[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 66 (Thursday, April 24, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2721-H2736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2830.
{time} 1240
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2830) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard
for fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Jones of Ohio
(Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier
today, amendment No. 6 printed in part B of House Report 110-604
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) had been disposed
of.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 110-604.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Markey:
At the end of title VII add the following:
SEC. 708. REVIEW OF LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES.
(a) Notice of Determination.--Consistent with other
provisions of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security must
notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when a
determination is made that the waterway to a proposed
waterside liquefied natural gas facility is suitable or
unsuitable for the marine traffic associated with such
facility.
(b) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Response.--The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall respond to the
Secretary's determination under subsection (a) by informing
the Secretary within 90 days of notification or at the
conclusion of any available appeal process, whichever is
later, of what action the Commission has taken, pursuant to
its authorities under the Natural Gas Act, regarding a
proposal to construct and operate a waterside liquefied
natural gas facility subject to a determination made under
subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, it's good to see you back up in the Chair
again. I'm glad that you have returned up there.
I would like to thank, first of all, Chairman Jim Oberstar, a great
chairman of the Transportation Committee for his excellent work;
Chairman Bennie Thompson for his perspicacious leadership; to Chairman
John Dingell, whose omniscient and ubiquitous presence on so many
issues is always an essential ingredient in passing legislation of this
magnitude.
And I encourage all of my colleagues to ensure that this commonsense
provision, which will ensure that siting decisions for proposed LNG
facilities are coordinated and informed by homeland security
considerations.
My amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to notify
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Homeland Security
Department's determination of whether the waterway to a proposed
liquefied national gas facility is suitable for the marine traffic
associated with the proposed facility.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in turn must respond to the
Department of Homeland Security within 90 days or at the conclusion of
any available appeals process of what the action the commission will
take on the LNG application.
My amendment does not dispute the need for more LNG. We need more
LNG. What my provision says is that before we build a new LNG facility,
we must first make sure we are not creating a giant terrorist tiger. In
Boston, we've always known that the LNG facility on land in my
congressional district was a huge potential fire hazard. But after the
September 11 attacks, when we learned how many terrorists had actually
gotten off the LNG ships themselves in Boston coming in from overseas,
we learned that it was a huge potential terrorist tiger.
In the face of this kind of risk, my provision mandates that we
should have the Homeland Security Department involved at the beginning
when any new LNG facilities are being proposed so that the department
can assess the potential homeland security risk of building one of
these facilities before we blindly move forward to put more LNG
terminals in various parts of the country.
The need for coordination between the Coast Guard and the commission
was recently reinforced in Fall River, Massachusetts. In Fall River,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the construction of
an LNG facility in 2005. Two years later, the Coast Guard determined
that the waterway was not suitable for the marine traffic associated
with it. So we have a situation where the FERC has approved a license
for the LNG facility that the Coast Guard says, 2 years later,
shouldn't be built because the waterway to the facility is not
suitable.
{time} 1245
But despite this action by the Coast Guard, which effectively blocks
the facility, the FERC license remains in place. This lack of
coordination makes no sense.
There currently is an interagency agreement among the FERC, the Coast
Guard and the Office of Pipeline Safety that is supposed to coordinate
efforts on the siting of LNG facilities and safety and security issues
associated with proposed sites. But as the review process for the
proposed LNG facility in Fall River makes clear, more structure and a
timeline is needed to make sure that there is better coordination so
that the FERC is not approving proposed facilities only to have the
Coast Guard, years later, reject the proposals due to concerns over the
suitability of the waterway to the facilities.
At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. It was truly delightful to hear the discourse of the
gentleman from Massachusetts, perspicacious, omniscient. It is rare
that tediological inquiries occur in this body. And for that reason, it
is rare to hear such felicitous language used in discourse on the
floor, especially important on this aftermath, the day
[[Page H2722]]
after the 444th celebration of the birth of Shakespeare. I thank the
gentleman for his distinguished presentation.
Madam Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman for yielding. We are also
prepared to accept this amendment. We think it's a good amendment.
Although I was very taken by the gentleman from Massachusetts' prose,
I would indicate we did have a pretty extensive hearing in the Coast
Guard Subcommittee on this particular bridge and this waterway up in
Fall River. I'm never caught short about the imagination of the
Massachusetts delegation.
Just to be clear, the FERC approval of that site was based upon one
bridge. After the delegation applied for the construction of a new
bridge and there was a proposal to demolish the old bridge 100 yards
from the new bridge, the Massachusetts delegation has fallen in love
with this old bridge. As a result, it is not a navigable waterway. That
was the basis for the Coast Guard's decision in this matter. I
congratulate Mr. Markey for not only his good amendment but also the
Massachusetts delegation in general for their ingenious work.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute.
Mr. MARKEY. The purpose of my amendment is not the prevention of LNG
facilities, but rather to promote coordinate between the Coast Guard
and the FERC in siting. We have two other offshore facilities which we
are also going to be licensing in Massachusetts. We need more LNG. We
just want to make sure that there is good policy, good sense, good
coordination.
Again, it's my great honor to have the support of the polysyllabic
professor of transportation legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota,
who has a mastery of the English language that when the Congressional
Record is reviewed, no matter how many compound, complex sentences that
he utters, they always parse. And that's a special gift that the
chairman has. In the area of transportation that is so complex, we need
people with those abilities to be able to put together complex policies
as he does. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for those thoughtful remarks.
I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished Chair of the
Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I rise in full support of this
amendment. It is another one of those makes-sense amendments that
strengthens the legislation.
We have a situation here where currently, under an existing
memorandum of understanding between FERC and the Coast Guard, the Coast
Guard already provides the results of its waterway suitability reports
to FERC. This amendment would simply codify that practice. The
amendment would then require FERC to inform the Secretary of the
actions the commission has taken regarding the proposed terminal's
application.
It simply makes sense. We've got to have the Coast Guard and FERC
working together. Of course the Coast Guard determines suitability of
the waterway leading into the location where the LNG is going to be,
and then of course FERC takes a look at other things. So the
combination of them working together is so very, very, very important,
and so we wholeheartedly support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 110-604.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California:
At the end of title VII add the following:
SEC. __. USE OF SECONDARY AUTHENTICATION FOR TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY CARDS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security may use a secondary
authentication system for individuals applying for
transportation security cards when fingerprints are not able
to be taken or read to enhance transportation security.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
My amendment is a simple one. It allows the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to use a secondary authentication
system to verify the identity of individuals who are applying for
transportation worker identification credentials when those individuals
have failed in their biometric verification due to the quality of their
fingerprints.
Since this is the Department of Homeland Security, these credentials
are called TWICs. And it is necessary currently, in the bill and under
law, to have your fingerprints taken to enroll to get this TWIC.
However, and this is very interesting, Stanford University has done the
research. It turns out that about 5 percent of the population is unable
to have their fingerprints taken. Now the reasons for this can be many;
genetics, age, there is an ethnicity component, illness, hard labor.
And when that happens, what that means is that individuals who would
otherwise need the card will not be able to get the card unless this
amendment is adopted.
I'll give you an example of an individual who has been impacted.
George Thomas of Houston, Texas. Mr. Thomas is 85 years old and he is
the president of Higman Marine Services. Higman Marine has been in the
inland towing business since 1917. When Mr. Thomas applied for his TWIC
card, he was told that his skin was too thin to have his fingerprints
read and to come back in a couple of months to apply again. Well, what
happens to Mr. Thomas, his company, and all his employees? What happens
to his business without the president able to comply with TWIC
requirements through no fault of his own?
The TWIC procedure already requires TSA to send pertinent parts of
the enrollment record to the FBI as well as within the Department of
Homeland Security so that appropriate terrorist threat, criminal
history and immigration checks can be performed. This amendment
authorizes the Secretary of DHS to perform a secondary check if a
person's prints cannot be read instead of telling them to come back in
a couple of months. This would mean an additional check of the name,
but in the future, when the technology has been accepted for broad use,
it could also include the use of other biometrics, such as iris, facial
or retina scans, voice recognition and the like. It merely gives
discretion to the Secretary to either do the name check, or use
alternative biometrics.
The point of this amendment is to enhance security, but also to allow
workers who are applying for TWIC to avoid being rejected unfairly.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment as
well as the underlying bill. I would like to thank the chairman, Mr.
Oberstar, and also Mr. Cummings for their wonderful work on this bill.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control
the time in opposition although I will not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Chairman, we're prepared to accept this
amendment, although I must say we have concerns about the overall
effect
[[Page H2723]]
the language will have on the requirements under the Transportation
Worker Identification Credential program and port security levels in
general.
