Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 168 (Friday, November 4, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 168 (Friday, November 4, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7344-H7380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2011

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Pursuant to House Resolution
455 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2838.

{time} 1129

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 consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2838) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal
years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes, with Mr. Womack in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

{time} 1130

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 2838 will reauthorize the activities of the Coast Guard through
2014 at levels which are consistent with the House-passed budget
resolution.
This bill includes critical provisions that will give the Coast
Guard, its servicemembers and dependents greater parity with their
counterparts in the Department of Defense, something that is critical
and important for these patriotic Americans. Ensuring parity among the
armed services has been a top priority for the committee for some time,
and I am proud to say this bill makes significant steps and progress
towards aligning the Coast Guard's authorities with those granted by
DOD.
In addition to the parity issue, the bill contains a title intended
to reform and improve Coast Guard administration. The Coast Guard does
an outstanding job for our Nation. However, in the current budget
environment, it is important for the Coast Guard to review the services
authorities and to find ways to improve operations while reducing
costs. I believe this bill will do just that.
The bill also amends shipping laws to improve safety and foster job
growth throughout the maritime sector and reauthorizes the activities
of the Federal Maritime Commission through 2015.
Included in the bill is the text of H.R. 2840, the Commercial Vessel
Discharge Reform Act, which will improve current regulation of ballast
water and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel.
Mr. Chairman, this provision is pretty simple. Currently, the Coast
Guard and the EPA are making rules and have authority to enforce
ballast water. There are currently 29 States and tribes that have their
own rules, and it is a regulatory nightmare to be able to do business
in. We need one standard operation that reaches the highest level of
technology that is available to us. This also allows for us to improve
technology, and this is. If we're talking about jobs, and we certainly
are hearing an awful lot about that these days, this is an opportunity
for us to be able to ensure that maritime jobs will be able to continue
to grow.
The current system is simply impossible, and it threatens our
international maritime trade.
This legislation eliminates this ridiculous regulatory nightmare and
establishes a single uniform national standard.
The EPA, the Coast Guard, the National Academy of Sciences, the EPA
Science Advisory Board, the U.S. Flag Industry, every national maritime
labor union, manufacturers, farmers, energy producers, and our largest
and most strategic international trading partners all endorse our
approach to this legislation. It's a commonsense way to be able to move
forward, and it helps us be able to accomplish our goals in the long
run.
I would urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency responsible for a broad
range of activities including mariner licensing, emergency oil spill
response, vessel inspections, and search and rescue operations. These
and many other activities of the Coast Guard are indispensable and
ensure that our coasts and ocean resources are protected; that our
oceans, the Great Lakes, and inland waterways remain safe and
efficient; and that our maritime industries continue to be vibrant
sources of jobs and economic opportunity for the American people.
I want to thank Chairman LoBiondo for his leadership in developing
this legislation, H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2011, to reauthorize the activities of the Coast
Guard for fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2014.
Although I have reservations that the authorized funding levels in
this bill are not sufficient to meet the many well-documented needs of
the Coast Guard, at least this bill provides for roughly level funding
for the next 3 years. We have had this discussion in committee for the
last several months about the Coast Guard, Mr. Chairman, people wanting
the Coast Guard to do more with less. The greatest concern that we have
is that as we look at funding for the Coast Guard, we're beginning to
ask them to do less with less. And that is going to cause future
problems for our Coast Guard.
In general, Mr. Chairman, the legislation includes several
noncontroversial provisions, especially title II, which addresses
issues of disparity in policy and authority between the Coast Guard and
other armed services. I want to commend the chairman for his commitment
to address this issue.
There are some provisions in this bill, however, which remain
problematic, none more so than the provision that would sequentially
decommission the Coast Guard's two heavy icebreakers. The
administration has expressed its strong opposition to this provision in
its statement of administration policy.
At some point, we need to constructively engage the Coast Guard in
developing a sound, balanced path forward that realigns our
expectations with a level of performance that we can reasonably expect
the Coast Guard to deliver, especially for its icebreakers and its
polar operations.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, November 3, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2838--Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011

(Rep. LoBiondo, R-New Jersey, and Rep. Mica, R-Florida)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
2838 because it includes a provision that would require the
Coast Guard to decommission the icebreaker USCGC POLAR STAR.
The administration has requeted, and Congress has
appropriated, funds to reactivate the USCGC POLAR STAR by
December 2012 and extend that vessel's service life for seven
to 10 years. This effort will stabilize the United States'
existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking capability
requirements are finalized. By directing the Commandant to
decommission the USCGC POLAR STAR within three years, the
bill would effectively reduce the

[[Page H7345]]

vessel's service life to two years and create a significant
gap in the Nation's icebreaking capacity. The Administration
supports Title II (Coast Guard and Servicemember Parity),
which would promote parity between the Coast Guard and the
other branches of the armed forces. The Administration looks
forward to working with the Congress to improve H.R. 2838 as
the bill moves through the legislative process.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
Mr. GIBBS. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2011 and, in particular, title VII of
the bill, the Commercial Vessels Discharge Reform Act of 2011.
Ballast water, while a necessity to maintain the stability of large
vessels during water-borne navigation, has always been recognized as
one of the ways invasive aquatic nuisance species are transported
globally and introduced into coastal waters where they did not live
before. Numerous invasive species have been introduced in U.S. waters
through ballast water discharges. One of the most well-known is the
zebra mussel in the Great Lakes, which has caused millions of dollars
in damage in infrastructure.
Current efforts to reduce the risk of invasive species being
introduced through ballast water discharges are haphazard,
contradictory, and ineffective. The management of ballast water
currently is governed differently by the Coast Guard, the Environmental
Protection Agency, as well as an assortment of international, State,
and territorial regulations.
As a result, vessels engaged in interstate and international commerce
are required to meet several different standards for the management of
ballast water, some of which are not technologically achievable or
verifiable. Complying with this patchwork of regulations is burdensome
and unacceptable. Commercial shippers are at the heart of our Nation's
interstate and foreign commerce.
As we all know, interstate and foreign commerce involving navigation
is the heart of the Federal jurisdiction under the commerce clause of
the Constitution. If we subject vessels visiting ports in more than one
State to different permit requirements in each State that they visit,
they will be forced to either violate State laws or cease making port
calls in those States with requirements that are inconsistent with the
technology that the vessel has installed in response to an earlier
enacted regulation from another State.
Vessels involved in interstate and foreign commerce are mobile and
cannot be expected to comply with potentially scores of inconsistent
State requirements as they navigate from one jurisdiction to the next.
These inconsistent State requirements will impose serious economic
burdens on interstate and foreign commerce. There simply is no reason
to interfere with interstate and foreign commerce in such ways,
particularly in more sensible, uniform, and environmentally protective
approaches available under this bill.
Title VII of H.R. 2838 aims to address both the needs for standards
to reduce the risk of introducing invasive species in our Nation's
waters through discharges of ballast water, and the need for vessels
that navigate from one jurisdiction to another to have a uniform set of
requirements to comply with.
The bill establishes a commonsense approach for regulating ballast
water, which will protect the environment, grow maritime jobs, and
promote the flow of maritime commerce.
I urge passage of H.R. 2838.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman
from Washington, for yielding me the time.
In recognition of the tradition of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure to annually move bills to reauthorize the Coast
Guard and the indispensable services it provides to the Nation, I am
inclined to support this effort if it will improve the condition and
readiness of the Coast Guard.
My home State of West Virginia may not be a coastal State; but our
many stakeholders who use our inland waterways, such as shippers, tug
and barge operators, and recreational boaters, appreciate the services
provided by the Coast Guard, our guardians of the sea.
For example, the Coast Guard's National Maritime Center in
Martinsburg, West Virginia, handles the processing and approval of all
mariner credentials for roughly a quarter million mariners.
Additionally, the Coast Guard's Marine Safety Unit Huntington, located
in Barboursville, West Virginia, inspects vessels, conducts casualty
investigations, and ensures port security along the Ohio River and
other navigable waterways.
These and other vital services provided by the Coast Guard directly
support our maritime commerce, which is critical to the future economic
health of our country. Yet despite widespread acknowledgment of its
importance, the Coast Guard has rarely received sufficient resources to
accomplish its many complex missions.
I am disappointed that the authorized funding levels in this
legislation again fall short of the services' needs.
Just this week, we learned during the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee's hearing concerning the Deepwater Horizon
disaster that the Coast Guard's marine environmental response
capabilities have dwindled due to a lack of funding.

{time} 1140

We cannot expect the men and women of the Coast Guard to put their
lives at risk to save the lives of others if they are forced to operate
from inadequate facilities and to utilize equipment that has long since
passed its expected lifetime. If we expect our ports and waterways to
remain safe and secure and if we want our maritime economy to be
vibrant and growing, adequate investment in the Coast Guard is not an
option but a requirement.
I also wish to express my concern about the ballast water provisions,
a separate title--in fact, a wholly separate bill--stitched into this
legislation, but not seamlessly and not without consequence.
Numerous State and local economies have had to deal with the immense
costs associated with the invasion of plants and animals that hitch a
ride into our country through dumped ballast water. Coastal States are
spending millions each year to control invading species, and each year,
more and more invaders threaten to become established in our waters.
For these reasons, I support the provisions that call for the
adoption of stringent national standards for ballast water treatment
technologies. These advances would help to prevent the introduction and
spread of these invaders and ensure the efficient flow of critical
commodities through waterborne transportation. But, unfortunately,
tucked within the appealing treatment technology provisions of this
added title lies a poison pill that this House would be foolish to
swallow.
All this year, this Congress has been advocating an enhanced role for
the States in protecting their economies and environment. The mantra
has been: Back off the States. Remove the heavy hand of the Federal
Government and allow the States the space to oversee their own
programs. But now, tucked into the folds of this bill is a complete
about-face. Rather than respecting State powers and allowing them the
freedom to, in limited circumstances, set higher standards to protect
their own waters and their own residents, this bill imposes a down-
from-on-high, one-size-fits-all approach.
I find it ironic that, on an issue on which the States have taken a
leading role in the absence of Federal action, this legislation would
prohibit States from having any role in protecting their local
resources. So I say to my colleagues that we have a choice to support
the benefits provided by this bill without also swallowing the bitter
anti-States' rights pill.
An amendment offered by my colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop) would
protect the States. The Bishop amendment represents a surgical fix that
enables the States to nominate ``no discharge zones'' to protect
important State waters.
Contrary to some claims, the amendment would not allow a State to
shut down vital shipping zones or exempt all its waters from ballast
discharges. The amendment specifically addresses these concerns,
preventing a State

[[Page H7346]]

from taking such action. It provides for limited exemptions just like
those available to the States in section 312 of the Clean Water Act for
sanitary discharges--an exemption, I would point out, that has been
used only 26 times. The Bishop amendment would restore the historic
balance between the States and the Federal Government intended by the
Clean Water Act.
If the Members of this body believe that States' rights must be
protected from Federal overreach, this bill begs the question: Are you
with the States or against the States?
I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop), and I urge its adoption as a critical fix to an otherwise
worthy bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to make that
critical fix and to pass this legislation.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just like to take a moment and reiterate our thanks to the
men and women of the Coast Guard--unsung heroes who are underrecognized
and underappreciated, who put their lives on the line every day.
They're a critical component of our armed services. They conduct
critical missions to interdict illegal drugs. They provide fishery law
enforcement as well as the Homeland Security component. We want to make
sure that we recognize and appreciate their efforts on an everyday
basis.
I would also like to, once again, thank Mr. Larsen for his
cooperation overall on the committee and especially with this
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the ranking member for yielding. I
also thank both the ranking member and the chairman for their work on
this important bill.
I have some concerns about the bill, but I'm going to focus my
remarks on title VII, which deals with commercial vessel discharge
reform and deals, more specifically, with ballast water discharge and
the concern about nonindigenous invasive species. These nonindigenous
species cost taxpayers and businesses hundreds of millions of dollars
every year.
In the Great Lakes alone, approximately $500 million is spent every
year in dealing with invasive species that clog municipal water systems
and that damage infrastructure, such as electric power plants, levees,
and aqueducts. In California, over $7 million was spent to eradicate
the Mediterranean green seaweed from two small embayments in southern
California, and $12 million had to be spent in San Francisco Bay to
control the Atlantic cordgrass. Most of these invasive species arrive
in our waters via the ballast water of commercial vehicles.
Unfortunately, in my view--and, I believe, in the view of a great
many of my colleagues--the bill before us does not do enough to protect
our communities and businesses from the avoidable costs of dealing with
invasive species.
This week the State of California sent Members of Congress a letter
saying that title VII of the underlying bill ``will set a Federal
ballast water discharge standard that does not provide a significant
improvement over existing management strategies and would eliminate the
ability of States to regulate vessel discharges in their own waters.''
I would like to enter into the Record the letter from the California
State Lands Commission to which I am referring.
In my home State of New York we've been working with Michigan and
other States to develop standards that are achievable with the
technology that is available today but that would still protect
sensitive State waters more than would today's underlying bill.
Unfortunately, this bill does not incorporate these science-based
suggestions nor the jurisdictional concerns of the States.
I also want to enter into the Record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the
Environmental Council of the States which urges that the States be able
to maintain a role in making determinations with respect to their water
quality.
While I think that most parties--and I'm one of them--agree that a
uniform national standard is necessary to protect our water resources,
one of my largest concerns is that this bill completely erases any role
for States to protect waters within their jurisdictions. So, as the
gentleman from West Virginia said, I will be offering an amendment
later today that will allow States to petition the Federal Government
under a set of criteria that protects international and domestic
commerce to identify and protect highly sensitive water resources
within a State's existing jurisdiction.
My amendment does not add or change any technological requirements in
the bill. This is an issue of extreme importance for the industry,
understandably so, and for that reason my amendment simply does not
affect in any way the technological requirements. It also does not give
States carte blanche to prevent ships from releasing ballast water,
which is another important issue for the industry. There is ample
precedent for the amendment that I am offering and for the policy that
my amendment would embody.
In 1996 the then-Republican-controlled Congress amended the Clean
Water Act, requiring the Department of Defense to work with the
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate ballast water from military
vessels through the Uniform National Discharge Standards program.
Through this program, the Republican Congress acknowledged a deep
respect for the rights of States, including a residual authority for
States to establish ``no discharge zones,'' which is similar to what my
amendment would establish.
Another precedent is that section 312 of the Clean Water Act, which
is the closest analogy to ballast water discharges from commercial
vessels, establishes uniform standards for discharges of marine
sanitation devices. Section 312 specifically reserves a role for States
to create ``no discharge zones'' for important State waters, provided
that these zones will not adversely impact vessels from operating
within the States. In the past, ballast water legislation has included
a role for the States, and industry was on board with those provisions.

{time} 1150

There's an irony to what we're doing here today, and that is, during
this Congress, much of the debate has centered on how States should be
allowed to take the lead on managing different programs within their
jurisdiction, be they educational programs or environmental protection
programs or eliminating regulations and so on; and yet, in this
instance, we are saying the exact opposite. We are saying that the
Federal Government knows best how to protect local waters, and States
are not given any say in protecting their waters.
Just a few months ago, this Congress passed H.R. 2018, the
Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, which eliminates any Federal role
in setting baseline water quality standards, giving full discretion for
the setting of those standards to the States. Title VII of today's bill
says that States should have no say in what happens in their waters
whatsoever, the exact opposite of what this Congress passed with pretty
broad support several months ago.
We also have heard a great deal from our friends in the Tea Party
about the 10th Amendment and how rights need to be reserved to the
States under that amendment. Well, I would contend that the ability to
protect waters of the State and to set standards for waters of the
State would fall within at least the spirit of the 10th Amendment, and
I would hope that my colleagues would agree with that.
So I just want to say that I believe my amendment, as the gentleman
from West Virginia referred to it, is a surgical attempt to fix what I
believe is a significant problem for States.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and I worked very hard
to try to come up with a sweet spot where we could agree. We were
unable to get there. It was not for a lack of trying. I am very
grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey for his willingness to work
with me on this; but later we will be offering this amendment, and I
hope my colleagues will support it.

[[Page H7347]]

California State

Lands Commission,

Sacramento, CA, November 2, 2011.
Rep. John Mica,
Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washingtion, DC.
Rep. Nick Rahall,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Rep. David Dreier,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.
Rep. Louise Slaughter,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The staff of the California State
Lands Commission (Commission) is writing to express our
concern with bill H.R. 2840, the Commercial Vessel Discharges
Reform Act of 2011. We have recently learned that this bill
may be considered as an amendment to the U.S. Coast Guard
Reauthorization bill. Staff has strong concerns that
provisions of the H.R. 2840 would cripple California's
ongoing efforts to prevent the release of nonindigenous
species to state waters, and urge that members consider these
concerns before addressing this bill.
In addition to the ecological and human health impacts that
nonindigenous species have had, they can also represent a
significant and ongoing economic burden once established in a
new region. For example, the European zebra mussel attaches
to hard surfaces so thickly in the Great Lakes and Lake Mead
(AZ), that they clog municipal water systems and electric
generating plants, costing over a billion dollars a year to
control. In 2008, the mussel arrived in California. Should it
spread to areas such as Lake Tahoe or the California
Aqueduct, the resultant economic impact could be significant.
Between 2000 and 2006, over $7 million was spent to eradicate
the Mediterranean green seaweed from two small embayments in
southern California. At the end of 2010, over $12 million had
been spent in San Francisco Bay to control the Atlantic
cordgrass. If left uncontrolled, the buildup of cordgrass can
have a substantial impact on shoreline land values.
Since 1999, when California passed the Ballast Water for
Control of Nonindigenous Species Act (Chapter 849, Statutes
of 1999; Public Resources Code Sec. Sec. 71200, et seq.), it
has been and remains a national and world leader in the
development of effective science-based management strategies
for preventing species introductions through vessel vectors.
The Commission's Marine Invasive Species Program (MISP)
pursues aggressive strategies to limit the introduction and
spread of nonindigenous species (NIS) via vessels, including
establishing strict performance standards for the discharge
of ballast water in 2007.
The Commission's staff works cooperatively with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States
Coast Guard (USCG), and other states in order to advance a
strong, enforceable, funded, national effort that pushes
technology development and the science of invasive species
management forward, while ensuring that the state's existing,
world-leading program be allowed to continue. Additionally,
Commission staff has long worked closely with scientific,
government, nonprofit and shipping industry representatives
through technical advisory groups during the development of
its requirements. This is to ensure a well-rounded, diverse
array of perspectives are taken into account during the
evolution of initiatives to prevent species introductions to
the state.
We appreciate the House's attention to the challenge of NIS
introductions in U.S. waters as a result of vessel
discharges, but as drafted, H.R. 2840 will set a federal
ballast water discharge standard that does not provide a
significant improvement over existing management strategies
and would eliminate the ability of states to regulate vessel
discharges in their own waters.
Staff specifically object to the provisions in the bill
that:
Would set the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
ballast discharge standard as the U.S. federal standard.
There is clear scientific evidence that the IMO ballast
water discharge standard is not a significant improvement
over ballast water exchange (the current management
practice). Studies have shown that some vessels could meet
the IMO standards by simply conducting ballast water
exchange, and some could meet it without conducting exchange
at all. Therefore, adoption of the IMO standard does little
to advance the protection of U.S. waters from NIS
introductions.
Preempts states from adopting ballast water discharge
standards, including standards that are more stringent than
those established in H.R. 2840.
A central tenant of the Clean Water Act is that States have
the ability to set water quality standards above and beyond
those set by the Federal government in order to ensure proper
environmental protection of state waters. H.R. 2840, as
currently drafted, removes ballast water discharges from
Clean Water Act jurisdiction and will cripple state efforts
to prevent species introductions from vessel discharges. San
Francisco Bay is the most highly invaded estuary in North
America, and perhaps the world, and invasive species cost the
state millions of dollars each year to control. In addition,
recent research shows that California serves as a first entry
point ``hotspot'' of invasion on the west coast, and NIS
subsequently spread north to Oregon up to Alaska. Thus,
California must retain the ability to implement stringent,
protective ballast water discharge standards in order to
protect its own waters as well as the waters of the rest of
the western North America.
Preempts states from adopting any standards or management
practices related to any discharge incidental to the normal
operation of commercial vessels.
H.R. 2840 not only preempts states from developing ballast
water discharge standards, but also preempts states' ability
to address any of the 26 discharges included in the Vessel
General Permit. The California State Lands Commission is a
world leader in the development of strategies to combat
species introductions due to vessel biofouling (i.e. the
attachment or association of organisms to the underwater
surfaces of vessels). There are currently no federal programs
in place to manage this important vector of species
introductions. Should H.R. 2840 pass as currently drafted,
California would be hobbled in its efforts to prevent
biofouling introductions within its waters.
Due to the aforementioned Commission staff concerns, please
oppose the legislation in its present form. Thank you for
consideration of these comments. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 574-1800.
Sincerely,
Curtis L. Fossum,
Executive Officer.
____

The Environmental Council

of The States,

Washington, DC, November 2, 2011.
Hon. Frank LoBiondo,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, Washington, DC.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Bishop,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressmen: I am writing on behalf of the members of
the Environmental Council of the States, the state and
territorial environmental agencies, about H.R. 2840, and an
amendment to it offered by Congressman Bishop.
Our understanding is that the bill seeks to address the
regulation of ship ballast waters in order to suppress the
spread of exotic species, and that it pre-empts any state
regulatory approaches.
With respect to the direction of the bill, ECOS could agree
that:
(1) national standards can help to achieve a level playing
field for compliance;
(2) the states have a diversity of experience and varying
desire for federal regulation in this area;
(3) the states have a role in developing additional
requirements based on state-specific conditions, and as a
backstop to federal standards that are not yet proven.
ECOS has long held that ``expansion of environmental
authority to the states is to be supported, while preemption
of state authority is to be opposed.'' The bill as drafted
preempts state authority not only for ballast discharges, but
also for many other types of vessel discharges. ECOS also
``affirms its support for the concept of flexibility, i.e.,
that the function of the federal environmental agency is,
working with states, to set goals for environmental
accomplishment and that, to the maximum extent possible, the
means of achieving those goals should be left to the states;
this is particularly important in the development of new
programs which will impact both states and U.S. EPA.'' [See
our resolution entitled Environmental Federalism at
www.ecos.org.]
We also encourage Congress to ensure that the United States
Coast Guard and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency have the resources they need to enforce the act,
should it become law.
It seems to us that the amendment offered by Congressman
Bishop addresses some of our concerns, and that the bill
would be improved by its inclusion, although several of our
other concerns would remain.
Regards,
R. Steven Brown.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from New York for dialoguing and for
articulating his point. We have tried very hard to reach an
accommodation. We are going to continue to try to reach an
accommodation, and I guess this is what this process is all about. We
have a difference of opinion about the impact of the gentleman from New
York's amendment and a couple of these other amendments. We are looking
to try to find a way to make sure we have uniform standards, and I
pledge we will continue to work to try to do that.

[[Page H7348]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to inquire
how much time is remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 14\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Napolitano).
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I too am very concerned about the serious threat
that the invasive species pose to nonnative waters.
As the ranking member of the Natural Resources Water and Power
Subcommittee, we have held various hearings on the effects of the
invasive quagga mussel, the zebra and quagga mussel in western
waterways. I have even traveled to Colorado in order to understand how
they are looking at the R&D to be able to see how we can eradicate this
invasive species.
It was introduced into the West from the ballast water of vessels
coming in from the Great Lakes. This mussel is a dime-sized mussel that
clogs water infrastructure. The glue is so potent that nothing can take
it off. It's in the pumps. It's in the intake valves and the pipelines,
costing water agencies hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of
dollars to clean out to allow for the water flow.
The Metropolitan Water District of southern California spent $25
million on fighting quagga mussels since 2007. The Bureau of
Reclamation is having a major problem with the mussels, as they are
causing funds to be spent to scrape them off those major pipelines
instead of on projects needing those funds.
I have seen firsthand the damage the quagga has done to the dams and
the water supply plants in southern California. This invasive species
will continue to have a devastating impact on the water supply of the
West, and we must address the fact that discharges of ballast water
carrying invasive species can cause irreversible harm to our Nation's
waters, as is already the case in some areas.
We must allow our State regulatory agencies the ability to protect
against invasive species, and I will continue to oppose the bill if it
includes provisions that hinder the States from protecting their water
quality. I hope the chairman and the ranking member can come to some
agreement that will help our States.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
Mr. CARNAHAN. I am honored to represent a district in the St. Louis,
Missouri, region near the confluence of the mighty Mississippi and the
Missouri Rivers, an area where inland waterway commerce is vital to our
economic well-being as well as to recreation, security, and safety.
In a normal year on the inland waterway system, between 500 and 700
million tons of bulk commodities with a current approximate value of
nearly $125 billion are moved an average of roughly 500 miles to
produce in excess of 300 billion ton-miles of freight transportation.
When given a choice, heavy bulk shippers often choose barge
transportation on our waterways. It is estimated that barge shippers
and their customers save more than $7 billion annually by utilizing
inland waterways.
As lawmakers, especially during these difficult economic times, we
must do everything in our power to facilitate trade and economic
activity. That's why this Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Reauthorization Act is so critical to get it right. But we also see in
this bill, as prior speakers have mentioned, the patchwork of ballast
water regulations that have hampered our inland waterways trade and
imposed unnecessary cost on business.
I applaud the effort to create a national minimum standard to protect
our environment while creating certainty and stability for the
industry. But I do support Representative Bishop's amendment that
strikes the right balance. It allows States' rights and unique
interests to be protected within no-discharge zones.
I hope that eventually we can work out a compromise. I applaud the
efforts of both sides in trying to reach that, and I hope that effort
will continue. I hope this bill can find broad support that addresses
the needs of the goods movement industry while still protecting our
environment. I think we can and need to do both.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle on this important work and again urge my colleagues to hit the
right balance to be sure we are taking care of the men and women that
serve us in the Coast Guard, to be sure they can continue to serve us
and the entire country.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
Mr. McINTYRE. I rise today in support of my amendment to the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011 on which we are working
together to consider as part of the en bloc amendments. This important
and timely amendment calls on the Committee on the Marine
Transportation System to coordinate with local businesses to promote an
efficient marine transportation system.
As many of us know, the marine transportation system is essential to
the American economy. It supports millions of American jobs,
facilitates trade, moves people and goods, and provides a safe, secure,
cost-effective, and energy-efficient transportation system. It's a win-
win-win.
Yet, if there are not adequate maintenance resources in place, our
MTS will continue to age, and the result will be a worn and decrepit
waterfront, badly neglected locks and dams, and harbors with inadequate
drafts to accept foreign, deep-draft tonnage.
Our local businesses are on the front lines of commerce every day,
and they know where the savings and efficiencies are that could be
improved. We must work with our local businesses who know business
best. If government is going to be involved in improving the business
environment, it only makes sense that government talks to the
businesses that we're trying to help.
In my coastal district of North Carolina, marine transportation and
commerce is the lifeblood of the Cape Fear region. In understanding the
importance of marine transportation and waterway infrastructure, I
sought the input of local business leaders to develop the Seventh
Congressional District Coastal Compact to outline key priorities for
our area's coastal infrastructure, maritime commerce, and a way in
which we can get the public and private sector and government agencies
to work together.
So this amendment that I have put forth builds on a proven model used
to develop our Coastal Compact and one in which we believe that
business leaders across this country would like to have a say and
involvement and firsthand knowledge to be involved with our marine
transportation system.

