[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 23, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2586-H2593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2830, COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT
OF 2008
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1126 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1126
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2830) to authorize appropriations for the
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments in the nature of
a substitute recommended by the Committees on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Homeland Security, and the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 2830, the Clerk shall--
(a) add the text of H.R. 2399, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 2830;
(b) conform the title of H.R. 2830 to reflect the addition
to the engrossment of H.R. 2399;
(c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(d) conform provisions for short titles within the
engrossment.
Sec. 3. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2830
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
Sec. 4. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is
authorized, on behalf of the Committee, to file a
supplemental report to accompany H.R. 2830.
{time} 1400
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1126 provides for consideration of H.R.
2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008, under a structured
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes
controlled by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 20
minutes controlled by the Committee on Homeland Security. The rule
makes in order 15 of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules
Committee.
This rule also takes steps to prevent terrorist acts against our
Nation by allowing for the text of H.R. 2399, the Alien Smuggling and
Terrorism Prevention Act, to be added upon House passage of the Coast
Guard Reauthorization Act, and for the whole package to be sent over to
our colleagues in the Senate. The Alien Smuggling and Terrorism
Prevention Act, which passed the House on May 22, 2007, by an
overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 412-0, provides strong new enforcement
tools at the border, including increased criminal penalties for alien
smuggling, human trafficking and slavery, drug trafficking, and
terrorism or espionage.
It also subjects smugglers and traffickers to even higher penalties
for transporting persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an
engine or storage compartment, or for causing serious bodily injury.
It directs the Department of Homeland Security to check against all
available terrorist watch lists, alien smugglers, and smuggled
individuals who are interdicted at the U.S. land, air and sea borders.
And it tightens proof requirements for distinguishing covert
transportation of family members or others for humanitarian reasons for
which the penalties are less severe.
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorists attacks, the Coast Guard has
served as the primary agency responsible for our Nation's maritime
security. The fact that the Coast Guard has risen to meet this
heightened responsibility, while at the same time continuing to fulfill
its nonsecurity missions, is a testament to the commitment and honor to
the service men and women of the Coast Guard.
The bill that this rule provides for consideration will ensure that
the Coast Guard can continue to perform all facets of its mission in an
uncompromising way. H.R. 2830 provides the necessary resources by
authorizing 1,500 additional Coast Guard personnel and increasing the
funding to the Coast Guard by $8.4 billion, $200 billion over the
President's request.
The underlying legislation sets requirements for security around
vessels that transport, and facilities that process, liquefied natural
gas, giving the Coast Guard the responsibility for enforcing security
zones and requiring it to certify that State or local governments have
the necessary resources before they can assist in security patrols
around facilities. It also directs the Department of Homeland Security
to analyze the threat of a terrorist attack on gasoline and chemical
shipments and report to Congress.
[[Page H2587]]
H.R. 2830 will bolster port security and immigration enforcement by
establishing an Assistant Commandant for Port and Waterways Security,
authorizing additional maritime security teams and by establishing the
Waterway Watch Program whereby civilian boaters can notify the Coast
Guard of suspicious activity.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act enhances safety standards in one of
America's most dangerous occupations--the one portrayed on the popular
television series ``The Deadliest Catch''--by increasing safety
equipment requirements on fishing vessels, requiring training for
vessel operations, and by changing the appeals process for suspending
and revoking a mariner's license.
The bill also addresses one of the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater
Systems Program, which has been beleaguered by several well-publicized
delays, cost overruns, and problems with the designs of certain
replacement assets. The bill increases accountability for the Deepwater
Program by addressing systemic contract management problems and
establishing a civilian chief acquisition officer reporting directly to
the Coast Guard commandant.
H.R. 2830 also requires ships to begin installing water treatment
systems to reduce the spread of invasive species in ballast water
carried by the ships. These requirements are a step in the right
direction because they will protect the waterways of every State and
territory of the United States, and the industries and communities that
rely upon them, from aquatic invasive species that enter the waters of
the United States via the ballast water systems of commercial vessels.
The bill also addresses other environmental concerns by requiring
double hulls for U.S. ships carrying over 600 cubic meters of oil and
providing for implementation of an international agreement on maritime
pollution.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule provides for consideration is
the product of extensive hearings and consideration by the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Homeland Security
Committee and the Judiciary Committee. I commend the chairmen and
ranking members of those committees for their commitment to addressing
the needs of the Coast Guard and our Nation's maritime security.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York
for yielding me the time for this important proposed rule for
consideration of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of
2008.
Unlike my colleague, I rise in opposition to the structured rule, and
I would like to quote a colleague whose opinions on these matters I
respect to explain why.
On September 15, 2005, my Democrat Rules Committee colleague from
Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings, correctly stated that the modified
open rule under which the Coast Guard was last reauthorized was
insufficient in living up to how this House should be run.
While that Republican rule permitted Members who preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record to offer those amendments, he
noted his disappointment ``that the preprinting of amendments was even
required. Despite the majority's claim, this legislative process which
they call open is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because
every Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.''
Mr. Speaker, as imperfect and insufficient as that rule may have been
to Mr. Hastings in 2005 and his minority Democrat colleagues, today's
rule pales and fails in comparison--despite the often-repeated Democrat
promises to run the most open, honest and ethical House in history.
