Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2010

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.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4506) to authorize the appointment of additional bankruptcy judges, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4506, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2010, provides new resources for bankruptcy courts to handle the growing number and complexity of bankruptcy cases. This economy has resulted in many people having to seek bankruptcy who never would have dreamed they would have before. And the complexity of the cases, from our major automobile manufacturers on through other reorganizations, have grown in complexity for the bankruptcy judges to be involved in.

The bill authorizes the creation of 13 new permanent bankruptcy judges, the conversion of 22 temporary judgeships to permanent judgeships, and the extension of two judgeships for another 5 years. The act will help bankruptcy courts in 25 different Federal judicial districts around this country.

Bankruptcies had been steadily on the rise since October 2006. These events, bankruptcies rising and the financial crisis, combined with the continuing mortgage foreclosure crisis, consumer credit problems, and health care crises, have exacerbated this trend significantly and caused the bankruptcy courts much additional work.

According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, bankruptcy filings increased by over 300,000 from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009. That is a 34.5 percent increase in 1 year. The previous year they had increased by 30.2 percent. And the Wall Street Journal recently reported another sharp increase in personal bankruptcy filings in 2009, up 32 percent from 2008. According to the Wall Street Journal, these increases were driven by high unemployment rates and the continuing housing crisis, both of which have affected not only those on the economic margins, but also a growing number of middle class families who desire to work but have had to turn to our Nation's bankruptcy system for help as a last resort.

In addition to the growing numbers of bankruptcy cases, the cases have also grown more complex, particularly in business bankruptcies. As I mentioned earlier, in 2009 two of the big three, General Motors and Chrysler, two companies upon which tens of thousands of workers, thousands of dealers, hundreds of suppliers, and many communities across this Nation depended for their livelihoods, went through quick but nonetheless intense bankruptcy processes. Bankruptcy courts performed admirably but under strain.

Outside the automobile industry, as I mentioned earlier, businesses such as Delta Airlines to Lehman Brothers to Circuit City have all turned to bankruptcy for relief in recent years, with the same kind of extraordinary burden imposed on the bankruptcy courts.

While the workload for bankruptcy courts is increasing, judicial resources are in danger of decreasing. Many current bankruptcy judgeships are authorized on a temporary basis, and some are set to expire soon. A well-functioning bankruptcy system is absolutely essential to helping individuals and businesses weather our Nation's current economic difficulties. Having a sufficient number of bankruptcy judges is a key to making the system work, and has never been more important than today.

H.R. 4506, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2010, addresses these needs by authorizing the creation of 13 new permanent bankruptcy judgeships and the conversion of 22 temporary judgeships to permanent judgeships. Additionally, it extends the temporary authorization for two judgeships for another 5 years. These new, converted, and extended bankruptcy judgeships reflect the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Those recommendations in turn are the culmination of an extensive and careful survey and review process that thoroughly assessed the bankruptcy judgeship needs of every Federal judicial district in the country. In essence transparent, fair, methodical, rational.

I note that a significant part of the conference's assessment of bankruptcy judges' workload depends on the use of case weights that were developed almost two decades ago, prior to the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which we still labor under. BAPCPA created numerous new motions that bankruptcy judges are now required to consider.

If anything, the Judicial Conference recommendations may underestimate the need of the workload and the need of new bankruptcy judges. In short, the conference's recommendations, as reflected in the new bankruptcy judgeships authorized by H.R. 4506, may actually be too conservative.

To pay for 13 new judgeships, the bill also raises the filing fees for chapter 7 and 13 cases by $1, and for chapter 11 cases, which are business bankruptcies, by $42. While I understand that filing fees are needed for the successful operation of the bankruptcy system, I believe they are already too high, particularly for consumer debtors seeking bankruptcy relief because they are in dire straits. In this one instance we ultimately determined that a fee increase was the only practical way to get the needed judgeships in a timely manner, which will allow for the efficient functioning of the bankruptcy system to the ultimate benefit of debtors.

So in passing a bankruptcy system, we wanted to have funds to make it self-sufficient. To put the bankruptcy system of our country in bankruptcy while saving the bankruptcy system seemed like an oxymoron.

But I would urge in the future we rely on something other than bankruptcy filing fee increases to pay for new bankruptcy judgeships. The last time Congress addressed the issue of bankruptcy judgeships was 5 years ago when it authorized 28 temporary judgeships in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Those temporary judgeships are now about to expire.

Moreover, the last time Congress authorized new permanent bankruptcy judgeships was in 1992. It is well past the time that we address the critical issue of bankruptcy judgeships needs, and I am pleased that we are able to do so today.

I thank the Judiciary Committee chairman, John Conyers, and Ranking Member Lamar Smith for being original cosponsors of this important legislation and our Judiciary Committee working in a bipartisan fashion to pass the bill. I also thank Trent Franks, the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administration Law, for his support of this bill. I guess it wasn't an oxymoron but an inconsistency.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bipartisanship under which we have worked on this bill. I thank Mr. Poe and the minority ranking member, Mr. Smith, and Chairman Conyers and the staff who worked on this bill, and the Judicial Conference. I hope that we pass this bill. I call on Members to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 4506 and pass the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 3650. I call this the ``red tide'' bill. I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Baird for his great leadership on this initiative.

I've heard some discussion here in the Chamber and throughout the Capitol the last couple of days, Why are we taking up time with algae? Well, let's not diminish the issue because this is vitally important for jobs throughout the great State of Florida. I am very pleased that my colleague from Florida is in the Chair this morning to preside over this.