{time} 1200

This is an example for us in Congress, an example that we must follow
to improve not only our marine transportation system, but also to
create jobs and to sustain an environment in which American business
can flourish. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment
so we can bridge a better partnership with our local businesses to
improve the maritime transportation system and put our Nation back on a
path of economic vitality.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), whom we affectionately
refer to as Dr. Illie.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank my good friend from New Jersey for the
time.
I rise in strong support of this Coast Guard reauthorization bill
that is being considered on the floor today. I have the unique pleasure
of representing over 265 miles of pristine coastline, ranging from
Miami Beach all of the way down to Key West. In fact, two of the
largest Coast Guard sectors in the United States, Sector Miami,
commanded by Captain Christopher Scraba, and Sector Key West commanded
by Captain Pat DeQuattro, are located in my congressional district. As
such, ensuring that the brave men and women of the Coast Guard have the
tools they need to effectively patrol our coast is of utmost concern

[[Page H7349]]

to me and to all of the residents in my congressional district.
This legislation before us is a fiscally responsible reauthorization
of the U.S. Coast Guard and will include practical reforms which will
ensure greater efficiency in the replacing of aging assets and improved
utilization of all of its resources.
This is particularly important in my district as our two sectors have
been working day and night to stop drugs from being smuggled into our
country. These drug smugglers are becoming more sophisticated and more
brazen in their efforts to bring illicit drugs to our shores. Just last
month alone, the U.S. Coast Guard seized and then unloaded over 2,300
pounds of marijuana and nearly 900 pounds of cocaine in Sector Key
West. Without providing upgrades to our aging assets, it will become
more and more difficult to keep pace with these drug smugglers as their
technology attempts to surpass ours.
That is why I rise in strong support of this Coast Guard
reauthorization bill, and I thank Dr. Frank for giving me the time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank
the chairman and our ranking member for the great work that they have
done not only this time but over the years.
As a member of the subcommittee, I have had an opportunity to--and
earlier in previous sessions as chairman of the subcommittee--I've had
an opportunity to visit many Coast Guard facilities. I am so amazed by
what I see when I see so many young people who give their lives, their
blood, sweat and tears to save other people and to make sure that our
waterways are kept safe, and to make sure that our coasts are guarded.
I call them the thin blue line at sea.
I do support this legislation because I think it is very important.
There are some concerns I have, but I do want to commend the chairman.
I understand that we have a manager's amendment that adds a modified
version of H.R. 2839, the Piracy Suppression Act, as a title to this
bill, and I think that is very, very important. The piracy provisions
include those that require the Department of Transportation to
establish a training program for U.S. mariners on the use of force
against pirates and require a report from DOD within 180 days on
actions taken to protect foreign-flag vessels from acts of piracy on
the high seas. I will definitely support that because I think it is
very, very important.
We've seen, and I know the chairman has spent a lot of time on this,
what has happened with regard to these pirates. They feel they can just
board our ships and hold our folks hostage, and we cannot allow that to
happen. I want to applaud the chairman and the ranking member for
bringing that about.
I'm going to have an amendment a little bit later on which addresses
an issue which is important to me, and that is the ombudsman. I've said
many times that we put this in the last authorization because a lot of
the folks at the ports and a lot of our mariners were complaining. They
were saying that the Coast Guard would come and want to make changes
and say their way or the highway. One of the things that we wanted to
do so commerce could freely flow, we wanted to have somebody come along
and actually sit down and reason so that things could be worked out in
a way that would be less onerous to the mariner community.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I'm hoping that amendment does pass because our
Republican friends have constantly said that they want to do away with
regulations that might impede the flow of commerce, and I think that my
amendment is a step in that direction. I know that the Coast Guard may
not like it, but I think an ombudsman would bring about a fair balance
so that we can achieve the things that we need to achieve.
With that, again I applaud the chairman and the ranking member for
bringing this bill forward.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
We have no more speakers on the general debate, so I will take a few
minutes here to conclude on our side for general debate, and I
appreciate the opportunity to close on general debate.
The points that were made earlier, I do want to reemphasize a few
points. One is a concern we have about the decommissioning process and
the decommissioning of the two icebreakers that are in the U.S. Coast
Guard fleet. The administration has a statement of administration
policy, which you've allowed to be entered into the Record. I think a
follow-up to that point would be that we certainly would want to hear
from the administration sooner rather than later about a plan for what
some would call an organic capability of our icebreaker fleet. That is
a U.S. Coast Guard-owned and -operated icebreaker fleet, rather than
being left with the potential and real possibility of having to lease
icebreakers from other countries to do the work that otherwise we would
be doing. That continues to be a major concern.
We have heard, as well, concerns about the ballast water title and
are expecting amendments and further debate on that as the afternoon
progresses.
Certainly we are going to have an en bloc amendment, and we will have
time to discuss those. I just want to underscore one of those from Mr.
McIntyre and the role that the marine transportation system plays, or
the MTS as we call it, which consists of waterways and ports and
intermodal land-side connections that allow our various modes of
transportation to move people and goods to and from and on the water.
The MTS is vitally important to our economy. It's vitally important
to waterborne cargo and the associated activities which contribute more
than $649 billion annually to the U.S. gross domestic product,
sustaining more than 13 million jobs. Section 401 of this underlying
bill would codify the committee on the marine transportation system, a
Federal interdepartmental committee chaired by the Secretary of
Transportation.
And I think it is just important to underscore further about this
MTS, the marine transportation system, and the role that the Coast
Guard plays in maintaining that. It can be somewhat invisible to folks
if they're not on the water a lot, but the role that the U.S. Coast
Guard plays in maintaining that marine transportation system that
therefore underlies the economic growth potential that we have from a
well-balanced and well-developed marine transportation system is
important and is one of the underlying reasons why we even have a Coast
Guard authorization bill each year to support the great work of the
U.S. Coast Guard.

{time} 1210

I would encourage Members to take a hard look at this bill. We've got
some amendments coming up that Members will bring up, and we'll have
good debate on those. But certainly as far as general debate goes, I'd
like to take this time now to yield back the balance of my time and
urge people to support the underlying bill.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I would, again, like to thank the
gentleman from Washington for his cooperation and remind the Members I
think this is, on balance, an excellent bipartisan effort that moves
the Coast Guard forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2838, the
Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act.
However, while I support the underlying legislation, I have serious
concerns that this bipartisan-supported bill is combined with the
Commercial Vessel Discharges Act.
The Commercial Vessel Discharges Act sets a single nationwide
standard for the treatment of ballast water by commercial vessels. This
would prevent states, such as California from enacting more stringent
ballast water standards.
California has stronger ballast water standards than what is found in
the Commercial Vessel Discharges Act. This legislation will cause more
invasive species to infiltrate the waters in California and the Great
Lakes. This will also increase costs associated with combating invasive
species.

[[Page H7350]]

Mr. Chair, the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act would have
been further improved had the Rules Committee made my three amendments
in order. Let me briefly explain what my amendments would have done.
My first amendment would have simply allowed grants provided under
the Port Security Grant Program to be used to pay a portion of
personnel costs.
The Maritime Transportation Security Act and the SAFE Port Act
authorize funds to identify vulnerabilities in port security and in
order to ensure compliance with mandated port security plans.
The grant funding is provided to port authorities, facility
operators, and state and local government agencies so they can provide
security services to our ports.
However, currently Port Security Grant Program funds cannot be used
to fund statutorily-mandated security personnel costs.
My amendment simply would have corrected this inconsistency between
the Port Security Grant Program and other grant funding programs.
Our American ports should not have to bear the burden of protecting
our most vital stream of commerce and source of American jobs on their
own.
Instead, ports should be allowed to utilize Port Security Grant
Program funds to hire and pay security personnel who are used to staff
fusion center, emergency operations, and counterterrorism posts.
Also, in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, my amendment would
have placed a cap on the amount of Port Security Grant Program funding
that can be used to pay security personnel costs.
Payments would have been limited to 50% of the total amount awarded
to grant recipients in any fiscal year.
This is consistent with other grant programs, such as the Urban Area
Security Initiative.
Last month, I had a similar amendment adopted by unanimous consent by
the Homeland Security Committee during the markup of the Department of
Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
My amendment would have allowed grant recipients the flexibility to
use a portion of their funds to pay for security personnel expenses.
In short, my amendment would have provided a simple, common-sense
change to what has become a complex funding issue for our American
ports.
My second amendment would simply have allowed grant funds under the
Port Security Grant Program to be used to replace defective security
equipment.
Currently, the Port Security Grant Program allows grant funds to be
used for maintenance of security equipment, but not the replacement of
security equipment.
My amendment would have given grant recipients the flexibility in
determining whether it is more cost-effective to replace or repair
security equipment.
It doesn't make any sense to require grant recipients to fix security
equipment when it may be cheaper to replace it with newer, improved
technology.
My amendment didn't increase spending, but would have given Port
Security Grant Program recipients the flexibility in determining the
best use of their funds.
My third amendment would have ensured that when the Marine
Transportation System Assessment and Strategy was drafted it included a
plan to identify maritime projects of national significance; the steps
taken to implement 100 percent container screening at ports, which was
recommended by the 9/11 Commission; and develop a plan for fully
utilizing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
The Committee on the Marine Transportation System is tasked with
assessing the adequacy of the marine transportation system including
ports, waterways, channels, and their intermodal connections.
Part of this Committee's job is to draft the Marine Transportation
System Assessment and Strategy one year after this bill's enactment.
This assessment will evaluate the condition of the marine
transportation system and the challenges the system faces.
My amendment would have asked the committee to take into
consideration three things when drafting its assessment.
First, to identify maritime projects of national significance. I
believe identifying these corridors are essential to the goods movement
process in this country. Too often we fund projects because of
political reasons and not because it is right for the country. Under
the advisement of the Marine Transportation System National Advisory
Council, interested parties, the public, and the Committee should put
forth a list of maritime projects of national significance so that the
country can make smart investments that increase the flow of goods, the
flow of trade, and create jobs.
Second, to report what steps are being taken to keep our nation safe
by ensuring that our ports are secure and not a weak point for
terrorists to exploit. Millions of containers are shipped into our
country every year and the smallest percentage are thoroughly checked
for potential threats against the United States. My amendment would
have simply asked the committee to report what is being done to secure
our ports as recommended by the 9/11 commission.
Finally my amendment asked the committee to make recommendations that
would make the delivery of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund more
efficient to the users who pay into it. Recently in a T&I subcommittee,
members of the port committee expressed their displeasure with the lack
of return on the Harbor Maintenance Tax. There are too many projects
essential to our nation's goods movement infrastructure going under or
unfunded by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I along with the entire
witness panel agreed it is time for reform.
Rest assured, I will continue to be an advocate for our ports,
including the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. As a
Member of both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the
Homeland Security Committee, ensuring the safety of our nation's ports
is one of my top priorities.
Again, Mr. Chair while I support the Coast Guard and Marine
Transportation Act, I do not support prohibiting states, like
California from enacting more stringent ballast water protections. I
also feel that had my amendments been made in order, the safety of our
ports would have been improved.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bill
and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
The 29th District of Texas that I represent encompasses the Port of
Houston--the largest foreign tonnage port in the country. It drives
economic activity in region, and is home to one of the largest petro-
chemical complexes in the world. Because of this, security on the
waterway is critical, and the Coast Guard has been exceptional in
providing that security.
The Coast Guard enforces the nation's laws in U.S. waters and on the
high seas, and protects the lives and property of those at sea. The
Coast Guard's missions include maritime search and rescue, illegal drug
and migrant interdiction, oil spill prevention and response in the
marine environment, marine safety, maintenance of aids to navigation,
enforcement of U.S. fisheries, and other marine environmental laws, and
maritime defense readiness.
I know this bill is not perfect, but I support it because it provides
the Coast Guard with the resources they need to meet the security and
environmental demands they are tasked with. The measure authorizes
programs of the Coast Guard in FY 2012.
Passage of the bill will continue today's high levels of offshore
safety, ensure important projects are not delayed, and will protect the
lives and livelihood of those who live and work around American
waterways, such as the Houston Ship Channel.
Mr. Chair, I again thank the Committee for their work on this bill
and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support H.R.
2838, ``Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011.'' This
legislation authorizes funding for the Coast Guard through fiscal year
2014, and authorizes service strength of 47,000 active duty personnel.
In 1787, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper Number 12 laid the
foundation for the modern Coast Guard when he noted that ``[a] few
armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports,
might at a small expense, be made useful sentinels of our laws.''
As a senior Member on the Committee on Homeland Security, and the
Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I understand the importance
of protecting our maritime borders. In our post-9/11 climate, homeland
security continues to be a top priority for our nation.
I believe protecting our country by air, land, and sea to be critical
to our national security interests. The security mission of the Coast
Guard is beneficial to our maritime interests, and consequently, our
national security.
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the role of many agencies,
including the Coast Guard, began to focus on Homeland Security. The
Homeland Security Act of 2002 allocated a number of security missions
to the Coast Guard, the first being the protection of ports, waterways
and coastal security. There are more than 350 major ports in the United
States, including 23 in Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional
District. The Port of Houston is one of the busiest in the nation. More
than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in
2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the
15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in
203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas.
Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our
nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard.
As a Representative from Texas, a border state, I am extremely
concerned with curtailing

[[Page H7351]]

the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. The Coast Guard is
the lead federal agency for maritime drug interdiction. Houston is
classified by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as a
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, and in a 2009 report, the ONDCP
expressed concern that ``the sheer volume of maritime traffic and
foreign cargo that passes through the port offers another avenue for
drug smuggling.'' The Coast Guard coordinates closely with other
federal, state, and local agencies and countries within the region to
disrupt and deter the flow of illegal drugs into Houston and other
ports, decreasing the supply of illicit substances being transported
all over the country.
The Coast Guard protects the interests of American citizens and
American commerce abroad. Last year, 73.2 million tons of exports left
the Port of Houston to be sold to countries around the world. These
exports represented $70.8 billion dollars, and countless American jobs.
The international counter-piracy efforts of the Coast Guard focus on
preventing attacks of piracy that threaten American commercial vessels
and cargo. The Coast Guard also performs vital counter-terrorism
measures in ports abroad to ensure the safety of Americans across the
globe.
In Houston, the Coast Guard routinely conducts integrated operations
with the city, county, state and Federal Law Enforcement partners. The
joint agency Houston Area Maritime Operations Center is a prime example
of the type of coordination directed in the Maritime Operations
Coordination Plan recently signed by the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE).
The Port of Houston is one of the world's busiest ports and the Coast
Guard bears the ultimate responsibility for its smooth operation. In
terms of maritime traffic and cargo, the Port of Houston ranks first in
the United States for number of ship arrivals and second in total cargo
tonnage. Houston handles over 50 percent of all containerized cargo
arriving at Gulf of Mexico ports.
Additionally, more than 50 percent of the gasoline used in the United
States is refined in this area. With more than 100 petrochemical
waterfront facilities, Houston is the second largest such complex in
the world. Major corporations such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Saudi ARAMCO,
Stolt Nielson, Odfjell USA Inc., Sea River and Kirby Marine have
national or international headquarters in Houston.
These operations typically involve the Harris County Sheriffs Office
and local city Police Department marine divisions as well as CBP, ICE,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives and other Federal partners. Efforts are underway with
The Coast Guards processes with neighboring sectors to align and
streamline their operations across all jurisdictional boundaries. They
need funding to continue to serve our country.
The Coast Guard relies on their port partners to act as both their
eyes and ears on the water. With an average of 350 daily tow movements
in the Houston Ship Channel and more than 100 waterfront facilities
with a vigilant security presence, marine industry stakeholders are
well positioned to recognize when things are out of the ordinary and
serve as a valuable resource by diligently reporting breaches of
security and suspicious activity. We also receive reports on fraudulent
use of the Transportation Worker Identification Card, and work closely
with our local enforcement and legal agencies such as the Harris County
District Attorney to ensure these cases are prosecuted.
In recognition of the significance of Houston's shipping activity,
the State of Texas formally established the Houston Ship Channel
Security District (HSCSD) in 2010. The HSCSD represents a unique
public-private partnership formed to improve security and safety for
facilities, employees and communities surrounding the Houston Ship
Channel. The Coast Guard played an instrumental role in the formation
of the HSCSD, and continues to work closely with the HSCSD to ensure
alignment of priorities and unity of effort. As Sector Commander, I am
a member of the HSCSD Advisory Council and Sector Port Security
specialists attend HSCSD board meetings. The district provides
oversight of comprehensive and cost-effective security solutions,
leveraging more than $30 million in Federal Port Security grants along
with $4 million in annual member assessments to install technology and
security infrastructure and provide funds for specific security
projects, maintenance and operational services.
The Port of Houston accommodates a large number of tankers carrying
crude oil, refined products and chemical cargoes. With approximately
9,600 deep draft ship arrivals each year, the Coast Guard maintains a
very extensive Port State Control program in the Houston-Galveston
area. The Port State Control program ensures the safe carriage of
hazardous materials in bulk. Because over 90 percent of cargo bound for
the United States is carried by foreign-flagged ships, this national
program prevents operation of substandard foreign ships in U.S. waters.
The Sector also makes excellent use of its robust Vessel Traffic
Service (VTS). The VTS's primary role is facilitating safe vessel
transits in the waterways and ports along the Houston Ship Channel. The
VTS cameras, Automatic Identification System (AIS) feeds, remote radar
observation capability, and radio communications also provide an
additional layer of security. In addition to the VTS resources in the
Houston Ship Channel, Sector Houston-Galveston has access to feeds from
three AIS receivers mounted on offshore oil platforms, which provide
heightened awareness of activities in the maritime domain.
With a homeland security mission of this magnitude, it is essential
that the Coast Guard be fully funded. This bill will authorize $8.49
billion in 2012, $8.6 billion in 2013, and $8.7 billion in 2014. It is
certainly the duty of this Congress and the Administration to ensure
the brave men and women who serve in the Coast Guard have the resources
necessary to perform the wide range of duties assigned to them.
This measure contains a private-sector mandate as defined in Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act (UMRA). The bill would require operators to locate a
standby vessel within 3 nautical miles of offshore oil and gas
facilities when certain activities are being performed and within 12
nautical miles of facilities at all other times. The cost of that
mandate would depend on several factors. The bill would allow operators
to share one standby vessel among multiple facilities and to use
standby vessels for other purposes. For operators that can use those
measures, the cost of the mandate would tend to be lower. At the same
time, the bill would authorize the Coast Guard to require standby
vessels to be located closer than 3 or 12 nautical miles to offshore
facilities if necessary to address delays caused by weather or other
conditions. Reducing the minimum distance from facilities would
increase the number of vessels necessary for compliance and increase
the cost of the mandate for some operators. The Congressional Budget
Office estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandate would probably
exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($142 million in 2011, adjusted annually for inflation).
However, I do have some reservations about some of the provisions in
this legislation. At the request of President Obama's Administration,
Congress has appropriated funding to reactivate the USGC Polar Star, a
heavy icebreaking vessel. The ship is to be reactivated by December
2012 for 7 to 10 years of service. The Polar Star is deployed to assist
researchers throughout the Polar Regions, and is essential to United
States icebreaking capabilities. Ice breaking vessels create pathways
through which supply ships can travel, facilitating important research.
In its current form, the bill decommissions the Polar Star within 3
years, creating a gap in the nation's icebreaking abilities.
As a senior Member on the Homeland Security Committee, I have a deep
commitment to creating a stronger and more secure America. I have
worked with my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to pass
legislation that ensures that our nation is receiving the security that
our citizens deserve. As the potential threats and vulnerabilities
along our coast line may always exist, we rely upon Coast Guard and
their active involvement with hundreds of partners who are directly
involved with or impacted by the maritime industry in the Houston-
Galveston area of responsibility. This sector is committed to deterring
incidents before they happen and is well-prepared to respond to them
should they occur. The Coast Guard is vital to the protection of our
national security.
Both sides of the aisle have a strong respect for the Coast Guard as
well as for the men and women who work on manned stations off of our
shores. I understand that Representative Mica has agreed to honor the
purpose of an amendment offered by Representative Olson that would have
required the Commandant of the Coast Guard, in consultation with
appropriate representatives of industry, to conduct a feasibility study
to determine the capability, cost, and benefits of requiring the owner
or operator of a manned facility, installation, unit, or vessel to
locate a standby vessel nearby. I would have supported this amendment
because although a properly designed and equipped standby vessel in the
immediate vicinity of manned outer continental shelf facilities may, in
some cases, improve safety on the outer continental shelf.
In the event of a major casualty to an offshore installation, the
immediate presence of a properly designed and equipped standby vessel,
manned by a specially trained crew, might in some cases increase the
chances of survival of the installation's crew members. We must not,
however, forget the fact that historically the main cause of rig and
platform abandonment has been due to severe weather. Unless these
standby vessels are designed to

[[Page H7352]]

withstand those severe conditions, requiring them to remain on scene
could place the vessels and their crews in jeopardy. In addition, it is
severely risky to board a standby vessel in severe weather conditions.
For these reasons I would support a feasibility study to determine the
effectiveness of using standby vessels for manned stations.
In addition, I support the amendment offered by Representative
Thompson that would add a new section to the end of Title II in the
bill to open admissions to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to eligible
candidates nominated by Congress.
Specifically, the amendment would require the U.S. Coast Guard to
ensure that, beginning in academic year 2014, half of the incoming
class is composed of eligible candidates nominated by the Vice
President or, if there is no Vice President, by the President pro
tempore of the Senate; Senators; Representatives; and Delegates to the
House of Representatives. This will help to ensure that the Coast Guard
has an even more diverse pool of candidate from across the United
States.
The Coast Guard has a proud legacy and their role in our national
strategy is vital to keep our homeland secure. The safety and security
of our nations and its citizens must be our highest priority, despite
difficult economic circumstances. We need to make sure the Coast Guard
is fully funded, and have the resources they need.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print
dated October 28, 2011. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 2838

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.

TITLE II--COAST GUARD AND SERVICEMEMBER PARITY

Sec. 201. Academy emoluments.
Sec. 202. Policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence.
Sec. 203. Appointments of permanent commissioned officers.
Sec. 204. Minor construction.
Sec. 205. Treatment of reports of aircraft accident investigations.
Sec. 206. Acquisition workforce expedited hiring authority.
Sec. 207. Coast Guard housing report.
Sec. 208. Advance procurement funding.

TITLE III--COAST GUARD REFORM

Sec. 301. Repeals.
Sec. 302. Interference with Coast Guard transmissions.
Sec. 303. National security cutters.
Sec. 304. Major acquisitions report.
Sec. 305. Environmental compliance and restoration backlog.
Sec. 306. Coast Guard auxiliarist enrollment eligibility.
Sec. 307. Decommissionings.
Sec. 308. Assessment of needs for additional coast guard presence in
high latitude regions.
Sec. 309. Limitation on expenditures.
Sec. 310. Restriction on the use of aircraft.

TITLE IV--SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

Sec. 401. Committee on the Marine Transportation System.
Sec. 402. Report on determinations.
Sec. 403. Dockside examinations.
Sec. 404. Recourse for noncitizens.
Sec. 405. Maritime liens on fishing permits.
Sec. 406. Short sea transportation.
Sec. 407. Mission of the Maritime Administration.
Sec. 408. Limitation on liability for non-Federal vessel traffic
service operators.

TITLE V--FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Sec. 501. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 601. Technical corrections.
Sec. 602. Report on Coast Guard merchant mariner medical evaluation
program.
Sec. 603. Notice of arrival.
Sec. 604. Technical corrections to title 14.
Sec. 605. Distant water tuna fleet.
Sec. 606. Waivers.
Sec. 607. Report on options to improve integration of U.S. Coast Guard
and Canadian Coast Guard Great Lakes icebreaking
operational information.
Sec. 608. Standby vessels.
Sec. 609. Cap on penalty wages.
Sec. 610. Report on impediments to the U.S.-flag registry.
Sec. 611. Report on drug interdiction in the Caribbean basin.