As we all know, and the committee has received voluminous testimony,
TWIC readers will not be available for some time. However, in my
opinion, we should not relax identification requirements once the
readers are in place in our Nation's ports. The evidence at the
committee is that we're not dealing with an unknown universe of
individuals, we're dealing with a universe anywhere from 750,000 to 1.5
million people who will eventually come and require a TWIC card.
I look forward to working with Representative Zoe Lofgren and commend
her on behalf of this 85-year-old gentleman, and others, for bringing
this matter to our attention. I look forward to working with Chairman
Oberstar and Chairman Cummings and Representative Zoe Lofgren in the
conference to perhaps tweak the TWIC language and make sure that we're
not saying that, in fact, the alternative identification measures are
biometric, and they're not saying that we're going to use someone's
driver's license as a substitute for those procedures.
I look forward to the conference, and would be happy to yield to the
chairman for his observations on the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I share those
concerns.
Lockheed Martin, which has the contractor responsibility for issuance
of TWIC cards, has reported that fingerprint rejection rate due to poor
print quality has been in the range of 2 percent. If you happen to be
one of those 2 percent, then you really have a problem. And so that
requires those who are rejected to keep coming back to an enrollment
center. And the amendment would alleviate mariners from having to make
several trips.
I remember myself, when I was working my way through college, I was
working at a concrete block factory. I eventually wore out gloves and I
said I can't afford any more gloves, so I just moved the concrete
blocks with my hands until eventually I had such thick calluses I had
no fingerprint whatever, no markings on any of my fingers. It took
months afterwards, back in college, to shed those calluses. So I can
imagine workers on the docks and all having similar problems. And I
think this relief for mariners will be very, very beneficial.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would ask the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee if he has any observations.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I support this amendment, also.
Under section 7-105 of title 46, United States Code, the Department
of Homeland Security is required to issue a biometric credential to
individuals who are authorized to have unescorted access to secure
areas, vessels and facilities. And some people are unable to accomplish
that. I was just talking to my aid, who said that she went to see the
rollout and they didn't pick up her fingerprints, which was a bad day
for them. And so I think we have to address this.
We will work to ensure that this amendment would not alter the
standards in which a TWIC is issued in any way; however, we need to
provide options for individuals whose fingerprints, like my aid's,
cannot be used to authenticate the cards.
I strongly support the amendment, and we will tweak the TWIC. I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman and reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. At this point, I would also like to
thank Chairman Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee for his hard
work on this bill.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by Representative Zoe Lofgren. As you know, in order to obtain
a TWIC, a port worker must be fingerprinted. The problem is that it's
not always possible to get an image of the person's fingerprint, as has
been mentioned a few minutes ago. From excessive sweating to dry skin,
all of that can impede the capture of a useable fingerprint. Dry skin
is a common occurrence, age, genetics, disease can also cause dry skin.
We need to address this.
As you know, the TSA is supposed to issue credentials to at least
850,000 workers by the end of September. Because of these limitations,
we need to have a plan, TSA needs to have a plan, and this is why this
amendment is important. A person's skin should not prevent them from
getting credentialed for a job that they need. I urge support of this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time?
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I would reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would indicate to the gentlelady that if you're
prepared to close, I will yield back when you're done.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Before I yield back, let me just note
that I have no motivation to weaken the security of the----
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend.
The Chair would note that the gentlewoman from California has the
right to close.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Then I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Because the gentleman is not managing time in
opposition, the proponent has the right to close.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I just want to be clear as we move forward, Madam
Chairman. This has happened a couple of times. And I am not questioning
the ruling of the Chair, but a couple of times, the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Oberstar, has risen to claim time in opposition without
being opposed to the amendment and has claimed the right to close, and
I just want to make sure we're all squared away.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The assertions of a Member from the floor are
not rulings.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. No. You're doing a great job and making great
rulings. I just want to be clear as we move forward, because we have
about six more amendments. It is my understanding that the chairman
closed because he was defending the position of the committee, which
I'm doing. If that's not the ruling of the Chair, I'm happy to live
with the ruling of the excellent Chair, but I just want to make sure
we're squared away.
But in the meantime, I'm yielding back my time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I will just note there
is not much of a closing. We are in agreement on this amendment. I
appreciate the support. I look forward to working further on this.
Certainly, we don't want to weaken our security, but we don't want
hardworking people who just can't get their fingerprints taken to be
put out of a job. So we are of one mind on this. I thank the committee,
all the Members.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 110-604.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Bishop of New York:
At the end of title VII add the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AUGMENTATION OF COAST GUARD RESOURCES WITH
RESPECT TO SECURITY ZONES AND UNITED STATES
PORTS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall submit to the Committees on Transportation
and Infrastructure and Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
of the Senate a report on the extent to which State and local
law enforcement entities are augmenting Coast Guard resources
by enforcing Coast Guard-imposed security
[[Page H2724]]
zones around vessels transiting to, through, or from United
States ports and conducting port security patrols. At a
minimum, the report shall specify-
(1) the number of ports in which State and local law
enforcement entities are providing any services to enforce
Coast Guard-imposed security zones around vessels transiting
to, through, or from United States ports or to conduct
security patrols in United States ports;
(2) the number of formal agreements entered into between
the Coast Guard and State and local law enforcement entities
to engage State and local law enforcement entities in the
enforcement of Coast Guard-imposed security zones around
vessels transiting to, through, or from United States ports
or the conduct of port security patrols in United States
ports, the duration of those agreements, and the aid that
State and local entities are engaged to provided through
these agreements;
(3) the extent to which the Coast Guard has set national
standards for training, equipment, and resources to ensure
that State and local law enforcement entities engaged in
enforcing Coast Guard-imposed security zones around vessels
transiting to, through, or from United States ports or in
conducting port security patrols in United States ports (or
both) can deter to the maximum extent practicable a
transportation security incident (as that term is defined in
section 70101 of title 46, United States Code);
(4) the extent to which the Coast Guard has assessed the
ability of State and local law enforcement entities to carry
out the security assignments which they have been engaged to
perform, including their ability to meet any national
standards for training, equipment, and resources that have
been established by the Coast Guard in order to ensure that
these entities can deter to the maximum extent practicable a
transportation security incident (as that term is defined in
section 70101 of title 46, United States Code);
(5) the extent to which State and local law enforcement
entities are able to meet national standards for training,
equipment, and resources established by the Coast Guard to
ensure that those entities can deter to the maximum extent
practicable a transportation security incident (as that term
is defined in section 70101 of title 46, United States Code);
(6) the differences in law enforcement authority, and
particularly boarding authority, between the Coast Guard and
State and local law enforcement entities, and the impact that
these differences have on the ability of State and local law
enforcement entities to provide the same level of security
that the Coast Guard provides during the enforcement of Coast
Guard-imposed security zones and the conduct of security
patrols in United States ports; and
(7) the extent of resource, training, and equipment
differences between State and local law enforcement entities
and the Coast Guard units engaged in enforcing Coast Guard-
imposed security zones around vessels transiting to, through,
or from United States ports or conducting security patrols in
United States ports.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me start by thanking Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings and
Ranking Member LaTourette for their leadership and tireless advocacy on
behalf of the Coast Guard. I would also like to express my gratitude
for the invaluable service provided by our exemplary Coast Guardsmen
and women every day.
My amendment would require the Coast Guard to study the extent to
which State and local law enforcement augment Coast Guard resources by
enforcing Coast Guard-imposed security zones around vessels transiting
to and from U.S. ports and conducting port security patrols. The
amendment requires the Coast Guard to study and clarify their
relationship with local law enforcement, the standards set to ensure
that local law enforcement of Coast Guard security zones can deter a
security incident. The amendment also seeks to identify the differences
in law enforcement authority, particularly boarding authority, between
the Coast Guard and local law enforcement. This amendment is necessary
given evidence that the Coast Guard is overextended around the country.
A 2007 GAO report states that the assistance the Coast Guard already
receives from State and local law enforcement is vital to meet security
requirements with limited resources.
Some may point to this as a vindication of local law enforcement's
ability to share in the responsibilities of protecting hazardous cargo
from potential threats. I would argue that the GAO has shed a light on
a more fundamental issue: a lack of adequate Coast Guard resources and
a potential new role for local law enforcement that has historically
been reserved for the Coast Guard. This issue requires increased
scrutiny.
After 9/11 and the absorption of the Coast Guard by the Department of
Homeland Security, considerable strain was placed on Coast Guard
resources. This shortfall is apparent as dozens of LNG proposals across
the country compete for Coast Guard resources to make waterways
suitable for hazardous cargo. The Coast Guard on several occasions has
expressed its concerns to Congress about the proliferation of LNG
proposals that require extensive Coast Guard oversight. The limited
public discussion about who should provide these resources has led to
unanswered questions. Is this something that should be passed on to the
consumer through the price of goods? Is this a local responsibility? Is
this a Federal responsibility? This amendment begins the dialogue
necessary to clarify what ratio of responsibility is appropriate to
protect hazardous cargo.
