the United States of America. There is an important reason for that, Madam Speaker, and that is the fact that we want to make sure that there are more amazing drugs created.

There are many very serious ailments that exist out there today, and one of the things that we have as our great comparative advantage here in the United States of America is that we are the center for research and innovation. And, unfortunately, we have had to shoulder the financial burden for that research so that that woman riding on the bus with my friend from North Haven was able to have a drug that would never have been developed had it not been for the kind of innovation that exists here in the United States of America.

I would like to yield to my friend to see if she would recognize that the innovation and creativity that exists in the United States of America is what allowed that friend of hers on the bus to have.

I am happy to yield whatever amount of time my friend consumes from my time.

Let me just say, Madam Speaker, that I am very happy that we are here to address an issue that is of concern to the American people. With all due respect to the importance of algal blooms and hypoxia research, I believe what we are talking about today is much more important. And the thing we should be talking about is not something that happened 5 years ago, which, frankly, many, many seniors are benefiting from, but what we should talk about is what is about to happen and what is happening behind closed doors throughout this Capitol at this moment.

I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time just to say to my friend that she is right. She is right, Madam Speaker, that there are other parts of the world where research and innovation are taking place. But it all pales, it pales in comparison to the kind of research and development that takes place here in the United States.

I would like to ask my colleague, Madam Speaker, if she would support making permanent the research and development tax credit so that we could have the kind of incentive for our pharmaceutical industry and others out there who are creating these innovative new ideas to deal with Alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes and other ailments that exist. Madam Speaker, would she be supportive of the notion of our pursuing that kind of incentive to deal with these problems that can play a role in driving costs down?

I just asked the question on my own time. I am happy to yield to my friend. I asked a question, and I would welcome your answer.

Madam Speaker, let me just say, because I control the time----

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend further, but the gentlewoman has chosen to say she doesn't know whether or not she would support making permanent the research and development tax credit, when we all know that would play a critical role in driving costs down for our seniors and others.

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is we are here at this juncture dealing with a measure that may be important to some, but this measure was

considered, as I said, under an emergency structure upstairs in the Rules Committee.

Now, I ask the question, when the President made his decision to delay his trip to Indonesia and Australia from March 18 to March 21 or 22, was that so that he could deal with the emergency of signing legislation dealing with algal blooms and hypoxia research? I don't think so. But that is the measure, as my friend said, she wanted to discuss here on the House floor today, when in fact we know, we know that arm-twisting is taking place. And to liken, to liken the structure that is taking place with what happened 5 years ago is preposterous.

It is true, it is true that under the rules of the House that vote may have been left open, and as a by-product of that we have seen literally millions and millions of seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs.

Madam Speaker, I have to say that that pales in comparison to this unprecedented and outrageous structure that is being utilized, that is being utilized to ram down the throats of the American people something that they don't want.

Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say that I was just reminded by my staff, Madam Speaker, and I have got a couple of articles that were just handed to me here today, about this process issue. I regularly argue that process is substance. And excuse me, I am not talking, by the way, about algal blooms or hypoxia research. I am talking about this convoluted process known as the ``Slaughter solution.''

For some strange reason, the Democratic leadership has said that, regardless of what the Senate is going to do, we are going to proceed with taking our action here, when reconciliation itself is a Senate process. That was designed, as we all know, it is called budget reconciliation, put into place in the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act. It was put into place by Senator Byrd, and the goal of providing an opportunity for reconciliation, budget reconciliation, was so that there could be an opportunity to deal with tax increases or spending cuts.

I will say, the last time we dealt with meaningful spending cuts under this kind of structure was when we tried to tackle the issue of entitlement reform, and we were able to bring about a very, very modest $40 billion reduction. I think that we need to work harder on that and we need to utilize that process in doing it.

But what we are seeing right now and these reports that are out there, the confusion that exists in this House, and certainly with the American people, who are just casual observers of this, is that this is not what we were promised, Madam Speaker. It is not what we were promised.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it looks like my friend from Texas is here and would like to be recognized. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful remarks.

Let me just close--I know my colleague is prepared to do the same--by making a couple of comments.

I began by pointing to the fact that in California we have a number of counties with an unemployment rate in excess of 20 percent. In part of the area I represent in suburban Los Angeles, we have an unemployment rate in excess of 14 percent. We have, obviously, tremendous numbers of home foreclosures and small business people are unable to gain access to credit.