This rule, which is even more restrictive, makes in order a majority
of Democrat amendments and strips every Member with a new, good and
germane idea of how to improve this legislation of the ability to come
to the floor and even to offer it.
While the Democrats on the Rules Committee may have been following
the wishes of their committee chairman by reporting out this rule, they
have once again directly contradicted their campaign promises of their
own leadership to run an open House of Representatives, instead
choosing to become the most closed Congress in history.
Mr. Speaker, while this rule and this standard of recurring policy of
closing down the legislative process is bad for the House, the effect
of this legislation is even worse for American consumers. It continues
the same flawed ``no-energy energy policy'' that Democrats have
followed blindly for the last 17 months.
A provision included in this legislation would essentially shut down
the development of new LNG plants which seem counterintuitive given
today's energy crisis. Natural gas is one of the most clean-burning
fossil fuels, and passing this provision would only further reduce our
energy supply while moving us further from energy independence for
which Republicans have consistently advocated.
Time and time again this Democrat leadership has consistently
promised to deliver a ``commonsense'' energy plan to reduce the cost of
gasoline. However, since my friends on the other side of the aisle have
taken control of Congress, the average price of a gallon of gasoline
has risen more than a dollar, from $2.33 in January 2007 to just over
$3.51 this week.
I have supported a number of this Congress's bipartisan efforts to
reduce demand--like legislation to increase CAFE standards. But
Americans literally cannot afford for Congress to continue to ignore
the supply-side issues and problems associated with this overall issue.
Specifically, that this Democrat majority continues to pursue a
national energy policy that does absolutely nothing to increase our
ability to produce more energy. Without a supply-side response, prices
will continue to rise.
It is a fact that enough oil exists in deep waters off America's
coasts and in our Federal lands to power 60 million cars for 60 years.
Yet these domestic resources remain off-limits to exploration because
of the Democrat policies that pervade this House.
In 1995, the Clinton administration vetoed the bill that would have
allowed environmentally sound domestic exploration in Alaska. During
this debate, opponents of the legislation argued that the benefits
would be at least 10 years away and would not be worth it. Well, it is
now more than 10 years later and the cost of crude oil has gone from
just under $20 a barrel to nearly $120 a barrel and we are no closer to
energy independence than we were 13 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I hope for the sake of American consumers, and for the
sake of their paychecks, that it does not take this Democrat majority
another 10 years to realize that now is the time that we should focus
on ways to utilize our own energy resources. It is called energy
independence.
For prices to fall, Congress should be considering legislation that
increases supply and reduces demand, not legislation like today's, that
simply reduces the supply of one of the planet's cleanest fossil fuels.
These are basic commonsense economic principles that should be part
of a commonsense plan. I encourage all of my colleagues to recognize
that now is the time to stop ignoring our untapped domestic supply. I
oppose this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my friend from Dallas for his
very thoughtful statement. He has made the case that we want to defeat
the previous question on this so that any Member, Democrat or
Republican alike, would have the opportunity to offer their thoughtful
proposals as to how we would deal with this issue of skyrocketing
gasoline prices.
I represent Southern California, and I will tell you that it is a
major concern of my constituents. And I know my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle, as we have seen this dramatic increase take place
over the past year plus, year and a half, agree it is very, very
troubling.
{time} 1415
And I was struck. I've had the benefit of looking at the advance copy
of Mr. Sessions' closing remarks. His thoughtful staff has coined
actually a
[[Page H2588]]
very, very apropos phrase here in describing what we have as the Pelosi
Petroleum Price Increase--PPPI. And I think that really does coin it
very well, because we know that 2 years ago tomorrow, Speaker Pelosi
made this statement: ``The Democrats have a commonsense plan to deal
with skyrocketing gasoline prices.''
Now since that period of time, and I just was struck, I saw a cartoon
in today's USA Today in which they go through this litany of proposals.
We're telling Big Oil to make sure that they bring prices down, and
proposals are thrown out in this cartoon, saying, Why don't we deal
with the question of nuclear energy? Absolutely not.
Why don't we look at clean coal? Absolutely not.
Why don't we look at possibly responsible, environmentally sound
exploration in ANWR? Absolutely not.
Why don't we look at using the cleanest, safest, most cost effective
energy source, that being nuclear? We haven't built a nuclear power
plant in 30 years. Absolutely not.
Why don't we increase our refinery capacity? There has not been a
single new refinery built in 30 years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of proposals that we very much
hope we will be allowed to offer. The way to do that is to defeat the
previous question on this rule so that we can say to our constituents,
we are going to take firm, bold, dramatic steps to decrease the cost of
the gasoline that they are putting in their cars every single day.
I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank him for his very
thoughtful comments.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. I believe that what the
gentleman from California is saying is this: Is that we need supply-
side answers to a problem when America needs the energy the most right
now. And supply-side answers is what we would get if we defeat this
rule.
We reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend from Texas for his comments.
I would just like to make two points in that regard. The first point
is that he mentioned that this bill doesn't deal with the LNG issue.
And I would beg to differ. This bill ensures that the Coast Guard will
be there to ensure and protect the safety of our liquefied natural gas
facilities that are built out in the deep water or out in the ocean.