It is vital to maritime security to determine the role local law
enforcement should play in protecting hazardous cargo so that, as
policymakers, we can determine exactly what the Coast Guard needs to
protect and preserve America's waterways.
Madam Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time
in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to start by thanking the Chair and the
Parliamentarian for clarification of a rule of the House that somehow
escaped my understanding, and it was interesting to have that
explanation. I apologize to the gentleman from Ohio if we had some
missteps even to the advantage of the committee.
Of course, I support the amendment, as I said at the outset. It's a
study and report amendment to provide a critical assessment of how much
the Coast Guard has done to establish standards for State and local law
enforcement units that perform maritime patrols and the extent to which
law enforcement can meet those standards. I think it's useful to have
that information.
Madam Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman very much for yielding.
Madam Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and are pleased
to accept it. I want to congratulate Mr. Bishop, a valued member of the
committee and the subcommittee.
This will require the Coast Guard to report on the use and
qualification of State and local officials used in a security
capacities at LNG facilities.
I would just remark parenthetically that I assume that the chairman
was able to close because he is much more revered in the institution
than I am, and I accept that and I also agree with that assessment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman. I think we got away with one for
a while.
Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished Chair of the subcommittee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, I fully support this amendment by Mr. Bishop, the
Vice Chair of our subcommittee.
This amendment would require the Coast Guard to detail the extent to
which State and local law enforcement entities are augmenting Coast
Guard resources by conducting port security patrols and by aiding in
the enforcement of Coast Guard-imposed security zones around vessels
entering our ports.
While I have the utmost respect for State and local law enforcement,
the subcommittee is concerned that such entities may be undertaking
maritime patrols to augment the Coast Guard's resources without having
previously had experience performing law enforcement functions on the
water and without fully understanding what it takes to respond to the
unique threats that
[[Page H2725]]
confront our Nation in the maritime environment.
The study required by Mr. Bishop's amendment would provide the
critical assessment that is needed both of whether the Coast Guard has
established adequate training, resource, and equipment standards for
State and local law enforcement units performing maritime patrols and
the extent to which law enforcement can meet these standards.
I fully support the amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chairman, let me simply close by
thanking Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings and Mr. LaTourette for
their support of this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 110-604.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
that has been made in order by the rule.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia:
Strikes titles X and XI.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I am offering this amendment because I am concerned about the intent
and the function of title X and title XI. I would like to seek some
clarification from the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), if he would
join me in a discussion.
Mr. Oberstar, with respect to title X, I'm concerned that if we
transfer 80 percent of the funding for the Coast Guard Administrative
Law Judge functions to the National Transportation Safety Board, the
Coast Guard will not be able to manage the appeals process of any of
the truck, rail, and port workers who might be denied the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, card. My
concern is that we will create a bottleneck in the appeals process,
effectively slowing TWIC appeals and preventing American workers from
gainful employment while appeals are adjudicated.
Can you assure us that when this bill emerges from conference that
you will make sure that the Coast Guard retains sufficient resources to
address the expected TWIC appeal workload resulting from the million
workers that are applying?
I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Certainly it's our intention to protect the resources of the Coast
Guard. We will work to assure that when a bill emerges from conference
that there will be sufficient change, that we will not elevate one
mission above any other critical Coast Guard mission.
And as further clarification, it was simply a request from NTSB that
at least for 1 year we transfer adequate funds to start off. So the
legislation limits that transfer of dollars to 1 year, and we will work
to assure the strengthening of that language to make sure that that's
only for 1 year. And then in the meantime, as I said in an earlier
discussion on this matter, we will go to the Appropriations Committee,
I hope in a bipartisan effort, to ask them to provide sufficient
additional funding for the Coast Guard to continue to carry out its
missions.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank you for that assurance. It's certainly
a huge issue, as far as I'm concerned, as we deal with Homeland
Security and TWIC cards. So I greatly appreciate the chairman's
assurance of that, and I'm looking forward to that bipartisan effort.
We, unfortunately, don't have enough bipartisanship and bipartisan
effort here; so I thank the chairman for that.
Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, with respect to title XI, I'm
concerned that the current language might give the appearance of
elevating the Coast Guard's marine safety mission above its other
critical missions, such as search and rescue, national defense, and
port security.
Can you confirm for me, Mr. Chairman, that it is not your intent to
elevate this one mission above other missions that are critical for the
Coast Guard?
I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Again I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is certainly not our intent to elevate marine safety. Marine
safety is one of several functions of the Coast Guard. But as I said in
earlier debates, when Mr. Young, then chairman of the committee, and I
were at the White House at the earliest stages of creating the
Department of Homeland Security, we raised this issue at the White
House and said, You're not making clear enough distinction between the
homeland security role of the Coast Guard and the other functions,
search and rescue, marine safety, aid in navigation, and so on. So
we're now providing that clear delineation, assuring there are adequate
resources, providing additional personnel to the Coast Guard, the first
really substantial increase in Coast Guard personnel since I came to
Congress in 1975. And I'm really insistent on this, that we do not
elevate above that but that we clearly delineate the marine safety
function of the Coast Guard.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Certainly that's important.
And reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his assurances, and
I appreciate his willingness to engage in this dialogue to clarify the
intent of these two titles and his commitment to work with me in
conference to ensure that the Coast Guard has the authorities and
resources it needs to secure our homeland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just wanted to say that we are very concerned, as you are, and
please note that no TWIC applicants have requested an ALJ hearing as of
April 13.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia's time has expired.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Chairman, I would like to claim the time in
opposition to the amendment even though I am not opposed and would
continue to yield to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, I want to join with Chairman Oberstar in strongly
opposing this amendment. But we do plan to work with the gentleman on
this.
Title X grants mariners a ``change of venue'' when they appeal the
suspension and revocation of their professional credentials from an
Administrative Law Judge system controlled by the very same Coast Guard
that is seeking to take their credentials to a system located in a
neutral agency, the National Transportation Safety Board.
{time} 1315
I note that title X would move only Coast Guard suspension and
revocation cases to NTSB. All other cases currently heard by the Coast
Guard ALJ, including cases from TSA, would be unaffected by title X. I
know that the concerns have been raised by the gentleman and that the
changes proposed in title X would leave the Coast Guard ALJ program
without the resources to handle the TSA, but we certainly question
that. However, I note that the cases heard by the Coast Guard's ALJ for
TSA and for other agencies, like NOAA, are heard on a cost
reimbursement basis. Title X would continue to allow agencies to
reimburse the Coast Guard ALJ for the costs associated with
adjudication of those cases
Further, I'd note that since TSA was established, that agency has
filed 504
[[Page H2726]]
civil penalty cases with the Coast Guard ALJ, 60 cases remain pending,
a total of 230 cases did not proceed to an adjudication. Orders
granting motions for a decision were issued in 156 cases, and dismissal
orders were granted in four cases.
Finally, let me say this. No TWIC applicants have requested an ALJ
hearing as of April 13, though there have been 230 enrollments, and
they started enrolling back in October of 2007. Decisions and orders
were issued in only 54 cases, which would be an average of about nine
cases per year.
So, again, we have the same concerns, and I hope you understand why
this even came about, because we have some very painful testimony from
mariners about how they felt that the system was already set up against
them before they got into the hearing room. And we had testimony from
Administrative Law Judges who were concerned that an atmosphere of
unfairness was being pushed upon them by those who may have been above
them.
So I think that the ranking member and I and other members of our
committee agreed that we needed to do something, and we thought this
was the best vehicle. We have the same concerns that you have.
With that, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. My concern was that the GAO is going to
investigate any improprieties within the current Administrative Law
Judge System, and that GAO report hasn't been completed. This just
seems premature. That is what drew my concern, and I appreciate the
chairman's assurances.
With that, I have got one more statement.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Reclaiming my time for a minute, it is my
understanding that the gentleman from Georgia is going to ask unanimous
consent to withdraw his amendment, and I want to express my
appreciation because the amendment, from my perspective, is
problematic. We do concur in the concerns that have been expressed in
the colloquy between the chairman and Mr. Broun, and I want to
congratulate Dr. Broun as another new Member of the House who has
really stepped up to the plate and brought important issues before this
body.
I would tell the gentleman that we did have some pretty illuminating
hearings on the Administrative Law Judge, and the current Acting
Chairman and I both served as prosecuting attorneys, she was also a
judge, and I would tell you that my experience, and I think she would
echo this, is that people can accept when they come into a forum if
they lose, as long as they believe that they have lost fairly. The
testimony that we received was that there are a number of people that
don't have that feeling going in. It was our hope by making this small
adjustment that even when they are ruled against, they will say, I got
my day in court.
