[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.
____________________