It's critical. Security is absolutely critical to these facilities, and
that's exactly what this bill insures.
Secondly, my friend mentions that we have not done anything about
energy. Well, I would respectfully say that anyone who says that, I
would have to ask them where have they been for the past 16 months. We
have done a great deal with respect to energy. The difference is that
we haven't done anything to help large oil companies because we believe
that they are part of the problem. We have done things to help develop
alternative energy, because that is the future of America. It's about
making America less dependent on foreign oil and less dependent on the
large oil companies. That's what we have done. That's what Democrats
believe in, and that's what we will continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4
minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I would like to associate myself with his opening
comments in regards to both the previous question as well as the rule.
However, I'd like to speak to the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard
Authorization Act. I believe this legislation is of tremendous
importance for our magnificent Great Lakes actually because of title V
which at long last provides for Federal regulations of ballast water in
the lakes.
And why is this important? Because since the Great Lakes were opened
to international shipping in the fifties and the sixties, many invasive
species have entered the lakes through the untreated ballast water of
the oceangoing freighters, also known as salties.
Let me just share with you some of these species and the problems
that they have caused on the very delicate ecosystem of our Great
Lakes.
The round goby was introduced to the Great Lakes in the late eighties
through untreated ballast water. This fish is an aggressive and
voracious feeder that can forage in total darkness. They can take over
prime spawning grounds for native fish and upset the ecosystem. These
unwanted invaders are flourishing in the Great Lakes and they are
causing great damage, Mr. Speaker.
The ruffe entered the lakes in 1986 through untreated ballast water
from Eurasia. This spiny perch is capable of explosive population
growth that threatens native fish like walleye and pike, and their
spiny gills make them very difficult for native predators to eat.
Another species, the spiny water flea, also entered the lakes around
1986 from its home in Great Britain and Northern Europe from untreated
ballast water. These are actually not insects, but they're tiny
crustaceans that have resource managers very worried because they
compete for food directly with young native perch and other small fish.
It also makes it very difficult for small fish to consume, so only
larger fish can actually feed on them, again leading to explosive
growth of this invasive species.
Another species, the zebra mussel, which was first discovered in 1988
and introduced into Lake St. Clair actually by the Caspian Sea, again
from untreated ballast water. These species have had a tremendously
negative impact on recreational watercraft and drinking water intake
pipes throughout Southeast Michigan, and now have spread throughout the
entire Great Lakes.
In addition, they have filtered the water to such a degree that when
combined with the historic low lake levels that we are currently
experiencing, and increased nutrients in the water, it's led to very
destructive and dangerous algae blooms throughout the lakes, which are
causing beach closures and all kinds of other problems.
These unwanted species have cost State and local governments tens if
not hundreds of millions of dollars to combat the damage that they have
caused. And all of this is why I have been fighting for ballast water
regulation since I came to the Congress, and why I worked very hard to
see that it was included in this important legislation.
The passage of this legislation will place new requirements on
oceangoing vessels entering the Great Lakes. Vessels operating in
United States waters will be required to operate ballast water
treatment systems that meet interim standards beginning next year, and
more stringent standards will take effect in the year 2012.
Until ballast water treatment systems are installed, vessels bound
for United States ports must exchange their ballast water and perform
salt water flushing.
And States like my State of Michigan, which have grown tired of
waiting for Federal action, and have actually initiated their own
ballast requirements, will be able to operate our own programs until
the final Federal standards do take effect.
I certainly want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica
for their leadership on this issue. Again, I oppose this rule; however,
I do support the underlying legislation. I think it is long past time
to act on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the Coast Guard
Authorization piece of legislation that will greatly assist in
protection of a great national treasure, our magnificent Great Lakes.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr.
Hall.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with and
concur with the comments of my colleague, the gentlelady from Michigan,
regarding the merits of the bill. I'm pleased to serve on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and I'm happy to say that Chairman
Oberstar always goes the extra mile to incorporate everybody's opinions
from both sides. And I believe this is a good bill that deserves all of
our support.
Regarding the allegations or the comments that are being made about
this Congress not being interested in or producing bills that will
produce energy, I beg to differ.
[[Page H2589]]
H.R. 2264, holding OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, we call it
the NOPEC Act, which was passed on May 27 of last year, with 220
Democrats voting for it, and 125 Republicans voting against it.
Cracking down on gas price gouging, H.R. 1252, passed May 23 of last
year, opposed by 140 Republicans, including all of the Republican
leadership, 228 Democrats voting in favor of it.
Repealing those subsidies that were given to profit-rich big oil
companies. We're talking about ExxonMobil and the other big oil
companies that have made the biggest profits of the history of any
industry in the world. And, by the way, the five CEOs of the five
biggest oil companies testified a couple of weeks ago before the Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. I sat there while
all five of them talked about how they couldn't help it they were
making so much money. One of my colleagues from the Republican side
during his 5 minutes of questioning, Representative Walden, said, ``I'm
a small businessman''--and if I can paraphrase because I don't know if
this is an exact quote--``I'm a capitalist,'' said Representative
Walden. ``And when I had a very good year where my profit is so high
that it's better than I even could have imagined, I start to ask
whether I can lower the prices to my consumers.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HALL of New York. ``I start to think,'' said Representative
Walden to the oil company executives, ``about whether I might be able
to lower the price at the pump and lower the price to my consumers.