That was the objective. I do appreciate the gentleman's concern. I
promise him that we will continue to work on it as it goes to
conference.
I would be happy to yield once again to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I submit for the Record two
letters, a statement from the Commandant of the Coast Guard, as well as
the letter from TSA stating their concern on these titles.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast
Guard,
Washington, DC, April 23, 2008.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Oberstar: On April 18, the Committee filed
with the Rules Committee an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 2830, that would be retitled the ``Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 2008.'' During numerous meetings
and staff-level discussions over several months, we have
described how a number of provisions that appear in this
amendment would compromise organizational efficiency and
operational effectiveness, diminish my command and control,
and ultimately reduce the Coast Guard's effectiveness in
carrying out its safety, security, and stewardship missions.
We have expressed these and other concerns in Department of
Homeland Security views letters concerning earlier bill
language. The amendment also contains provisions neither
previously shared nor discussed with the Coast Guard.
One provision requiring that the Coast Guard provide
security around liquefied natural gas terminals and tankers
is contrary to the existing assistance framework, at odds
with accepted risk management practices, and would divert
finite Coast Guard assets from other high-priority missions.
I recommend a broader discussion of security measures for all
extremely hazardous cargoes. In the Statement of
Administration Policy on H.R. 2830, the Administration has
stated that, if the bill is presented to the President with
this provision, his senior advisors would recommend that he
veto the bill.
Among the others is one that, while similar to the
Administration's proposal, fails to authorize the President
to appoint officers to positions of importance and
responsibility to accommodate organizational change in the
future (Admirals and Vice Admirals). Others, primarily
involving our important marine safety mission, would
statutorily fix the designation and duties of other senior
Coast Guard officials and officials at all levels of command,
and prescribe inflexible personnel qualification
requirements. Still other provisions would diminish the Coast
Guard's capacity to adjudicate merchant mariner licensing
matters efficiently and effectively and support other vital
security adjudications of the Department of Homeland Security
(Appeals to National Transportation Safety Board). Still more
provisions would prescribe contracting and acquisition
practices for the Deepwater program, thereby increasing the
cost of, and adding delay to, the Deepwater acquisition
process, as well as circumventing the review and approval
authority of Coast Guard technical authorities (Coast Guard
Integrated Deepwater Program).
Among the new provisions is one that dramatically alters
admission procedures for the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. While
I have discussed Academy admissions several times with
Chairman Cummings and we agree that our process should yield
successful cadets and reflect our diverse society, the
proposed Congressional nomination process deserves full
discussion and deliberate consideration. Other new provisions
that affect how we execute our missions deserve similar
scrutiny. Conversely, the bill omits the Administration
proposal for much needed enhanced authority to prosecute
those who would smuggle undocumented aliens into the United
States by sea (Maritime Alien Smuggling Law Enforcement Act)
and 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 (Protection of and fair treatment of seafarers).
Over the last year in the course of hearings, personal
meetings with you, and regional forums with industry, as well
as in my public statements, I have assured you and the public
that we share a common objective: a robust marine safety
program suited to meet the evolving demands of industry and
the marine public. I am already taking aggressive steps to
right the balance between our marine safety mission and our
other vital responsibilities, and improve the effectiveness,
consistency, and responsiveness of our marine safety program,
consistent with the framework I presented to you last
September. Legislation such as the provisions I describe
above was unnecessary to start this process. As I have stated
on several occasions, I am the Commandant and am accountable
to you to produce the changes needed to improve program
performance.
Including these provisions and others in an Authorization
Act that would otherwise be welcome compels me to strongly
oppose the bill.
Sincerely,
T.W. Allen,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
____
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration,
Arlington, VA, April 22, 2008.
Hon. Peter T. King,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman King: I am writing to express the
Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) strong
opposition to Title X--Appeals to National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) of the manager's amendment to H.R. 2830,
the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007.'' Title X would
transfer Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) authority
for review of merchant mariner documentation and 80 percent
of the Coast Guard ALJ budget to the NTSB. This could have an
adverse impact upon the adjudication of TSA's civil
enforcement cases and anticipated cases dealing with the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
program.
TSA questions whether sufficient legal, administrative, and
budget resources will continue to be provided to the Coast
Guard to support its remaining ALJ functions, including
adjudication of TSA security cases.
For more than 5 years, TSA has been extremely well served
by the Coast Guard ALJs as fair, impartial, and responsive
adjudicators in security cases involving individuals in the
transportation sector. Under an interagency agreement, Coast
Guard ALJs play a major role in TSA's enforcement and
security credentialing programs. They adjudicate aviation
security civil penalty cases,
[[Page H2727]]
Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME) and TWIC denials of
requests for waivers and appeals from individuals who have
received a Final Determination of Threat Assessment; appeals
by air cargo workers who have received a Final Determination
of Threat Assessment; and appeals by individuals holding or
applying for Federal Aviation Administration certificates,
ratings, or authorizations who have received a Final
Determination of Threat Assessment.
In the absence of sufficient ALJ legal and administrative
resources at the Coast Guard, TSA does not regard NTSB ALJs
as a good alternative. Coast Guard ALJs have substantial
expertise in fair adjudication of security programs. NTSB
ALJs do not have expertise in transportation security
matters. As TSA continually expands the implementation of the
TWIC program and the Coast Guard enforces it at our Nation's
seaports, TSA and TWIC applicants will benefit from the
substantial experience Coast Guard ALJs have in the maritime
security environment.
In addition, Coast Guard ALJs have been sensitive to the
challenges faced by individuals representing themselves in a
formal administrative process and have worked with TSA to
develop simplified procedures.
TSA and Coast Guard have worked together for years to
establish caseload management procedures, agreements, and
funding processes to efficiently handle TSA cases. For
example, the Coast Guard serves as TSA's Docketing Center for
its formal hearing process. Shifting the workload to ALJs of
another agency would create a huge setback for TSA
enforcement and administration. ALJ coverage, budgeting,
processing time, and even geographic availability would have
to be reassessed and reestablished, a process that may take
several years.
In addition, TSA's HME and TWIC are fee-based programs. TSA
developed its fee models based on Coast Guard cost estimates
and processing models. If conditions necessitate TSA's
seeking ALJ services outside Coast Guard, this could affect
program costs, and consequently, fees for applicants.
I would appreciate your consideration of TSA's concerns
about the potential adverse impact of Title X on the
efficient adjudication of important TSA security cases.
Identical letters have been sent to the Chairman of the
House Homeland Security Committee as well as the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Claire
Heffernan, Acting Assistant Administrator for Legislative
Affairs, at (571) 227-2717 if you have any questions about
this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Kip Hawley,
Assistant Secretary.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Cuellar
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 110-604.
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Cuellar:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. __. MISSION REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS FOR NAVIGABLE PORTIONS
OF THE RIO GRANDE RIVER, TEXAS, INTERNATIONAL
WATER BOUNDARY.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating shall prepare a mission requirement
analysis for the navigable portions of the Rio Grande River,
Texas, international water boundary. The analysis shall take
into account the Coast Guard's involvement on the Rio Grande
River by assessing Coast Guard missions, assets, and
personnel assigned along the Rio Grande River. The analysis
shall also identify what would be needed for the Coast Guard
to increase search and rescue operations, migrant
interdiction operations, and drug interdiction operations.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and also Chairman Cummings
and the ranking member from Ohio for the work that they have done on
this particular bill, and also, Chairman Thompson, from the Committe on
Homeland Security, for the work that they did on this bill together.
I also understand, Madam Chair, that this amendment is acceptable
both to the majority and the minority, and it's also bipartisan. I
believe Congressman McCaul will be speaking on this amendment in a few
minutes.
Madam Chair, today the U.S. House of Representatives has an
opportunity to improve the important and critical mission of the United
States Coast Guard. One of the Coast Guard's most important functions
is providing safety and security in international waters. I was born in
Laredo, Texas. Laredo is located on the international border between
the United States and Mexico. Our border is divided by the
international waters called the Rio Grande River.
There have been many efforts to improve security along the U.S.-
Mexico border. Some of those partnerships between the local and Federal
Government law enforcement agencies have proven to be beneficial. The
border security responsibilities shared by law enforcement departments
are complicated for the first responders from the local communities
that are located on the international waters of the Rio Grande. The
safety of the international boundary is a national security concern, as
the level of violence in Mexico increases and spills across the border.
Drugs, cash, and people continue to cross the border into the United
States, despite our efforts.
I am consistently asked and contacted by local officials in my
district who are asking for more support in their border security
effort, specifically for help in patrolling the international waters of
the Rio Grande. Unfortunately, the local law enforcement agencies and
the border patrol have limited resources for patrolling the
international water boundary. As the Rio Grande represents over 1,200
miles of international border, I believe that it is time to address the
critical need to provide security on the Rio Grande River and not just
along the shores of the Rio Grande River.