We simply can't go backwards when it comes to jobs in our economy, and red tide is a significant threat to the tourism economy in the State of Florida. We depend in Florida upon people coming from all over the country and all over the world to vacation, especially on the beautiful beaches of the west coast of Florida, where you have the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. There are no better beaches across the entire world than there are on the west coast of Florida. Now, also, on the Atlantic side it is quite lovely and the Florida Keys, but we face a significant threat from red tide.

The tourism industry in Florida employs over 1 million people, and it is estimated that tourism has a $65 billion impact on our State's economy. Add on top of that recreational fishing, commercial fishing. What happens when this red tide washes in, it's awful. The tourists flee the beaches, and the folks that live and work and rely upon those industries really suffer. This happened just a few years ago in 2005. We had terrible red tide outbreaks on the west coast of Florida. And I can tell you because I had my family there at the beach with about a dozen other families where we go right after school is out. And what happens is that it causes you a lot of difficulty breathing. Your eyes start to water, the fish wash up on the shore, dead fish. And you can forget about it. Our economy took a real hit because of red tide. The tourists simply don't want to visit polluted beaches. We have beautiful, clean, crystal clear water most of the time. But when this red tide invades, it's absolutely awful. You can see where it's directly tied to jobs because then the word spreads. There were news stories over in England and Great Britain, where a lot of our tourists come from, and they decided not take their vacation. Now, if that happened in this economy, it would be very detrimental. So today's legislation will help us combat that threat.

And I would like to especially thank my colleague from Florida, Representative Connie Mack, who represents the Naples, Sanibel Island area. There is simply no more beautiful place to vacation than maybe up towards my district in Longboat Key and Anna Maria Island. But Congressman Mack and I have been working on this issue since 2007. He was working on it before I arrived in Congress, and we introduced the Save Our Shores Act to bring more attention to the research on red tide. That's why I am so gratified that the Science Committee, Mr. Baird and Mr. Barton, have really stepped up and promoted this. It's a bipartisan effort. And it's important because it comes on the heels of the tourism bill, the Travel Promotion Act that was signed into law by President Obama just last week. It's another good bolstering of the tourism economy and all those important jobs to the Sunshine State and across the country.

Now, this legislation will ensure that we learn more about harmful algal blooms so that we can protect our precious coastlines and the tourism-related jobs that come with having healthy beaches. According to the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, the national economic impact of the red tide, the harmful algal blooms, is at least $82 million annually. So if we can pump in a little bit of research money and figure out what causes this--you see, that's the problem. We don't really know what causes the red tide and the algal blooms. If we're already suffering an $82 million hit, then it is very cost- effective for us to put a little bit more money into research and coordination. There's a lot of good research out there, but I don't think that it's being shared widely. So this initiative will help do that. And I think we'll be able to avoid devastating losses to tourism, to recreation and to commercial fishing all across the country.

In 1971, Florida faced an exceptionally bad case of red tide, and then again in 2005, and we think that that caused Florida to take a hit of over $100 million. So the level of concern about red tide's cost to tourism is still high even though it's been a couple of years since our last big outbreak. But like I said, if we had an outbreak today in this economy, it would severely hurt businesses at a time when we just can't take it anymore. The unemployment rate in my community is about 13 percent, and we rely on folks needing some relaxation time and vacations in the beautiful Sunshine State. So that's why I strongly support this initiative.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues, Representative Mack from Florida, Mr. Baird, the Science and Technology Committee, and I am pleased to urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3650.

I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Baird, for his work on this important issue. I also want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Hall, for his hard work and dedication.

I also want to recognize that in this bill, there may be a lot of people who have concerns about the funding levels, and I'll just pick up where the chairman talked about that this is an authorizing bill. This is not the appropriations process. But it is important that we recognize that for our researchers around the country, they need to be able to plan looking forward, and if they constantly are relying on funding to be done through the

appropriations process once a year, whether or not they're going to have the research dollars or not, that is no way to conduct quality research, especially on an issue that's so important, and I too call this red tide.

This is an important issue for all of us, not just those that live along the coast, but for all of us. It used to be thought that red tide was only something that affected the marine life, but now we have seen that this has crossed over and is affecting not only the quality of life for people who live or vacation at the beach but also can cause death. So I commend the committee for this bill.

Passing this important legislation is the first step in increasing research on red tide while ensuring that scientists and experts in the field, and not politicians, determine where research money is spent. And this is an important fact because right now, all of my colleagues and I, we try to make sure that we bring some money home for our local research organizations, which we support. But in this legislation what we're saying is, let's have a peer review group look at the research projects that are out there, and let them decide. Let scientists decide what's most important, what research is to be supported and funded.

This is very important for everybody at home. For those people who want to make sure that we control spending, one of the best ways to control spending through this bill is to make sure that peer review groups are deciding where the money's going, not everyone and Members of Congress fighting for their own little project in their backyards. So I see this in that light as well. There are great organizations out there, whether it's Woods Hole, or Mote Marine, or Florida Gulf Coast University, and also Ocean Champions, who have been working hard on this legislation, and we need to support them as well.

So on a last note, growing up in southwest Florida, I have spent my whole life on the water in Sanibel and Fort Myers Beach and Captiva, and we would have red tide maybe 1 week out of the year.

So we would have an outbreak maybe once a year for 1 week. Not too long ago, we had 13 months of straight red tide off the coast of Florida in southwest Florida. Clearly something is changing, something is happening. And right now, frankly, I don't know that we can trust all the research that's out there. This bill will ensure that we can trust the research that's happening, that it's done through a peer review group, through NOAA, and that we will have reporting to the Congress on those findings so we can continue to monitor and hopefully eliminate or begin to control red tide so the citizens of this great country can enjoy the beaches, our economies can grow, and the quality of life can improve.

Thank you for the time.