I believe that we can get our economy growing boldly, strongly, and dynamically, with bipartisanship--and I underscore that term ``bipartisan,'' Madam Speaker--by utilizing the John F. Kennedy-Ronald Reagan approach with marginal tax rate reduction which, during the 1960s under John F. Kennedy and the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, stimulated economic growth by reducing marginal tax rates and doubled, doubled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

Everyone is decrying the $1.4 trillion deficit and the $12 trillion debt that we have today. And what is it we are doing? We are sitting here with a discussion about algal blooms and hypoxia research, and we are witnessing arm-twisting to see the Federal Government take control of one-sixth of our economy, while the American people want us to focus on job creation and economic growth.

We can be doing that, Madam Speaker, if we can refocus our attention to where it is that the American people want us to be. And I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1168 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009, under a structured rule.

The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill. The resolution provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science Committee, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted.

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended. The resolution makes in order the amendment printed by the Rules Committee report if offered by Representative Flake or a designee. The resolution waives all points of order against the amendment except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, harmful algal blooms, or HABs, are a growing problem along U.S. coasts and they impact almost every coastal district. Some algae, like red tide, produce toxins that contaminate shellfish and shut down shellfish beds to local harvesters.

Severe red tide blooms can be harmful to tourism across the country. When red tide affects an area, people can't go in the water, seafood isn't bought and sold, and stores and hotels along the coast are empty.

Over the past few decades, harmful algae have begun to bloom more frequently and with greater intensity. HABs are one of the most complex and economically significant coastal management challenges facing the Nation.

We know that algae growth is influenced by a number of factors, including light, water temperature, salinity, and nutrient availability, but the factors that drive outbreaks like red tide are not understood as well, and additional efforts are needed to monitor, control, prevent, and mitigate these outbreaks.

A professor at the University of Maine has done research that shows that the blooms start offshore and are blown towards shore by easterly winds. This sounds simple enough; yet in the field of red tide research, this was groundbreaking work.

Addressing HABs on a national level requires a coordinated approach that involves a number of Federal agencies, including the EPA and NOAA. The underlying bill oversees the development and implementation of regional research and action plans to help coastal managers understand and deal with HAB outbreaks.

New England, and Maine in particular, have been especially hard hit by outbreaks. Severe red tide events occurred in 4 of the last 5 years, causing tens of millions of dollars in lost income to shellfish harvesters.

The shellfish industry is vital to the Maine economy, Madam Speaker. Over 2,000 harvesters and dealers depend directly on access to healthy shellfish beds to make their living and support their families. Maine's Department of Marine Resources estimates total annual economic value of the shellfish industry in Maine to be about $50 million.

Last spring and summer, the shellfish industry in Maine was shut down because of severe red tide bloom. At its peak, the density of the red tide toxin was nearly 100 times the federally mandated quarantine level and closed 97 percent of the State's shellfish beds and 100 percent of the offshore beds in Federal waters. Many shellfish harvesters were stuck on land for months with nowhere to go. This all occurred during the peak of the tourist season, and the results were devastating.

Coastal families rely on the income generated during the short summer months to carry them through Maine's long, cold winters; and the timing could have not have been worse for these hardworking harvesters. Not only were they missing out on the best time to sell their product, but they had no way of knowing when it would be okay to return to the mudflats. The uncertainty made it impossible to know whether to look for other employment or to wait and see if the next week would bring clear water.

Predictions for 2010 indicate that it could be an even worse year for red tide in the Gulf of Maine. According to a recent NOAA report, the cysts that cause red tide are at some of the highest levels ever measured, 60 percent higher than what was observed in the sediments prior to the historic red tide of 2005.

While red tide in Maine is a coastal issue, HABs are increasingly occurring in our inland lakes and rivers. Blue-green algae blooms in some Midwest lakes and the Great Lakes have killed

dozens of dogs and poisoned people all over the region. Frequently, these freshwater algae blooms are caused by a combination of droughts and fertilizer runoff. These outbreaks lead to rashes, sore throats, and other health concerns. This bill helps address algal blooms in lakes as well.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill, and I am glad that Senator Snowe from Maine is a leader on this issue in the Senate and is the author of the Senate companion legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with her to improve the economic health of our coastal communities.

This bill will help shellfish harvesters in every coastal community by improving our knowledge and ability to predict red tide blooms. We need a national strategy to address HABs and to provide for the development of regional action plans to reduce HAB outbreaks.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate my colleague's yielding, and I appreciate his thoughtful comments about red tide and hypoxia research.

I can only answer for the residents of my home State, who are deeply concerned about algal blooms, red tide, the economic impact in our communities, and the importance of passing this legislation so that the research is done.

Madam Speaker, I had no idea that we were here to debate health care this morning, but I appreciate that the gentleman, my friend from California, has brought up the differences between us. I would like to make a couple of points.