My amendment would charge the U.S. Coast Guard to analyze what the
current mission is along the international waters, including personnel
and assets assessment. My amendment also asks the U.S. Coast Guard to
identify what resources will be needed to increase the Coast Guard
presence along the international boundary.
Madam Chair, there has been many discussions as to how to best secure
the United States border along with Mexico. My amendment would simply
allow us to consider the possibility of increasing the Coast Guard's
presence in the area of unquestionable, the international waters of the
Rio Grande River.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to
claim time, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I rise in support of this amendment. I want to
commend my colleague, Congressman Cuellar, for bringing this amendment
to the floor, and I am honored to support it. He has a great deal of
expertise in this area. We have traveled to the border towns together,
both on the United States side and in Mexico, and I met with law
enforcement on both sides of the aisle and with government officials
and we served on the United States-Mexico Interparliamentary Group. He
understands the importance of security at the border, and particularly
in the post 9/11 world.
Currently, there is little Coast Guard presence on international
waterways shared with Mexico. This amendment would require the United
States Coast Guard to provide an analysis of their mission strength for
the navigable portions of the Rio Grande River in Texas. The amendment
also asks the U.S. Coast Guard to identify what resources would be
needed to increase the Coast Guard's presence along the international
boundary of the Rio Grande River.
One of the Coast Guard's most important functions is providing safety
and security in international waters, and the safety of the
international border is a national security concern as the level of
violence in Mexico increases and continues to spill across our border.
Contraband and undocumented people continue to pass and cross the
[[Page H2728]]
border into the United States, despite our best efforts. This amendment
may also pave the way for future studies assessing the need for Coast
Guard presence in other areas of the United States where waterways are
shared on the border of Mexico and with Canada.
So having said that, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Cuellar, for
bringing this amendment, and I rise in support.
I yield to my colleague from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We are not opposed to this amendment. We are willing to accept the
amendment, which requires the Coast Guard to develop mission needs down
on the Rio Grande. I want to congratulate Mr. Cuellar and Mr. McCaul,
who looks remarkably like Mr. Fortenberry, for bringing this amendment
before the House. We accept it.
Mr. CUELLAR. I just want to thank again the Chairman, Mr. Oberstar;
Mr. Thompson, Mr. Cummings, the ranking member from Ohio, and of course
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
I yield the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Kirk
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 110-604.
Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Kirk:
Page 184, line 22, after ``subparagraph (A)'' insert ``or
(B).''
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. I rise in strong support of the underlying legislation,
which provides critical protection for our Nation's waterways. For the
first time, this legislation requires ballast water treatment of ships
entering the Great Lakes, which claim to have no ballast water on
board. These ships were previously not subject to any exchange or
treatment requirements, and that created a massive loophole through
which invasive species were introduced in our precious Great Lakes. I
am very happy that this provision, similar to one I authored with Mr.
Emanuel in H.R. 801, will close this dangerous and expensive loophole
that, unfortunately, has so radically changed the Great Lakes
environment.
However, there is another loophole which currently exists in the bill
which could help spread endemic diseases affecting a myriad of Great
Lakes fish. Viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or VHS, is a highly
contagious viral disease that caused a significant number of fish
deaths in North America since its introduction just in 2005. This virus
is only present in four of the five Great Lakes so far, and threatens
to cost billions of dollars to the region in lost fishing and tourism
revenue.
While the bill currently requires foreign ships to treat their
ballast tanks in order to prevent new diseases from entering the Great
Lakes, it exempts vessels from treating their ballast tanks when they
operate exclusively inside the Great Lakes. This is a loophole which
should be closed in the event of an emergency pathogen outbreak. While
the Great Lakes ships do not introduce new pathogens into the lakes,
they can fully transmit a disease from one lake to another. Currently,
Lake Superior is not yet infected with VHS.
My amendment would close the loophole by providing the Secretary of
Agriculture with the authority to request that Great Lakes vessels
install ballast water treatment systems approved by the Coast Guard,
should the Secretary deem it necessary in order to prevent the spread
of an infectious disease from one Great Lake to another. The amendment
is supported by the Healing Our Waters, Great Lakes Coalition.
I want to thank the chairman and ranking minority member, my
colleague from Ohio, for working with me on this very important
amendment. It's crucial that we provide the Department of Agriculture
with the authority to prevent the spread of VHS to a lake like Lake
Superior and to give them the authority to slow down or stop the spread
of other infectious pathogens. We must provide officials with all the
necessary tools that they need to protect this critical ecosystem, the
crown jewel of the Midwest environment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for offering this amendment. It does
indeed correct a technical mistake and oversight in drafting the bill.
There should have been a cross-reference as we inserted one provision
in the bill so that the interlake transfer of ballast water would have
been covered. Unfortunately, it was an oversight that the legislative
counsel did not catch in time, and our committee staff found it after
the manager's amendment had been already presented. So through the
vigilance of the gentleman from Illinois and his concern for interlake
transfer, we certainly accept this provision.
I am very happy to report that not only did we deal with invasive
species in the WRDA bill, but also in this Coast Guard bill. It is the
first time we have enforcement language on invasive species and
interlake transfer. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) said
earlier today, this is a bad day for invasive species. This is another
bad moment for invasive species.
I also want to mention that either next week or the following week I
have a meeting, the subject of which I have already discussed with Mr.
LaTourette, with one of our major interlake shipping companies and
other entities to put in place this shipping season a control pilot
program for ballast water for lakers. The lakers present a more
complicated challenge on ballast water exchange because they have four
or five times as many ballast chambers as do the salties coming into
the Great Lakes, and dealing with the volume of water and the number of
ballast chambers and the treatment technology, it becomes much more
complicated for interlake shipping.
We are going to address that this summer. We are going to put in
place a pilot program and explore all of the treatment methodologies
and equipment and chemicals and how to treat those chemicals before
they are again discharged back into the waters of the Great Lakes. And
the viral hemorrhagic septicemia issue is chief among those. I think
science still doesn't know how to address it. But it and other such
assaults upon this one-fifth of all the fresh water upon the face of
the Earth is vital. We make an assault upon it in this legislation, and
we are determined to follow it through.
I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, we wholeheartedly support this amendment and
congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for his catch and
for his unwavering diligence and vigilance on Great Lakes water quality
issues. Those of us that have the pleasure to represent districts that
are near or abut the Great Lakes know the damage that has been done by
invasive species, both plants, animals and pathogens. The gentleman's
amendment improves upon our bill.
As I said before during general debate, I am so proud of this
committee's work on this ballast water exchange program. It really is a
shining example of how Members of both parties can come together and do
the right thing and the noble thing, and that, of course, all begins at
the top with Chairman Oberstar's leadership.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for the amendment.
Without a doubt, it makes the bill better. I too am very proud of what
we have
[[Page H2729]]
been able to accomplish with regard to ballast water. We have a duty to
protect our environment, and this goes a long ways towards it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, it is not just the Great Lakes, it's the
saltwater ports as well. Our colleagues on the west coast for many
years, I remember in the seventies and eighties, were saying, what are
you worried about invasive species for? Then curious creatures began to
appear in the waters of the ports on the west coast from ballast water
discharged in those ports from vessels leaving the Pacific Rim, from
Japan to Korea to the South China Sea. So this is a unified effort
here.
Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, just to conclude, the West has the Grand
Canyon as its crown jewel of the environment. Florida has the
Everglades. But for us in the Midwest, it is the Great Lakes.
We have seen a failure to properly manage shipping in the past
introduce a number of alien species. Our environment has suffered from
the introduction of the lamprey eel, the rock goby, the fishhook flea,
and now viral hemorrhagic septicemia. This legislation is essential to
slow down the assault on the Great Lakes with these new species
introduced into our critical ecosystem.
I want to thank my colleagues from Minnesota and from Ohio for
joining together with this critical legislation, and urge adoption of
the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 110-604.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in House Report 110-604.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 14 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas:
At the end of title VII add the following new section:
SEC. __. ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CARD
ENROLLMENT SITES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall prepare an assessment of the enrollment sites for
transportation security cards issued under section 70105 of
title 46, United States Code, including--
(1) the feasibility of keeping those enrollment sites open
24 hours per day, and 7 days per week, in order to better
handle the large number of applications for such cards;
(2) the feasibility of keeping those enrollment sites open
after September 25, 2008;
(3) the quality of customer service, including the periods
of time individuals are kept on hold on the telephone,
whether appointments are kept, and processing times for
applications.
(b) Timelines and Benchmarks.--The Secretary shall develop
timelines and benchmarks for implementing the findings of the
assessment as the Secretary deems necessary.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, as I indicated in the
general debate, this is an exercise in unity as relates to the safety
and security of the Nation and, of course, the reauthorization and the
emphasis of the specialness of the Coast Guard. I am delighted to come
from the fourth largest city in the Nation and to have a very large
port that benefits from the outstanding service of the U.S. Coast
Guard.