TITLE VII--COMMERCIAL VESSEL DISCHARGES REFORM

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Discharges from commercial vessels.
Sec. 703. Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a covered
vessel.
Sec. 704. Conforming and technical amendments.
Sec. 705. Regulation of ballast water and incidental discharges from a
commercial vessel.
Sec. 706. Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Funds are authorized to be appropriated for each of the
fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 for necessary expenses of
the Coast Guard as follows:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard--
(A) $6,819,505,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(B) $6,922,645,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
(C) $7,018,499,000 for fiscal year 2014;

of which $24,500,000 is authorized for each of the fiscal
years 2012, 2013, and 2014 to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2712(a)(5)).
(2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including related
equipment thereto--
(A) $1,503,980,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(B) $1,505,312,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
(C) $1,506,549,000 for fiscal year 2014;

to remain available until expended, of which $20,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out
the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990.
(3) For the Coast Guard Reserve program, including
personnel and training costs, equipment, and services--
(A) $136,778,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(B) $138,111,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
(C) $139,311,000 for fiscal year 2014.
(4) For environmental compliance and restoration of Coast
Guard vessels, aircraft, and facilities (other than parts and
equipment associated with operation and maintenance)--
(A) $16,699,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(B) $16,699,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
(C) $16,700,000 for fiscal year 2014;

to remain available until expended.
(5) To the Commandant of the Coast Guard for research,
development, test, and evaluation of technologies, materials,
and human factors directly related to improving the
performance of the Coast Guard's mission in search and
rescue, aids to navigation, marine safety, marine
environmental protection, enforcement of laws and treaties,
ice operations, oceanographic research, and defense
readiness--
(A) $19,779,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(B) $19,848,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
(C) $19,913,000 for fiscal year 2014;

of which $650,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012, 2013,
and 2014 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund to carry out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND
TRAINING.

(a) Active Duty Strength.--The Coast Guard is authorized an
end-of-year strength for active duty personnel of 47,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2012 through fiscal year 2014.
(b) Military Training Student Loads.--The Coast Guard is
authorized average military training student loads for the
each of the fiscal years 2012 through fiscal year 2014 as
follows:
(1) For recruit and special training, 2,500 student years.
(2) For flight training, 165 student years.
(3) For professional training in military and civilian
institutions, 350 student years.
(4) For officer acquisition, 1,200 student years.

TITLE II--COAST GUARD AND SERVICEMEMBER PARITY

SEC. 201. ACADEMY EMOLUMENTS.

Section 195 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``person'' and inserting ``foreign
national''; and
(ii) by striking ``pay and allowances,'' and inserting
``pay, allowances, and emoluments,''; and
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by striking ``A person'' and inserting ``A foreign
national''; and
(ii) by striking ``pay and allowances,'' and inserting
``pay, allowances, and emoluments,''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``A person'' and
inserting ``A foreign national''.

SEC. 202. POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE.

(a) Policy Requirement.--Chapter 9 of title 14, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 200. Policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence

``(a) Required Policy.--The Commandant shall direct the
Superintendent of the Coast Guard Academy to prescribe a
policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence applicable to
the cadets and other personnel of the Coast Guard Academy.
``(b) Matters To Be Specified in Policy.--The policy on
sexual harassment and sexual violence prescribed under this
section shall include specification of the following:

[[Page H7353]]

``(1) Programs to promote awareness of the incidence of
rape, acquaintance rape, and other sexual offenses of a
criminal nature that involve cadets or other Academy
personnel.
``(2) Procedures that a cadet should follow in the case of
an occurrence of sexual harassment or sexual violence,
including--
``(A) if the cadet chooses to report an occurrence of
sexual harassment or sexual violence, a specification of the
person or persons to whom the alleged offense should be
reported and the options for confidential reporting;
``(B) a specification of any other person whom the victim
should contact; and
``(C) procedures on the preservation of evidence
potentially necessary for proof of criminal sexual assault.
``(3) Procedures for disciplinary action in cases of
alleged criminal sexual assault involving a cadet or other
Academy personnel.
``(4) Any other sanction authorized to be imposed in a
substantiated case of sexual harassment or sexual violence
involving a cadet or other Academy personnel in rape,
acquaintance rape, or any other criminal sexual offense,
whether forcible or nonforcible.
``(5) Required training on the policy for all cadets and
other Academy personnel, including the specific training
required for personnel who process allegations of sexual
harassment or sexual violence involving Academy personnel.
``(c) Annual Assessment.--
``(1) The Commandant shall direct the Superintendent of the
Academy to conduct at the Academy during each Academy program
year an assessment to determine the effectiveness of the
policies, training, and procedures of the Academy with
respect to sexual harassment and sexual violence involving
Academy personnel.
``(2) For the assessment at the Academy under paragraph (1)
with respect to an Academy program year that begins in an
odd-numbered calendar year, the Superintendent shall conduct
a survey of Academy personnel--
``(A) to measure--
``(i) the incidence, during that program year, of sexual
harassment and sexual violence events, on or off the Academy
reservation, that have been reported to officials of the
Academy; and
``(ii) the incidence, during that program year, of sexual
harassment and sexual violence events, on or off the Academy
reservation, that have not been reported to officials of the
Academy; and
``(B) to assess the perceptions of Academy personnel of--
``(i) the policies, training, and procedures on sexual
harassment and sexual violence involving Academy personnel;
``(ii) the enforcement of such policies;
``(iii) the incidence of sexual harassment and sexual
violence involving Academy personnel; and
``(iv) any other issues relating to sexual harassment and
sexual violence involving Academy personnel.
``(d) Annual Report.--
``(1) The Commandant shall direct the Superintendent of the
Academy to submit to the Commandant a report on sexual
harassment and sexual violence involving cadets or other
personnel at the Academy for each Academy program year.
``(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall include, for
the Academy program year covered by the report, the
following:
``(A) The number of sexual assaults, rapes, and other
sexual offenses involving cadets or other Academy personnel
that have been reported to Academy officials during the
program year and, of those reported cases, the number that
have been substantiated.
``(B) The policies, procedures, and processes implemented
by the Commandant and the leadership of the Academy in
response to sexual harassment and sexual violence involving
cadets or other Academy personnel during the program year.
``(C) A plan for the actions that are to be taken in the
following Academy program year regarding prevention of and
response to sexual harassment and sexual violence involving
cadets or other Academy personnel.
``(3) Each report under paragraph (1) for an Academy
program year that begins in an odd-numbered calendar year
shall include the results of the survey conducted in that
program year under subsection (c)(2).
``(4)(A) The Commandant shall transmit to the Board of
Visitors of the Academy each report received by the
Commandant under this subsection, together with the
Commandant's comments on the report.
``(B) The Commandant shall transmit each such report,
together with the Commandant's comments on the report, to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives.''.
(b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 217 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010 (14 U.S.C. 93 note), and the item
relating to such section in the table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act, are repealed.
(c) Technical and Clerical Amendments.--The analysis at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``200. Policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence.''.

SEC. 203. APPOINTMENTS OF PERMANENT COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.

Section 211 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) For the purposes of this section, the term
`original', with respect to the appointment of a member of
the Coast Guard refers to that member's most recent
appointment in the Coast Guard that is neither a promotion
nor a demotion.''.

SEC. 204. MINOR CONSTRUCTION.

(a) In General.--Section 656 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Minor Construction and Improvement.--
``(1) Subject to the reporting requirements set forth in
paragraph (2), the Secretary may expend not more than
$1,500,000 from amounts available for the operating expenses
of the Coast Guard for minor construction and improvement
projects at any location.
``(2) No later than 90 days after the end of each fiscal
year, the Secretary shall submit, to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives, a report on each project undertaken
during the course of the preceding fiscal year, for which the
amount expended under paragraph (1) exceeded $500,000.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--
(1) Section 656 of title 14, United States Code, is further
amended in the heading by adding at the end the following:
``; use of moneys appropriated for operating expenses for
minor construction and improvement''.
(2) The analysis at the beginning of chapter 17 of such
title is amended in the item relating to section 656 by
striking ``waters.'' and inserting ``waters; use of moneys
appropriated for operating expenses for minor construction
and improvement.''.

SEC. 205. TREATMENT OF REPORTS OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 678. Treatment of reports of aircraft accident
investigations

``(a) In General.--Whenever the Commandant conducts an
accident investigation of an accident involving an aircraft
under the jurisdiction of the Commandant, the records and
report of the investigation shall be treated in accordance
with this section.
``(b) Public Disclosure of Certain Accident Investigation
Information.--
``(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Commandant, upon
request, shall publicly disclose unclassified tapes,
scientific reports, and other factual information pertinent
to an aircraft accident investigation.
``(2) The Commandant shall not disclose the information
requested in paragraph (1) unless the Commandant determines--
``(A) that such tapes, reports, or other information would
be included within and releasable with the final accident
investigation report; and
``(B) that release of such tapes, reports, or other
information--
``(i) would not undermine the ability of accident or safety
investigators to continue to conduct the investigation; and
``(ii) would not compromise national security.
``(3) A disclosure under paragraph (1) may not be made by
or through officials with responsibility for, or who are
conducting, a safety investigation with respect to the
accident.
``(c) Opinions Regarding Causation of Accident.--Following
an aircraft accident referred to in subsection (a)--
``(1) if the evidence surrounding the accident is
sufficient for the investigators who conduct the accident
investigation to come to an opinion as to the cause or causes
of the accident, the final report of the accident
investigation shall set forth the opinion of the
investigators as to the cause or causes of the accident; and
``(2) if the evidence surrounding the accident is not
sufficient for the investigators to come to an opinion as to
the cause or causes of the accident, the final report of the
accident investigation shall include a description of those
factors, if any, that, in the opinion of the investigators,
substantially contributed to or caused the accident.
``(d) Use of Information in Civil Proceedings.--For
purposes of any civil or criminal proceeding arising from an
aircraft accident referred to in subsection (a), any opinion
of the accident investigators as to the cause of, or the
factors contributing to, the accident set forth in the
accident investigation report may not be considered as
evidence in such proceeding, nor may such report be
considered an admission of liability by the United States or
by any person referred to in such report.
``(e) Regulations.--The Commandant shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section.
``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `accident investigation' means any form of
investigation by Coast Guard personnel of an aircraft
accident referred to in subsection (a), other than a safety
investigation; and
``(2) the term `safety investigation' means an
investigation by Coast Guard personnel of an aircraft
accident referred to in subsection (a), that is conducted
solely to determine the cause of the accident and to obtain
information that may prevent the occurrence of similar
accidents.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

``678. Treatment of reports of aircraft accident investigations.''.

SEC. 206. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE EXPEDITED HIRING AUTHORITY.

Section 404 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-281; 124 Stat. 2950) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``as shortage
category positions;'' and inserting ``as positions for which
there exists a shortage of candidates or there is a critical
hiring need;''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``paragraph'' and inserting ``section'';
and

[[Page H7354]]

(B) by striking ``2012.'' and inserting ``2015.''.

SEC. 207. COAST GUARD HOUSING REPORT.

In conjunction with the transmittal by the President of the
budget of the United States for fiscal year 2013, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives a report on the status of Coast
Guard servicemember housing, including--
(1) a statement of the Coast Guard's housing needs
requirements;
(2) an assessment of the condition of the Coast Guard's
current housing inventory, including both leased and owned
property;
(3) an assessment of housing available for Coast Guard use
from surrounding communities and other government agencies
for all duty stations;
(4) a list of housing capacity shortfalls and excess; and
(5) a revised prioritized list of housing maintenance and
recapitalization projects.

SEC. 208. ADVANCE PROCUREMENT FUNDING.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 14,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 577. Advance procurement funding

``With respect to any Coast Guard vessel for which amounts
are appropriated or otherwise made available for vessels for
the Coast Guard in any fiscal year, the Commandant, subject
to section 569a, may enter into a contract or place an order,
in advance of a contract or order for construction of a
vessel, for--
``(1) materials, parts, components, and labor for the
vessel;
``(2) the advance construction of parts or components for
the vessel;
``(3) protection and storage of materials, parts, or
components for the vessel; and
``(4) production planning, design, and other related
support services that reduce the overall procurement lead
time of the vessel.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
such chapter is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to such subchapter the following:

``577. Advance procurement funding.''.

TITLE III--COAST GUARD REFORM

SEC. 301. REPEALS.

(a) District Ombudsman.--Section 55 of title 14, United
States Code, and the item relating to such section in the
analysis for chapter 3 of such title, are repealed.
(b) FAA Air Aids to Navigation.--Section 82 of title 14,
United States Code, and the item relating to such section in
the analysis for chapter 5 of such title, are repealed.
(c) Ocean Stations.--Section 90 of title 14, United States
Code, and the item relating to such section in the analysis
for chapter 5 of such title, are repealed.
(d) Detail of Members To Assist Foreign Governments.--
Section 149(a) of title 14, United States Code, is amended by
striking the second and third sentences.
(e) Advisory Committee.--Section 193 of title 14, United
States Code, and the item relating to such section in the
analysis for chapter 9 of such title, are repealed.
(f) History Fellowships.--Section 198 of title 14, United
States Code, and the item relating to such section in the
analysis for chapter 9 of such title, are repealed.
(g) Acquisition Awards.--Section 563 of title 14, United
States Code, and the item relating to such section in the
analysis for chapter 15 of such title, are repealed.

SEC. 302. INTERFERENCE WITH COAST GUARD TRANSMISSIONS.

Section 88 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by
adding the following:
``(e) An individual who knowingly and willfully operates a
device that interferes with the broadcast or reception of a
radio, microwave, or other signal (including a signal from a
global positioning system) transmitted, retransmitted, or
augmented by the Coast Guard for the purpose of maritime
safety is--
``(1) guilty of a class E felony; and
``(2) subject to civil penalty of not more than $1,000 per
day for each violation.''.

SEC. 303. NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTERS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 15 of title 14,
United States Code is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``Sec. 569a. National security cutters

``(a) Sixth National Security Cutter.--The Commandant may
not begin production of a sixth national security cutter on
any date before which the Commandant--
``(1) has acquired a sufficient number of Long Range
Interceptor II and Cutter Boat Over the Horizon IV small
boats for each of the first three national security cutters
and has submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a plan to provide such boats upon the date of
delivery of each subsequent national security cutter;
``(2) has achieved the goal of 225 days away from homeport
for each of the first two national security cutters; and
``(3) has submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a program execution plan detailing increased
aerial coverage to support national security cutter
operations.
``(b) Seventh National Security Cutter.--The Commandant may
not begin production of a seventh national security cutter on
any date before which the Commandant has selected an offshore
patrol cutter that meets at least the minimum operational
requirements set out in the Operational Requirements Document
approved by the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating on October 20, 2010.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
such chapter is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to such subchapter the following:

``569a. National security cutters.''.

SEC. 304. MAJOR ACQUISITIONS REPORT.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 15 of title 14,
United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:

``Sec. 569b. Major acquisitions report

``(a) Major Acquisition Programs Implementation Report.--In
conjunction with the transmittal by the President of the
budget of the United States for fiscal year 2013 and every
two fiscal years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives a report on the status of all
major acquisition programs.
``(b) Information To Be Included.--The report shall include
for each major acquisition program--
``(1) a statement of Coast Guard's mission needs and
performance goals for such program, including a justification
for any change to those needs and goals from any report
previously submitted under this subsection;
``(2) a justification for how the projected number and
capabilities of each planned acquisition program asset meets
those mission needs and performance goals;
``(3) an identification of any and all mission hour gaps,
accompanied by an explanation on how and when the Coast Guard
will close those gaps;
``(4) an identification of any changes to such program,
including--
``(A) any changes to the timeline for the acquisition of
each new asset and the phase out of legacy assets; and
``(B) any changes to the costs of new assets and legacy
assets for that fiscal year, future fiscal years, or the
total acquisition cost;
``(5) a justification for how any change to such program
fulfills the mission needs and performance goals of the Coast
Guard;
``(6) a description of how the Coast Guard is planning for
the integration of each new asset acquired under such program
into the Coast Guard, including needs related to shore-based
infrastructure and human resources;
``(7) an identification of how funds in that fiscal year's
budget request will be allocated, including information on
the purchase of specific assets;
``(8) a projection of the remaining operational lifespan
and lifecycle cost of each legacy asset that also identifies
any anticipated resource gaps;
``(9) a detailed explanation of how the costs of the legacy
assets are being accounted for within such program;
``(10) an annual performance comparison of new assets to
legacy assets; and
``(11) an identification of the scope of the anticipated
acquisitions workload for the next fiscal year; the number of
officers, members, and employees of the Coast Guard currently
assigned to positions in the acquisition workforce; and a
determination on the adequacy of the current acquisition
workforce to meet that anticipated workload, including the
specific positions that are or will be understaffed, and
actions that will be taken to correct such understaffing.
``(c) Cutters Not Maintained in Class.--Each report under
subsection (a) shall identify which, if any, Coast Guard
cutters that have been issued a certificate of classification
by the American Bureau of Shipping have not been maintained
in class with an explanation detailing the reasons why they
have not been maintained in class.
``(d) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the
term `major acquisition program' means an ongoing acquisition
undertaken by the Coast Guard with a life-cycle cost estimate
greater than or equal to $300,000,000.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
such chapter is further amended by adding at the end of the
items relating to such subchapter the following:

``569b. Major acquisitions report.''.

(c) Repeal.--
(1) Section 408 of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2006 (120 Stat. 537) is amended by
striking subsection (a).
(2) Title 14, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in section 562, by striking subsection (e) and
redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections (e) and
(f), respectively; and
(B) in section 573(c)(3), by striking subparagraph (B).

SEC. 305. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION BACKLOG.

(a) In General.--Section 693 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 693. Annual report to Congress

``The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate the prioritized list of
projects eligible for environmental compliance and
restoration funding for each fiscal year concurrent with the
President's budget submission for that fiscal year.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 19 of
such title is amended by striking the item for such section
and inserting the following:

``693. Annual report to Congress.''.

SEC. 306. COAST GUARD AUXILIARIST ENROLLMENT ELIGIBILITY.

Section 823 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``citizens of the United

[[Page H7355]]

States and its territories and possessions,'' and inserting
``nationals of the United States (as such term is defined in
section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) and aliens lawfully admitted for
permanent residence (as such term is defined in section
101(a)(20) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(20))),''.

SEC. 307. DECOMMISSIONINGS.

(a) Polar Sea.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard
shall decommission the USCGC POLAR SEA (WAGB 11).
(b) Polar Star.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard
shall decommission the USCGC POLAR STAR (WAGB 10).

SEC. 308. ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL COAST GUARD
PRESENCE IN HIGH LATITUDE REGIONS.

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall submit a report to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives assessing the need for additional Coast
Guard prevention and response capability in the high latitude
regions. The assessment shall address needs for all Coast
Guard mission areas, including search and rescue, marine
pollution response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and
maritime commerce. The Secretary shall include in the
report--
(1) an assessment of the high latitude operating
capabilities of all current Coast Guard assets other than
icebreakers, including assets acquired under the Deepwater
program;
(2) an assessment of projected needs for Coast Guard
operations in the high latitude regions; and
(3) an assessment of shore infrastructure, personnel,
logistics, communications, and resources requirements to
support Coast Guard operations in the high latitude regions,
including forward operating bases and existing infrastructure
in the furthest north locations that are ice free, or nearly
ice free, year round.

SEC. 309. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES.

Section 149(d) of title 14, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(3) The amount of funds used under this subsection may
not exceed $100,000 in any fiscal year.''.

SEC. 310. RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF AIRCRAFT.

(a) Restriction.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating and the Commandant of the Coast Guard may not
travel aboard any Coast Guard owned or operated fixed-wing
aircraft if the Secretary has not provided the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate all of the following:
(1) A cost-constrained Fleet Mix Analysis.
(2) The study of Coast Guard current and planned cutters
conducted by the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation of
the Department of Homeland Security at the request of the
Office of Management and Budget.
(b) Exception.--The Secretary and the Commandant may travel
aboard a Coast Guard owned and operated fixed-wing aircraft--
(1) to respond to a major disaster or emergency declared
under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170);
(2) to respond to a discharge classified as a spill of
national significance under part 300.323 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations; or
(3) for evacuation purposes including for a medical
emergency.

TITLE IV--SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

SEC. 401. COMMITTEE ON THE MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--Chapter 555 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 55502. Committee on the Marine Transportation System

``(a) Establishment.--There is established a Committee on
the Marine Transportation System (in this section referred to
as the `Committee').
``(b) Purpose.--The Committee shall--
``(1) assess the adequacy of the marine transportation
system (including ports, waterways, channels, and their
intermodal connections);
``(2) develop and implement policies to promote an
efficient marine transportation system; and
``(3) coordinate policies among Federal agencies to promote
an efficient marine transportation system.
``(c) Membership.--
``(1) In general.--The Committee shall consist of the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce,
the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of
Energy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, and
the head of any other Federal agency that the Committee
Chair, with the approval of a majority of the voting members
of the Committee, determines can further the purpose and
activities of the Committee.
``(2) Ex-officio members.--The Committee may also consist
of so many nonvoting members as the Committee Chair, with the
approval of a majority of the voting members of the
Committee, determines is appropriate to further the purpose
and activities of the Committee.
``(3) Chairman.--The Chair of the Committee shall rotate
each year among the Secretary of Transportation, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
the Secretary of Commerce. The order of rotation shall be
determined with the approval of a majority of the voting
members of the Committee.
``(d) Support.--
``(1) Coordinating board.--Each member of the Committee may
select a senior level representative to serve on a
coordinating board which shall assist the Committee in
carrying out its purpose and activities.
``(2) Executive director.--The Secretary of Transportation,
in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Commerce, shall
select an executive director to assist the Committee in
carrying out its purpose and activities.
``(e) Marine Transportation System Assessment and
Strategy.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act and every 5 years thereafter, the
Committee shall provide a report to Congress which includes--
``(1) steps taken to implement actions recommended in the
July 2008 `National Strategy for the Marine Transportation
System: A Framework for Action';
``(2) an assessment of the condition of the marine
transportation system;
``(3) a discussion of the challenges the system faces in
meeting user demand;
``(4) a plan with recommended actions for improving the
marine transportation system to meet current and future
challenges; and
``(5) steps taken to implement actions recommended in
previous reports required under this subsection.
``(f) Consultation.--In carrying out its purpose and
activities, the Committee may consult with the Marine
Transportation System National Advisory Council, interested
parties, and the public.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 55501 the following:

``55502. Committee on the Marine Transportation System.''.

SEC. 402. REPORT ON DETERMINATIONS.

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 provide to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report on--
(1) the loss of United States shipyard jobs and industrial
base expertise as a result of rebuild, conversion, and
double-hull work on United States-flag vessels eligible to
engage in the coastwise trade being performed in foreign
shipyards;
(2) enforcement of the Coast Guard's foreign rebuild
determination regulations; and
(3) recommendations for improving the transparency in the
Coast Guard's foreign rebuild determination process.

SEC. 403. DOCKSIDE EXAMINATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 4502(f) of title 46, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``at least once every 2
years'' and inserting ``at least once every 5 years'';
(2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (1);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) shall complete the first examination of a dockside
vessel under this section no later than October 15, 2015.''.
(b) Database.--Section 4502(g)(4) of title 46, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``a publicly accessible''
and inserting ``an''.

SEC. 404. RECOURSE FOR NONCITIZENS.

Section 30104 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before the first
sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Restriction on Recovery for Nonresident Aliens
Employed on Foreign Passenger Vessels.--A claim for damages
or expenses relating to personal injury, illness, or death of
a seaman who is a citizen of a foreign nation, arising during
or from the engagement of the seaman by or for a passenger
vessel duly registered under the laws of a foreign nation,
may not be brought under the laws of the United States if--
``(1) such seaman was not a permanent resident alien of the
United States at the time the claim arose;
``(2) the injury, illness, or death arose outside the
territorial waters of the United States; and
``(3) the seaman or the seaman's personal representative
has or had a right to seek compensation for the injury,
illness, or death in, or under the laws of--
``(A) the nation in which the vessel was registered at the
time the claim arose; or
``(B) the nation in which the seaman maintained citizenship
or residency at the time the claim arose.''.

SEC. 405. MARITIME LIENS ON FISHING PERMITS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 313 of title 46,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 31310. Limitation on maritime liens on fishing permit
and permit description

``(a) In General.--This chapter--
``(1) does not establish a maritime lien on a permit that--
``(A) authorizes a person or use of a vessel to engage in
fishing; and
``(B) is issued under State or Federal law; and
``(2) does not authorize any civil action to enforce a
maritime lien on such a permit.

[[Page H7356]]

``(b) Fishing Permit Described.--A fishing permit--
``(1) is governed solely by the State or Federal law under
which it was issued; and
``(2) is not included in the whole of a vessel or as an
appurtenance or intangible of a vessel for any purpose.
``(c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in
subsections (a) and (b) shall be construed as imposing any
limitation upon the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to
modify, suspend, revoke, or sanction any Federal fishery
permit issued by the Secretary of Commerce or to bring a
civil action to enforce such modification, suspension,
revocation, or sanction.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 31309 the following:

``31310. Limitation on maritime liens on fishing permit and permit
description.''.

SEC. 406. SHORT SEA TRANSPORTATION.