First off, we are here today to take up this bill that could have been done under a suspension; but as I understand, my colleague voted ``no'' when this bill originally came to the floor, which is why we're back here today--to pass what is a relatively simple, I agree, piece of legislation but what is very important in coastal districts like mine.

Yes, we do have a disagreement on health care legislation, and I wish that your caucus were doing what my caucus is doing right now, which is going through the health care legislation that we hope to bring to this floor soon, line by line, to make sure that we are confident this is excellent legislation to move forward the cause of health care reform, something on which he and I don't agree.

I support very strongly and am looking forward to the debate that we will have on this floor about that health care legislation, and I am thrilled with the year and a half that I have spent here and with the number of hours that the committees and Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, have put in in crafting health care legislation. Now, we may not agree on the final product, and that will come down to a vote. You're right. It will depend on making sure that we have enough votes on our side of the aisle, and I am glad that we are making sure that everyone feels confident about that vote.

You know, it was interesting. I, as you know, am a freshman, so I wasn't here in previous years when you were. But when you talk about arm-twisting and about getting votes, I am reminded of the stories that I've heard about passing the prescription drug legislation, and about what it took for the other party, in the middle of the night and with a vote open for many hours, to pass a piece of legislation. I have to say, from my perch as a former State legislator from a State where the cost of prescription drugs is crippling the health care costs for many of our senior citizens, I was shocked to see what that final piece of legislation came to be. I am thrilled that our health care legislation, which I believe will be on this floor soon, will fix some of the problems in there, but, I'm sorry to say, not all.

I remember hearing about that legislation. Was it 2 hours or was it 3 hours in the middle of the night when people were convinced to change their votes so as to get the votes, and when every minute counted to get one more vote? That was the legislation that left us with this tremendous doughnut hole of which our senior citizens talk to me every day. Frankly, that's the public opinion polling that I hear about when I go back to my district.

Yet it's not a public opinion poll. It's senior citizens who come up to me and ask, Do you see what it costs me to buy my prescription drugs? Do you see what happens when I get into the doughnut hole?

Here is what they really ask me. They ask, How could the Republican Party, in the middle of the night and in twisting arms for every vote, pass a piece of legislation that doesn't allow us to negotiate with the pharmaceutical manufacturers for the price of prescription drugs? I can tell you, in my home State of Maine, this was an issue for years.

When I first got elected in 1992 to my State legislature, senior citizens came up to me and asked, Do you see what it costs me to buy my prescription drugs? Then, every year, it got worse and worse and worse as the pharmaceutical manufacturers, which are some of the wealthiest corporations and multinational corporations in this country,

were able to sell their drugs at the highest prices in the world to senior citizens in America. Those people had to pay cash for their prescription drugs. Those people had to decide whether to put heating oil in their tanks to keep warm or put food on their tables.

The Republicans came to the point where they could have changed the law like they've done in Canada or like they've done in virtually every other country in the world. They could have done what they're always telling us: Be like a good business, have good business practices. You know, I own a small business. I wouldn't think of buying something I didn't negotiate for. Well, that's what that bill said. It said we won't negotiate. In fact, we'll give them sweetheart deals. We'll say to our senior citizens, You know what? You're going to pay the highest prices in the world, so there will be no cost savings. These are the same Republicans who tell us now there aren't enough cost savings in our health care bill. They use it as an excuse, but that was what was done in the dark of the night, for 3 hours, in holding open a debate.

Do you know how I first found out about this? I got on a bus with senior citizens from the State of Maine. Let me tell you how it worked. We'd stop in Biddeford, Maine. Then we'd go to Portland, Maine. Then we'd go to Lewiston, Maine. We'd stop at places all along the State of Maine, and we'd drive all the way up to the Canadian border. We'd get all the way to the Canadian border, and we'd visit with a duly licensed physician so that they could have their prescriptions rewritten and they could take them across the Canadian border legally. So then we'd go to a Canadian drug store. This is a busload of senior citizens. We'd go into that Canadian drug store, and they'd buy their prescriptions. I want to tell you about one person I sat next to on one of the many bus trips.

I sat next to a person who had to take Tamoxifen, which is a wonderful drug that we're glad we have for breast cancer, but this person takes 30 pills a month. At that point, I think it cost her about $150 a month for her 30 pills. When we got across the Canadian border, it was $12.35. In my opinion, that was highway robbery. Do you know why that was? Because the Canadian Government, just like every other Western nation, requires that they negotiate for the best prices possible.

So, as far as I'm concerned, that's what should have been in that prescription drug plan that was decided in the middle of the night when arms were twisted to get every last vote. That is what should be: closing the doughnut hole and lowering prescription drug prices in the health care bill that we will debate soon.

