[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 23, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2594-H2595]
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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) has 
7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 1 
minute remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, almost 2 years ago 
to the day, now Speaker Pelosi released a statement, which I quote, 
``Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular 
gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price when 
President Bush first came into office.''
  Speaker Pelosi went on to claim, and I quote again, that ``Democrats 
have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Speaker, the Pelosi petroleum price increase continues to rise, 
with the average price over $3.50, hitting consumers at the pump every 
time they fill up their car.
  By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand 
against these high prices and demand to see the secret plan that 
Speaker Pelosi has to reduce gas prices that Democrats have been hiding 
from the American people since taking control of Congress 17 months 
ago. I for one would love to see it, but I am afraid that, much like 
their promises to run the most honest, open and ethical Congress in 
history, it simply does not exist.
  I submit for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on 
H.R. 2830.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


            H.R. 2830--Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     2830 in its current form because it would adversely affect 
     homeland security, protection of the marine environment, and 
     maritime safety and would unreasonably intrude upon the 
     Commandant's authority and discretion to command and control 
     the Coast Guard. Cumulatively, these provisions would 
     compromise the organizational efficiency and operational 
     effectiveness of the Coast Guard; ultimately, they could 
     diminish its effectiveness in carrying out its safety, 
     security, and stewardship missions. Notwithstanding the other 
     provisions of the measure that would enhance Coast Guard 
     operations, the Administration strongly opposes House passage 
     of H.R. 2830.
       The Administration urges the House to modify the 
     problematic parts of the bill, including the following:
       First, the section of the bill that would require the Coast 
     Guard to provide security around liquefied natural gas 
     terminals and vessels should be eliminated because it 
     provides an unwarranted and unnecessary subsidy to the owners 
     of private infrastructure that is contrary to the existing 
     assistance framework and would divert finite Coast Guard 
     assets from other high-priority missions, as determined by 
     the Commandant. If H.R. 2830 were presented to the President 
     with this provision, his senior advisors would recommend that 
     he veto the bill.
       Second, the Administration strongly urges the House to 
     adopt the Administration's proposal to introduce 
     organizational flexibility into the Coast Guard command 
     structure and alignment with the other armed forces, rather 
     than the language of Section 210. This section as currently 
     worded would exchange one statutorily-mandated command 
     structure for another, thus defeating the purpose of the 
     Administration's initiative.
       Third, the Administration urges the House to substitute the 
     Administration's recently transmitted proposal for the 
     regulation of ballast water treatment for the existing 
     language of title V. The Administration's substitute language 
     would provide for the effective and efficient implementation 
     of ballast water treatment standards and for the development 
     of enforceable national uniform standards to control 
     discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels 
     without the use of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
     System (NPDES) permit. Absent such language (or a decision of 
     the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), as of September 30, 2008, 
     discharges incidental to the normal operation of upwards of 
     13 million vessels--including recreational vessels, towboat 
     vessels, commercial fishing boats, barges, and large ocean-
     going vessels--will be prohibited by the Clean Water Act 
     unless NPDES permits covering such discharges are in place.
       As well, the Administration urges the House to delete those 
     provisions of the bill that would adversely affect Coast 
     Guard missions. Specifically, the Administration urges the 
     House to delete those provisions that would: (1) diminish the 
     authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the 
     Commandant concerning how leadership positions within the 
     Service will be graded or placed; (2) reduce or eliminate the 
     Coast Guard's capacity or authority to carry out and 
     adjudicate its merchant mariner licensing mission and support 
     other vital security adjudications of the Department of 
     Homeland Security; (3) establish an interim work authority 
     for a newly hired seaman on an offshore supply vessel or 
     towing vessel, as such authority would open a dangerous 
     security loophole and undermine the security objectives of 
     the Transportation Worker Identification Credential; and (4) 
     prescribe contracting and acquisition practices for the 
     Deepwater program, as these practices would increase the 
     costs of, and add delay to, the Deepwater acquisition process 
     and circumvent review and approval authority of Coast Guard 
     technical authorities. Similarly, while the provision that 
     would alter admission procedures for the U.S. Coast Guard 
     Academy may ultimately be acceptable, this provision has not 
     previously been shared, or even discussed, with the 
     Administration. The Administration, therefore, urges the 
     House to delete this provision.
       Finally, the Administration strongly urges the House to 
     adopt the Administration's proposal to protect seafarers who 
     participate in investigations and adjudication of 
     environmental crimes or who have been abandoned in the United 
     States, and thus facilitate the Government's ability to 
     investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. Similarly, 
     the Administration strongly urges the House to restore the 
     much-needed authority to prosecute those who would smuggle 
     undocumented aliens into the United States by sea (Maritime 
     Alien Smuggling Law Enforcement Act).
       The Administration looks forward to working with Congress 
     to address these concerns and other problems with the bill 
     previously identified in letters from the Department of 
     Homeland Security.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, we have sat here for the past hour and 
listened to so many speakers talk about energy, when the underlying 
bill is actually the Coast Guard reauthorization bill. But if our 
colleagues want to talk about energy, then I think we should point out 
some very obvious facts to them.
  First of all, when the Clinton administration finished in the White 
House, oil was at $27 a barrel. It is now at $119 a barrel, a 
significant increase. Yet they try to point the finger at this 
Congress, this Democratic Congress that has been in the majority for 16 
months. Yet on every bill that we bring up, every bill that the 
Democrats bring before this Congress that attempts in any way, shape, 
fashion or form to reduce the price of oil, we get nothing but ``no'' 
votes from the other side of the aisle. That is their response to high 
energy costs. That is what they want to do to the American people in 
terms of the energy costs.
  I said earlier in the debate a point that I think is very important. 
They want to talk about priorities as what we do for the big energy 
companies, what we do for the big oil companies. Well, that is not the 
priority of this side of the aisle. We want to talk about alternative 
energy. We want to talk about reducing the dependence on foreign oil, 
reducing the dependence on gas and on fossil fuels, thereby making our 
country stronger, both domestically and internationally. If they want 
to talk about gas and oil, that is the debate. But this debate is about 
the Coast Guard bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the Coast Guard are to be commended 
for their service to our country and their commitment to the 
multifaceted mission of the Coast Guard. They serve their country, they 
risk their lives, just to keep us safe, safe along our coasts, safe 
along our inland waterways; not thousands of miles away, but right here 
in the United States. We need to ensure that they have the tools and 
the support to do the job in the best way that they can. The Coast 
Guard deserves and needs this bill. The American people deserve and 
need this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, after extensive consideration by three House committees, 
it is time to bring the Coast Guard authorization bill to the floor.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

[[Page H2595]]

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 1126 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the operation of the previous question, it 
     shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which 
     the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of 
     lowering the national average price per gallon of regular 
     unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes 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 of rule XXI. For 
     purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a 
     statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 
     by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration 
     shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.
       Sec. 6. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall 
     introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill 
     to provide a common sense plan to help bring down 
     skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the 
     appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause I 
     of rule X.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution [and] has no substantive legislative 
     or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what 
     they have always said. Listen to the definition of the 
     previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________