(a) Purpose of Program and Projects; Reauthorization;
Termination.--Section 55601 of title 46, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``landside congestion.''
and inserting ``landside congestion and to promote increased
use of the navigable waters of the United States for
transportation of passengers or freight (or both).'';
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``and to promote
waterborne transportation between ports within the United
States'' after ``coastal corridors'';
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``that the project may--
'' and all that follows through the end of the subsection and
inserting ``that the project uses documented vessels and--
``(1) mitigates landside congestion; or
``(2) promotes waterborne transportation between ports of
the United States.'';
(4) by striking subsection (f) and redesignating subsection
(g) as subsection (f);
(5) in subsection (f), as so redesignated, by adding at the
end the following--
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2012 through fiscal year 2017 for grants under
this subsection.''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Termination of Authority.--Authority granted to the
Secretary under this section shall terminate September 30,
2017.''.
(b) Short Sea Transportation Definition.--Section 55605 of
title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking ``means
the carriage by vessel of cargo--'' and inserting ``means the
carriage of passengers or freight (or both) by a vessel
documented under the laws of the United States--''.

SEC. 407. MISSION OF THE MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.

Section 109(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Organization''
and inserting ``Organization and Mission''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following: ``The mission of
the Maritime Administration is to foster, promote, and
develop the domestic merchant maritime industry of the United
States.''.

SEC. 408. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR NON-FEDERAL VESSEL
TRAFFIC SERVICE OPERATORS.

(a) In General.--Section 2307 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service
Pilots'' before ``Any pilot''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Non-Federal Vessel Traffic Service Operators.--An
entity operating a non-Federal vessel traffic information
service or advisory service pursuant to a duly executed
written agreement with the Coast Guard, and any person acting
in accordance with operational procedures approved by the
Coast Guard at such a non-Federal service, shall not be
liable for damages caused by or related to information,
advice, or communication assistance provided by such entity
or person while so operating or acting unless the acts or
omissions of such entity or person constitute gross
negligence or willful misconduct.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
chapter 23 of such title is amended by striking the item
relating to section 2307 and inserting the following:

``2307. Limitation on liability for Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service
pilots and non-Federal vessel traffic service
operators.''.

TITLE V--FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 501 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 1049) is amended
by striking ``Commission--'' and all that follows through the
period at the end of the section and inserting ``Commission
for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015,
$24,000,000.''.

TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 601. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Title 14.--Title 14, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 564, by striking subsection (d); and
(2) in section 569(a), by striking ``and annually
thereafter,''.
(b) Study of Bridges.--Section 905 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-281; 124 Stat.
3012) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 905. STUDY OF BRIDGES OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS.

``The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives a comprehensive study on the
construction or alteration of any bridge, drawbridge, or
causeway over the navigable waters of the United States with
a channel depth of 25 feet or greater that may impede or
obstruct future navigation to or from port facilities, for
which a permit under the Act of March 23, 1906 (chapter 1130;
33 U.S.C. 491 et seq.), popularly known as the Bridge Act of
1906, was requested on or after January 1, 2006 and on or
before August 3, 2011.''.

SEC. 602. REPORT ON COAST GUARD MERCHANT MARINER MEDICAL
EVALUATION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard
shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report on the Coast Guard National Maritime Center's
merchant mariner medical evaluation program and alternatives
to the program.
(b) Contents.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) An overview of the adequacy of the program for making
medical certification determinations for issuance of merchant
mariners' documents.
(2) An analysis of how a system similar to the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration's National Registry of
Certified Medical Examiners program, and the Federal Aviation
Administration's Designated Aviation Medical Examiners
program, could be applied by the Coast Guard to make medical
fitness determinations for issuance of merchant mariners'
documents.
(3) An explanation of how the amendments to the
International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, that
enter into force on January 1, 2012, will require changes to
the Coast Guard's merchant mariner medical evaluation
program.

SEC. 603. NOTICE OF ARRIVAL.

The regulations required under section 109(a) of Public Law
109-347 (33 U.S.C. 1223 note) on notice of arrival for
foreign vessels on the Outer Continental Shelf shall not
apply to a vessel documented under section 12105 of title 46,
United States Code, unless such vessel arrives from a foreign
port or place.

SEC. 604. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO TITLE 14.

Chapter 1 of title 14, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``CHAPTER 1--ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES

``Sec.
``1. Establishment of Coast Guard.
``2. Primary duties.
``3. Department in which the Coast Guard operates.
``4. Secretary defined.

``Sec. 1. Establishment of Coast Guard

``The Coast Guard shall be a military service and a branch
of the armed forces of the United States at all times.

``Sec. 2. Primary duties

``The Coast Guard shall--
``(1) enforce or assist in the enforcement of all
applicable Federal laws on, under, and over the high seas and
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
``(2) engage in maritime air surveillance or interdiction
to enforce or assist in the enforcement of the laws of the
United States;
``(3) administer laws and promulgate and enforce
regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property
on and under the high seas and waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States covering all matters not
specifically delegated by law to some other executive
department;
``(4) develop, establish, maintain, and operate, with due
regard to the requirements of national defense, aids to
maritime navigation, ice-breaking facilities, and rescue
facilities for the promotion of safety on, under, and over
the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States;
``(5) pursuant to international agreements, develop,
establish, maintain, and operate icebreaking facilities on,
under, and over waters other than the high seas and waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
``(6) engage in oceanographic research of the high seas and
in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
and
``(7) maintain a state of readiness to function as a
specialized service in the Navy in time of war, including the
fulfillment of Maritime Defense Zone command
responsibilities.

``Sec. 3. Department in which the Coast Guard operates

``(a) The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department
of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in
the Navy.
``(b) Upon the declaration of war if Congress so directs in
the declaration or when the President directs, the Coast
Guard shall operate as a service in the Navy, and shall so
continue until the President, by Executive order, transfers
the Coast Guard back to the Department of Homeland Security.
While operating as a service in the Navy, the Coast Guard
shall be subject to the orders of the Secretary of the Navy,
who may order changes in Coast Guard operations to render
them uniform, to the extent such Secretary deems advisable,
with Navy operations.
``(c) Whenever the Coast Guard operates as a service in the
Navy:
``(1) applicable appropriations of the Navy Department
shall be available for the expense of the Coast Guard;
``(2) applicable appropriations of the Coast Guard shall be
available for transfer to the Navy Department;

[[Page H7357]]

``(3) precedence between commissioned officers of
corresponding grades in the Coast Guard and the Navy shall be
determined by the date of rank stated by their commissions in
those grades;
``(4) personnel of the Coast Guard shall be eligible to
receive gratuities, medals, and other insignia of honor on
the same basis as personnel in the naval service or serving
in any capacity with the Navy; and
``(5) the Secretary may place on furlough any officer of
the Coast Guard and officers on furlough shall receive one
half of the pay to which they would be entitled if on leave
of absence, but officers of the Coast Guard Reserve shall not
be so placed on furlough.

``Sec. 4. Secretary defined

``In this title, the term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the respective department in which the Coast Guard is
operating.''.

SEC. 605. DISTANT WATER TUNA FLEET.

Section 421 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241; 120 Stat. 548) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Licensing Restrictions.--
``(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(1) only applies to a
foreign citizen that holds a credential that is equivalent to
the credential issued by the Coast Guard to a United States
citizen for the position, with respect to requirements for
experience, training, and other qualifications.
``(2) Treatment of license.--An equivalent credential under
paragraph (1) shall be considered as meeting the requirements
of section 8304 of title 46, United States Code, but only
while a person holding the credential is in the service of
the vessel to which this section applies.''; and
(2) in subsection (d) by striking ``on December 31, 2012''
and inserting ``on the date the Treaty on Fisheries Between
the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the
Government of the United States of America ceases to have
effect for any party under Article 12.6 or 12.7 of such
treaty, as in effect on the date of enactment of the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011''.

SEC. 606. WAIVERS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 12112 and 12132
and chapter 551 of title 46, United States Code, the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may issue a certificate of documentation with a
coastwise endorsement for each of the following vessels:
(1) M/V GEYSIR (United States official number 622178).
(2) MACY-RENEE (United States official number 1107319)
(3) OCEAN VERITAS (IMO number 7366805).
(4) LUNA (United States official number 280133).
(5) IL MORO DI VENEZIA IV (United States official number
1028654)
(b) Documentation of LNG Tankers.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding sections 12112 and 12132
and chapter 551 of title 46, United States Code, the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may issue a certificate of documentation with a
coastwise endorsement for each of the following vessels:
(A) LNG GEMINI (United States official number 595752).
(B) LNG LEO (United States official number 595753).
(C) LNG VIRGO (United States official number 595755).
(2) Limitation on operation.--Coastwise trade authorized
under paragraph (1) shall be limited to carriage of natural
gas, as that term is defined in section 3(13) of the
Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1502(13)).
(3) Termination of effectiveness of endorsements.--The
coastwise endorsement issued under paragraph (1) for a vessel
shall expire on the date of the sale of the vessel by the
owner of the vessel on the date of enactment of this Act to a
person who is not related by ownership or control to such
owner.
(c) Operation of a Dry Dock.--A vessel transported in Dry
Dock #2 (State of Alaska registration AIDEA FDD-2) is not
merchandise for purposes of section 55102 of title 46, United
States Code, if, during such transportation, Dry Dock #2
remains connected by a utility or other connecting line to
pierside moorage.

SEC. 607. REPORT ON OPTIONS TO IMPROVE INTEGRATION OF U.S.
COAST GUARD AND CANADIAN COAST GUARD GREAT
LAKES ICEBREAKING OPERATIONAL INFORMATION.

Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall report to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives on options to improve the
integration of the Great Lakes icebreaking operational
information of the United States Coast Guard and Canadian
Coast Guard to improve the safety, economic security, and
efficiency of Great Lakes icebreaking activities of both
services.

SEC. 608. STANDBY VESSELS.

(a) In General.--Subtitle VIII of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new chapter:

``CHAPTER 807--STANDBY VESSELS

``Sec.
``80701. Standby vessels.

``Sec. 80701. Standby vessels

``(a) In General.--The owner or operator of a manned
facility, installation, unit, or vessel shall locate a
standby vessel--
``(1) not more than 3 nautical miles from such manned
facility, installation, unit, or vessel while it is
performing drilling, plugging, abandoning, or workover
operations; and
``(2) not more than 12 nautical miles from such manned
facility, installation, unit, or vessel while it is
performing operations other than drilling, plugging,
abandoning, or workover operations.
``(b) Improved Standby Vessel Response Time.--
``(1) In general.--A Coast Guard District Commander may
reduce the distances prescribed in subsection (a) for the
area of command of the District Commander if the District
Commander determines the reduction is necessary to address
delays in standby vessel response times caused by inclement
weather, high seas, or other conditions that prolong standby
vessel response time or lessen the time survivors of an
accident can remain in the water.
``(2) Approximation of normal response time.--Any reduction
under paragraph (1) shall be made to a distance that, in
weather conditions necessitating the reduction, ensures that
a standby vessel's response time approximates that of a
standby vessel covering the distance prescribed in subsection
(a) during normal weather conditions.
``(3) Prevention of hypothermia.--Any reduction under
paragraph (1) made due to water temperature or other factors
that reduce the time survivors of an accident can remain in
the water shall be made to a distance at which a standby
vessel can be assumed to reach the survivor before the onset
of hypothermia.
``(4) Notice to owners and operators.--Before exercising
the authority in paragraph (1), a District Commander shall
provide 72 hours notice to the owners and operators of
standby vessels and owners and operators of manned
facilities, installations, units, and vessels operating in
the District Commander's area of command.
``(c) Multiple Platforms and Uses.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to prohibit--
``(1) use of one standby vessel for more than one manned
facility, installation, unit, or vessel; or
``(2) use of a standby vessel for other purposes.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the
beginning of such subtitle is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``807. Standby vessels.....................................80701''.....

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect one year after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(d) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating may promulgate regulations to
implement the amendments made by this section.
(2) Existing regulations.--Until such time as the Secretary
promulgates regulations to implement the amendments made by
this section, the requirements of subpart E of part 143 of
title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the
date of enactment of this Act, including the requirements
that must be met by a standby vessel, shall apply to standby
vessels required under the amendments.

SEC. 609. CAP ON PENALTY WAGES.

(a) Foreign and Intercoastal Voyages.--Section 10313(g) of
title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``all claims in a class action suit by
seamen'' and inserting ``each claim by a seaman''; and
(B) by striking ``the seamen'' and inserting ``the
seaman''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``class action''.
(b) Coastwise Voyages.--Section 10504(c) of such title is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``all claims in a class action suit by
seamen'' and inserting ``each claim by a seaman''; and
(B) by striking ``the seamen'' and inserting ``the
seaman''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``class action''.

SEC. 610. REPORT ON IMPEDIMENTS TO THE U.S.-FLAG REGISTRY.

SEC. 611. REPORT ON DRUG INTERDICTION IN THE CARIBBEAN BASIN.

[[Page H7358]]

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a
report on drug interdiction in the Caribbean basin.
(b) Content.--The report shall include--
(1) a statement of the Coast Guard mission requirements for
drug interdiction in the Caribbean basin;
(2) the number of maritime surveillance hours and Coast
Guard assets used in each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011
to counter the illicit trafficking of drugs and other related
threats throughout the Caribbean basin; and
(3) a determination of whether such hours and assets
satisfied the Coast Guard mission requirements for drug
interdiction in the Caribbean basin.

TITLE VII--COMMERCIAL VESSEL DISCHARGES REFORM

SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Commercial Vessel
Discharges Reform Act of 2011''.

SEC. 702. DISCHARGES FROM COMMERCIAL VESSELS.

Title III of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 321. DISCHARGES FROM COMMERCIAL VESSELS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Aquatic nuisance species.--The term `aquatic nuisance
species' means a nonindigenous species (including a pathogen)
that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species
or the ecological stability of navigable waters or
commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, or recreational
activities dependent on such waters.
``(2) Ballast water.--
``(A) In general.--The term `ballast water' means any water
(including any sediment suspended in such water) taken aboard
a commercial vessel--
``(i) to control trim, list, draught, stability, or
stresses of the vessel; or
``(ii) during the cleaning, maintenance, or other operation
of a ballast water treatment system of the vessel.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `ballast water' does not include
any pollutant that is added to water described in
subparagraph (A) that is not directly related to the
operation of a properly functioning ballast water treatment
technology certified under subsection (e).
``(3) Ballast water performance standard.--The term
`ballast water performance standard' or `performance
standard' means a numerical ballast water performance
standard specified under subsection (c) or established under
subsection (d).
``(4) Ballast water treatment system.--The term `ballast
water treatment system' means any equipment on board a
commercial vessel (including all compartments, piping,
spaces, tanks, and multi-use compartments, piping, spaces,
and tanks) that is--
``(A) designed for loading, carrying, treating, or
discharging ballast water; and
``(B) installed and operated to meet a ballast water
performance standard.
``(5) Ballast water treatment technology.--The term
`ballast water treatment technology' or `treatment
technology' means any mechanical, physical, chemical, or
biological process used, either singularly or in combination,
to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge
of aquatic nuisance species within ballast water.
``(6) Biocide.--The term `biocide' means a substance or
organism, including a virus or fungus, that is introduced
into, or produced by, a ballast water treatment technology as
part of the process used to comply with a ballast water
performance standard under this section.
``(7) Commercial vessel.--The term `commercial vessel'
means every description of watercraft, or other artificial
contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation on water, that is engaged in commercial
service (as defined under section 2101 of title 46, United
States Code).
``(8) Constructed.--The term `constructed' means a state of
construction of a commercial vessel at which--
``(A) the keel is laid;
``(B) construction identifiable with the specific vessel
begins;
``(C) assembly of the vessel has begun comprising at least
50 tons or 1 percent of the estimated mass of all structural
material of the vessel, whichever is less; or
``(D) the vessel commences a major conversion.
``(9) Discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
commercial vessel.--
``(A) In general.--The term `discharge incidental to the
normal operation of a commercial vessel' means--
``(i) a discharge into navigable waters from a commercial
vessel of--

``(I)(aa) graywater (except graywater referred to in
section 312(a)(6)), bilge water, cooling water, oil water
separator effluent, anti-fouling hull coating leachate,
boiler or economizer blowdown, byproducts from cathodic
protection, controllable pitch propeller and thruster
hydraulic fluid, distillation and reverse osmosis brine,
elevator pit effluent, firemain system effluent, freshwater
layup effluent, gas turbine wash water, motor gasoline and
compensating effluent, refrigeration and air condensate
effluent, seawater pumping biofouling prevention substances,
boat engine wet exhaust, sonar dome effluent, exhaust gas
scrubber washwater, or stern tube packing gland effluent; or
``(bb) any other pollutant associated with the operation of
a marine propulsion system, shipboard maneuvering system,
habitability system, or installed major equipment, or from a
protective, preservative, or absorptive application to the
hull of a commercial vessel;
``(II) weather deck runoff, deck wash, aqueous film forming
foam effluent, chain locker effluent, non-oily machinery
wastewater, underwater ship husbandry effluent, welldeck
effluent, or fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent; or
``(III) any effluent from a properly functioning marine
engine; or

``(ii) a discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters in
connection with the testing, maintenance, and repair of a
system, equipment, or engine described in subclause (I)(bb)
or (III) of clause (i) whenever the commercial vessel is
waterborne.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `discharge incidental to the
normal operation of a commercial vessel' does not include--
``(i) a discharge into navigable waters from a commercial
vessel of--

``(I) ballast water;
``(II) rubbish, trash, garbage, incinerator ash, or other
such material discharged overboard;
``(III) oil or a hazardous substance within the meaning of
section 311; or
``(IV) sewage within the meaning of section 312; or

``(ii) an emission of an air pollutant resulting from the
operation onboard a commercial vessel of a vessel propulsion
system, motor driven equipment, or incinerator.
``(10) Existing commercial vessel.--The term `existing
commercial vessel' means a commercial vessel constructed
prior to January 1, 2012.
``(11) Geographically limited area.--The term
`geographically limited area' means an area--
``(A) with a physical limitation that prevents a commercial
vessel from operating outside the area, as determined by the
Secretary; or
``(B) that is ecologically homogeneous, as determined by
the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary.
``(12) Major conversion.--The term `major conversion' means
a conversion of a commercial vessel that--
``(A) changes its ballast water capacity by 15 percent or
more; or
``(B) prolongs the life of the commercial vessel by 10
years or more, as determined by the Secretary.
``(13) Manufacturer.--The term `manufacturer' means a
person engaged in the manufacturing, assembling, or
importation of a ballast water treatment technology.
``(14) Navigable waters.--The term `navigable waters'
includes the exclusive economic zone, as defined in section
107 of title 46, United States Code.
``(15) Nonindigenous species.--The term `nonindigenous
species' means a species or other viable biological material
that enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range.
``(16) Owner or operator.--The term `owner or operator'
means a person owning, operating, or chartering by demise a
commercial vessel.
``(17) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating.
``(18) Vessel general permit.--The term `Vessel General
Permit' means the Vessel General Permit for Discharges
Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels issued by the
Administrator under section 402 for ballast water and other
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels, as
in effect on December 19, 2008, for all jurisdictions except
Alaska and Hawaii, and February 6, 2009, for Alaska and
Hawaii.
``(b) General Provisions.--
``(1) Ballast water discharge requirements for commercial
vessels.--An owner or operator may discharge ballast water
from a commercial vessel into navigable waters only if--
``(A) the discharge--
``(i) meets the ballast water performance standard;
``(ii) is made pursuant to the safety exemption established
by subsection (c)(2);
``(iii) meets the requirements of an alternative method of
compliance established for the commercial vessel under
subsection (f); or
``(iv) is made pursuant to a determination that the
commercial vessel meets the requirements relating to
geographically limited areas under subsection (g); and
``(B) the owner or operator discharges the ballast water in
accordance with a ballast water management plan approved
under subsection (i).
``(2) Applicability.--
``(A) Covered vessels.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to the
owner or operator of a commercial vessel that is designed,
constructed, or adapted to carry ballast water if the
commercial vessel is--
``(i) documented under the laws of the United States; or
``(ii) operating in navigable waters on a voyage to or from
a point in the United States.
``(B) Exempted vessels.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to
the owner or operator of--
``(i) a commercial vessel that carries all of its ballast
water in sealed tanks that are not subject to discharge;
``(ii) a commercial vessel that continuously takes on and
discharges ballast water in a flow-through system;
``(iii) any vessel in the National Defense Reserve Fleet
that is scheduled to be disposed of through scrapping or
sinking;
``(iv) a commercial vessel that discharges ballast water
consisting solely of water--

``(I) taken aboard from a municipal or commercial source;
and
``(II) that, at the time the water is taken aboard, meets
the applicable regulations or permit requirements for such
source under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.) and section 402 of this Act; or

``(v) a commercial vessel that is 3 years or fewer from the
end of its useful life, as determined by the Secretary, on
the date on which

[[Page H7359]]

the regulations issued under paragraph (3) become effective
for the vessel pursuant to the implementation schedule issued
under paragraph (3)(B).
``(C) Limitation.--An exemption under subparagraph (B)(v)
shall cease to be effective on the date that is 3 years after
the date on which the regulations under paragraph (3) become
effective for the commercial vessel pursuant to the
implementation schedule issued under paragraph (3)(B).
``(3) Issuance of regulations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Administrator, shall issue final regulations to
implement the requirements of this section.
``(B) Proposed rule.--For the purposes of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code, the proposed rulemaking
published by the Coast Guard on August 28, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg.
44632; relating to standards for living organisms in ships'
ballast water discharged in U.S. waters), shall serve as a
proposed rule for the purposes of issuing regulations under
this section.
``(4) Compliance schedules.--
``(A) Initial performance standard compliance deadlines.--
``(i) In general.--An owner or operator shall comply with
the performance standard established under subsection (c) on
or before the deadline that applies to the commercial vessel
of the owner or operator, as specified in clause (ii).
``(ii) Deadlines.--The deadlines for compliance with the
performance standard established under subsection (c) are as
follows:

``(I) For a commercial vessel constructed on or after
January 1, 2012, the date of delivery of the vessel.
``(II) For an existing commercial vessel with a ballast
water capacity of less than 1,500 cubic meters, the date of
the first drydocking of the vessel after January 1, 2016.
``(III) For an existing commercial vessel with a ballast
water capacity of at least 1,500 cubic meters but not more
than 5,000 cubic meters, the date of the first drydocking of
the vessel after January 1, 2014.
``(IV) For an existing commercial vessel with a ballast
water capacity of greater than 5,000 cubic meters, the date
of the first drydocking of the vessel after January 1, 2016.

``(iii) Regulations.--In issuing regulations under
paragraph (3), the Secretary shall include a compliance
schedule that sets forth the deadlines specified in clause
(ii).
``(B) Revised performance standard compliance deadlines.--
``(i) In general.--Upon revision of a performance standard
under subsection (d), the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator, shall issue a compliance schedule that
establishes deadlines for an owner or operator to comply with
the revised performance standard.
``(ii) Factors.--In issuing a compliance schedule under
this subparagraph, the Secretary--

``(I) shall consider the factors identified in subparagraph
(C)(iv); and
``(II) may establish different compliance deadlines based
on vessel class, type, or size.

``(iii) Vessels constructed after issuance of revised
performance standards.--A compliance schedule issued under
this subparagraph with respect to a revised performance
standard shall require, at a minimum, the owner or operator
of a commercial vessel that commences a major conversion or
is constructed on or after the date of issuance of the
revised performance standard to comply with the revised
performance standard.
``(C) Extension of compliance deadlines.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary may extend a compliance
deadline established under subparagraph (A) or (B) on the
Secretary's own initiative or in response to a petition
submitted by an owner or operator.
``(ii) Processes for granting extensions.--In issuing
regulations under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall
establish--

``(I) a process for the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator, to issue an extension of a compliance deadline
established under subparagraph (A) or (B) for a commercial
vessel (or class, type, or size of vessel); and
``(II) a process for an owner or operator to submit a
petition to the Secretary for an extension of a compliance
deadline established under subparagraph (A) or (B) with
respect to the commercial vessel of the owner or operator.

``(iii) Period of extensions.--An extension issued under
this subparagraph shall--

``(I) apply for a period of not to exceed 18 months; and
``(II) be renewable for an additional period of not to
exceed 18 months.

``(iv) Factors.--In issuing an extension or reviewing a
petition under this subparagraph, the Secretary shall
consider, with respect to the ability of an owner or operator
to meet a compliance deadline, the following factors:

``(I) Whether the treatment technology to be installed is
available in sufficient quantities to meet the compliance
deadline.
``(II) Whether there is sufficient shipyard or other
installation facility capacity.
``(III) Whether there is sufficient availability of
engineering and design resources.
``(IV) Vessel characteristics, such as engine room size,
layout, or a lack of installed piping.
``(V) Electric power generating capacity aboard the vessel.
``(VI) Safety of the vessel and crew.

``(v) Consideration of petitions.--

``(I) Determinations.--The Secretary shall approve or deny
a petition for an extension of a compliance deadline
submitted by an owner or operator under this subparagraph.
``(II) Deadline.--If the Secretary does not approve or deny
a petition referred to in subclause (I) on or before the last
day of the 90-day period beginning on the date of submission
of the petition, the petition shall be deemed approved.