As far as I am concerned, I am thrilled that members of my caucus are here today to go through line by line, to make sure that we are getting the best possible health care plan we can get. And I will say, it is not going to be everything I want in a health care plan.

I come from the State of Maine. Our doctors think that single payer ought to be the health care plan in Maine, and I am right there with them, but I know that is not what we are going to get to vote on here on the floor. But I am anxious to make sure that we get the best possible compromise, and I would be thrilled if some of the members of your caucus would vote for that bill. I would be thrilled.

Well, thank you so much for yielding your time and for allowing me to address this topic, and even though we are here to address algal blooms, I appreciate the chance to go back and forth on this important topic.

Thank you. And just to answer your point, I, too, think it is essential that we continue our research and development here in this country. Frankly, much of it is done around the world on research and development. But I don't think that negotiating for a better price, that lowering the prices to our senior citizens, would cost us research and development. And, frankly----

First off, I would prefer to answer you on my own time, because it seems to me when you yield me your time, you usually answer for me. So I would rather wait until I have my time.

I have to say I am unprepared to answer your question about the research and development tax credit for the pharmaceutical industry--I know that I have industries in my State that benefit from that tax credit--before I say yes or no about the solution that you are proposing.

But I do want to go back to one other thing----

See, I don't think you are letting me finish my answer, so you go ahead.

Madam Speaker, I will just say a couple of more things again.

I am thrilled that the President has decided to focus all of his energy on health care. I think that the people of this country have waited long enough for health care reform, and I am anxious to see it come to this floor. I am anxious to see us bring it to final passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time, and I will continue to reserve my time.

I thank my colleague from California.

We have had a lively debate this morning on a whole variety of issues. I had no idea I was going to have the pleasure of coming to the floor to talk about the bus trips with senior citizens, about the prescription drug debate in the middle of the night and many of the things that have been part

of our process for years before I was ever here. And I thank you for that opportunity to go back and forth on those issues.

I appreciate your thoughts and our differences of opinion on this issue of health care reform. I want to reiterate we are here today on the issue of algal blooms and red tide and a variety of things that are important to my constituents here in Maine.

The reason this bill is here on this floor today is because many of those on the other side of the aisle, including my Republican colleague, whom we have been going back and forth with today, Mr. Dreier, voted ``no'' on the bill when it first hit the floor and we are taking up again.

I would like to close and stick to the topic for a minute and let us move forward with our business today making sure that we continue to bring more bills around jobs here, and I hope that we have some Republican votes on our future jobs bill and certainly on our health care bill.

In closing, I just want to say that the 2009 red tide in Maine hit our coastal communities hard. Most shellfish harvesters are self- employed and make the majority of their living in the summer months. Every day, shellfish harvesters were calling the State agencies and asking for help with mortgages payments, utility bills, doctor bills, car payments, and even food. In my State and in many coastal States, these are jobs. These are jobs that keep families working through the summer and help them get through the winter.

The economic impact of closing much of the coast to shellfish harvesters, aquaculturists and related businesses was conservatively estimated to be between $1.6 million and $2.5 million each week. This is real money to coastal States in every corner of this country.

This bill will make a difference for coastal communities. With improved testing and tracking, scientists will be able to accurately identify localized areas. This means that smaller portions of the coast will be shut down instead of entire regions. In addition, it will build on so much of the good work that has already been done, improve our prediction and monitoring capabilities, and take steps to mitigate the impact of red tide and other HABs. We need a national program dedicated to coordinating and integrating Federal resources to minimize or even prevent HABs in both fresh and saltwater. Enhanced coordination will help resource managers make better decisions, and with better decisions will come less economic hardship in our coastal communities.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the resolution just adopted, I call up the bill (H.R. 3650) to establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and to provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009, as amended, is a good bipartisan bill. The bill represents a timely and necessary step to address the large and growing problems of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act was first signed into law in 1998 and last reauthorized in 2004. Since the last reauthorization, there has been an increase in the number, frequency, and type of algal blooms and hypoxic events.

These events can terribly affect the marine and freshwater systems where they occur. Large fish kills, closed beaches, and poisoned seafood are all typical consequences of harmful algal blooms.

I listened to the debate on the rule prior to our debating the bill itself; and as far as the question of why are we debating this, the simple answer is, it can kill you. Indeed, it does kill some of our citizens every year. It kills countless numbers of fish life, it destroys tourism, and it costs hundreds of millions of dollars. That seems to me a pretty good reason to take something up.

In addition, as my dear friend and colleague from Florida will attest, his tourist industry, as mine, and as the gentlewoman from Maine who spoke earlier and indeed the gentleman from California and my colleague from Texas, all have beaches which are adversely affected. If the issue we are concerned about is jobs, harmful algal blooms are destroyers of jobs in addition to takers of lives.