Have you ever thought about doing that, now that you're making such a
big profit?''
And one by one, all five of them said, ``Oh, we don't control the
price at the pump.''
I think that's as good a case as one needs to hear for government
regulation and possible legislation to make sure that there are not
excess profits or gouging going on in this current state of the
economy, and especially the oil economy.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
It's unfortunate that we're here today to consider an important piece
of legislation, our Coast Guard reauthorization, and it's also
unfortunate we're discussing the rule under which that legislation will
be brought to the floor, and that's a closed rule.
Unfortunately, this is the first time in at least 20 years that this
Coast Guard reauthorization has been considered under a closed rule,
not an open rule. I think it's particularly unfortunate that this year,
when the Democrat leadership has chosen to restrict debate on this
important legislation that has a number of important provisions,
including a provision to provide a transportation worker identification
card and straighten out some of the problems we've had in trying to get
a single transportation worker identification card at our ports and
other facilities that we can use.
I had an amendment that would have allowed my State of Florida, and
other States, a simpler method of obtaining an FBI background check on
port workers than is currently available. It would also have saved port
workers the cost of paying for the same background check twice.
I brought here the TWIC card. We've been waiting since 2002 for this
TWIC card, Federal card. We still don't have this card. In fact, the
irony of this is they allowed several amendments; one to allow any
identification, there's going to be an amendment that's put in order. I
can use my driver's license in the interim.
Then there's another amendment that they allowed to allow them to
enroll for a TWIC card 24/7. The ironies of not allowing something to
have a State, again, work with the Federal Government and even go
beyond the requirements like Florida does in trying to look at the
background, the criminal background of the individual. So that's been
eliminated, and my opportunity to present that, from this rule and
consideration of this legislation.
Also, I'm going to take great exception with this bill because of
some other restrictions they put on. Bringing in liquefied natural gas.
Natural gas prices are soaring. Prices are high, and this bill creates
more red tape, more impediments, and actually will reduce the supply
and increase the cost to the consumer out there who's trying to pay
those expensive bills for energy.
So this bill does nothing for energy. And it takes a trusted port
worker, transportation worker card and makes a continual farce out of
the whole process, and not allowing a reasonable relationship between
the State and Federal Government.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr.
Thompson.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this rule. Every day the valiant men and women of the United States
Coast Guard save lives and protect the welfare of our great country.
And every day the Coast Guard lives its motto and stands always ready
to help those in need.
{time} 1430
Since the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard
has taken on the enhancement role in homeland security. Yet the
President has consistently submitted budgets that fail to give the
Coast Guard adequate resources to execute all its missions. Now it's
our turn to help them.
The legislation to be considered today, H.R. 2830, funds the Coast
Guard at $8.4 billion, $200 million over the President's budget. It
also increases the Coast Guard in strength to 47,000 by adding 1,500
new members. The bill authorizes additional maritime security response
teams to provide anti-terrorism protection for strategic shipping,
high-interest vessels, and other critical infrastructure. These teams
are the Coast Guard's quick response force. They can be deployed
rapidly anywhere in the Nation via air, ground, or sea to respond to
changing threat conditions.
H.R. 2830, Mr. Speaker, also authorizes additional K-9 detection
teams to detect explosives, drugs, and smuggled persons.
Additionally, this bill authorizes the Waterway Watch program, a
nationwide initiative modeled after Neighborhood Watch programs, to
allow fishermen, recreational boaters, and others who work or play on
American waterways to notify the Coast Guard of suspicious activities.
Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has struggled to develop much-needed port
security regulations, including those mandated by the Safe Ports Act,
such as long-range vessel tracking and enhanced crew member
identification. H.R. 2830 address this critical gap and others by
creating a dedicated assistant commandant for port and waterway
security to oversee port security measures.
With respect to liquefied gas terminals, the bill requires the Coast
Guard to protect and enforce the security zones around all existing LNG
facilities. Admiral Allen himself has acknowledged, Mr. Speaker, to
Congress that when it comes to the proliferation of LNG facilities, he
doesn't have the resources necessary to fulfill the Coast Guard's port
security responsibilities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. That allows, Mr. Speaker, the Coast
Guard to partner with the State and local entities to protect the
security zones around LNG facilities.
Last, and certainly not least, Mr. Speaker, the improvements that the
bill makes in the Deepwater program. In the future, there will be
contract managers at the Coast Guard that know their job and never
again will the Coast Guard be in the absurd position of accepting boats
that don't float.
I urge a ``yes'' on the rule and on the underlying bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, as an environmentalist and a protector of
our Great Lakes, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2830's ballast
water management requirements and its stated goal of eliminating
aquatic invasive species from our waters.
[[Page H2590]]
Ballast water management and the broader issue of aquatic invasive
species is a matter that has received far too little attention, given
its dramatic impact on the economy and the environment.
For several years, I have strongly supported a comprehensive approach
to stopping the influx of aquatic invasive species, and this bill
provides a very, very good start.