``(c) Ballast Water Performance Standard for Commercial
Vessels.--
``(1) In general.--To meet the ballast water performance
standard, an owner or operator shall--
``(A) conduct ballast water treatment before discharging
ballast water from a commercial vessel into navigable waters
using a ballast water treatment technology certified for the
vessel (or class, type, or size of vessel) under subsection
(e); and
``(B) ensure that any ballast water so discharged meets, at
a minimum, the numerical ballast water performance standard
set forth in the International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, as adopted
on February 13, 2004, or a revised numerical ballast water
performance standard established under subsection (d).
``(2) Safety exemption.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an
owner or operator may discharge ballast water without regard
to a ballast water performance standard if--
``(A) the discharge is done solely to ensure the safety of
life at sea;
``(B) the discharge is accidental and the result of damage
to the commercial vessel or its equipment and--
``(i) all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimize the
discharge have been taken; and
``(ii) the owner or operator did not willfully or
recklessly cause such damage; or
``(C) the discharge is solely for the purpose of avoiding
or minimizing discharge from the vessel of pollution that
would otherwise violate an applicable Federal or State law.
``(d) Review of Performance Standard.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2016, and
every 10 years thereafter, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary, shall complete a review to determine
whether revising the ballast water performance standard would
result in a scientifically demonstrable and substantial
reduction in the risk of the introduction or establishment of
aquatic nuisance species.
``(2) Considerations.--In conducting the review, the
Administrator shall consider--
``(A) improvements in the scientific understanding of
biological and ecological processes that lead to the
introduction or establishment of aquatic nuisance species;
``(B) improvements in ballast water treatment technology,
including--
``(i) the capability of such technology to achieve a
revised ballast water performance standard;
``(ii) the effectiveness and reliability of such technology
in the shipboard environment;
``(iii) the compatibility of such technology with the
design and operation of commercial vessels by class, type,
and size;
``(iv) the commercial availability of such technology; and
``(v) the safety of such technology;
``(C) improvements in the capabilities to detect, quantify,
and assess the viability of aquatic nuisance species at the
concentrations under consideration;
``(D) the impact of ballast water treatment technology on
water quality; and
``(E) the costs, cost-effectiveness, and impacts of--
``(i) a revised ballast water performance standard,
including the potential impacts on shipping, trade, and other
uses of the aquatic environment; and
``(ii) maintaining the existing ballast water performance
standard, including the potential impacts on water-related
infrastructure, recreation, the propagation of native fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, and other uses of navigable waters.
``(3) Revision of performance standard.--
``(A) Rulemaking.--If, pursuant to a review conducted under
paragraph (1), the Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary, determines that revising the ballast water
performance standard would result in a scientifically
demonstrable and substantial reduction in the risk of the
introduction or establishment of aquatic nuisance species,
the Administrator shall undertake a rulemaking to revise the
performance standard.
``(B) Special rule.--The Administrator may not issue a
revised performance standard pursuant to this paragraph that
applies to a commercial vessel constructed prior to the date
on which the revised performance standard is issued unless
the revised performance standard is at least 2 orders of
magnitude more stringent than the performance standard in
effect on the date that the review is completed.
``(4) State petition for review of performance standards.--
``(A) In general.--The Governor of a State may submit a
petition requesting that the Administrator review a ballast
water performance standard if there is significant new
information that could reasonably indicate the performance
standard could be revised to result in a scientifically
demonstrable and substantial reduction in the risk of the
introduction or establishment of aquatic nuisance species.
``(B) Timing.--A Governor may not submit a petition under
subparagraph (A) during the 1-year period following the date
of completion of a review under paragraph (1).
``(C) Required information.--A petition submitted to the
Administrator under subparagraph (A) shall include the
scientific and technical information on which the petition is
based.
``(D) Review and reporting.--Upon receipt of a petition
from a Governor under subparagraph (A), the Administrator
shall make publicly available a copy of the petition,
including the scientific and technical information provided
by the Governor under subparagraph (C).
``(E) Review and revision of performance standards.--
``(i) In general.--If, after receiving a petition submitted
by a Governor under subparagraph (A) for review of a
performance standard, the Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary, determines that the petition warrants
additional action, the Administrator may--

[[Page H7360]]

``(I) in consultation with the Secretary, initiate a review
of the performance standard under paragraph (1); and
``(II) in consultation with the Secretary, revise the
performance standard through a rulemaking under paragraph
(3)(A), subject to the limitation in paragraph (3)(B).

``(ii) Treatment of more than one petition as a single
petition.--The Administrator may treat more than one petition
as a single petition for review.
``(e) Treatment Technology Certification.--
``(1) Certification required.--
``(A) Certification process.--
``(i) Evaluation.--Upon application of a manufacturer, the
Secretary shall evaluate a ballast water treatment technology
with respect to--

``(I) whether the treatment technology meets the ballast
water performance standard when installed on a commercial
vessel (or a class, type, or size of commercial vessel);
``(II) the effect of the treatment technology on commercial
vessel safety; and
``(III) any other criteria the Secretary considers
appropriate.

``(ii) Certification.--If, after conducting the evaluation
required by clause (i), the Secretary determines the
treatment technology meets the criteria established under
such clause, the Secretary may certify the treatment
technology for use on a commercial vessel (or a class, type,
or size of commercial vessel).
``(iii) Suspension and revocation of certification.--The
Secretary shall, by regulation, establish a process to
suspend or revoke a certification issued under this
subparagraph.
``(B) Certificates of type approval.--
``(i) Issuance of certificates to manufacturer.--If the
Secretary certifies a ballast water treatment technology
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall issue to the
manufacturer of the treatment technology, in such form and
manner as the Secretary determines appropriate, a certificate
of type approval for the treatment technology.
``(ii) Conditions to be included in certificates.--A
certificate of type approval issued under clause (i) shall
include any conditions that are imposed by the Secretary
under paragraph (2).
``(iii) Issuance of copies of certificates to owners and
operators.--A manufacturer that receives a certificate of
type approval under clause (i) for a ballast water treatment
technology shall furnish a copy of the certificate to any
owner or operator of a commercial vessel on which the
treatment technology is installed.
``(iv) Inspections.--An owner or operator who receives a
copy of a certificate under clause (iii) for a ballast water
treatment technology installed on a commercial vessel shall
retain a copy of the certificate onboard the commercial
vessel and make the copy of the certificate available for
inspection at all times that such owner or operator is
utilizing the treatment technology.
``(C) Treatment technologies that use or generate
biocides.--The Secretary may not certify a ballast water
treatment technology that--
``(i) uses a biocide or generates a biocide that is a
`pesticide', as defined in section 2 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136),
unless the biocide is registered under such Act or the
Administrator has approved the use of such biocide in such
treatment technology; or
``(ii) uses or generates a biocide the discharge of which
causes or contributes to a violation of a water quality
standard under section 303 of this Act.
``(D) Prohibition.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided by clause (ii), an
owner or operator may not use a ballast water treatment
technology to comply with the requirements of this section
unless the Secretary has certified the treatment technology
under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Exceptions.--

``(I) Coast guard shipboard technology evaluation
program.--An owner or operator may use a ballast water
treatment technology that has not been certified by the
Secretary to comply with the requirements of this section if
the technology is being evaluated under the Coast Guard
Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program.
``(II) Ballast water treatment technologies certified by
foreign entities.--An owner or operator may use a ballast
water treatment technology that has not been certified by the
Secretary to comply with the requirements of this section if
the technology has been certified by a foreign entity and the
certification demonstrates performance and safety of the
treatment technology equivalent to the requirements of this
subsection, as determined by the Secretary.

``(2) Certification conditions.--
``(A) Imposition of conditions.--In certifying a ballast
water treatment technology under this subsection, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, may impose
any condition on the subsequent installation, use, or
maintenance of the treatment technology onboard a commercial
vessel as is necessary for--
``(i) the safety of the vessel, the crew of the vessel, and
any passengers aboard the vessel;
``(ii) the protection of the environment; and
``(iii) the effective operation of the treatment
technology.
``(B) Failure to comply.--The failure of an owner or
operator to comply with a condition imposed under
subparagraph (A) is a violation of this section.
``(3) Use of ballast water treatment technologies once
installed.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), an owner or
operator who installs a ballast water treatment technology
that the Secretary has certified under paragraph (1) may use
the treatment technology, notwithstanding any revisions to a
ballast water performance standard occurring after the
installation so long as the owner or operator--
``(i) maintains the treatment technology in proper working
condition; and
``(ii) maintains and uses the treatment technology in
accordance with--

``(I) the manufacturer's specifications; and
``(II) any conditions imposed by the Secretary under
paragraph (2).

``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall cease to apply
with respect to a commercial vessel after the first to occur
of the following:
``(i) The expiration of the service life of the ballast
water treatment technology of the vessel, as determined by
the Secretary.
``(ii) The expiration of service life of the vessel, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(iii) The completion of a major conversion of the vessel.
``(4) Testing protocols.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary, shall issue guidelines
specifying land-based and shipboard testing protocols or
criteria for--
``(A) certifying the performance of ballast water treatment
technologies under this subsection; and
``(B) certifying laboratories to evaluate such treatment
technologies.
``(5) Prohibition.--Following the date on which the
requirements of subsection (b)(1) apply with respect to a
commercial vessel pursuant to the implementation schedule
issued under subsection (b)(3)(B), no manufacturer of a
ballast water treatment technology shall sell, offer for
sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into
interstate commerce, or import into the United States for
sale or resale, a ballast water treatment technology for the
commercial vessel unless the technology has been certified
under this subsection.
``(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator, shall establish an
alternative method of compliance with this section for a
commercial vessel having a maximum ballast water capacity of
less than 8 cubic meters.
``(2) Factors for consideration.--In establishing an
alternative method of compliance under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall consider--
``(A) the effectiveness of the alternative method in
reducing the risk of the introduction or establishment of
aquatic nuisance species relative to the performance
standard; and
``(B) any other factor the Secretary considers appropriate.
``(3) Best management practices.--The Secretary may
establish as an alternative method of compliance appropriate
ballast water best management practices to minimize the
introduction or establishment of aquatic nuisance species.
``(g) Geographically Limited Areas.--
``(1) In general.--Subsections (c), (e), and (i) shall not
apply to a commercial vessel that--
``(A) operates exclusively within a geographically limited
area, as determined by the Secretary, in consultation with
the Administrator; or
``(B) operates pursuant to a geographic restriction issued
for the commercial vessel under section 3309 of title 46,
United States Code.
``(2) Petition for determination by the secretary.--
``(A) Submission of petitions.--Following the date of
issuance of final regulations under subsection (b), an owner
or operator may petition the Secretary for a determination
under paragraph (1).
``(B) Determinations.--The Secretary shall approve or deny
a petition submitted by an owner or operator under
subparagraph (A).
``(C) Deadline.--If the Secretary does not approve or deny
a petition submitted by an owner or operator under
subparagraph (A) on or before the last day of the 90-day
period beginning on the date of submission of the petition,
the petition shall be deemed approved.
``(3) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the
Administrator and the Governor of each State the waters of
which could be affected by the discharge of ballast water
from a commercial vessel for which a petition has been
granted under paragraph (2) of the granting of any such
petition.
``(4) Best management practices.--For a commercial vessel
for which a petition is granted under paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall require the owner or operator to implement
appropriate ballast water best management practices to
minimize the introduction or establishment of aquatic
nuisance species.
``(h) Reception Facilities.--
``(1) In general.--An owner or operator shall discharge
ballast water in compliance with subsection (c) or (f) unless
discharging ballast water into--
``(A) an onshore facility for the reception of ballast
water that meets standards issued by the Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary; or
``(B) an offshore facility for the reception of ballast
water that meets standards issued by the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator.
``(2) Issuance of standards.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this section--
``(A) the Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary, shall issue the standards referred to in paragraph
(1)(A); and
``(B) the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator, shall issue the standards referred to in
paragraph (1)(B).

[[Page H7361]]

``(3) Sole method of discharge.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator, and upon petition by an
owner or operator, may issue to an owner or operator a
certificate stating that a commercial vessel is in compliance
with the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(A) if discharging
ballast water into a facility meeting the standards issued
under this subsection is the sole method by which the owner
or operator discharges ballast water from the commercial
vessel.
``(4) Ballast water management plans.--An owner or operator
discharging ballast water under this subsection shall
discharge such water in accordance with a ballast water
management plan approved under subsection (i).
``(i) Commercial Vessel Ballast Water Management Plan.--
``(1) In general.--An owner or operator shall discharge
ballast water in accordance with a ballast water management
plan that--
``(A) meets requirements prescribed by the Secretary; and
``(B) is approved by the Secretary.
``(2) Foreign commercial vessels.--The Secretary may
approve a ballast water management plan for a foreign
commercial vessel on the basis of a certificate of compliance
issued by the country of registration of the commercial
vessel if the requirements of the government of that country
for a ballast water management plan are substantially
equivalent to regulations issued by the Secretary.
``(3) Recordkeeping.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided by subparagraph (B),
an owner or operator shall maintain in English and have
available for inspection by the Secretary a ballast water
record book in which each operation of the commercial vessel
involving a ballast water discharge is recorded in accordance
with regulations issued by the Secretary.
``(B) Alternative means of recordkeeping.--The Secretary
may provide for alternative methods of recordkeeping,
including electronic recordkeeping, to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph.
``(j) Regulation of Ballast Water Discharges.--Effective on
and after the date of enactment of this section--
``(1) the Administrator (or a State in the case of a permit
program approved under section 402) shall not require any new
permit or permit condition under section 402 for any
discharge of ballast water from a commercial vessel into
navigable waters; and
``(2) except as provided by subsection (k), a State or
political subdivision thereof shall not adopt or enforce any
law or regulation of the State or political subdivision with
respect to such a discharge.
``(k) State Authority.--
``(1) State programs.--The Governor of a State desiring to
administer its own inspection and enforcement authority for
ballast water discharges within its jurisdiction may submit
to the Secretary a complete description of the program the
Governor proposes to establish and administer under State
law. In addition, the Governor shall submit a statement from
the State attorney general that the laws of the State provide
adequate authority to carry out the described program.
``(2) Approval.--The Secretary, with the concurrence of the
Administrator, may approve a program of a State submitted
under paragraph (1) providing for the State's own inspection
and enforcement authority for ballast water discharges within
its jurisdiction, if the Secretary determines that the State
possesses adequate resources to--
``(A) inspect, monitor, and board a commercial vessel at
any time, including the taking and testing of ballast water
samples, to ensure the commercial vessel's compliance with
this section;
``(B) ensure that any ballast water discharged within the
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the State meets the
requirements of this section;
``(C) establish adequate procedures for reporting
violations of this section;
``(D) investigate and abate violations of this section,
including the imposition of civil and criminal penalties
consistent with subsection (o); and
``(E) ensure that the Secretary and the Administrator
receive notice of each violation of this section in an
expeditious manner.
``(3) Compliance.--Any State program approved under
paragraph (2) shall at all times be conducted in accordance
with this subsection.
``(4) Withdrawal of approval.--Whenever the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator, determines, after
providing notice and the opportunity for a public hearing,
that a State is not administering a program in accordance
with the terms of the program as approved under paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall notify the State, and, if
appropriate corrective action is not taken within a period of
time not to exceed 90 days, the Secretary, with the
concurrence of the Administrator, shall withdraw approval of
the program. The Secretary shall not withdraw approval of a
program unless the Secretary has first notified the State and
made public, in writing, the reasons for the withdrawal.
``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall limit the authority of the
Administrator or the Secretary to carry out inspections of
any commercial vessel under subsection (n).
``(6) State laws.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, a State may enact such laws as are necessary to
provide for the implementation of the State ballast water
inspection and enforcement program provided under this
subsection. The requirements for a ballast water inspection
and enforcement program contained in such State law shall be
substantively and procedurally equivalent to those required
in this section, and any requirements relating to
recordkeeping, reporting, and sampling or analysis contained
in such State law shall be substantively and procedurally
equivalent to the requirements of this section and its
implementing regulations and guidance.
``(l) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operations of a
Commercial Vessel.--
``(1) Evaluation of incidental discharges.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary, shall complete an evaluation of
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a commercial
vessel.
``(B) Factors.--In carrying out the evaluation, the
Administrator shall analyze--
``(i) the characterization of the various types and
composition of discharges incidental to the normal operation
of a commercial vessel by different classes, types, and sizes
of commercial vessels;
``(ii) the volume of such discharges for representative
individual commercial vessels and by classes, types, and
sizes of commercial vessels in the aggregate;
``(iii) the availability and feasibility of implementing
technologies or best management practices for the control of
such discharges;
``(iv) the characteristics of the receiving waters of such
discharges;
``(v) the nature and extent of potential effects of such
discharges on human health, welfare, and the environment;
``(vi) the extent to which such discharges are currently
subject to and addressed by regulations under existing
Federal laws or binding international obligations of the
United States; and
``(vii) any additional factor that the Administrator
considers appropriate.
``(2) Regulation of incidental discharges.--Effective on
and after the date of enactment of this section--
``(A) the Administrator (or a State in the case of a permit
program approved under section 402) shall not require any new
permit or permit conditions under section 402 for any
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a commercial
vessel; and
``(B) a State or political subdivision thereof shall not
adopt or enforce any law or regulation of the State or
political subdivision with respect to such a discharge.
``(m) Effect on Vessel General Permit.--
``(1) Expiration.--Notwithstanding the expiration date set
forth in the Vessel General Permit, the Vessel General Permit
shall expire as follows:
``(A) The terms and conditions of section 6 of such permit
or any law of a State regulating the discharge of ballast
water or any discharge incidental to the normal operation of
a commercial vessel, upon the date of enactment of this
section.
``(B) For each commercial vessel, the terms and conditions
of such permit (except the terms and conditions referred to
in subparagraph (A)) applicable to a discharge of ballast
water--
``(i) on the date on which--

``(I) a ballast water treatment technology certified under
subsection (e) is installed on the commercial vessel;
``(II) an alternative method of compliance established for
the commercial vessel under subsection (f) is implemented for
the commercial vessel;
``(III) a petition is granted for the commercial vessel
under subsection (g); or
``(IV) a certificate is issued for the commercial vessel
under subsection (h); or

``(ii) in any case not described in clause (i), on December
18, 2013.
``(2) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of
commercial vessels.--Notwithstanding the expiration date set
forth in the Vessel General Permit, the terms and conditions
of such permit (except the terms and conditions referred to
in paragraph (1)(A)) applicable to discharges incidental to
the normal operation of a commercial vessel shall remain in
effect.
``(n) Inspections and Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Coast guard enforcement.--The Secretary shall enforce
the requirements of this section and may utilize by
agreement, with or without reimbursement, law enforcement
officers or other personnel and facilities of the
Administrator, other Federal agencies, and the States.
``(B) Environmental protection agency actions.--
Notwithstanding any enforcement decisions of the Secretary
under subparagraph (A), the Administrator may use the
authorities provided in sections 308, 309, 312, and 504
whenever required to carry out this section.
``(2) Coast guard inspections.--The Secretary may carry out
inspections of any commercial vessel at any time, including
the taking of ballast water samples, to ensure compliance
with this section. The Secretary shall use all appropriate
and practical measures of detection and environmental
monitoring of such commercial vessels and shall establish
adequate procedures for reporting violations of this section
and accumulating evidence regarding such violations.
``(o) Compliance.--
``(1) Detention of commercial vessel.--The Secretary, by
notice to the owner or operator, may detain the commercial
vessel if the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe that
the commercial vessel does not comply with a requirement of
this section or is being operated in violation of such a
requirement.
``(2) Sanctions.--
``(A) Civil penalties.--
``(i) In general.--Any person who violates this section
shall be liable for a civil penalty in an amount determined
under clause (ii). Each day of a continuing violation
constitutes a separate violation. A commercial vessel
operated in violation of this section is liable in rem for
any civil penalty assessed for that violation.
``(ii) Penalty amounts.--The amount of a civil penalty
assessed under clause (i) shall be determined as follows:

[[Page H7362]]

``(I) For vessels with a ballast water capacity less than
1500 cubic meters, not to exceed $25,000 for each violation.
``(II) For vessels with a ballast water capacity of 1500
cubic meters but not more than 5,000 cubic meters, not to
exceed $28,750 for each violation.
``(III) For vessels with a ballast water capacity greater
than 5,000 cubic meters, not to exceed $32,500 for each
violation.

``(B) Criminal penalties.--Any person who knowingly
violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not less
that $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a
first conviction of such person under this paragraph,
punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $100,000 per
day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 6 years,
or both.
``(C) Revocation of clearance.--Upon request of the
Secretary, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall withhold
or revoke the clearance of a commercial vessel required by
section 60105 of title 46, United States Code, if the owner
or operator is in violation of this section.
``(3) Enforcement actions.--
``(A) Administrative actions.--If the Secretary finds that
a person has violated this section, the Secretary may assess
a civil penalty for the violation. In determining the amount
of the civil penalty, the Secretary shall take into account
the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
prohibited acts committed and, with respect to the violator,
the degree of culpability, any history of prior violations,
and such other matters as justice may require.
``(B) Civil actions.--At the request of the Secretary, the
Attorney General may bring a civil action in an appropriate
district court of the United States to enforce this section.
Any court before which such an action is brought may award
appropriate relief, including temporary or permanent
injunctions and civil penalties.
``(4) Exclusion.--No person shall be found in violation of
this section whose commission of prohibited acts is found by
the Secretary to have been in the interest of ensuring the
safety of life at sea.
``(p) Regulation Under Other Sections of This Act.--This
section shall not affect the regulation of discharges from a
commercial vessel pursuant to section 311 or 312.''.

SEC. 703. DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF A
COVERED VESSEL.

(a) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a
Covered Vessel.--
(1) No permit required.--Section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(s) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a
Covered Vessel.--No permit shall be required under this Act
by the Administrator (or a State, in the case of a permit
program approved under subsection (b)) for a discharge
incidental to the normal operation of a covered vessel (as
defined in section 312(p)).''.
(2) Best management practices for covered vessels.--Section
312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Best Management Practices for Covered Vessels.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Covered vessel.--The term `covered vessel' means
every description of watercraft, or other artificial
contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation on water, that is engaged in commercial
service (as defined under section 2101 of title 46, United
States Code), and--
``(i) is less than 79 feet in length; or
``(ii) is a fishing vessel (as defined in section 2101 of
title 46, United States Code), regardless of length of the
vessel.
``(B) Discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
covered vessel.--The term `discharge incidental to the normal
operation of a covered vessel' means a discharge incidental
to the normal operation of a commercial vessel (as defined in
section 321), insofar as the commercial vessel is a covered
vessel.
``(2) Determination of discharges subject to best
management practices.--
``(A) Determination.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, shall determine the discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a covered vessel for which it is
reasonable and practicable to develop best management
practices to mitigate the adverse impacts of such discharges
on the waters of the United States.
``(ii) Promulgation.--The Administrator shall promulgate
the determinations under clause (i) in accordance with
section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
``(B) Considerations.--In making a determination under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall consider--
``(i) the nature of the discharge;
``(ii) the environmental effects of the discharge,
including characteristics of the receiving waters;
``(iii) the effectiveness of the best management practice
in reducing adverse impacts of the discharge on water
quality;
``(iv) the practicability of developing and using a best
management practice;
``(v) the effect that the use of a best management practice
would have on the operation, operational capability, or
safety of the vessel;
``(vi) applicable Federal and State law;
``(vii) applicable international standards; and
``(viii) the economic costs of the use of the best
management practice.
``(C) Timing.--The Administrator shall--
``(i) make initial determinations under subparagraph (A)
not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
subsection; and
``(ii) every 5 years thereafter--

``(I) review the determinations; and
``(II) if necessary, revise the determinations based on any
new information available to the Administrator.

``(3) Regulations for the use of best management
practices.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating shall promulgate regulations on
the use of best management practices for discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a covered vessel that
the Administrator determines are reasonable and practicable
to develop under paragraph (2).
``(B) Regulations.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall promulgate the
regulations under this paragraph as soon as practicable after
the Administrator makes determinations pursuant to paragraph
(2).
``(ii) Considerations.--In promulgating regulations under
this paragraph, the Secretary may--

``(I) distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of
vessels;
``(II) distinguish between new and existing vessels; and
``(III) provide for a waiver of the applicability of the
standards as necessary or appropriate to a particular class,
type, age, or size of vessel.

``(4) Effect of other laws.--This subsection shall not
affect the application of section 311 to a covered vessel.
``(5) Prohibition relating to covered vessels.--After the
effective date of the regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating under paragraph (3), the owner or operator of a
covered vessel shall neither operate in, nor discharge any
discharge incidental to the normal operation of the vessel
into navigable waters, if the owner or operator of the vessel
is not using any applicable best management practice meeting
standards established under this subsection.''.

SEC. 704. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) Effluent Limitations.--Section 301(a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(a)) is amended by
inserting ``312, 321,'' after ``318,''.
(b) Review of Administrator's Actions.--The first sentence
of section 509(b)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and (G)'' and inserting ``(G)''; and
(2) by inserting after ``section 304(l),'' the following:
``and (H) in issuing any regulation or otherwise taking final
agency action under section 312 or 321,''.

SEC. 705. REGULATION OF BALLAST WATER AND INCIDENTAL
DISCHARGES FROM A COMMERCIAL VESSEL.

(a) In General.--Effective on the date of enactment of this
Act, the following discharges shall not be regulated in any
manner other than as specified in section 312 or 321 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as added by this title):
(1) A discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
commercial vessel.
(2) A discharge of ballast water from a commercial vessel.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``ballast
water'', ``commercial vessel'', and ``discharge incidental to
the normal operation of a commercial vessel'' have the
meanings given those terms in section 321(a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (as added by this title).

SEC. 706. NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND
CONTROL ACT OF 1990.

(a) Aquatic Nuisance Species in Waters of the United
States.--Effective on the date of issuance of final
regulations under section 321(b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (as added by this title), section 1101
of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4711) is repealed.
(b) Relationship to Other Laws.--Effective on the date of
enactment of this Act, section 1205 of the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16
U.S.C. 4725) is repealed.

The CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute made in order as original text shall be in order except
those printed in House Report 112-267 and amendments en bloc described
in section 3 of House Resolution 455.
Each amendment other than amendments en bloc may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure or his designee to offer amendments
en bloc consisting of amendments printed in House Report 112-267 not
earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to section 3 shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of

[[Page H7363]]

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their designees,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I have an en bloc amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 16,
17, and 18 printed in House Report 112-267:

amendment no. 1 offered by mr. lobiondo of new jersey

Page 18, line 13, strike ``section 569a'' and insert
``section 569a(a) for the sixth national security cutter and
section 569a for the seventh national security cutter''.
Page 40, before line 7, insert the following:

SEC. 409. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF MEDICAL
CERTIFICATES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 75 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 7508. Authority to extend the duration of medical
certificates

``(a) Granting of Extensions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may extend for not more than
one year a medical certificate issued to an individual
holding a license, merchant mariner's document, or
certificate of registry if the Secretary determines that the
extension is required to enable the Coast Guard to eliminate
a backlog in processing applications for medical certificates
or in response to a national emergency or natural disaster.
``(b) Manner of Extension.--An extension under this section
may be granted to individual seamen or a specifically
identified group of seamen.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

``7508. Authority to extend the duration of medical certificates.''.

Page 56, after line 3, insert the following:

SEC. 612. REPORT ON SURVIVAL CRAFT.

(a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard
shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report on the carriage of survival craft that
ensures no part of an individual is immersed in water.
(b) Content.--The report shall include information on--
(1) the number of casualties as the result of immersion in
water by vessel type and area of operation reported to the
Coast Guard for each of fiscal years 1991 through 2011;
(2) the effect the carriage of such survival craft has on
vessel safety, including stability and safe navigation;
(3) the efficacy of alternative safety systems, devices, or
measures; and
(4) the cost and cost-effectiveness of requiring the
carriage of such survival craft on vessels.
Page 58, line 15, after ``technology'' insert ``to reduce
or eliminate aquatic invasive species''.
Page 62, line 2, strike ``or'' at the end.
Page 62, line 7, strike the period at the end and insert
``; or''.
Page 62, after line 7, insert the following:
``(iii) a discharge into navigable waters from a commercial
vessel when the commercial vessel is operating in a capacity
other than as a means of transportation on water.
Page 64, line 3, strike ``December 19, 2008,'' and all that
follows through the period at the end of line 5 and insert
``February 6, 2009.''.
Page 65, line 12, strike ``point'' and insert ``port or
place''.
Page 65, line 22, insert ``, if such system does not
introduce aquatic nuisance species into navigable waters, as
determined by the Secretary in consultation with the
Administrator'' before the semicolon at the end.
Page 71, line 11, strike ``this subparagraph'' and insert
``clause (ii)(II)''.
Page 86, line 8, strike ``guidelines specifying'' and
insert ``requirements for''.
Page 87, beginning on line 6, strike ``this section for''
and all that follows through the period at the end of line 8
and insert the following: ``this section for--
``(A) a commercial vessel having a maximum ballast water
capacity of less than 8 cubic meters; and
``(B) a commercial vessel that is 3 years or fewer from the
end of its useful life, as determined by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B)(v).
Page 87, line 24, strike ``Subsections (c), (e), and (i)''
and insert ``Subsection (c)''.
Page 88, beginning on line 2, strike ``, as determined by
the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator''.
Page 88, line 7, insert ``, or an equivalent restriction,
as determined by the Secretary, issued by the country of
registration of the commercial vessel'' before the period.
Page 107, line 10, insert ``, in consultation with the
Administrator,'' before ``shall promulgate''.
Page 110, after line 18, add the following:

TITLE VIII--PIRACY

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Piracy Suppression Act of
2011''.

SEC. 802. REPORT ON ACTIONS TAKEN TO PROTECT FOREIGN-FLAGGED
VESSELS FROM PIRACY.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, shall provide to the Committee on Armed Services
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Service
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate a report on actions taken by the Secretary of
Defense to protect foreign-flagged vessels from acts of
piracy on the high seas. The report shall include--
(1) the total number of incidents for each of the fiscal
years 2008 through 2011 in which a member of the armed
services or an asset under the control of the Secretary of
Defense was used to interdict or defend against an act of
piracy directed against any vessel not documented under the
laws of the United States; and
(2) the total cost for each of the fiscal years 2008
through 2011 for such incidents.

SEC. 803. TRAINING PROGRAM FOR USE OF FORCE AGAINST PIRACY.

(a) In General.--Chapter 517 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 51705. Training program for use of force against
piracy

``The Secretary of Transportation shall establish a
training program for United States mariners on the use of
force against pirates. The program shall include--
``(1) information on waters designated as high-risk waters
by the Commandant of the Coast Guard;
``(2) information on current threats and patterns of attack
by pirates;
``(3) tactics for defense of a vessel, including
instruction on the types, use, and limitations of security
equipment;
``(4) standard rules for the use of force for self defense
as developed by the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating under section 912(c) of the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-281; 46
U.S.C. 8107 note), including instruction on firearm safety
for crewmembers of vessels carrying cargo under section 55305
of this title; and
``(5) procedures to follow to improve crewmember
survivability if captured and taken hostage by pirates.''.
(b) Deadline.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish the program required under the amendment made by
subsection (a) by no later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:

``51705. Training program for use of force against piracy.''.

SEC. 804. SECURITY OF GOVERNMENT IMPELLED CARGO.

Section 55305 of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Security of Government Impelled Cargo.--
``(1) In order to assure the safety of vessels and
crewmembers transporting equipment, materials, or commodities
under this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall
direct each department or agency (except the Department of
Defense) responsible for the carriage of such equipment,
materials, or commodities to provide armed personnel aboard
vessels of the United States carrying such equipment,
materials, or commodities while transiting high-risk waters.
``(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall direct each
such department or agency to reimburse, subject to the
availability or appropriations, the owners or operators of
such vessels for the cost of providing armed personnel.
``(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term `high-
risk waters' means waters so designated by the Commandant of
the Coast Guard in the Port Security Advisory in effect on
the date on which the voyage begins.''.

SEC. 805. GAO STUDY.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on
efforts to track ransom payments paid to pirates operating in
the waters off Somalia and improve the prosecution of such
pirates. The report shall include--
(1) the status of Working Group 5 of the Contact Group on
Piracy Off the Somali Coast, any efforts undertaken by the
Working Group, and recommendations for improving the Working
Group's effectiveness;
(2) efforts undertaken by the United States Government to
implement and enforce Executive Order 13536, including
recommendations on how to better implement that order to
suppress piracy;
(3) efforts undertaken by the United States Government to
track ransom payments made to pirates operating off the coast
of Somalia, the effectiveness of those efforts, any

[[Page H7364]]

operational actions taken based off those efforts, and
recommendations on how to improve such tracking;
(4) actions taken by the United States Government to
improve the international prosecution of pirates captured off
the coast of Somalia; and
(5) an update on the United States Government's efforts to
implement the recommendation contained in General
Accountability Office report GAO-10-856, entitled ``Maritime
Security: Actions Needed to Assess and Update Plan and
Enhance Collaboration among Partners Involved in Countering
Piracy off the Horn of Africa'', that metrics should be
established for measuring the effectiveness of counter piracy
efforts.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Shuler of North Carolina

Page 18, line 10, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``With respect to''.
Page 18, line 24, strike the closing quotation marks and
the final period.
Page 18, after line 24, insert the following:
``(b) Use of Materials, Parts, and Components Manufactured
in the United States.--In entering into contracts and placing
orders under subsection (a), the Commandant shall give
priority to persons that manufacture materials, parts, and
components in the United States.''.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. McIntyre of North Carolina

Page 30, line 18, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 30, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 30, after line 21, insert the following:
(4) coordinate with local businesses to promote an
efficient marine transportation system.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Cummings of Maryland

At the end of title IV of the committee print, add the
following:

SEC. 409. IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIONS TO ENABLE QUALIFIED
UNITED STATES FLAG CAPACITY TO MEET NATIONAL
DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Identification of Actions.--Section 501(b) of title 46,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``When the head''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Administrator of the Maritime Administration
shall--
``(A) in each determination referred to in paragraph (1),
identify any actions that could be taken to enable qualified
United States flag capacity to meet national defense
requirements;
``(B) provide each such determination to the Secretary of
Transportation and the head of the agency referred to in
paragraph (1) for which the determination is made; and
``(C) publish each such determination on the Internet site
of the Department of Transportation within 48 hours after it
is provided to the Secretary of Transportation.
``(3)(A) The Administrator of the Maritime Administration
shall notify the Committees on Appropriations and
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations and
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate--
``(i) of any request for a waiver of the navigation or
vessel-inspection laws under this section not later than 48
hours after receiving the request; and
``(ii) of the issuance of any waiver of compliance of such
a law not later than 48 hours after such issuance.
``(B) The Administrator shall include in each notification
under subparagraph (A)(ii) an explanation of--
``(i) the reasons the waiver is necessary; and
``(ii) the reasons actions referred to in paragraph (2)(A)
are not feasible.''.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

At the end of title IV of the committee print, add the
following:

SEC. 409. CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES.

Section 3316 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign
classification society does not provide comparable services
in or for a state sponsor of terrorism.'';
(2) in subsection (d)(2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign
classification society does not provide comparable services
in or for a state sponsor of terrorism.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) The Secretary shall revoke an existing delegation
made to a foreign classification society under subsection (b)
or (d) if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign
classification society provides comparable services in or for
a state sponsor of terrorism.
``(f) In this section, the term `state sponsor of
terrorism' means any country the government of which the
Secretary of State has determined has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism pursuant to
section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as
continued in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act), section 620A of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, or
any other provision of law.''.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

Page 56, after line 3, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 612. CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT
WHEN AWARDING CONTRACTS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 15 of title 14,
United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:

``Sec. 569c. Consideration of information relating to
employment when awarding contracts

``(a) Jobs Impact Statements.--The Secretary, in issuing a
solicitation for competitive proposals with respect to a
Coast Guard contracting opportunity, shall state in the
solicitation that the Secretary may consider information (in
this section referred to as a `jobs impact statement')--
``(1) that the offeror may include in its offer; and
``(2) that relates to the effect of the contract on
employment in the United States if the contract is awarded to
the offeror.
``(b) Contents.--The information that may be included in a
jobs impact statement may include the following:
``(1) The number of jobs expected to be created in the
United States, or the number of jobs to be retained in the
United States that otherwise would be lost, if the contract
is awarded to the offeror.
``(2) The number of jobs expected to be created or retained
in the United States by the subcontractors expected to be
used by the offeror in the performance of the contract.
``(3) A guarantee from the offeror that jobs created or
retained in the United States as a result of the contract
being awarded to the offeror will not be moved outside the
United States after award of the contract.
``(c) Use in Evaluation.--The Secretary may consider
information in a jobs impact statement in the evaluation of
an offer relating to a Coast Guard contracting opportunity
and may request further information from the offeror in order
to verify the accuracy of any such information submitted.
``(d) Assessment.--With respect to a contract awarded to an
offeror that submitted a jobs impact statement, the Secretary
shall track the number of jobs created or retained in the
United States as a result of the contract. If the number of
jobs estimated to be created or retained in the jobs impact
statement significantly exceeds the number of jobs created or
retained as a result of the contract, the Secretary may
evaluate whether the contractor should be proposed for
debarment.
``(e) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing the
use by the Secretary of jobs impact statements in evaluating
offers relating to Coast Guard contracting opportunities.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
such chapter is further amended by adding at the end of the
items relating to such subchapter the following:

``569c. Consideration of information relating to employment
when awarding contracts.''.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Brown of Florida

At the end of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 612. REQUIREMENT OF CORPS.

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of the
Corps of Engineers, shall continue to study the project
related to the Jacksonville Port Authority in Jacksonville,
Florida, without applying any additional peer reviews
described by section 2034 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2343).

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Ribble of Wisconsin

Page 58, strike lines 18 through 24 and insert the
following:
``(7) Commercial vessel.--The term `commercial vessel'
means every description of watercraft, or other artificial
contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation on water--
``(A) that is engaged in commercial service (as defined
under section 2101 of title 46, United States Code); or
``(B) that is owned or operated by the United States, other
than a vessel of the Armed Forces (as defined under section
312 of this Act).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen)
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the en bloc
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in support of Mr. LoBiondo's manager's amendment and
appreciate its consideration en bloc with other amendments.

[[Page H7365]]

In general, the amendment provides helpful technical and clarifying
changes to the underlying committee print which will improve the bill.
In particular, the provision that grants the Coast Guard discretionary
authority to extend the duration of medal certificates is important
because it will help ensure that mariners are not left on the dock
simply because of administrative backlogs within the Coast Guard
preventing the timely issuance of new certificates.
Also I support the inclusion of the amended version of Chairman
LoBiondo's piracy legislation, H.R. 2039, the Piracy Suppression Act of
2011, and expect that it will help to strengthen our efforts abroad to
address the growing threat piracy poses to maritime commerce.
In regards to additional amendments in the en bloc, Mr. Shuler's
Amendment No. 2 is an important one and encourages all federal agencies
certainly to enter into contracts and buy products produced in the
U.S., creating jobs for Americans, and the Coast Guard should be no
exception.
With regards to Mr. Cummings' amendment, I am certainly supportive of
that. It mirrors H.R. 3202. Waivers granted by the Maritime
Administration this past summer to allow foreign-flagged vessels to
transport oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to other areas in
U.S. territorial waters raised legitimate concerns that the
administrative waiver process lacked transparency and accountability.
This amendment would establish new notice and justification
requirements for waivers of our Coast Guard's laws and would help to
ensure that our merchant fleet is not unnecessarily disadvantaged in
the future.
With regards to Mr. Murphy's amendment, the gentleman from
Connecticut, I can think of no reason why it would not be appropriate
for the Coast Guard, when it is soliciting for competitive proposals,
to also seek optional job impact statements from these companies
bidding on the contract. This will allow the contract officer to assess
not only cost comparisons, but also job creation comparisons when
making an award and would serve the interests of both the Federal
Government and the offerer. This would appear to me to be a good way at
little or not cost to better leverage the job-creating potential of
contracts awarded by the Coast Guard. And certainly I want to thank the
chairman for including Mr. Murphy's amendment into the en bloc
amendment.
Mr. Chair, certainly there are a few other amendments that folks can
speak to at the time that they wish, but we have no objection to the en
bloc, and we encourage its support and its passage.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the McCaul
Amendment to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.
For over 75 years, the Jones Act allowed only one non-governmental
organization, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), a not-for-profit
marine classification society located in my district in Houston, the
authority to review and inspect U.S. flagged vessels on behalf of the
U.S. Coast Guard.
In 1996, Congress expanded this authority to allow foreign-based
classification societies to perform similar tasks.
Today, five foreign classification societies act as Agents of our
government on behalf of the Coast Guard.
Unfortunately, four of these foreign organizations also act as Agents
of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the review and inspection of Iranian
flagged vessels.
These foreign-based classification societies also continue to have
business interest with, and often operate within, other rogue nations
and state sponsors of terrorism.
I support the McCaul Amendment, which would close this loophole in
our laws and send a clear message to foreign-based classification
societies that you must choose to work with the United States or work
with state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the word
and spirit of the Iranian sanctions regime that this Chamber has
supported time and again, and vote in favor of this amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cummings

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 112-267.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 19, beginning on line 7, strike subsection (a) (and
redesignate the succeeding subsections accordingly).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the work of Chairman LoBiondo and Chairman Mica and, of
course, our ranking member, Mr. Larsen, and the ranking member, Mr.
Rahall. I appreciate the effort that they put into this Coast Guard
reauthorization.
I also appreciate the close working relationship I have with the
chairman, Mr. LoBiondo. During my tenure as chairman of the Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, he served as my ranking
member, and now that he is chair, I appreciate the commitment to
diligent oversight that characterizes his leadership of the
subcommittee.
I wish we had been able to reach an agreement on the issue at hand,
but as that has not been possible, I'm offering this amendment to
strike section 301(a) of the bill. Section 301(a) would eliminate
provisions included in the Coast Guard authorization of 2010 that I
authored to establish an ombudsman in each Coast Guard district. The
district ombudsmen are intended to serve as liaisons between the Coast
Guard and ports, terminal operators, ship owners, and labor
representatives. The ombudsmen will enable these stakeholders to seek
further review of disputes regarding the application of the Coast Guard
regulations.
Let me be clear that the provisions creating the ombudsman
specifically provide that ``the district ombudsman shall not provide
assistance with respect to a dispute unless it involves the impact of
Coast Guard requirements on port business and the flow of commerce.''
The provisions further clarify that in providing such assistance, the
district ombudsman shall give priority to complaints brought by
petitioners who believe they will suffer a significant hardship as a
result of implementing the Coast Guard requirement.

{time} 1220

I authored the provisions creating the ombudsman at the request of
the port community, which approached me seeking another mechanism to
engage with the Coast Guard to ensure that the application of
regulations achieves critical safety and security objectives while
having the least possible impact on commerce.
Many Members of Congress, and particularly those on the other side of
the aisle, profess that limiting the power of government and ensuring
that businesses are not burdened by inappropriate regulations are among
their top priorities. Given these priorities and given the need to
ensure that regulations do not threaten commerce or jobs, I am frankly
quite deeply surprised that the majority would seek to eliminate a
provision that specifically provides businesses with an avenue through
which they can seek changes in regulatory decisions in an effort to
improve their businesses.
Let me also be clear that I understand that the Coast Guard has not
yet appointed any ombudsman--and I know that the service would probably
prefer never to appoint an ombudsman because they would prefer that
their regulatory decisions not be challenged. That said, rather than
eliminating the requirement that the Coast Guard appoint an ombudsman,
I believe that this authority should be implemented quickly to give
businesses the opportunity to improve the application of Coast Guard
regulations.

[[Page H7366]]

Finally, let me also explain that this provision does not require any
new personnel to be hired. The statutory language is clear, and staff
have reconfirmed with the Coast Guard that the position of ombudsman
could be a collateral duty that a qualified staff member performs in
addition to their other duties. This is not my ideal arrangement, but I
raise this point so that it is clear that the implementation of this
provision does not require the Coast Guard to hire new staff members.
I urge all Members who are concerned about the impact that undue
regulatory burdens may have on commerce to join me in supporting this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his
kind comments. And it is correct, we've had an outstanding working
relationship. We've been able to come together on many issues and share
a lot of information that has helped us both come to a better
conclusion.
Unfortunately, in even great relationships sometimes there is some
disagreement. It's an honest disagreement on how we should proceed. I
understand the gentleman's argument, but I believe that the provision
is duplicative and costly. The implementation of this language I think
will worsen the challenges for the Coast Guard at a time when they're
facing very difficult money constraints. We've heard the talk about how
they don't have the resources to do what they need to do, and we have
to worry about their critical missions being able to be conducted.
The Coast Guard does not support the adoption of this provision; they
did not last year. I, once again, want to thank the gentleman from
Maryland for working so closely with me, but, unfortunately, I have to
oppose this particular amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I support Mr. Cummings' amendment striking
the provision in the underlying bill that would eliminate the
requirement for the Coast Guard to establish ombudsmen in Coast Guard
districts around the country.
In committee, Mr. Cummings offered and subsequently withdrew his
amendment in the hope that some compromise could be reached. Because
the program is little more than a year old, I suggest that it might be
premature for Congress to repeal this new program. But I certainly do
want to recognize the work that Mr. Cummings and Mr. LoBiondo did to
try to find some accommodation.
But I do encourage people to support this amendment to allow the
ombudsman program to continue so that we might be better able to get a
fair evaluation of the program in the future.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland will be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 112-267.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. 2__. ACADEMY NOMINATIONS.

(a) Appointment.--Subsection (a) of section 182 of title
14, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Nominations.--
``(1) Half of each incoming class, beginning with academic
year 2014, shall be composed of cadets nominated by:
``(A) The Vice President or, if there is no Vice President,
by the President pro tempore of the Senate.
``(B) A Senator.
``(C) A Representative in Congress.
``(D) The Delegate to the House of Representatives from the
District of Columbia, the Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico,
the Delegate in Congress from Guam, the Delegate in Congress
from American Samoa, or the Resident Representative from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Each Senator, Representative, and Delegate in Congress,
including the Resident Commissioner and the Resident
Representative, is entitled to nominate 3 persons each year.
Cadets who do not graduate on time shall not count against
the allocations pursuant to subparagraphs (A) through (D).
``(2) An individual shall be qualified for nomination,
selection, and appointment as a cadet at the Academy only if
the individual--
``(A) is a citizen or national of the United States; and
``(B) meets such minimum requirements that the Secretary
may establish.
``(3) The Superintendent shall furnish to any Member of
Congress, upon the written request of such Member, the name
of the Congressman or other nominating authority responsible
for the nomination of any named or identified person for
appointment to the Academy.''
(b) Transition.--With respect to the nomination of
individuals, pursuant to section 182 of title 14, United
States Code, who will matriculate in academic program year
2013, not less than 25 percent of the class shall be from
nominations made pursuant to subparagraphs (A) through (D) of
subsection (a)(1) of such section 182 (as amended by
subsection (a) of this section).

The Secretary is hereby authorized to take any additional
action the Secretary believes necessary and proper to provide
for the transition to the nomination, selection, and
appointment process provided under this section.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
My amendment would allow Members of Congress to nominate qualified
candidates for admission to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
Located in New London, Connecticut, the Coast Guard Academy is one of
the five prestigious U.S. service academies. The others are the
Military Academy in West Point, New York; the Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Maryland; the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs,
Colorado; and the Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York.
These service academies provide 4-year undergraduate educations on a
tuition-free basis to help mold talented young people into the Nation's
future leaders. Upon graduation, service academy cadets become
commissioned officers in active or reserve components of the military,
the Merchant Marines, or the U.S. Coast Guard.
Under current law, Members of Congress are authorized to nominate
candidates to all U.S. service academies except the U.S. Coast Guard
Academy. The Coast Guard Academy uses an admissions process similar to
the processes used at traditional civilian colleges and universities.
On an average, the Coast Guard accepts almost 400 applicants each
academic year. Of those 400 applicants, a disproportionate number hail
from States that border the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The rest of
the country is largely underrepresented. My amendment seeks to foster
greater geographic diversity in the Coast Guard Academy's applicant
pool by allowing each Member of Congress to nominate up to three
qualified candidates. Similar language that I offered with the
gentleman from Maryland, Representative Cummings, was accepted by voice
vote during consideration of the 2012 Coast Guard authorization bill. I
want to recognize Representative Cummings as a cosponsor of my
amendment and a true partner in this effort.
Under my amendment, for academic year 2013, the Coast Guard would be
required to allocate a quarter of the slots in the incoming class to
qualified candidates submitted through the congressional nomination
process. In subsequent academic years, half of the slots would be
filled through the congressional nomination process.

[[Page H7367]]

My amendment does not require the Coast Guard to alter or lower its
selection criteria. To the contrary, it anticipates that the Coast
Guard will utilize its criteria to select the best candidates from the
pool of Member-nominated candidates to fill half of the slots in the
incoming class, just as it will do in filling the remaining slots in
the other half of the class.
Additionally, my amendment does not require the Coast Guard to
increase class sizes; that's a decision for the Coast Guard. At its
essence, it seeks to ensure that the Coast Guard attracts the best
candidates from all over the country by increasing the applicant pool.
Each of us has experienced the disappointment of having a talented
young person that we nominated to one of the four other service
academies rejected. We all understand that it's a very competitive
process and slots are scarce. I, for one, would welcome the opportunity
to bring that person to the attention of the Coast Guard Academy and
help put him or her on a path to accomplishing much for themselves,
their families, and the Nation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I appreciate what the gentleman from Mississippi is
attempting to do here; however, I don't think this is workable. Every
Member of Congress would, every 4 years, get to nominate someone to the
Coast Guard Academy. I send a number of qualified young people in that
direction every year. And the Coast Guard strongly opposes this
amendment.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
First of all, I just want to salute the amazing effort by
Representative Cummings and Representative Thompson over the last 4 or
5 years to really, I think, profoundly change behavior at the Academy's
admissions office in terms of forcing them to widen the scope of their
search for qualified students all across America. In the incoming class
this year, we have students who hail from 48 States. We have 31 percent
female cadets starting this year and 21 percent minority.