In freshwater, harmful algal blooms present a toxin that is very, very difficult to remove; and let me clarify why. All the normal means we use to purify water don't work with harmful algal blooms. You cannot boil it because boiling separates the toxin from the algae and actually concentrates the toxin. Indeed, lab researchers use boiling as a way to concentrate the toxin when they are trying to study it. You can't filter it because filtering breaks down the bodies of the algae, and that also releases the toxin. Chlorine doesn't work because chlorine is designed to kill protozoa, and these are not protozoa. The toxin is not caused by a protozoa.

So we've got a very dangerous problem. And beyond that, it is a problem that is expanding in duration. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxic events are starting earlier in the season and lasting longer. They are growing in larger scale, and they are spreading around the country. We have some ideas about why, and we have some ideas about how to control them, but we don't know for certain. And that is why this bill matters, and that is why my colleagues, Mr. Mack, Mr. Ehlers and others, have worked on it. We have taken some important steps since 1998 and 2004. And, again, I want to commend my colleague, Vern Ehlers, who has been instrumental on this issue for many, many years.

The bill before us would establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tasked as the lead in overseeing the development of these plans and the execution of this national program.

HABs, again, do not only affect our coastlines. From the waters and streams of Virginia and West Virginia to the Great Lakes, throughout this country, every single State in the Union, whether it is freshwater or marine ecosystem, has been affected by harmful algal blooms. My own State of Washington, the Puget Sound in Hood Canal, has a dead zone that expands every year. Off our coast, we have increasing dead zones, and red tides devastate the tourist industry when they stop the clamming season from happening.

Legitimate questions have been raised about the authorized funding levels in this bill. But the increased investment this legislation calls for is necessary to address the harmful economic impacts and health impacts that HABs pose to our country. Conservative estimates back in 2006 estimated a minimum impact of $82 million per year.

This bill is the product of bipartisan collaboration and contains the input of both Democratic and Republican Members. And as I mentioned, Dr. Vern Ehlers, Dr. Connie Mack, as well as on our side Mr. Kratovil and Ms. Castor, have all offered very valuable input.

The bill you have before you today is the product of two hearings, a subcommittee markup, a full committee markup, post-markup negotiations with the three House committees with jurisdiction over the bill, as well as negotiations with the Senate Commerce Committee.

The bill represents a focused effort to address the specific issues of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Before recognizing Ms. Castor, I would just point out, as he is aware--first of all, I want to thank him for his support of the underlying issue here. I think the recognition of the severity of this problem is much appreciated, as Mr. Mack will attest to in just a moment.

Regarding the issue of unfunded mandates, the Congressional Budget Office has looked at this legislation and determined specifically that it does not impose any unfunded mandates, so I respect the concern but would offer assurance that it is not considered a problem, at least by

I want to commend the gentleman from Florida. His personal story is one we hear so often. But he knows it firsthand, from his time as a child, an occasional red tide where his parents probably said, No, you can't go swimming today, son, to a 13-month period of red tide. Earlier when I said we have seen an expansion in duration, in size, and in breadth across the country, that's precisely what I'm referring to.

I'm sure this is true of both of my colleagues from Florida. If you're a hotel owner, and you get notice that a red tide is forming off your beach, that's it. You basically can kiss your entire season of income--or at least a good part of it--goodbye. Where I'm from in the Pacific Northwest, clamming, razor clams are one of the great things that draws people to the coast. Our beaches just are covered with folks, and they get up in the wee hours of the morning when the tide is low and go out. It is a great family endeavor. It provides a wonderful delicacy to people, and people look forward to it year-round, and it is the high season at the coast. Except if a scientist is out there and says, We've got an algal bloom forming, and it is not safe for people to eat the shellfish or to swim in this water at this time.

Why isn't it safe? Well, first off, I want to underscore that most shellfish from around our country is safe, but during these periods, it is not. And here is why: The toxin that forms is a neurotoxin. It attacks your brain. It's called paralytic shellfish poisoning. In some areas, sometimes you will hear it as amnesic shellfish poisoning. Amnesic shellfish poisoning attacks the part of your brain that turns short-term memories into long-term memories. This is a bad thing. This means that you can't learn new information. So when people say, Oh, this is algae, what do we care about algae--I heard this a lot yesterday. Why are we coming back into session to talk about algae? Well, I hope people can remember that if they eat shellfish with paralytic shellfish poisoning, they can die. Their brain can be damaged. Their children's brains can be damaged. If somebody says, Oh, Mom and Dad, it's just red tide, I'm going swimming anyway, you can't let that happen. The kid will die. It's that serious.