Although aquatic invasive species enter into ecosystems through many
different pathways, such as natural migration, attaching themselves to
ships, and aquaculture, the most common pathway is through ballast
water. Ballast water is pumped on board a ship to control its stability
at sea. Ships often take on ballast water at an initial port and
discharge it at their destination port. When a ship pumps harbor water
into its ballast tanks, it usually also sucks up aquatic species from
that harbor. When those ballast tanks are emptied, those aquatic
species are introduced into a new ecosystem and they become invasive
species.
Since some ships are capable of holding millions of gallons of
ballast water, the potential for spreading invasive species is large.
Once an invasive species takes hold in a new environment, it has the
ability to disrupt the balance of an ecosystem and cause significant
environmental and economic harm.
In the United States, invasive species cost tens of billion of
dollars each year. For example, Zebra mussels have cost the various
entities in the Great Lake's basin an estimated $5 billion for expenses
relating to cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration
equipment and so forth. Sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes
cost approximately $10 million to $15 million annually. And on top of
these expenses, there is the cost of lost fisheries due to these
invaders. For these reasons, combating aquatic invasive species is a
central element of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration strategy to
protect and restore the Great Lakes.
However, invasive species are not just a problem in the Great Lakes.
Invasive species also affect coastal regions throughout the United
States. From the Chinese mitten crabs in the North Pacific, to Asian
sea squirts in New England, to New Zealand boring pill bugs in the
Pacific Northwest, to Asian carp in the Mississippi River, to Zebra
mussels across the United States, these foreign invaders cause
significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America.
If we do not pass this bill into law, we are just opening the door
for many more invasive species to arrive via ballast water. The goal of
H.R. 2830 is to eliminate invasive species in ballast water by 2015. To
meet this goal, the bill requires vessels operating in U.S. waters to
be outfitted with ballast water treatment systems that meet interim
standards starting in 2009, with more stringent standards starting in
2012.
This is an excellent bill. I urge everyone to support it and vote for
it.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland, the chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, I rise
today in strong support of H. Res. 1126 which provides a rule for the
consideration of H.R. 2830 and makes in order an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The base text of H.R. 2830, which was ordered to be reported by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in June 2007, already
includes many significant provisions to strengthen the Coast Guard and
respond to challenges we face in maritime transportation. For example,
the bill, as reported, includes standards to prevent the continued
introduction of invasive species in U.S. waters through ballast water.
The bill creates an ombudsman in each Coast Guard district to serve as
a liaison between the Coast Guard and the port community. And the bill
introduces critical measures to improve the safety of the United States
fishing industry, one of our Nation's deadliest professions.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute adds critical titles that
address specific issues considered by the Committee on Transportation
and the Coast Guard Subcommittee after the bill was reported.
Specifically, the amendment includes titles that strengthen both the
Coast Guard's homeland security functions and its maritime safety
missions. The amendment in the nature of a substitute also transfers
the appeals of cases in which the Coast Guard decides to spend or
revoke a mariner's credential to a neutral agency, the National
Transportation Safety Board.
Further, the amendment includes the text of H.R. 2722, the Integrated
Deepwater Program Reform Act which previously passed the House by a
vote of 426-0 and which would strengthen the Coast Guard's ability to
manage the $24 billion, 25-year Deepwater procurements.
Similarly, the amendment includes the text of the Maritime Pollution
Prevent Act to reduce emissions from ships. This measure also
previously passed the House. Adoption of H. Res. 1126 would enable the
House to consider long-overdue legislation to authorize the Coast Guard
and to strengthen our U.S. maritime industry, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the favorite son from North Carolina, the gentleman, Mr.
Coble.
Mr. COBLE. I thank my friend from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill. We in the Congress cannot lose sight of the purpose of Deepwater,
which is to provide the men and women of the Coast Guard with the
necessary tools to protect our homeland. I applaud actions undertaken
to move this program in the right direction and support this language.
I remain concerned, however, that some provisions in H.R. 2830 may
create undue burdens and delays, which will, in turn, delay the
desperately needed modernization and may ultimately add to the overall
costs.
The marine safety components of the underlying bill also cause me
concern. Previously, the Commandant announced a number of changes he
had directed the Coast Guard to implement regarding marine safety.
Under his leadership, his able leadership, I might add, the men and
women of the Coast Guard continue to examine and improve upon the Coast
Guard's marine safety role.
Having served in the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve, I know
this armed service is unique because of its structure and flexibility.
On a daily basis, Coast Guard men and women focus on drug interdiction,
environmental protection, migrant interdiction, port security, search
and rescue, homeland security, maritime safety, and aids to navigation.
The list is almost endless. Each of these roles complements the other.
I continue to support efforts to provide stakeholders an opportunity
to voice their concerns, provide constructive feedback, and work
together to improve the marine safety aspect of the Coast Guard. At the
same time, however, I firmly believe that we should give the Coast
Guard the time, opportunity, and resources to improve and expand on its
marine safety efforts prior to congressional intervention.
I'm equally concerned regarding the underlying bill which lacks
provisions that would provide the Coast Guard the authority to protect
seafarers who facilitate the government's ability to investigate and
prosecute environmental crimes. This is another example where current
law impedes our ability to prosecute criminals.