{time} 1230

As both of the gentlemen who are the proponents of this amendment
know, that is a stark contrast to the situation that existed a short
time ago. And I think, again, it is partly due to their external
pressure, but also the fact that the Coast Guard Academy's leadership
took the challenge and has really been, I think, actively recruiting
all across the country to achieve, again, what I think is a goal that
the gentleman from Mississippi has well spoken, that we can draw from a
wider pool rather than just the bi-coastal parts of the United States
of America.
What I would just say, why I stand today in opposition is just that
the incoming class is also a small class. It's 288 cadets. If you sort
of just try and do the math in terms of a body of 435 Members of the
House, 100 in the Senate, and even with the 25 percent safeguard that
Mr. Thompson thoughtfully added to this amendment, I think it really
would just be a cumbersome add-on to a process that really, again, is
actively engaged.
Admiral Sandra Stotz is the new superintendent at the academy, the
first female superintendent of a military academy in American history.
And I can just attest to the fact, having met with her on a number of
occasions since she just started this past fall, she is focused like a
laser beam in terms of making sure that the great work that was started
over the last 2 years or so is going to continue.
And Members can be part of that. We can all, again, go out and talk
to high schools, put it on our Web sites, have Coast Guard cadets act
as interns in our office, do what we can to make sure that this amazing
institution that, again, is just producing great leaders for the future
of our country, will draw on, again, the great diversity of our Nation,
both geographical and socially.
So, again, I support the goal of this amendment. It's just the
mechanics that, again, I would just respectfully rise in opposition
and, again, pledge that as someone who represents the New London
district, will continue to work with the proponents to make sure that
the good progress that's been made over the last couple of years or so
will continue.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi. Thank
you for your leadership and thank you for your kind words.
I'm truly amazed by what the Coast Guard is able to accomplish,
particularly given the limits of its budget. But I remain the Coast
Guard's biggest supporter.
During my tenure as chairman, I also had the opportunity to be the
service's most constructive critic. Among the many areas where I pushed
the Coast Guard to set and achieve higher goals was the area of
diversity. Data presented to the subcommittee showed that minorities
comprised approximately 12 percent of the class of 2012 and just 16
percent of the class of 2013.
By comparison, approximately 35 percent of the Naval Academy's class
of 2013 is comprised of minorities. And the tremendous gains in
diversity achieved by the United States Naval Academy suggested that
the Coast Guard Academy's outreach had been too limited. And as a
result, many students across the country from a wide variety of
communities and backgrounds simply were not made aware either of the
education that they could receive for free at the Coast Guard Academy
or the unique service opportunities available in the Coast Guard.
I'm very proud to say that the Coast Guard has begun making that
effort, and they are now beginning to realize the promise that our
Nation's diversity represents. As a result of what I know has been a
tremendous effort, 34 percent of the Coast Guard's Academy's class of
2015 is comprised of minority students, nearly triple the percentage of
minorities in the class of 2012.
I believe that implementing a nominations process at the Coast Guard
Academy, something that I proposed along with Mr. Thompson during our
consideration of previous Coast Guard authorizations, will help
continue and advance the achievements of the Coast Guard.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I support Mr. Thompson's
amendment to insert a congressional nomination process for admission to
the United States Coast Guard.
This provision, which was included in Coast Guard legislation that
passed the House during the 111th Congress, would establish the same
process to allow Members of Congress the opportunity to nominate
individuals for entrance into the Coast Guard Academy.
I realize that the Coast Guard does not support the Congress imposing
a nomination process on the agency, but if it does result in a more
diverse workforce within the Coast Guard, we will all be better for it,
including the Coast Guard, too.

Congressional Nominations at the Coast Guard Academy

Vote ``YES'' on the Thompson Amendment to H.R. 2838

The following list is of States and Territories where no
applicants were accepted for the incoming Coast Guard Academy
Class of 2015--Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont,
American Samoa, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands.

Prepared by the House Committee on Homeland Security,
Democratic Staff, November 4, 2011.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Palazzo

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 112-267.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H7368]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike section 303 (and redesignate subsequent sections,
and conform the table of contents, accordingly).
Page 22, strike lines 10 through 14 and insert the
following:

SEC. 303. MAJOR ACQUISITIONS REPORT.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 15 of title 14,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 569a. Major acquisitions report

Page 25, strike line 12 and all that follows before line 16
and insert the following:
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
such chapter is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to such subchapter the following:
``569a. Major acquisitions report.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment would strike section 303 of the bill, which places
harmful restrictions on the future contracting and construction of the
United States Coast Guard national security cutter.
The national security cutter is a much needed and extremely cost-
effective ship for the Coast Guard, and it has actively proven its
value through highly successful counterdrug and other missions while
replacing an aging Coast Guard fleet. This is a ship the Coast Guard
desperately needs and replaces the 378-foot endurance cutters, most of
which are 40 to 50 years old.
Just recently, the commandant of the Coast Guard told the press, we
can't the get rest of those out soon enough. On average, the Coast
Guard's legacy high-endurance cutters are able to achieve approximately
140 of their programmed 185 days under way a year.
Maintenance costs continue to escalate, and further delay of the
transition to national security cutters will only exacerbate challenges
we are already facing meeting fleet readiness and mission requirements.
This ship represents the centerpiece of the Coast Guard fleet.
The first two national security cutters are enabling the Coast Guard
to meet a wide range of missions now. During initial deployment, the
national security cutters have netted hundreds of millions of dollars
in drug busts. In fact, the street value of cocaine seized in the NSC's
first two deployments alone exceeds the total cost of building a
national security cutter. It is easy to see that this ship is an
exceptional investment in our national security.
As it currently stands, H.R. 2838 would prohibit the Coast Guard from
moving forward on NSC 6 and NSC 7. The $77 million pending in FY12 will
enable the Coast Guard to contract for long lead time materials and
transition to a planned construction contract in fiscal year '13. This
is the most cost-effective method of procuring and building any ship,
whether it's for the Coast Guard, Navy or the Marine Corps.
As you delay shipbuilding contracts, labor costs and material costs
go up as a result of standard inflation. As these costs go up, the
costs to the taxpayers go up, called escalation.
Simply put, by continuing steady production of this ship, we are
saving the taxpayer money and creating a better product for the Coast
Guard. This ship is extremely important to our Nation's industrial base
which already faces a serious challenge in a time of tight budgets.
National security cutters are responsible for 1,300 jobs in over 40
States throughout the industrial base. In a time of deep cuts, this
means real American jobs. We can't afford for America to lose more in
terms of economic and national security. The continued, uninterrupted
production could potentially save the taxpayers millions of dollars per
ship and approximately 1,300 jobs across America.
One of my greatest concerns remains the purchase of long lead time
materials to ensure that we do not delay production in the future. I
have spoken with Mr. LoBiondo today, and I believe that we can find a
solution to this issue before or during the conference process. With
the cooperation of the Coast Guard and my friends on the committee, I
feel confident we can continue to deliver the best product to the Coast
Guard at the best possible price to the taxpayer.
I am willing to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALAZZO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi and
assure him that we have discussed and we will continue to work toward a
common goal which we both share.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
House Report 112-267.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 47, line 10, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 47, after line 10, insert the following:
(2) in subsection (c) by inserting ``or Guam'' before the
period at the end; and
Page 47, line 11, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Our bipartisan amendment gives United States-flagged tuna vessels in
the western Pacific Ocean the option of using Guam in addition to
American Samoa as their annual required port of call in order to meet
U.S. maritime regulations.
This amendment would save the U.S. tuna industry millions of dollars
and thousands of man-hours that are needlessly wasted being forced by
the U.S. maritime regulations to travel 2,600 miles out of their way to
make port visits.
The background is that the 2006 Coast Guard Authorization Act allowed
U.S.-flagged tuna vessels in the western Pacific to use internationally
licensed officers.

{time} 1240

The international officer provision was created because maritime
officers in the western Pacific are primarily from western Pacific
nations. U.S. maritime unions were not opposed to the provision. In
order to meet the requirements of that provision, the bill has required
tuna vessels to make an annual port call in American Samoa, some 2,000
miles away.
In 2006, the tuna fleet in the region was very small at 12 boats.
American Samoa had a market to process the fish for those boats. Since
2006, however, the tuna fleet in the western Pacific has grown to 38
vessels.
Mr. Chairman, approximately 25 of those vessels supply fish to
western Pacific processors and then ship the fish product to
California, to Georgia, to Illinois, to Puerto Rico for canning. These
canneries provide thousands of U.S. jobs. These 25 vessels are still
required to travel over 2,600 miles to American Samoa and waste 7 days
at sea. This costs each boat more than half a million to make this
unnecessary trip.
The purpose of this amendment is to give these tuna boats the option
of stopping in Guam in order to meet the requirement of visiting a U.S.
port once a year, while receiving marine inspection by the largest
Coast Guard sector station in the region.
And, of course, Guam is very close to the tuna fishing grounds.
Guam's Coast Guard infrastructure and personnel are excellently
equipped to provide these tuna vessels with proper marine inspection
and safety review on a timely basis.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment
which will save our U.S. tuna industry millions of dollars. The U.S.
House of Representatives is already on record supporting this
provision. The provision was part of the Coast Guard authorization of
2009 that overwhelmingly passed this House.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I claim the time in opposition.

[[Page H7369]]

The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I yield my time to the gentleman from
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I rise respectfully in opposition to the
gentlelady's proposed amendment.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps unknown to many of my colleagues of the House,
for more than 50 years my little district of American Samoa has been
the backbone of the U.S. tuna fishing and processing industries, just
like Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have been the backbone of
the rum industry.
Today, the U.S. tuna processing industry includes three major brands
of canned tuna, namely, Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, and StarKist.
Bumble Bee was formerly owned by a Canadian company, then purchased
by U.S. investors and is now resold to an investment group from Great
Britain.
Chicken of the Sea continues and has always been a subsidiary company
of Thai Union, which currently is the world's largest producer of
canned tuna.
StarKist was formerly a subsidiary company of Heinz Foods Corporation
out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, then was sold to Del Monte out of San
Francisco, and it was purchased by the Dongwon Company out of South
Korea.
All three of these major tuna processor companies have corporate
offices in Pittsburgh and in San Diego. However, their methods of
processing and canning of tuna are quite different, along with the
manner in which our U.S. tuna fishing fleet has been operating given
the tremendous change now taking place in the entire global tuna
industry.
I want to say that I have the utmost respect for my good friend, the
gentlelady from California, and out of principle, I just want to
respectfully say there are some very unique features of the situation
and why I respectfully oppose the amendment.
Eighty percent of the entire economy of my district depends on the
tuna industry, and if something happens in terms of the balance between
the processors and our fishing fleet, this is where the problems and
the complications have come about.
To the extent that the South Pacific Tuna Corporation, which owns
about 25 of the 30 or 40 vessels that make up the U.S. tuna fishing
fleet, the problem here is that we've got a problem of outsourcing,
where two of these companies, Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee, do not
process the whole fish.
As far as tuna is concerned, 90 percent of the value of the tuna
comes in the gutting and the processing. The canning is only about 10
percent. What has happened is that Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee
have chosen not to buy the whole fish but to simply buy the loins of
the fish, as it was cleaned in foreign countries where workers there
are paid only 60 cents an hour, as opposed to the only company that
currently buys the whole fish, which is StarKist. They buy the whole
fish, and it provides jobs for my district.
Because of the global economic recession that we have experienced,
and because of the terrible tsunami and earthquake that was subjected
to my people 2 years ago, one of the processing companies, Chicken of
the Sea, just took off after making billions of dollars worth of canned
tuna in my little district, leaving the economy of my territory a
disaster.
What has happened is that there is another added feature of this
whole problem with the tuna industry. We have what is now pending, the
U.S. Regional Tuna Fishing Treaty with 16 other Pacific island
countries. Part of the problem that came out of this treaty arrangement
was, because the tuna fishing fleet at the time felt that because tuna
was a highly migratory fish, they could go anywhere in the world and
fish regardless of what the EEZ zones of these countries are. Well,
they tried that in Latin America and we had our vessels confiscated. So
what happens? Our tuna fishing fleet moved on to the western Pacific;
and it was in that one incident that one of our vessels was confiscated
by this little island country called the Solomon Islands, and the whole
thing went up in the air.
It was necessary that then-Secretary of State George Shultz and Mr.
Negroponte came in and this was how we started having this regional
tuna fishing treaty for and on behalf of the benefit of our tuna
fishing fleet. And this is how we tried to do to make sure that there
is a constant supply of tuna that could be brought in to be processed,
the whole fish, by the two processing plants that we have in American
Samoa. This is no longer the case.
I respectfully ask my colleagues, vote down this proposed amendment.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2011.

Re Docket No. USCG-2010-1146
Docket Management Facility (M-30)
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC.
Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing in support of the USCG's
Draft Policy Letter (CG-543) on ``Safety Requirements and
Manning Exemption Eligibility on Distant Water Tuna Fleet
Vessels'' published in the Federal Register on January 20,
2011.
I am also writing to rebut misinformation put forward by
the South Pacific Tuna Corporation (SPTC) in response to
USCG-2010-1146.
Legislative Background
In 2005, as a Member of Congress representing the U.S.
Territory of American Samoa, I was involved with the
enactment of the initial 2006 foreign officer provision. At
the time, I was visited by many of the individuals now on the
(SPTC) team, as well as Mr. Dave Burney, now deceased, who
served as the Executive Director of the U.S. Tuna Foundation.
Due to a shortage of licensed U.S. citizens willing to
serve as officers on U.S. tuna vessels, Mr. Burney and many
of the individuals now on the SPTC team sought my support for
a provision which would allow the U.S.-flag distant water
tuna fleet to employ internationally licensed personnel to
serve as officers (except for the master). These individuals
informed my office that this exemption was necessary to keep
American Samoa's economy stable and our canneries operational
given that the Territory's private sector economy is more
than 80% dependent, directly or indirectly, on the U.S.
fishing and processing industries.
I was also informed that this provision was necessary to
build up the fishing fleet which had dwindled to about 12 or
14 boats. No boats meant no fish to American Samoa's
canneries and no fish meant no canneries.
So, for the benefit of American Samoa, language was
inserted in the Senate to accommodate an exemption. However,
because Congress intended the provision to help American
Samoa's canneries and economy, the provision stipulated that
the exemption would only apply to tuna vessels home-ported in
American Samoa.
Because of the uniqueness of the provision, Congress also
limited the provision to 48 months and set an expiration date
of July 10, 2010. Within that 48-month time period, it was my
understanding that the U.S. Tuna Foundation and the
individuals who are now part of the SPTC team would work to
establish a program to train U.S. citizens and Nationals to
serve as officers but this promise was not kept.
Also, last year, without consultation, SPTC's lobbyist
sought to broaden the exemption to allow tuna vessels home-
ported in Guam or CNMI to receive the same crew exemption as
tuna vessels home-ported in American Samoa. Although SPTC
failed in its attempt, it called into question SPTC's motive
for broadening an exemption since neither CNMI nor Guam have
a tuna industry. I believe SPTC's motive is easily explained
by a brief overview of the U.S. tuna fishing fleet.
The U.S. Tuna Fishing Fleet
The U.S. tuna fishing fleet is currently made up of about
39 vessels, with one license still available. About 14 of
these vessels are 100% U.S. owned. The other 25 tuna boats
are newer vessels, built in foreign countries, with 51% U.S.
ownership, and 49% foreign-ownership. Most of the foreign-
built boats are part of a company known as the South Pacific
Tuna Corporation (SPTC).
Mr. Chris Lischewski, CEO and former President of Bumble
Bee, is a part-owner of South Pacific Tuna Corporation.
Chicken of the Sea and/or its parent company, Thai Union, is
also a part-owner of the foreign-built tuna boats.
Whether U.S. or foreign-built, all 39 tuna boats, or the
entire U.S. tuna fishing fleet, fishes under the auspices of
the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, a treaty between the United
States and 16 Pacific Island nations. Under the terms of the
Treaty, the U.S. government pays out $18 million annually to
the Pacific Island parties in return for the right of our
U.S. tuna boats to fish in the exclusive economic zones (EEZ)
of the 16 Pacific Island parties to the Treaty. The U.S. tuna
boats also pay the Pacific Island parties about $3 million or
more per year, depending on the amount of tuna they catch.
According to the U.S. Department of State, the landed value
of the catch in 2008 was in excess of $200 million but the
value of the tuna as it moves through the processing and
distribution chain may be as much as $400 to $500 million.
Of the approximate 300,000 metric tons of tuna that is
caught, which is referred to as

[[Page H7370]]

whole fish, about 120,000 metric tons is direct-delivered to
American Samoa per year. Direct delivery means the tuna boats
actually pull into American Samoa's port and offload their
catch. Given Chicken of the Sea's closure, the amount of
tonnage direct-delivered to American Samoa is now less but
with the presence of a new cannery, Tri-Marine, we expect to
be operating again at full capacity.
Contrary to SPTC's claims, American Samoa has the capacity
to process up to 280,000 metric tons with room for growth.
Nonetheless, for purposes of this statement, I want to point
out what happens to the other 180,000 metric tons which
American Samoa is not processing right now.
What happens is that the foreign-built tuna boats owned by
SPTC, which Chicken of the Sea and/or Thai Union have part
ownership in, are transshipping their catch to foreign
nations where the tuna is cleaned, or loined, by workers who
are paid $0.75 cents and less per hour.
In other words, 25 members of our very own U.S. tuna
fishing fleet sell off their catch to foreign nations and
then send the cleaned tuna loin back to Bumble Bee and
Chicken of the Sea so that these two tuna canneries can
maximize their corporate profits while off-shoring American
jobs. These 25 members of the U.S. tuna fishing fleet do this
despite the fact that they fly the U.S. flag and are
subsidized by the American taxpayer to the tune of $18
million per year to fish in the South Pacific Tuna Treaty
Area. And what does the American taxpayer get in return? We
get a depleted tuna stock not to mention the safety threat
these new boats pose.
In the time it takes to make 3 direct-deliveries, the new
SPTC foreign-built tuna boats can make 5 transshipment
deliveries by off-loading their catch to a big mother ship
meaning that they can return more quickly to the South
Pacific Tuna Treaty fishing grounds where they can catch more
and more tuna at a more maddening pace, with very little U.S.
Coast Guard oversight because of SPTC's unwillingness to pull
into American Samoa's port, once a year.
Disregarding U.S. interests was never the Congressional
intent of a crew exemption provision.
S. 3607
While SPTC would have the USCG believe that the U.S. House
of Representatives supported a permanent exemption, this is
not the case. What happened is SPTC had language inserted in
H.R. 3619 without the knowledge of Guam, CNMI or American
Samoa. But, last year, during conference, the U.S. House of
Representatives and Senate agreed with my position and put a
halt to SPTC's request to make this provision permanent.
House and Senate also agreed to require the DWTF to undergo
a safety inspection in American Samoa once a year in order to
accommodate my request for an annual call on the Territory's
port.
On the evening before the bill went for a vote, SPTC's
representatives visited my office and begged for an as-is
two-year extension conditioned on the promise that SPTC would
work to do right by American Samoa and honor its original
commitments. In good-faith, I agreed to work with SPTC.
Conclusion
Regrettably, I have reviewed SPTC's statement submitted to
the USCG and I am disappointed that once more, SPTC, has
misrepresented the facts surrounding this manning provision
or American Samoa's capabilities.
The original intent of a crew exemption provision was to
bolster American Samoa's economy, not increase SPTC profits.
This is why the exemption was only granted to vessels
operating in and out of American Samoa. No other boats were
provided this exemption and I am hopeful that the USCG will
hold to Congressional intent and move forward with its Draft
Policy Letter.
Sincerely,
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega,
Member of Congress.
____

U.S. Senate,

Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC, April 1, 2011.
Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Faleomavaega: Thank you for your letter
regarding the U.S. Coast Guard's draft policy on the ``Safety
Requirements and Manning Exemption Eligibility on Distant
Water Tuna Fleet Vessels.'' I am in full agreement with you
that our intent in passing the original exemption was to
support a U.S.-flag fleet that operated in and out of
American Samoa. Accordingly, I am pleased the Coast Guard is
making an effort to define this requirement in a meaningful
way. Please be assured that I will notify the Coast Guard of
my support for the proposed policy.
Aloha,
Daniel K. Inouye,
United States Senator.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2011.
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request your support in
increasing funding for the South Pacific Tuna Treaty and for
the Treaty to be renegotiated in a way that would distinguish
between U.S. tuna boats that direct-deliver their fish to
American Samoa, or another U.S. port, and those that do not.
When the Treaty was first negotiated, it was negotiated for
purposes of providing U.S. foreign assistance to the Pacific
Island Parties while also providing a tangible benefit to the
U.S. By the time the Treaty was renewed in 2002 until now,
the U.S. provided the Pacific Island Parties about $18
million annually in exchange for our U.S. tuna boats to fish
in the Treaty area. The U.S. tuna boats also paid a
collective, not individual, fixed rate of about $3 million
per year, and above that amount depending on the amount of
fish caught and the value of it.
We have since learned that according to the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) the U.S. tuna boats harvest about $250
million worth of tuna annually but the value of the tuna as
it moves through the processing and distribution chain may be
as much as $500 million or more. Given that the PNA controls
about 25-30% of the world's supply of tuna which is primarily
in the Treaty Area, I believe that the Pacific Island Parties
to the Treaty deserve a more equitable distribution of this
wealth. $18 million plus the small contribution of the U.S.
tuna boat owners is not enough.
Regarding U.S. interests, when the Treaty first went into
effect, all three major brands of canned tuna in the U.S.,
including StarKist, Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee,
purchased their tuna from U.S. tuna boats authorized to fish
in the Treaty Area. The fish was then cleaned in the U.S.,
including American Samoa which was home to the largest
cannery in the world because of our close proximity to the
fishing grounds.
About a decade ago, Bumble Bee adopted a new model of doing
business and began outsourcing American resources and jobs,
which is contrary to the principles upon which the Treaty was
founded. Chicken of the Sea followed suit. Both Chicken of
the Sea and Bumble Bee now have their fish cleaned by low-
wage workers in Thailand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Then
they send their pre-cleaned fish to canneries in California,
Georgia and Puerto Rico where they hire skeletal crews to put
the fish into cans as a means of taking advantage of U.S.
duty-free laws.
The USDA has caught on to this un-American way of doing
business and this is why canned tuna processed by Bumble Bee
and Chicken of the Sea does not qualify for the Buy America
program. To date, StarKist is the only remaining tuna company
that qualifies for the Buy America program because it is the
only company that still cleans its tuna in the U.S.A., making
StarKist the only tuna company that upholds the intent of the
Treaty which is in place to also provide tangible benefits to
the U.S.
As a result of this transformational shift which has taken
place in the U.S. tuna industry during the past decade,
foreign nations like Thailand are making billions at the
expense of the U.S. taxpayer and Pacific Island Parties.
Thailand, which has no fishing fleet of its own, has become
the world's largest producer of canned tuna and controls
about 30% of the private-label canned tuna business in the
U.S.A. I attribute Thailand's success, in part, to a loophole
in the South Pacific Tuna Treaty.
When the Treaty was first negotiated, all U.S. tuna boats
off-loaded their fish in U.S. ports. Today, tuna boats that
are 51% U.S. owned like those of the South Pacific Tuna
Corporation trans-ship the majority of the fish they catch in
the Treaty Area to Thailand. Thailand then buys the tuna that
comes out of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Area and puts
workers in America out of jobs because Thailand's fish
cleaners, which are paid 75 cents and less per hour, directly
compete against workers in American Samoa who are paid in
accordance with federal minimum wage laws.
While it is true that boats from the South Pacific Tuna
Corporation at one time indirectly supplied tuna to Chicken
of the Sea/Samoa Packing in American Samoa, this has not been
the case since Chicken of the Sea left American Samoa and set
up a skeletal crew in Lyons, Georgia. In fact, according to
the Congressional Research Service, of the approximately
300,000 metric tons of tuna that is caught by the U.S. tuna
fishing fleet in the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Area, more
than 180,000 metric tons is transshipped and outsourced to
foreign nations, like Thailand, and I believe this un-
American practice of outsourcing U.S. and Pacific Island
resources must stop.
This is why I am hopeful that the U.S. State Department
will make a distinction between tuna boats that directly off-
load in American Samoa, and those that do not. For boats like
those of the South Pacific Tuna Corporation which outsource,
I believe their fishing days should be limited, that they
should pay increased fees to fish, and that they should be
required to pull into U.S. ports once a year for the
privilege of the fishing in the Treaty Area. I also believe
U.S. tuna boats that direct-deliver to U.S. ports, including
American Samoa, should be given preferential treatment for
licenses if the U.S. is not able to secure licenses for the
entire fleet.
I would appreciate your support of these changes, and I
will do everything I can to also garner support from the U.S.
Department of State. As always, I thank you for

[[Page H7371]]

the good work you are doing and continue to wish you the very
best.
Sincerely,
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
____

U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC, August 9, 2011.
Hon. Eni. F.H. Faleomavaega,
House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Faleomavaega: Thank you for your letter of June 28
regarding the 1987 South Pacific Tuna Treaty and for your
interest in the ongoing negotiations to amend and extend that
arrangement.
We recognize the vital importance of sustainable tuna
fisheries to the Pacific and the significant contribution
that the U.S. industry supported by the Treaty makes to the
U.S. economy, particularly in American Samoa. We also
recognize that there have been important changes in the
Pacific since the Treaty was last extended. Under these
circumstances, changes to the Treaty will be necessary to
ensure that it remains an effective and viable agreement that
promotes responsible and sustainable tuna fisheries, provides
satisfactory economic returns to the Pacific Island Parties
and contributes to the development of the small-island
developing States. We are currently working to address these
and other issues in the renegotiations, including at our most
recent meeting in Samoa in July.
We appreciate your views on the issues of off-loading and
the allocation of days or licenses among the U.S. fleet. We
are sensitive to the need to negotiate an agreement that does
not put the United States at a competitive disadvantage.
As the negotiations proceed, we will continue to keep you
apprised of their progress. Please do not hesitate to contact
us if we may be of assistance in this or any other manner.
Sincerely,
David S. Adams
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. I've got to say, quite frankly, I appreciate the
gentleman from American Samoa and his position. If I represented that
island, I would be wanting to defend the monopoly that island has in
the western Pacific today.
But the fact is, as a Nation, we've got to look at not only the great
economic impact of this monopoly of forcing boats to travel for
thousands of miles to get back to one centralized location because of a
political decision here in Washington, but we've also got to look at
this fact that the lady from California has an amendment that will
address not just the economic impact but what about the environmental.
And I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, consider
the fact that we talk about greenhouse gasses and emissions, but, as a
law, we're requiring these fishing boats to travel for 6 to 7 days over
thousands of miles because of our laws here. If we truly want to say we
want to reduce emissions, we should reduce the emissions forced by
regulation by supporting the gentlelady's amendment.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, is there any time left on
this side?
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Washington has expired.
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. BORDALLO. I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my
colleague from California, Grace Napolitano.
While I am sympathetic to and recognize the concerns of my friend and
colleague from American Samoa, I have received significant support from
my constituents to include Guam as an eligible port of call for annual
safety inspections only to the U.S. distant water tuna fleet.
Permitting the fleet to call on Guam in addition to American Samoa will
create additional economic opportunities for my constituents.