Let me turn to the freshwater. A true story from my district. Imagine you take your family dog, your beloved favorite pet, to the water that you always take them to. You take the tennis ball and you fling it out into the water. And your retriever jumps in the water, swims out, grabs that tennis ball, swims back to the shore. You take the tennis ball out, you turn to throw it, and the dog is dying before your eyes. That really happened. It happened in my district in a lake that, when there's not an algal bloom, people recreate in, they have sailboats, they have boat races, they swim in it, they take their dogs there. From one week when it was safe for that dog to go in the water, the owner comes back the next week, and through no fault of their own, the dog does everything it normally does, and it dies.

If I had a glass of clear water here, and someone were saying, Oh, what a waste of time, what a waste of time to work on this, and it had the toxin from blue-green algae, the person who drank that water would die. If it's in your freshwater system, a large reservoir for your municipality, and you get a blue-green algal bloom in that with toxin, I would ask my colleagues who are skeptical about this, Tell me how you get it out? There are mechanisms, but they're not easy, and they're very costly. How do you get it out of there? And more importantly, tell me how you're going to give the people who you represent clean drinking water if your water system is contaminated. If you depend on surface reservoirs, and you get a blue-green algal bloom, you are in deep, deep trouble, and you are looking at a lot of money and possibly some deaths of your constituents.

Mr. Mack talked a little bit about hypoxia, which is a huge problem in the Gulf. Let me put this in terms we understand: Hypoxic zones are areas where the algae has decomposed, and that decomposition has taken the air out of the water, basically taken the oxygen out. Imagine if you were walking your normal route to work or to your home, and suddenly, invisibly, you went into an area where there was no oxygen in the air. You're walking a route you normally take. No oxygen. What happens? You suffocate. You die. That's what dead zones do. Hundreds of thousands, millions of aquatic fish--the very fish that our fishermen in our coastal communities depend on, the very fish we eat and enjoy-- they just flat die. They're swimming in their normal, maybe their migratory route, maybe their reproductive areas. They go into this area. They can't tell there is no oxygen in the water. They swim into it, they have no oxygen, and they die in enormous quantities. Then they wash up on the beaches as a pleasant attraction for our tourism industry.

In this body, we stick around to honor sports teams, we praise movie stars. This is something that can kill you, for goodness sakes.

I also want to make sure we thank the many scientists who have done the work on this legislation. Scientists around the world are trying to study the causes, trying to study the interventions. They literally evaluate our beaches around the country and our freshwater systems on a daily basis and give us the information we need to protect the public safety and health. And I want to make sure I commend them.

At this point I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am so delighted that Mr. Ehlers is here for a number of reasons. First of all, the history of harmful algal bloom legislation really owes its existence to this gentleman. As a scientist, as someone who cares passionately about the people of his State and the Great Lakes, I will say without any hesitation the Great Lakes have had no stronger champion in the Congress than this gentleman here, Dr. Ehlers. And for that matter, I believe science itself has had no stronger champion.

If you look at his contributions on the Great Lakes, harmful algal blooms I just mentioned. Invasive species. He has been a champion in trying to fight the zebra mussel, which is also the kind of thing someone could look at with derision and say why are we trying to fight invasive species, a little tiny mussel? Well, it costs billions of dollars a year in property loss and economic loss. Just yesterday we were on a panel together and he was raising the very important issue of the possible invasion of carp into the Great Lakes system, which would devastate the sports fishing and other industries in the Great Lakes.

The other reason I think it is particularly appropriate that he is here is when we speak about red tide, inland communities may say, we don't have any marine waters, what do we care? The Great Lakes are a classic example of an area where harmful algal blooms can affect fresh waters as well as maritime waters. And so my hat is off to Dr. Ehlers, and he has my gratitude for his leadership on this over the years.

In closing, I would like to again thank my friend and colleague from Texas, my friend from Michigan, and Mr. Mack, Ms. Castor, and Mr. Kratovil. I am very grateful for the time, and urge passage of this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3650) to establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and to provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3650, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. This bill represents a timely and necessary step to address a large and growing problem. The Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and Hypoxia Research and Control Act was first signed into law in 1998 and last reauthorized in 2004. And from the outset, I want to commend my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Ehlers, for his tireless work on this over many years.

I stand in support of these programs because this affects virtually every coastal waterway in America as well as freshwater ecosystems. Let me share with you an example of how serious this problem is.

In a small lake in my own district recently, a person was out with their dog, playing fetch in the water. They threw their favorite tennis ball in the water. The dog jumped into the water, retrieved the tennis ball, swam back up on the shore, and promptly died.