I would also like to express my concern with section 720 of the
underlying bill which addresses security at liquefied natural gas
facilities. Consistently, I have cast votes in favor of legislation
which I believe will help to make our Nation energy independent. While
there has not been focused attention on LNG, it remains a viable energy
alternative. Therefore, I'm concerned by provisions that would
designate the Coast Guard as the sole agency responsible for LNG
security.
Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 2830, the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 2007.
I'd like to first comment on provisions in the underlying bill which
affect the Deepwater program. We in Congress cannot lose sight of the
purpose of Deepwater, which is to provide the men and women of the
Coast Guard with the necessary tools to protect our homeland. I applaud
actions undertaken to move this program in the right direction and
support this
[[Page H2591]]
language. I remain concerned, however, that some provisions in H.R.
2830 may create undue burdens and delays which in turn will delay this
desperately needed modernization and may ultimately add to the overall
costs.
The marine safety components of the underlying bill also cause me
concern. Previously, the Commandant announced a number of changes he
had directed the Coast Guard to implement regarding marine safety.
Under his leadership, the men and women of the Coast Guard continue to
examine and improve upon the Coast Guard's marine safety role.
Having served in the Coast Guard and Reserve, I know the armed
service is unique because of its structure and flexibility. On a daily
basis, Coast Guard men and women focus on drug interdiction,
environmental protection, migrant interdiction, port security, search
and rescue, homeland security, and maritime safety. Each of these
roles, in my opinion, complements the others.
I continue to support efforts to provide stakeholders an opportunity
to voice their concerns, provide constructive feedback, and work
together to improve the marine safety aspect of the Coast Guard. At the
same time, I firmly believe that we should give the Coast Guard the
time, opportunity, and resources to improve and expand upon its marine
safety efforts prior to congressional intervention.
I am equally concerned the underlying bill lacks provisions that
would provide the Coast Guard the authority to protect seafarers who
facilitate the Government's ability to investigate and prosecute
environmental crimes. This is another example where current law impedes
our ability to prosecute criminals.
I'd also like to express my concern with section 720 of the
underlying bill which addresses security at liquefied natural gas
facilities. Consistently, I have cast votes in favor of legislation
which I believe will help to make our Nation energy independent. While
there has not been focused attention on LNG, it remains a viable energy
alternative. Therefore, I'm concerned by provisions that would
designate the Coast Guard as the sole agency responsible for LNG
security. In my opinion, this is neither reasonable nor practicable for
the Coast Guard or the communities where these facilities currently
exist. In my opinion, this provision will act as a barrier to entry for
future facilities and result in higher energy prices for consumers.
Later today or tomorrow, I hope my colleagues will join me in
supporting an amendment made in order which would strike this dangerous
provision.
Finally, I'd like to address the inclusion of H.R. 2399, the Alien
Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act. It is my understanding that
upon engrossment of H.R. 2830, this language will be included in the
underlying bill. I support this action as maritime alien smuggling has
become a business where smugglers game the system and have little to
lose under the current law. The Coast Guard confronts smugglers on a
routine basis who know they can use a lack of authority to their
advantage. These kinds of cases are dangerous to our Coast Guard men
and women and dangerous to the smuggled aliens and occur at increasing
frequency.
This measure is necessary because it provides a tool for the Coast
Guard and Department of Justice to ensure the integrity of our maritime
borders. Currently, there are enormous procedural and jurisdictional
hurdles that protect and actually embolden alien smugglers. It will
begin to deter unsafe and inhumane sea-based smuggling by delivering
enhanced consequences to those who flee from or lie to our Federal law
enforcement officers. Later today or tomorrow, the ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, will offer an
amendment to clarify this authority. While I support the underlying
measure, I believe the Smith amendment augments this provision and
merits adoption.
It is my hope that during the amendment process some of my concerns
in the underlying bill will be alleviated, but as we speak I cannot
support passage of H.R. 2830. That said, I look forward to working with
my colleagues as this process moves forward.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Independence, Mr.
Markey.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, from 1995 until 2006, the Republican Party controlled
the House of Representatives, and since January of 2001, they've
controlled the White House as well. During this period, the leadership
of the Republican Party in the Congress and in the White House have
pumped literally billions of dollars of unnecessary subsidies into the
pockets of Big Oil, tens of billions of dollars.
They voted for royalty-free drilling for the biggest oil companies on
offshore public lands. They've opposed all efforts to repeal billions
in tax breaks for Big Oil. And in the 12 years they controlled the
Congress up until the beginning of last year, they opposed high fuel
economy standards for the vehicles which we drive in America so we
could back out that oil that we import from the Persian Gulf.
GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party,'' but now it stands for
``Gas and Oil Party.''
{time} 1445
Here's what the President said about giving incentives to Big Oil in
2005. He said, ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need
incentives for the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty
of incentives for the oil industry.'' That's George Bush, April 2005 at
$55 a barrel. Today, it's at $119 a barrel. But the Republicans, you
know, they just can't kick a bad habit. Offering subsidies to Big Oil
to drill is like subsidizing fish to swim, you just don't need to do
it. They have all the incentives which they need right now. So the
Democratic Party, assuming office just a year ago, under the leadership
of Nancy Pelosi, she said, we're going to put a stop-payment order on
these unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil.