I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for not only his eloquence, but his
long-standing history and knowledge of what we needed to do in this
Congress, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings, and as well
the distinguished, as they all are distinguished, ranking member of the
full committee, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, working on this
along with my full committee chair, Mr. Thompson. I serve as the
Subcommittee Chair on Transportation, Security, and Infrastructure
Protection. We have had a number of opportunities to work together. So
we are filled with tasks, and those tasks must be addressed.
I rise in support of the legislation. My amendment is a simple but
important addition to this vital legislation, which I believe can be
supported by every Member of the House.
My amendment calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare
an assessment of the enrollment site for the Transportation Worker
Identification Credential, TWIC, which we have heard so much about.
These cards are issued under section 70105 of Title 46 USC within 30
days of the enactment of this act.
The assessment should at a minimum examine the feasibility of keeping
those enrollment sites open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, in order
to better handle the large number of applicants for such cards, the
feasibility of keeping those enrollment sites open after September 25,
2008, and the quality of customer service, including the periods of
time individuals are kept on hold on the telephone, appointments are
kept, and processing times for applications. We are here to help.
In our committee, we have heard over and over again, everyone is
trying to meet the deadline. DHS, the Department of Homeland Security,
has a deadline. We believe as Members of Congress they should have a
deadline to secure America, but we must make sure that the deadline is
realistic in light of the resources and the tools that they have to
comply.
Madam Chairman, I continue to receive firsthand accounts from my
constituents in and around the Nation that deal with the question of
transportation workers and operators who are frustrated because of
sometimes the unsatisfactory performance of TWIC enrollment sites.
I have spoken with a multitude of people from throughout the country
who have shared with me the great difficulty they experience due to
administrative obstacles obtaining their TWIC cards. These obstacles
include the lack of enrollment sites or the difficulty in getting to
the enrollment sites, making appointments at enrollment sites which are
not kept, long processing lines for applications, and staying on hold
for hours on the telephone. While we have made securing our Nation a
priority, we must ensure we do so in the most productive way.
Let me just briefly say what we have seen from the State of Texas and
around the Nation. For example, a marine worker at the Houston Port
enrolled on December 13, 2007, at the Houston center. To this date, he
does not have a card. He remained on hold for 4 hours and 10 minutes
and was finally told by the operator that he would have to return to
Houston to be fingerprinted again after April. Incidentally, a
representative of the Higman Marine Services asked the same question
about the employee. That person was told that they should not return
until June.
These inconsistencies in service and information are not helping us
get our TWIC cards to those individuals, hard-working Americans who
need to have a job and a TWIC card to work.
Furthermore, another transportation worker went to the Beaumont
center about 3 weeks ago to pick up his TWIC after being notified it
was ready. He traveled from a place in Texas. He was told that the card
was accidentally shipped to Houston and he could drive 85 miles to pick
it up. He presently does not have a card, and therefore he is not able
to move forward. The list of incidents go on.
My amendment calls for the Secretary to assess within a month of the
enactment these TWIC enrollment sites to determine the feasibility of
having them open at times when transportation workers can come and
improve the quality of processing procedures. Furthermore, my amendment
calls on the Secretary to develop timelines and benchmarks on their
assessment. Finally, it calls for them to implement any changes
necessary, including keeping it open 24 hours a day, keeping it open 7
days a week, but really at the assessment of the Department of Homeland
Security.
Workers are trying to do what they are supposed to do. We have to do
what we have to do. I believe this amendment will help do it better,
and I believe it is part of the security fabric,
[[Page H2730]]
and I hope that we will pass this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for affording me this opportunity to
address the Members of the House of Representatives and explain my
amendment to H.R. 2830, the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007.''
My amendment is a simple but important addition to this important
legislation, which I believe can be supported by every Member of this
House.
My amendment calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare
an assessment of the enrollment sites for Transportation Worker
Identification Credential, TWIC, cards issued under section 70105 of
title 46, United States Code, within 30 days of the enactment of this
Act. This assessment should, at a minimum, examine: the feasibility of
keeping those enrollment sites open 24 hours per day, and 7 days per
week, in order to better handle the large number of applicants for such
cards; the feasibility of keeping those enrollment sites open after
September 25, 2008; and the quality of customer service, including the
periods of time individuals are kept on hold on the telephone, whether
appointments are kept, and processing times for applications.
Madam Chairman, I continue to receive firsthand accounts from my
constituents in Houston and from other transportation workers and
operators around the country regarding their frustrations and the
unsatisfactory performance of TWIC enrollment sites. I have spoken with
a multitude of people from throughout the country who have shared with
me the great difficulties they experienced due to administrative
obstacles in obtaining their TWIC cards. These obstacles include the
difficulty of going to enrollment sites, making appointments at
enrollment sites which are not kept, long processing times for
applications, and staying on hold for hours on the telephone. While we
have made securing our Nation a priority, we must ensure that we do so
in the most effective and efficient way possible.
I would like to reiterate only few of the obstacles that workers have
faced in my State of Texas as well in my district of Houston. For
example, a marine worker enrolled at the Houston Port enrolled on
December 13, 2007. To this date, he still does not yet have a TWIC
card. He remained on hold for 4 hours and 10 minutes and was finally
told by the operator that he would have to return to Houston to be
fingerprinted again after APR. Incidentally, a representative of Higman
Marine Services, Inc., asked the same question about their employee,
and she was told that he should not return until June. This blatant
inconsistency in service and information is simply unacceptable.
Furthermore, another transportation worker went to the Beaumont center
about 3 weeks ago to pick up his TWIC after being notified it was
ready. He traveled from Hemphill, TX (117 miles) and was told that the
card was accidentally shipped to Houston and he could drive there (85
miles) to pick it up. He presently does not have his card. The list of
incidences in which workers have to continually overcome structural
impediments is too long for me to name. It is from my concern for these
workers that I have introduced my amendment.
That is why my amendment calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security
to assess, within a month of this Act's enactment, these TWIC
enrollment sites to determine the feasibility of having them open at
times where transportation workers can come and to improve the quality
of their processing procedures. Furthermore, my amendment calls on the
Secretary of Homeland Security to develop timelines and benchmarks for
implementing the findings of the assessment as the Secretary deems
necessary. By identifying the areas in which enrollment sites for
homeland security cards are ineffective and inefficient and creating a
timeline through which to implement necessary changes and benchmarks to
ensure their progress and accountability, we will make this nation a
safer place--accessible to labor and operators alike.
In short, Madam Chairman, my amendment can be summed up as follows:
for those who have confidence in how these TWIC enrollment sites are
administering this program, my amendment offers vindication. For those
who are skeptical and have seen firsthand the problems apparent at
these enrollment sites, my amendment will provide the information
necessary to rectify the causes for their frustrations and a way
forward to ensure that the results of this assessment are actually
implemented.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control
the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her thoughtful amendment.
We are willing to accept her amendment, which will require the
Department of Homeland Security to assess measures that may encourage
maritime workers to accelerate application rates for the TWIC card. We
all know a deadline is looming.
The only observation I would make so that no one is under a
misapprehension, nobody has been prevented from working yet, because
the TWIC requirements don't go into effect until September. But we
support the gentlewoman's amendment. We think it is a thoughtful
amendment.
I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the full committee for
his thoughts.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and the gentlewoman
for offering the amendment and her deep concern, which we share on the
committee, for those maritime workers.
Madam Chairman, 230,000 applied and 64,000 have actually received
their cards. There is a bottleneck at TSA principally in printing out
those cards, and the amendment just provides a margin of safety and a
time to accomplish the objective.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I am happy to yield to the chairman of the
subcommittee for his observations.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have convened
two hearings, Madam Chairman, in the Coast Guard Subcommittee on the
TWIC card. Our most recent hearing was held in January after the
enrollment process had been underway for a few months.
During that hearing, we heard about some of the glitches that
individuals attempting to enroll have encountered. Such glitches are
unacceptable when workers must pay $132.50 and take time off from work
to obtain a card that they are required to have to do their job and to
provide for their families.
TWIC is an essential part of our post-security regime and is intended
to ensure that those who pose a threat to our maritime infrastructure
do not gain access to the secure areas of vessels or port facilities.
{time} 1345
However, enrollment must be conducted as seamlessly as possible to
cause the least burden to those workers. And I want to thank Ms.
Jackson-Lee for her amendment. It helps to make our bill a better bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. It is my understanding that the gentlelady's time has
expired. I learned the hard way today that I don't have the right to
close. But I would be happy to yield the balance of our time to the
sponsor of the legislation, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I just want to thank all of you, and I
believe that this is the right step. The action item is that they
should implement the process of their study to make it work for our
various mariners so that they can be part of the security of America. I
ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Stupak
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 110-604.