Harmful algal blooms are what we know in the saltwater environment as red tides. In freshwater, it's often blue-green algae. They are deadly in both environments. Estimates suggest the cost may be $82 million a year, the annual economic impact of HABs, according to a 2006 study. This means billions of dollars over decades.

I mentioned already the tragic loss of this animal, but on a human scale, red tides pose a serious neurotoxin that can actually affect your ability to remember things over the long run. So we have a serious problem. It is growing in the case of harmful algal blooms.

We have a parallel and related problem that the bill also addresses, and these are so-called dead zones, or hypoxia, so known because they are areas of lack of oxygen. These are expanding. Perhaps the most well known is in the Gulf of Mexico, areas literally thousands of square miles wide that if virtually any marine organism swims into them, they die very shortly thereafter because they do not have sufficient oxygen to survive. This has impacted not only the Gulf of Mexico, but also my own coast and elsewhere in the country.

Now, within the freshwater system, I want to underscore a particularly important point. From the Great Lakes to small creeks of West Virginia and throughout the country, this is a problem. My friend and colleague, Mr. Mollohan from West Virginia, has been particularly interested in this. We need to understand that these harmful algal blooms in freshwater are particularly toxic for the following reasons:

Most of the mechanisms that we currently use to purify water do not work with harmful algal blooms. If you boil water to kill pathogens, that normally purifies it. If you boil water that has harmful algal blooms in it, you actually increase the toxin and increase its lethality. If you filter water to get out protozoa and other things, as many of us do when we are hiking or climbing, that can purify normal water. It is totally ineffective and may be actually counterproductive in harmful algal blooms because all you do is break up the bodies of the algae, but the toxin survives. Chlorination does not work to stop these things.

So we have a problem that is deadly to organisms ranging from fish to shore birds and to human beings. And again, both harmful algal blooms and hypoxic events are spreading.

I want to also mention that in my own district, which has a coastal area that is very economically benefited by the clamming season, all you need is one red tide to come in, shut down the clamming season, and you literally lose millions of dollars of business. And for many of our hotel owners and restaurateurs and others, that's the season. You lose that because of a harmful algal bloom, you have basically lost your economy for the year. So this bill would expand our ability to study and ultimately to control these harmful algal blooms and hypoxic events.

I appreciate the support of many colleagues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this point, I want to acknowledge that, as is so often the case, H.R. 3650 was a collaborative effort, not just with my minority colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee, but also with the Natural Resources Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well. I would like, here, to insert a letter of exchanges with those committees into the Record, and I want to also thank both Chairmen Rahall and Oberstar for their efforts on this legislation.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, November 12, 2009.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Rayburn

H.O.B., Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to work

with you on H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia

Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009, which was

referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in

addition to the Committee on Natural Resources.

Because of the continued cooperation and consideration that

you have afforded me and my staff in developing these

provisions, and knowing of your interest in expediting this

legislation, I am willing to waive further consideration of

H.R. 3650 by the Committee on Natural Resources at this time.

Of course, this waiver is not intended to prejudice any

future jurisdictional claims over the provisions of this

legislation or similar language. I also reserve the right to

seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Natural

Resources on these provisions, and request your support if

such a request is made.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.

3650 and into the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor.

With warm regards, I am

Sincerely,

Nick J. Rahall II,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources

I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland. He has been a tireless champion of this. The watermen in his district and the others who depend on this great natural resource owe him, I am certain, a great debt of gratitude.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor), who has also been a tireless champion of clean water and of this issue.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend Ms. Castor for her comments, and join her in acknowledgement of the incredible leadership of Connie Mack from Florida. We talk about the costs of this legislation. Consider the costs to Florida's economy, to the Gulf economy if a red tide comes in at the height of tourist season. You can't swim in this; it's toxic. You can't fish in it, you can't collect shellfish. The fishing industry out in the coast when a hypoxic zone comes in, it kills hundreds of thousands of fish overnight. Shore birds are affected. And on and on the list goes.

As Ms. Castor pointed out and as Mr. Mack has pointed out in our discussions, making sure that we understand what causes this and finding ways to remediate it and prevent it is not only in the interests of human health, it is in the interests of our economy as well.

I am particularly pleased also that the Puget Sound area, which is near and dear to my heart and near to my home, has received recognition. We have got a serious problem off the coast in terms of red tide. But within the Puget Sound region, particularly Hood Canal, there is a growing annual development of a dead zone. And these things seem to be developing earlier, lasting longer, and growing in size. This bill will help us understand why.