Last December, we passed the first increase in fuel efficiency
standards in 35 years, increasing it to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. We
increased the renewable fuel standard to 36 billion gallons, but the
Republican opposition made it impossible for us to take the $18 billion
in excessive and unnecessary tax breaks away from the oil company and
to transfer it to the solar and to the wind and to the renewable energy
industry. So we're taking that bill up again this year. The Republicans
oppose it. They're saying, keep the tax breaks for Big Oil. Keep them
away from the wind and the solar industry.
They have no solutions for the 21st century. They have no plan to
wean America off of this increased oil dependency. We have gone up from
27 percent dependency to 61 percent dependency upon imported oil in
just the last 20 years. This Republican policy is going to make us less
secure, more financially dependent upon the Middle East, and it is
going to cause an economic and national security catastrophe for our
country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman made his point:
Since the Democrat Party has taken over, prices at the pump have
skyrocketed.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. This has been an interesting
discussion. Oil prices record high, $119, gas prices, $11. And is
Congress acting? What is on the table here to help Americans for
affordable energy? Very little, folks. We're about restricting supply.
Consumers are paying the highest prices. The people in my district,
and I'm sure in yours, are struggling to drive long distances. I come
from a rural district. People are paying $20 and $30 a day to drive to
work. They can't afford that. They're struggling now to catch up with
their winter heating bills, which were unreasonably high.
Well, who's the bad guy? Who's causing this price rise? Mr. Markey
from Massachusetts said it's Big Oil because they just charge too much.
He also says it's because we're putting 70,000 barrels a day in the
SPR. Well, why are oil prices high, folks? It's because this Congress,
three decades ago, locked up supply. Look at the red on the map. That's
the Outer Continental Shelf. We're the only country in the world who
doesn't produce gas and oil there. The only country in the world. There
are huge reserves in the Midwest.
This body and the Democrat Party have been talking about locking up
the shale rock, there's been legislation to do that, the Roan Plateau,
the best gas reserve in the Midwest, locking them up.
They talk about us not being dependent on foreign energy, but
everything they're doing makes us dependent on foreign energy, where we
have no control. Yes, prices for energy are set on Wall Street. Right
or wrong, that's the system. They set the prices. When you lock up
supply, if we stopped growing as much corn, prices go up. If you stop
making as much steel in this country,
[[Page H2592]]
if you limit, steel prices are going to go up. We're limiting the
production of energy.
Are we against wind and solar? Absolutely not. Look at the chart
here. Here's the renewables. They think that's going to be an instant
answer. I want all the wind we can get, all the solar we can get, all
the geothermal. We're promoting biofuels. On the biofuels issue, we
mandated 35.5 billion gallons a year by 2030. We had 6.5 billion
gallons last year.
Corn prices have tripled. Wheat prices have tripled. Food prices are
getting so people now are struggling to go to the grocery store after
they've been to the gas station. If we have a bad crop failure down the
road, not only are food prices going to go crazy, but ethanol prices.
Folks, I think we better be very careful about the biofuels. I'm not
opposing them, I never have, but I would be surprised if biofuels can
increase the use of gasoline we need in growth. Energy prices, folks,
are dependent on supply. If we double wind and solar tomorrow, we're at
less than three-quarters of 1 percent of our energy supply. I hope we
can do it.
Folks, we need to produce energy so Americans can afford to live.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, one point that I would like to make at this
time is that the gentleman talks about oil and talks about energy, but
the thing that he fails to point out is that gas and oil are limited,
they are not going to be there forever. We need to stop our reliance
upon fossil fuels, upon gas and oil, and start to focus on renewable
alternative energy and become less dependent on foreign oil, less
reliant upon fossil fuels.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, I would like to associate myself with the comments of
Mrs. Miller and Mr. Ehlers from the other side as they talked about
this very important Coast Guard bill. I am from the Great Lakes State.
In fact, I have more shoreline than any other congressional district in
the continental United States. I have over 1,600 miles of shoreline on
the Great Lakes. It is critically important that we pass this Coast
Guard bill.
But on this point, my colleagues on the other side use a very
important bill like the Coast Guard bill to talk about energy, that
somehow Democrats are not doing enough and somehow the Speaker is
responsible for high oil prices. If you take a look, the Republicans
have been in charge, until last year, for the last 12 years. What was
their policy? Their policy has been no policy, do nothing, let the oil
companies get away with it, record profits, record pensions to their
CEO. Remember the $400 million pension for ExxonMobil?
I guess I agree with Mr. Peterson, the last speaker, maybe we ought
to lock them up. We ought to lock them up when you see oil prices, when
President Bush comes in, at $27 a barrel, we're up to $119. And where
is it going to stop? Why do you see this rapid increase? Well, an ill-
advised war where everybody said when you get involved in a war in the
Middle East, the longer you're there, the prices are going to go up.
When you have no policy, sure oil prices are going to go up. When you
pass, as the Republican Party did, the Enron loophole which allowed
speculators to come into the market and drive up the price of oil,
you're going to get these criminal record prices we're paying. So Mr.
Peterson is right, we should lock them up. We should lock them all up.
What have the Democrats done? Well, we've passed price gouging
legislation, not once, but twice. And most of my friends on this side
of the aisle, like Mr. Sessions and others who spoke here today, voted
against it. How about the PUMP Act, Prevent the Unfair Manipulation of
Prices. We have that legislation, all sponsored mostly by Democrats. I
think we had two brave Republicans who came forward to help sponsor it.