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Stupak:
At the end of title IV add the following new section:
SEC. __. LAND CONVEYANCE, COAST GUARD PROPERTY IN MARQUETTE
COUNTY, MICHIGAN, TO THE CITY OF MARQUETTE,
MICHIGAN.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Commandant of the Coast
Guard may convey, without consideration, to the City of
Marquette, Michigan (in this section referred to as the
``City''), all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of real property, together with any
improvements thereon, located in Marquette County, Michigan,
that is under the administrative control of the Coast Guard,
consists of approximately 5.5 acres, and is commonly
identified as Coast Guard Station Marquette and Lighthouse
Point.
[[Page H2731]]
(b) Retention of Certain Easements.--In conveying the
property under subsection (a), the Commandant of the Coast
Guard may retain such easements over the property as the
Commandant considers appropriate for access to aids to
navigation.
(c) Limitations.--The property to be conveyed by subsection
(a) may not be conveyed under that subsection until--
(1) the Coast Guard has relocated Coast Guard Station
Marquette to a newly constructed station;
(2) any environmental remediation required under Federal
law with respect to the property has been completed;
(3) the Commandant of the Coast Guard determines that
retention of the property by the United States is not
required to carry out Coast Guard missions or functions.
(d) Conditions of Transfer.--All conditions placed within
the deed of title of the property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be construed as covenants running with
the land.
(e) Inapplicability of Screening or Other Requirements.--
The conveyance of property authorized by subsection (a) shall
be made without regard to the following;
(1) Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) Chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code.
(3) Any other provision of law relating to the screening,
evaluation, or administration of excess or surplus Federal
property prior to conveyance by the Administrator of General
Services.
(f) Expiration of Authority.--The authority in subsection
(a) shall expire on the date that is five years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(g) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property to be conveyed under subsection
(a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Commandant of the Coast Guard. The cost of the survey shall
be borne by the United States.
(h) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Commandant of the
Coast Guard may require such additional terms and conditions
in connection with the conveyance authorized by subsection
(a) as the Commandant considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, my amendment will facilitate a simple
land transfer between the U.S. Coast Guard and the city of Marquette,
Michigan.
The Coast Guard is currently located at the Coast Guard Station
Marquette and Lighthouse Point in Marquette County on nine acres of
land east of the Marquette Maritime Museum. This facility was
originally constructed in 1891, and is the oldest of all U.S. Coast
Guard lifesaving facilities in the Nation.
The Coast Guard is in the process of relocating to a new location
just south of the Marquette Maritime Museum. This location will bring
the Coast Guard closer to where their boats are docked and will help
the Coast Guard respond to emergencies more quickly.
The City of Marquette sold this property for the new facility, 1.5
acres on the waterfront, to the Coast Guard for $1. In addition, the
City of Marquette has committed $170,000 to reroute bike trails, make
roadway improvements and other necessary infrastructure improvements in
order to prepare the property for the new Coast Guard facility.
On April 7, 2008, the City of Marquette signed the official documents
to turn over the City property to the Coast Guard. Upon moving to this
new property, the Coast Guard will vacate their existing location.
My amendment will convey the property of the old Coast Guard facility
to the City of Marquette. This is a straightforward amendment. The
Coast Guard supports the conveyance of the existing property to the
City. The City of Marquette is also in support of the land transfer,
which would assist in accomplishing the goals outlined in the City's
strategic Harbor Master Plan.
The Coast Guard Station in Marquette plays a vital role in responding
to emergencies in the City of Marquette, the surrounding area, and on
Lake Superior. This land transfer will facilitate a continued Coast
Guard presence within the Marquette area. Without a well-equipped and
state-of-the-art Coast Guard Station in Marquette, there would be
virtually no presence of the Coast Guard between Sault Ste. Marie and
Houghton, Michigan, which represents a stretch of at least 300 miles of
shoreline on Lake Superior. This is a win-win for the Coast Guard and
the City of Marquette.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment, and I
encourage members to vote for final passage of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act.
Vote ``yes'' on the Stupak amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to
the amendment, though I do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment is very limited in nature, very specific,
to deal with the transfer of property that will not take place until
the Coast Guard has relocated the station at facilities that are yet to
be built. It will also not take place until environmental cleanup has
occurred on the existing site. And that is important. The commandant
has determined that retention of property is not required to carry out
any other Coast Guard mission. So protection for the Coast Guard,
protection for the City and the cleanup provisions, and it is a very
beneficial amendment.
I want to address another matter, the concern of the gentleman from
Michigan about the transfer of excess property to the Christian
Cornerstone Academy, a land transfer that is supported by the Coast
Guard, by the Academy, and the community of Sheboygan. We had already
filed the manager's amendment at the time that this issue came to the
attention of the gentleman from Michigan, and it was not possible to
include that in the manager's amendment nor in the amendments
considered by the Rules Committee.
But I do want to assure the gentleman that we will work to accomplish
the purposes of this land transfer as we get into conference with the
other body. Or, should such language be included by the other body in
their version of the Coast Guard, which is now working its way to the
floor of the other body, that we should expect to meet in conference
and recognize the special needs in this matter. The Coast Guard
executed a 10-year, no cost lease for the construction of the
Cornerstone Christian Academy in Sheboygan. The lease has been
renegotiated to fair market value. The Coast Guard has deemed 6 acres
of the property as excess, if I have described the matter rightly.
I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the distinguished chairman.
The gentleman is correct, not only on Marquette but on the Christian
Cornerstone Academy. We have been working to transfer this excess land.
It would have been a straightforward transfer and supported by the
Coast Guard to Christian Cornerstone Academy in the Sheboygan
community.
I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with us to have this
inserted either at the Senate level or in conference. And, as always, I
appreciate the gentleman's knowledge and wisdom on Coast Guard and
Great Lakes issues, and look forward to continuing to work with him on
this and thank him for his courtesies on this amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
We are also willing to accept the gentleman from Michigan's
amendment, which authorizes the conveyance of property and the light
station to Marquette, Michigan. This provision follows the standard
language that has been used by the committee in other light station
conveyances in previous years.
I would just note, I know the chairman of the full committee
represents very hearty folk. When he came to Akron and said that it was
41 below, I think, at International Falls, I also know the gentleman
from Michigan, having gone to school in Michigan representing the UP,
represents very hearty folk. And so I hope we not only give them what
he wants in Marquette, but Sheboygan as well, because they deserve it
because it is really cold.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.
[[Page H2732]]
Mr. CUMMINGS. I heartily support the amendment of Mr. Stupak.
The amount of land being conveyed here under this amendment is only
5.5 acres, and I believe it is appropriate that once the Coast Guard
leaves this site, the land and the lighthouse be made available to a
local municipality that can preserve these resources and utilize them
for the public purpose.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his work to
craft the Coast Guard Authorization Act, and for recognizing the need
for a Coast Guard presence on the Great Lakes.
The Coast Guard Cutter ACACIA was decommissioned on June 7, 2006,
after over 60 years of service to this country. The ACACIA has been
stationed in Charlevoix, Michigan since 1990.
The ACACIA provided essential navigational and search and rescue
services in the northern Great Lakes. This work is important for the
safety as well as for businesses and individuals that rely on the Great
Lakes. This year's cold winter showcased the need for a cutter presence
when Beaver Island once again had to make an emergency call to the
Coast Guard to break ice for a shipment of fuel for the island. This,
unfortunately, is a common occurrence during the cold winter months,
and this winter was exceptionally long and cold.
It is important that this new Coast Guard cutter or similar asset be
stationed in Charlevoix. To facilitate this, I worked closely with the
chairman to include language in the Coast Guard Authorization Act 2006
to require the Coast Guard Station to sustain icebreaking vessel
capabilities in the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has
ignored congressional intent.
I appreciate the chairman's support in our efforts, and I look
forward to working with the chairman and ranking member, and the chair
of the Coast Guard subcommittee, to ensure that the Coast Guard honors
congressional intent and provides adequate icebreaking services in the
Northern Great Lakes.
I yield to the chairman for comment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I share the gentleman's concern for adequate
icebreaking capability on the Great Lakes. We have the new icebreaker
Mackinaw. The Coast Guard has smaller harbor icebreakers. But they
simply are not sufficient to keep channels open. This past shipping
season, the Coast Guard failed to send the Mackinaw upstream, up lake,
to keep channels open for shipping of iron ore to lower lake steel
mills.