The bill has support from a broad group of stakeholders, including Ocean Champions and the PURRE Water Coalition. And again, I am pleased that it has been a bipartisan effort. Dr. Ehlers, as I mentioned earlier, has been instrumental for many years on this. And of course Connie Mack has been as well. I thank the gentlemen for their input. Mr. Hall has offered some constructive suggestions. And of course as we move this forward and work with the Senate, we will try to make sure

we incorporate as many of those as we can. Finally, I would also like to recognize the staff who worked so diligently on this bill: Shimere Williams and Katrina Lassiter on the majority side, and Tara Rothschild on the minority side.

Ongoing research, development, and implementation of an action strategy are key components to addressing this environmental challenge, and H.R. 3650 helps move us forward in each of these areas. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3650.

One last thing I will say. Understanding the impact of harmful algal blooms in freshwater is absolutely critical. If a major metropolitan area develops a toxic algal bloom, as I mentioned earlier, it will be extraordinarily difficult to remove the toxins from the waterway. It has happened in some smaller communities. It is extremely costly, and can present an urgent and immediate and hugely expensive health crisis. We need to understand how to prevent this, and we need to understand how to treat it. This legislation will help us do that both in the saltwater and in the freshwater environment. I urge its passage, and thank my colleagues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am sorry I arrived late for this debate, but I was speaking at the National Academy of Engineering.

I simply want to speak on the record in support of this bill. It is essentially the same bill that I introduced several years ago when we were in the majority, and it did pass then. The major change now is of course increased funding because of the increased need that has occurred.

The hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, also known as HABs, are nationwide problems that have grown tremendously in the last decade, not just in the Gulf of Mexico, but also in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, California, the Pacific Northwest, and elsewhere. This is a problem that just simply has to be dealt with. It is hurting the fishing industry tremendously.

I recognize that there is concern about the cost of the bill. First of all, I am sure we will not be appropriating as much money as is authorized. But secondly, you have to measure the effect on commerce of this bill, particularly the commercial fishing industry, but also the safety of the tourist industry. If we do not correct this problem and it continues to spread, we will soon find the tourist industry off the southern coast, particularly Florida and the Gulf States and also Texas, will be injured because people will simply not be able to use the waters and will vacation elsewhere.

This could create additional problems. I won't go into all the details on that. I do have a prepared statement which I will submit. But I just wanted to go on record as supporting this bill very strongly. I have worked with Mr. Baird. I was the sponsor a few years ago, and he helped me then. He is the sponsor now, and I have helped him. And I just want to encourage the body to vote for this bill and adopt it.

The cost issue is certainly a legitimate one. It always is. But I think that is best addressed through the appropriations process. But certainly there is the need to go after this HAB problem scientifically and find out why the problem is becoming so much worse, and what we can do to stop it. I am hoping that through research we can stop it at far less cost than we are talking about in this bill. But we won't know until we do the research and get into the details of the problem.

I again thank the ranking member, Mr. Hall, who has done yeoman work on the committee this year. I thank him for yielding time to me, and thank him for all the good work he has done.

I urge the body to adopt this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today the House is considering H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2010.

Hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, also known as HABs, are nationwide problems that affect our coastal and Great Lakes communities. The damaging effects of HABs and hypoxia are felt in locations including the Chesapeake Bay, California, the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. Less than two weeks ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a warning indicating the potential for a major bloom in New England this summer that may threaten the shellfish industry. These blooms have major economic consequences for our country, and must be prevented.

In 1998, Congress passed a three-year bill authorizing HAB and hypoxia research programs, with a focus on the ``dead zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico and Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. The Act was reauthorized in 2004, and added freshwater, such as the Great Lakes, as an important area for HAB and hypoxia research. It also increased the participation of local resource managers in developing HAB and hypoxia research plans; ensuring that the research was prioritized to address the questions facing people working with HABs and hypoxia on a daily basis. Also, the bill required that all research funding be administered through a competitive, merit-based, peer-reviewed process.

The amendments we are considering today strengthen the algal bloom research activities at NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and improve the communication and coordination between the many federal, state and local stakeholders. The bill would facilitate a clear national strategy for research in both marine and freshwater environments, and reauthorize activities through 2015.

One comment on the process; I am aware that modifications have been made to the legislation since it was considered by the Science and Technology Committee, and that some of these modifications fall within this committee's jurisdiction. While I understand there are necessary technical changes following markups, I do believe the consideration of substantive changes should take place in a manner that all committee members have the opportunity to voice their input. I understand that Subcommittee Chairman Baird will detail these changes on the floor, and I thank him for his efforts to share this information with all Members.

I am pleased that Chairmen Baird and Gordon and Ranking Member Hall have worked diligently within the Science and Technology Committee and other Committees of jurisdiction to bring this bill expeditiously to the floor of the House. This bill will help us improve our understanding of these phenomena so that we can accurately predict their occurrence and develop tools for improved detection and mitigation of these problems. I urge the House to pass this bill.