So what do we have here? You talk about refinery capacity. I'm
chairman of Oversight and Investigations. A 1995 memo from the American
Petroleum Institute to all the big oil companies was to say, shut down
the refineries. You want record prices? Shut down the refineries. We
have those memos. They're part of the Congressional Record. And what
did they do? Between 1995 and 2002 they shut down over 30 refineries,
including one just outside my district in Alma, Michigan, which used to
refine 51,000 barrels a day, that's over 1 million gallons of gas,
because there's 33 gallons of gas in every barrel of oil, they shut it
down to increase the price so they could have their record profits, so
they can pay their CEO a $400 million pension plan, so they can have
$40 billion in profits, as we saw with ExxonMobil just last year.
Democrats have been in charge now for, what, 16 months? What have we
done?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has
expired.
Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. STUPAK. We've passed energy price gouging legislation. We have a
PUMP Act to take the speculators and close the Enron loophole. We've
passed the renewable portfolio standard.
We are moving forward. And we ask our friends on this side of the
aisle to join us, not use a good bill like the Coast Guard bill to
somehow say the Speaker is responsible. It was the President of the
United States who said he would jawbone the Saudis to produce more oil
to bring down our prices. He jawboned them all right, they jawboned
right through to our pocketbook, with record prices at the pump, record
prices of oil coming into this country.
Pass the PUMP Act. We can reduce the price of oil by $30 a barrel, as
testified on December 12, 2007 by experts before our committee, the
Energy and Commerce Committee. Stop the unfair manipulation of prices.
Lower the price of oil. Give the American taxpayers relief. And pass
the Coast Guard bill to clean up our environment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. I would like to thank my friend from
Texas for recognizing me.
I would like to thank my colleague down on the floor, who is just
taking the chart down now. His chart actually makes a very good point,
the price of oil has doubled in the last year. I hope they use that
chart often.
The issue that's facing the American people right now is our
dependence on foreign oil and our gas prices. Energy is the foundation
and the lifeblood of the American economy, creating the conditions that
help us support good-paying jobs here in the United States and allowing
our industrial base to compete with the rest of the world.
We all know that middle class families, such as those that I
represent in northeast Tennessee, are feeling significant pain at the
pump. But the American family isn't the only place where the strains of
spiking fuel prices can be felt. According to the recent news reports,
local schools, law enforcement agencies and other community services
are paying the price of these record-high oil prices.
Unfortunately, Democrats in the House have been consistent in
offering so-called energy legislation that weakens our ability to
compete with emerging titans such as China, India and Russia. In the
United States today, we're 63 percent dependent on foreign sources of
oil, and that percentage is growing ever year. Gasoline prices have
increased more than $1 per gallon since the majority took control of
the House last year, as the last chart indicated, increasing from a
nationwide average of $2.33 per gallon on the first day of the 110th
Congress to now well over $3.50 per gallon.
Not only has the majority party failed to end our reliance on Middle
Eastern oil for essential energy, they have actually helped grow our
independence to historic and dangerous new levels all because of their
refusal to allow for responsible energy production here at home. We
need to use American energy.
What we need is no more excuses. We need an energy policy that allows
for the use of American energy now. We need to drill for oil in ANWR
and off the Outer Continental Shelf. We need to use our abundant coal
supplies through clean coal technology. We
[[Page H2593]]
need to create safe nuclear power plants. We need to build new
refineries. And we need to expand green energy, yes, green energy
initiatives, like switch grass, wind power, solar power, hydroelectric
power.
We cannot tax and regulate ourselves into prosperity, and that's
exactly the energy policies that have come out of this Congress. You
cannot tax and regulate yourself into prosperity. We have to have an
energy policy that actually has energy.
The American middle class deserves better. They deserve an energy
policy that is dependent on American energy, not foreign energy.
Therefore, I recommend a ``no'' vote on the rule on the floor today so
we can continue to talk about what is important to the American people,
lowering the cost of energy.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
While I associate myself positively with the remarks on energy, I
rise for a different reason in opposition to this rule.
We have been battling with the Coast Guard and their budget
submissions from OMB as to why narcotics are not considered part of
their terrorism mission. We have made some progress with that, but I
had an amendment submitted to reflect that drug interdiction is a
homeland security mission as required under the Homeland Security Act.
I do not understand why jurisdictional disputes would have stopped
this. Both committees, Transportation and Homeland Security, should
agree that it's part of terrorism, and both committees need to work on
narcotics and make sure, because smugglers are smugglers, whether
they're smuggling people or whether they're smuggling contraband. And
if we get this mission separated, since every single person in the
Coast Guard says their first concern is homeland security, what we wind
up is neglecting the narcotics mission.
My friend from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I have worked on the
narcotics issue for a long time. And I would hope that petty
jurisdictions in the House wouldn't stop us from moving ahead in a
bipartisan way to make sure that narcotics are part of the terrorism
mission. I hope this is fixed in any conference report.
{time} 1500
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman
from New York does not have any additional speakers at this time. We
have no further speakers on our side.
Mr. ARCURI. That is correct. I do not have any additional speakers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 7 minutes remaining.
____________________