I assure the gentleman, I will work diligently with the Coast Guard
to keep their attention focused on our needs for icebreaking capability
on the Great Lakes. On the Chesapeake Bay, I said to the chairman of
the subcommittee, you don't have that problem. It doesn't freeze over.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for his words. I thank the work
from the chairman on all Coast Guard and Great Lakes issues. I thank
Mr. Cummings and Mr. LaTourette for their help and support.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement By the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
110-604 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Poe of Texas.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. McNerney of California.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The
second electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Poe
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 408,
noes 1, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 220]
AYES--408
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
[[Page H2733]]
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--27
Alexander
Andrews
Blackburn
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Campbell (CA)
Cramer
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doggett
Everett
Faleomavaega
Feeney
Higgins
Hulshof
Kind
LaHood
Lungren, Daniel E.
McCrery
Nadler
Pascrell
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Udall (NM)
Waxman
Weller
{time} 1421
Messrs. MILLER of North Carolina and ISSA changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The unfinished
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 408,
noes 0, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 221]
AYES--408
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Alexander
Andrews
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Campbell (CA)
Cramer
Doggett
Everett
Faleomavaega
Feeney
Higgins
Hulshof
LaHood
Loebsack
Marshall
Nadler
Pascrell
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Reynolds
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Udall (NM)
Weller
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Approximately 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 1430
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote 221, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Serrano) having assumed the chair, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Acting
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2830) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal
year 2008, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 1126,
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Chabot
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CHABOT. Yes, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Chabot moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2830 to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions
[[Page H2734]]
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
At the end of title IV add the following:
SEC. __. EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION.
Section 3503(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2018''.
Mr. CHABOT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this motion is really quite simple. It
continues the will of Congress, a will dating as far back as 1968 to
allow the Delta Queen to operate within the inland waters of the United
States. It's an exemption that's been granted by Congress on a number
of occasions, eight times to be exact, most recently in 1996. However,
unless it is renewed this year, this national treasure will be forced
ashore unnecessarily. And unfortunately, an important chapter in our
Nation's history will close.
For those who may be unfamiliar with the Delta Queen, and this is her
right here, and its significance to this Nation, let me give you a
brief history of what the Delta Queen is and is not. The Delta Queen is
a symbol of our Nation's past serving as the last overnight operational
steam paddle wheeler. She represents where we started as a Nation and
our trials and tribulations and our progress over the years.
The Delta Queen is a registered national historic landmark and is a
member of the National Maritime Hall of Fame. She is part of the
greatest generation, honorably serving our country during World War II,
first as a Navy barracks and later transporting servicemen to and from
the Navy shipyards docked in the San Francisco harbor.
The Delta Queen provides jobs to American families and is a critical
source of revenue for local communities, opening up towns and
communities located along the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers
such as Ashland, Kentucky; Gallipolis, Ohio; and Clarksville, Indiana,
to tourists and allowing mom-and-pop businesses to flourish.
Contrary to what some opponents to this motion would have you
believe, the Delta Queen is not a safety risk. In fact, the Delta Queen
is inspected by the United States Coast Guard more than six times a
year and has operated since 1968 without significant incident.
Indeed, when Congress first created the inland water exemption from
fire retardant regulation, it recognized that vessels such as the Delta
Queen would never be more than a short distance from shore,
circumstances much different than ocean liners and other vessels that
traverse the oceans.
House Report 93-289 indicates that an inclusion of this was
inadvertent. That's why Congress has granted this exception eight times
since 1968. Eight times. Moreover, despite its exemption, the Delta
Queen has, and continues to operate, in accordance with the safety
notification requirements set forth in section 3503(b) of the United
States Code and the Coast Guard.
In addition, the Delta Queen has gone above and beyond these
requirements, installing state-of-the-art fire and smoke detection and
sprinkler systems, as well as mandating fire training for its crew, all
of which have been approved by the Coast Guard. Every single stateroom
on there has sprinklers within it. In fact, just last month, the owners
of the Delta Queen replaced the vessel's boiler at the request of the
Coast Guard. And just last month, the Delta Queen was most recently
inspected by the Coast Guard and was given a clean bill of health.
Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why continuing the Delta Queen's
current exemption for an additional 10 years has generated such
opposition. In fact, last session, this body unanimously supported this
exemption, passing it by a voice vote. Just last year we did this exact
thing that I am asking to be done today. Unfortunately, it was stalled
over in the Senate.
I can only conclude that the opposition that we're seeing is not
really about the Delta Queen. It's really about a labor dispute. If
this is true, why should the American people be victims, losing access
to this national landmark? Why should American jobs be lost? Why should
local businesses be literally ruined all because of a labor dispute? I
hope that unions do not have that type of influence here in Washington
or here in this Congress.
Let's put all of the politics aside and do the right thing here, and
I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Delta Queen right here. 1926,
no major incidence since that entire time. And there is no reason why
we shouldn't save this historic ship here. Keep part of our history
alive here by supporting this motion. This really ought to be
bipartisan, and I urge you to support this motion to recommit.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I enormously respect the distinguished and
amiable gentleman from Ohio, the weight-lifting champ of the House gym.
When he walks on the floor, the weights quiver and shake in awe of his
appearance.
He has been an advocate for the Delta Queen even back to last fall
when I was in the Bethesda Naval Hospital for an operation to correct a
long-standing injury to my neck. He sent a sheet cake with the Delta
Queen emblazoned upon it to remind me of his diligence and of his
enthusiasm for the Delta Queen. I could only eat one slice of it, but I
assured him that the staff at the hospital, who had no idea what the
Delta Queen was all about, appreciated this sheet cake from the very
distinguished and caring gentleman from the State of Ohio.
But labor has nothing to do with this issue. I haven't heard from a
single person in any labor union about this matter.
The Delta Queen was built in 1926 and carried 174 passengers, 88
state rooms. It has extensive wood superstructure. It has extensive
wood interior and furniture, and for those reasons, the Coast Guard
will not certify this vessel. Opposition is clear. The combustible
construction of the vessel presents an unacceptable fire risk that
cannot be mitigated by the addition of fire-suppression measures, says
the Coast Guard.
As such, the Coast Guard's position remains unchanged. The Delta
Queen should be prohibited from operating with overnight passengers.
Since May 28, 1936, the United States has required that passenger
vessels be constructed essentially of fire retardant material. In the
interest of maritime safety, the Coast Guard, continuing their quote,
has consistently opposed legislation to prolong the service of the
Delta Queen. A vessel constructed of wood operating in the overnight
passenger trade presents an unacceptable fire risk to its passengers
and crew.
It goes on at great length.
The Delta Queen can operate in daytime but not at night.
In the operation of the trade on the Mississippi River, the worst
disaster in history occurred, fire onboard a paddle wheeler. Yes, in
the 19th century, but 1,700 people died 100 yards from shore.
On March 22 of this year, of this year, the Delta Queen had a fire in
the generating room requiring the use of their fixed C02
extinguishing system. Fortunately, no one was injured. The generator
shorted, caused flames to shoot out the generator end.
Earlier this month, the Queen of the West, this April, a similar
paddle wheel operated by the very same company that owns and operates
the Delta Queen had a fire in the engine room, required evacuation of
177 passengers and crew. Three crew members were treated for smoke
inhalation.
{time} 1445
Last year, in May, the Empress of the North, another excursion vessel
operated by the same company owning the Delta Queen, ran aground in
southeast Alaska, evacuating over 200 passengers and crew; fourth
grounding of that vessel in less than 4 years.
Now I can understand those who live along the Mississippi River,
which starts nearly in my district all the way down to the Gulf, but
friends, we would never stand for limiting safety on a 747 aircraft.
And over a decade ago, a foreign airline was trying to remove over-
[[Page H2735]]
wing exits from a 747. Congressman Bill Clinger, Pennsylvania's ranking
Republican on the Committee on Aviation with me, we stopped them from
doing that. We stopped the FAA from allowing that risk to safety. We
should stop this risk to safety here. Fire at night is terrifying.
Oppose the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 208, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 222]
AYES--195
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Loebsack
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--208
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--28
Alexander
Andrews
Biggert
Blackburn
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Campbell (CA)
Costello
Cramer
Doggett
Everett
Feeney
Higgins
Hulshof
LaHood
McNulty
Nadler
Pascrell
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Slaughter
Udall (NM)
Weller
Wynn
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1504
Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia, LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, PERLMUTTER,
and ENGLISH of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HARE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 395,
noes 7, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 223]
AYES--395
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
[[Page H2736]]
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--7
Coble
Duncan
Flake
Nunes
Paul
Rogers (KY)
Tancredo
NOT VOTING--29
Alexander
Andrews
Blackburn
Boyd (FL)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Costello
Cramer
Doggett
Everett
Feeney
Higgins
Hulshof
LaHood
McNulty
Miller, George
Nadler
Pascrell
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Udall (NM)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Yarmuth
{time} 1513
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________