mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to this resolution for many of the reasons that my colleagues have cited .  the fact of the matter is , we have the blueprint for what needs to be done on the oceans .  $ 10 million was spent developing it .  we have another one from the private sector , from the pew foundation , led by our former colleague leon panetta .  i think they spent over $ 4 million .  the resources committee has a budget of $ 14 million .  if there are five other committees , most of their budgets are larger than ours , so you are approaching almost $ 100 million in public moneys that are available to deal with this issue .  and yet we are going to create a task force to study a study and spend another $ 400 , 000 .  either the place is so terribly bureaucratized that it can not respond or it does not want to respond .  the fact of the matter is , we can do this through a select committee and end up with a legislative product , or we can do this through a task force and end up with a study of a study recommending to the committees , that have not shown any interest to date , that they should do something about the oceans .  you are right , the oceans are far too important to be left to that mechanism .  but the fact of the matter is , this task force does not take this any further down the road .  this is about action .  as mr. farr  said , it is about leadership .  we have the expertise in the committees .  when we did the energy bill , the speaker told us that the energy bill would be on the floor by a certain date .  the commerce committee did their part , the ways and means committee did their part .  transportation did their part .  resources did their part .  we saw the bill on monday .  we talked about it on wednesday , voted on it on friday .  it was on the floor the following week .  not a great process , but they obviously wanted to do something to have an energy bill on the floor .  we have done that in other cases .  here they simply do not want to do it .  they really just do not want to do this to protect the oceans , because it requires a commitment of resources .  it requires a national commitment to protect the oceans , and the republican congress is not interested in doing that .  if they wanted to do it , they would do it .  they simply do not want to do it .  but what they want to do now is just throw some additional money at it to kind of kick the can down the road .  the emotions are too important to be kicked down the road .  this should be addressed by this congress .  we have had a year , and nothing has happened .  so now we are going to spend another 6 months and the ball is not going to get advanced very far , other than politically , and then we are going to be back telling the committees they should do something about the oceans .  we just spent $ 15 million telling the committees they should do something about the oceans .  so this is about whether you have the will to do something about the oceans , whether you have the political ability to do something about the oceans and the leadership to do something about the oceans , or you do not .  it just does not make any sense .  this system , i guess , should become more flexible to deal with , because almost all of the tasks now that the congress deals with cut across committee jurisdiction lines .  so we ought to become more flexible to deal with it .  we should not just be throwing more money at it to pretend like we are doing something to advance this incredibly important , incredibly urgent oceans agenda .  this task force does not deal with that .  i urge my colleagues to vote against this .  