{time} 1250

The fleet can utilize Guam's Coast Guard sector, our port, our ship
repair facilities, and can service their helicopters. It is a
commonsense approach to enforce the safety inspection requirements for
the U.S. flag vessels.
I want it to be very clear, Mr. Chairman, that I would like better
assurance from the administration, industry, and stakeholders that this
will not harm the tuna industry in American Samoa. That industry is
critically important to their economy, and its competitive advantages
must not be undermined.
I am committed to working with my friend to ensure that the American
Samoa tuna industry remains strong. In fact, I am staunchly opposed to
the distant water tuna fleet fishing in Guam's waters. The fleet is, in
fact, prohibited from fishing in Guam's economic zone, and if it were
to do so, it would threaten the livelihoods of our own local fishermen.
If this amendment passes, I would strongly urge the Coast Guard, the
National Marine Fishery Services, and all relevant agencies to
aggressively enforce existing regulations and to prevent any illegal
opportunist harvest in Guam's waters.
Again, I support this amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in
House Report 112-267.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 95, after line 14, insert the following:
``(7) State operational requirements.--
``(A) In general.--If any State determines that the
protection and enhancement of the quality of waters within
the State require greater environmental protection than would
be achieved through the application of a standard specified
under subsection (c) or established under subsection (d), the
State may impose operational requirements that are more
protective than such standards, except that a State
operational requirement imposed under this paragraph may
not--
``(i) require the installation of a ballast water treatment
technology that differs from that required by the standard
specified under subsection (c) or established under
subsection (d); or
``(ii) apply until the Administrator and the Secretary
determine that the waters of the State require greater
environmental protection and such greater environmental
protection can be achieved by the State operational
requirement.
``(B) Factors for determination.--
``(i) Determinations by administrator.--In making the
determination under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Administrator
shall consider--

``(I) whether the receiving waters have been afforded
special protection under Federal or State law;
``(II) the benefits to human health, welfare, or the
environment of the additional protection for the receiving
waters;
``(III) the reduction in risk to human health, welfare, or
the environment resulting from the additional protection;
``(IV) the propagule pressure to be addressed by the
additional protection;
``(V) applicable Federal and State law;
``(VI) applicable international standards; and
``(VII) the costs and benefits of providing the additional
protection.

``(ii) Determinations by secretary.--In making the
determination under subparagraph (A)(ii) the Secretary shall
consider--

``(I) the effect that the use of the State operational
requirement for additional protection would have on the
operation, operational capability, and safety of the crew and
vessel;
``(II) the potential impacts on shipping, trade, and other
uses of the aquatic environment;
``(III) applicable Federal and State law;
``(IV) applicable international standards; and
``(V) the costs and benefits of providing the additional
protection.

``(C) Deadline.--Upon application of the State, the
Administrator and the Secretary shall make the determination
within 180 days of the date of the completed application.
``(D) Approval of state operational requirements.--
``(i) In general.--If the Administrator and the Secretary
determine upon application by a State that the protection and
enhancement of the quality of waters within that State
require more environmental protection and that such greater
protection can be achieved by the operational requirement,
the Administrator and the Secretary shall approve the
application for the State operational requirement.
``(ii) Limitation.--The Administrator and the Secretary may
not approve a State operational requirement if the
requirement--

``(I) would have an unreasonable impact on the use of
traditional shipping lanes; or

[[Page H7372]]

``(II) would prohibit the discharge of ballast water in all
the waters of the State.

``(iii) Regulations.--Following the approval of a State
operational requirement by the Administrator and the
Secretary under this paragraph, the Secretary shall by
regulation implement the State operational requirement for
the waters of the State.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, 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. Mr. Chairman, my amendment amends title VII
of the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to recognize the importance of
both Federal and State efforts to protect the waters of individual
States by retaining a limited, surgical role for States to provide
additional operational limitations to protect important State resource
waters from the introduction of invasive species and other pollutants.
In concept, I agree with Chairman LoBiondo that we should enact a
stringent uniform national standard for ballast water treatment
technologies for commercial vessels. It makes sense to set a high
standard that is technologically achievable and reduces the likelihood
of introducing invasive species into our native waters.
My amendment does not add or change any technological requirements in
the bill. Let me say that again. My amendment does not add or change
any technological requirements in the bill. This is an issue of extreme
importance to industry for understandable reasons. Nor does it give
States carte blanche to prevent ships from releasing ballast water. It
simply provides for the ability of States to petition the Federal
Government, under a set of criteria that protects international and
domestic commerce, to identify and protect highly sensitive water
resources within a State's existing jurisdiction.
My amendment is not without precedent. In 1996, Congress amended the
Clean Water Act to require the Department of Defense to work with the
EPA to regulate ballast water from military vessels through the Uniform
National Discharge Standards program. In providing for these uniform
national standards, the then-Republican-led Congress acknowledged a
deep respect for the rights of States, including a residual authority
for States to establish ``no discharge zones'' similar to those that
would be allowed under my amendment if it were to pass.
Section 312 of the Clean Water Act, which is probably the closest
analogy to the issue of ballast water discharges from commercial
vessels, establishes uniform standards for discharges of marine
sanitation devices. Section 312 specifically reserves a role for States
to create ``no discharge zones'' for important State waters, provided
that those zones will not adversely impact vessels from operating
within the States.
The issue really boils down to this:
If you believe that States have a role to play, however limited, in
determining if some of their State waters deserve additional
protections while maintaining a uniform national standard, then you
should vote for the Bishop amendment. If, on the other hand, you
believe that States should have absolutely no say whatsoever in
protecting particularly sensitive waters within their jurisdictions,
then you should oppose the Bishop amendment. Given what we've done thus
far in this Congress, I would hope that Members would continue to
assert that States have a role.
Earlier this year, we passed H.R. 2018, the Cooperative Federalism
Act of 2011. This bill would eliminate any Federal role in setting
baseline water quality standards, giving full discretion to the States.
The bill that is before us flips that precisely. It would provide no
role for the States and give 100 percent of the role to the Federal
Government.
I would ask that the House continue to recognize the role of States
in setting standards for water quality in waters that they control, so
I would urge the adoption of my amendment.
Before I close, I do, though, want to thank Chairman LoBiondo. We
worked very hard over the last several weeks in trying to come to a
resolution of this matter. We were unable to get there, but it was not
for lack of trying. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for
their efforts to bring this matter to a bipartisan resolution. I'm
sorry we couldn't get there, but as I say, it was not for lack of
trying.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from New
York is attempting to do. We did give a mighty effort in trying to
reach an agreement. It's one of those situations where we just have a
different point of view.
It is my opinion that this amendment would make the current situation
even worse because it would allow States to completely prohibit the
discharge of ballast water, if they chose, regardless of what
technology was installed on a vessel. So here is the situation:
You could have a vessel owner install technology worth millions of
dollars, technology that would treat ballast water to 1 million times
the standard in the bill, and you could still have a State come in and
say, We're going to prohibit the vessel from discharging.
It completely undermines the uniform standards that we are attempting
to accomplish. The amendment would also allow States to dictate how
much ballast water could be discharged, the depth of the water where
the discharge is permitted, and even at what hours of the day.
I think--and, again, my opinion is--that this amendment would
completely undermine our efforts to put in place a single uniform
national ballast water standard and that, if this amendment were to go
forward, it would actually gut this portion of it.
So I urge all Members to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. May I inquire as to how much time I have
left?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Respectfully, I believe that my colleague and
friend from New Jersey has mischaracterized pieces of the amendment.
Let me be clear. I quote:
The amendment would not allow States to require the installation of
ballast water treatment technology that differs from that required by
the standards specified under subsection (c)--in other words, what the
underlying bill provides--and they could not impose standards until
they had applied to the administrator and the Secretary, and they would
have to determine that the waters of the State required greater
environmental protection.
So this would be a State request to the EPA.
Finally, the administrator and the Secretary, by the language of this
amendment, could not approve a State operational requirement if that
requirement, A, would have an unreasonable impact on the use of
traditional shipping lanes or, B, would prohibit the discharge of
ballast waters in all waters of the State.
This is a very narrowly crafted effort to provide at least some role
for the States, subject to the approval of the Federal Government.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Bucshon).
Mr. BUCSHON. I rise today in opposition to the amendment of the
gentleman of New York (Mr. Bishop) and, subsequently, to that of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which also affects the uniform
national standard of ballast water discharge.
This legislation creates a national standard that we desperately
need. Currently, each State is able to create its own rules and
regulations for ballast water discharge. The State of New York recently
enacted extreme new ballast water requirements that are 100 times more
stringent than international standards. After an extensive study, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources determined that the
technology does not exist to meet this standard. If allowed to go into
effect, these regulations would cost Indiana approximately 8,800 jobs
while doing little to protect the Great Lakes from invasive species.

{time} 1300

On September 7, Governor Daniels of Indiana joined Wisconsin Governor

[[Page H7373]]

Walker and Ohio Governor Kasich in submitting a letter to New York
Governor Cuomo opposing New York's extreme new ballast requirements.
I urge all my colleagues to save maritime jobs not only in Indiana
but across the Great Lakes and vote against these two amendments.
September 7, 2011.
Hon. Andrew Cuomo,
Governor of New York State, NYS State Office Building,
Albany, NY.
Dear Governor Cuomo: We are writing to share our concerns
regarding regulations adopted by the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) that could seriously
impede maritime commerce in the Great Lakes States to the
west of New York.
In late 2008, NYDEC issued rules intended to prevent the
introduction of aquatic nuisance species into New York waters
via the ballast water of commercial vessels. While we share
NYDEC's concern regarding the impact of invasive species on
the ecology of the Great Lakes, we note that the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) has coordinated a
global treaty to require all ships to install environmental
technology by 2016 to clean ballast water to a specific water
quality standard. The IMO is the maritime arm of the United
Nations and it coordinates international shipping policy.
Many Great Lakes states have incorporated the IMO ballast
water treatment standard into their own rules. Likewise, the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has embraced these same requirements
for new federal regulations to be issued later this year.
Under New York's regulations, shipowners must install
technology on existing vessels by August 1, 2013, to treat
ballast water to a level 100 times more stringent than the
IMO standard. Any vessels built after January 1, 2013, must
include technology to treat ballast water to a level 1,000
times more stringent than the IMO standard. These rules not
only apply to ships visiting New York ports, but also extend
to ships in passage through New York waters destined for the
ports of neighboring states and provinces. The rules apply to
ships whether or not they discharge ballast water.
Today, there is no technology approved by the USCG to meet
New York's regulatory requirements. In fact, the USCG has yet
to establish a ballast water treatment technology approval
process. Shipowners will not install ballast water treatment
systems unless USCG approved, because they are unable to
obtain insurance otherwise.
We also note that in February 2010, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) established ballast
water treatment regulations similar to the NYDEC; i.e., 100
times the IMO standard. Wisconsin's ballast water discharge
general permit required the WDNR to conduct a feasibility
determination of this standard, which it completed in
December 2010. After considerable analysis, and in
consultation with the Ballast Water Collaborative, a group of
leading environmental scientists, vendors, naval architects
and other experts in the U.S. and Canada, including New York
DEC staff, the WDNR concluded that treatment technologies do
not exist today to meet the 100 times IMO standard. The WDNR
ballast water general permit was subsequently modified to
require the IMO standards.
Ohio and Indiana employ the Vessel General Permit (VGP)
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)--which has gone through each state's 401 review
process and includes conditions that do not exceed IMO
standards to regulate ballast waters. Further, USEPA has a
Memorandum of Understanding with the US Coast Guard to, when
inspecting vessels, ensure they are complying with the VGP.
We know the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tasked its
Science Advisory Board (SAB) to address the question of
whether ballast water treatment technology exists now, or in
the foreseeable future, to meet a standard greater than IMO.
In the SAB's recently issued final report, it emphatically
stated that no such technology exists.
The State of New York is now the only jurisdiction in the
Great Lakes that still regulates ballast water treatment
technology more stringently than the IMO standard, and New
York's standards are technologically impossible to meet.
Unless the NYDEC regulations are amended, they will possibly
force the closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and imperil
thousands of maritime-related jobs in the Great Lakes States
and Canada. Fortunately, the final USCG ballast water
regulations will be published in the next few months. We have
always supported a strong, consistent--standard that covers
all U.S. waters.
NYDEC regulations are already having an effect on maritime
commerce in the Great Lakes as shippers, ports, industry and
labor unions look to establish long-term business agreements
and plan future investments. Preventing the spread of
invasive species continues to be a top priority for all of
us, but waterborne shipping is critical to our economies, and
we must work together toward controlling invasive species
while also protecting the commerce of our nation's waterways.
We urge New York to take prompt action and amend its ballast
water regulations to align with the IMO and USCG standards.
Sincerely,
Gov. Scott Walker,
Wisconsin.
Gov. Mitch Daniels,
Indiana.
Gov. John Kasich,
Ohio.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise with great affection for my friends from New York, both Mr.
Bishop and Ms. Slaughter; but I have to set the table on what this is
about.
The Coast Guard has been promulgating a Federal standard in line with
the international maritime standard for the discharge of ballast water.
And despite what people say--they say a new invasive species comes into
the lakes every 28 days. That's true; but they don't come in in the
ballast water of ships because industry, governments--both American and
Canadian--and the States have worked hard to make sure that that does
not occur.
But in the face of that, an organization called the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation proposed regulations, as Mr.
Bucshon said, that when fully implemented would be a thousand times
more stringent than the IMO standards. And what that effectively means
is--and when you talk to these folks they say, Well, that's the great
mother of invention. If we put these standards out there, the great
mother of invention, they're going to invent something. But sadly for
New York, their vendor--the one that they were counting on for this
technology--said they are not even willing to have it be tested by a
third party for verification that it works. So this amendment and those
proposals would basically shut down waterborne commerce in the United
States of America.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I will yield to you in just a second.
But here's the skinny: New York's regulations are more obnoxious
because they cover just passage. You don't have to take a drop of
ballast water in if you're in New York waters, and you don't have to
discharge a drop. Just the mere fact of sailing through New York
waters--which you have to do in the Great Lakes--would cause these
regulations to come into effect.
Now, I had to go to the extraordinary length of offering an amendment
in the Interior appropriations bill that said if New York continues on
this crazy course, that they get no money out of the Interior
appropriations bill. Now, that wasn't designed to cheat our friends in
New York out of funds. That was designed to get their attention. We
have their attention. We have to work together to solve this in a
bipartisan way. This amendment and the next amendment are not going to
do that.
I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I appreciate my friend from Ohio for
yielding.
I want to be clear. What the gentleman from Ohio is describing is the
current state of affairs. The underlying bill would change the current
state of affairs. And the amendment that I'm seeking to the underlying
bill would render the New York State standards moot because it would
accept the technological standards imposed in the underlying bill. So
the New York standards, as ambitious as they are, would go away.
What this would simply say is that New York and other States that are
interested--such as California, such as Michigan--could establish
certain operational requirements subject to the approval of the EPA
that would allow for the protection of certain waters in the State.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I really had something pithy to say, but we will
continue this later.
I thank the Chair.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.

[[Page H7374]]

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in
House Report 112-267.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), I offer an amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike title VII of the committee print.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to offer an amendment with my distinguished colleague
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which would remove a controversial measure
that has been inserted into the underlying Coast Guard reauthorization.
The measure forces States to adopt a weak international ballast water
standard as a ceiling for regulatory efforts. In doing so, it preempts
the right of States to respond to emerging invasive species and
provides no incentive for future innovation in critical ballast water
technology.
Each minute 40,000 gallons of ballast water containing thousands and
millions of foreign bacteria, viruses, animals, and plants are
discharged into U.S. waters. That's 21 billion gallons of ballast water
annually. Once introduced, invasive species, such as the Asian carp,
are exceedingly difficult to control and are often impossible to
eradicate.
Having no natural predators, aquatic invasive species easily feed on
native fish and other aquatic wildlife, foul beaches, degrade
fisheries, clog water intake pipes and other infrastructure, disrupt
the food chain, and contaminate our drinking water. We spend more than
$1 billion a year simply trying to get rid of zebra mussels which to
date we have spent $5 million trying to eradicate and have not even
come close.
Ballast water is a serious matter, with far-reaching implications for
this Nation. We lose billions of taxpayer dollars every year trying to
combat and contain the invasive species brought into our waters by
foreign shipping vessels. Many of our Nation's communities and all
around the Great Lakes rely on these bodies of water for recreation,
drinking, as well as their livelihoods.
The Great Lakes, which face significant challenges from invasive
species, contain 20 percent of the freshwater on the planet. And I
think those of us on both sides of the aisle who live adjacent to those
lakes have always felt an obligation to try to protect that. And we
must also remember that those are international waters, and our
Canadian friends also have a say here. Unfortunately, the ballast water
provisions in this measure protect the foreign shipping magnates rather
than the Great Lakes and the people who live there.
The Dingell-Slaughter amendment strikes title VII from this measure,
which will remove the damaging ballast water language. This amendment
will allow us to pass the important Coast Guard reauthorization while
giving Congress an opportunity to come to a responsible and reasonable
agreement with respect to ballast water standards.
I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell-Slaughter amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from New Jersey
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Again, I rise with great affection for both Mr.
Dingell and Ms. Slaughter, who are wonderful colleagues and friends in
this House.
But this amendment is the Bishop amendment on steroids. So this
amendment, unlike the Bishop amendment, would go back and remove the
requirement that's in the bill, and New York would be free to go about
its business and shut down waterborne commerce in the Great Lakes.
Now, the sad thing for the State of New York--and I know the people
in New York think that they are pretty important and they run the whole
place, but they don't. And, sadly, we have five Great Lakes that flow
through and touch a number of States, Ohio being included in that. And
just a couple of observations.
You know, this isn't a bunch of people that don't like the Great
Lakes versus a bunch of environmentalists that want to protect it. The
very first piece of legislation I had signed into law by President
Clinton--and it's tough to get a bill signed into law by a President of
the other party--was the reauthorization of the National Invasive
Species Act, coauthored by John Glenn in the United States Senate.
I know invasive species. But I am going to tell you, because of the
work of John Glenn and because of the work of a lot of good people,
since 1995, I challenge anybody offering this amendment to come up with
one invasive species that has gotten into the Great Lakes--and this
notion that it's 28 days--yes, they come in on boats; they come in in
people's boots; they come in swimming from other places. The biggest
threat that we've got is the Asian carp. It's not coming in ballast
water. It's swimming up the Mississippi, and we have got to fight with
the President about whether or not we have an electronic barrier that
keeps these awful fish out of the Great Lakes.
Now, the longshoremen don't like what New York is doing. Labor is not
onboard with what Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Dingell are attempting to do. A
July 2011 evaluation by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency--so fresh off the charts--determined that the technology does
not exist, does not exist. Even if a ship owner had a gazillion dollars
and wanted to buy something off the shelf, it doesn't exist to meet the
water quality level stipulated by New York.

{time} 1310

For this reason, the maritime industry, together with labor, believes
that these regulations are unworkable and if left unchanged will cause
economic harm when they come into effect, resulting in complete
cessation of commercial maritime commerce in New York waters.
Now, at a time when everybody around the country is screaming about
jobs, what are we going to do? All the longshoremen, you don't have to
work anymore. The guys that drive the boats, you don't need to work
anymore. The folks that unload the boats, no, you don't need to work
anymore. Why? Because one State out of the eight States that border the
Great Lakes has decided to come up with something not passed by their
legislature, passed by this New York environmental council. It's crazy.
We, again, in a good bipartisan way need to work together to fix this
problem. Let's find the right way to keep the zebra mussel and the
round goby and the sea lamprey and the Asian carp out of the Great
Lakes. But to allow New York to go down this path with the passage of
this amendment is destructive to jobs in the Great Lakes, and I hope
that the amendment is defeated.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan, who cares as much as anybody from New York,
the dean of the House and the cosponsor of the amendment, Mr. Dingell.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important question. The
Great Lakes are 20 percent of the world's freshwater supply. It is
endangered, and the fish and the wildlife and the whole ecosystem are
endangered by the constant entry of imported species that come in in
the ballast water of ships entering the Great Lakes. What we're talking
about here is protecting something of enormous value that has been here
since geological times and which has provided enormous opportunity for
our people--food and all manner of things, including recreation,
transportation, fish and wildlife.
This process of trying to give a few bones to a bunch of importers
who are bringing these things in from the Black Sea and other places in
Europe is a shameful thing if permitted. The United States and the
Congress have not done the job that we should have

[[Page H7375]]

done to protect our Great Lakes. And already we have a large number of
things, including some nasty diseases such as viral hemorrhagic
septicemia, sort of the Ebola virus of fish. This is something we have
to protect our Great Lakes against, and other waters of the United
States.
If foreign shippers are going to be bringing in dirty ballast water,
discharging it into our Great Lakes, if the States want to spend the
time protecting the States' water and the interest in the Great Lakes,
or other bodies of water which are threatened by these practices, they
want to do it, the Congress should very well permit them to do it
because failure to do it is going to jeopardize 20 percent of the
world's freshwater. And more importantly, a resource which is
recreational which relates to fish and wildlife values and which
provides us with opportunity for transportation, drinking water, and a
whole array of other precious and important things. If we don't adopt
this amendment, we'll find we're taking care of a bunch of foreign ship
owners instead of our people and the future of the United States.
Support the amendment.
My home state of Michigan is blessed with a vast and marvelous
natural resource--our Great Lakes. As a steadfast conservationist, I
firmly believe that we owe it to future generations to restore and
protect this national treasure. In addition to that, however, we also
must consider the economic value of our Lakes.
Ballast water, which is used to stabilize freighters, is taken on
board before a voyage begins. It can often contain organisms which
become invasive species when released in non-native navigable waters.
For the reasons outlined above, ballast water represents a significant
threat to our Great Lakes.
The language in this bill would restrict states like Michigan from
enacting commonsense laws to protect our shores, local economies, and
recreation opportunities. The Dingell-Slaughter amendment would strike
that language and allow Great Lakes and other coastal states to make
the necessary decisions that are in their individual state's best
interest in order to keep these invasive species from destroying our
waters, fisheries, shorelines, and economies.
Among the invasive species affecting the Great Lakes are the zebra
and quagga mussels. On the beaches of Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, we
have seen fish and bird kills numbering in the thousands because zebra
and quagga mussels have caused massive botulism outbreaks. Zebra and
quagga mussels concentrate nutrients along the bottom of the nearshore
area and make the water very clear. The extra food and sunlight
promotes the growth of algae that coats the lake bottom in thick mats.
As it dies, it becomes infected by botulism. The zebra and quagga
mussels eat the dead algae and the botulism, which has no effect on
them, and in doing so create higher and more deadly concentrations of
botulism. When fish eat the zebra mussels, they die of botulism
poisoning and wash up on the beach. There, birds eat them, and they too
die of botulism poisoning.
Power and water treatment plants are also at risk. Zebra and quagga
mussels attach themselves to hard surfaces including water intake
pipes. Gradually these invasive species build and build until they clog
the pipes, risking shutdown of these facilities.
Other invasive species include the Spiny Water Flea and the Fishhook
Water Flea which fish can't digest. The viral hemorrhagic septicemia
(VHS) disease is like the ebola virus for fish. While it's mortality
rate in the Great Lakes is still relatively low, it has caused
thousands of fish deaths, further polluting the waters and shorelines.
Invasive species are costing Federal, State, and local governments as
well as businesses billions of dollars every year. I ask that you vote
for this amendment to give states the tools they need to fight invasive
species.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Again, I have nothing but affection for Mr. Dingell
and Ms. Slaughter.
Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield, let me express my great
respect and affection for the gentleman.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman. It's mutual. And Louise likes
me too.
But listen, here's the deal: There's not going to be anybody
recreating on Great Lakes, fishing, and all the wonderful things we get
to do on Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and Lake Huron,
because nobody's going to be working. And so without jobs, people are
not going to have the opportunity to enjoy the splendor of 28 percent
of the world's freshwater.
Again, sadly, people in New York have decided they want to come up
with a standard that nobody can meet. Now, in 2013 when fully
implemented, what does that mean? That means a boat comes down the St.
Lawrence Seaway and travels into New York, and if you can't meet their
standard, 1,000 times more stringent than the international standard,
guess what? You can't sail. The people can't sail on the ship. The
people can't put goods on the ship.
Now again, despite my affection for the authors of this amendment,
I've talked to the longshoremen. I've talked to the Canadians. I've
talked to the people on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and they say that the
problem with invasive species today in the Great Lakes isn't ballast
water, it's the Asian carp swimming up the Mississippi River, and it's
things brought in from other sources. It's not ballast water. It's not
ballast water because Republicans and Democrats, since the beginning of
my time here, 18 years, have worked together to get this right. This is
wrong, and I urge it to be defeated.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We have to allow States, as we always have, to have a voice in
protecting their ecosystems and economies. As long as we conform to the
Federal law, we have always been able in States to enhance them. But if
we want to really truly solve this threat of invasive species in our
waters, and I personally believe it is quite serious because both in my
time in the State legislature and the Federal legislature, that was
certainly pointed out to me.
I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell-Slaughter amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I strongly, strongly, strongly oppose
this amendment. This current regulatory nightmare will shut down our
shipping lanes. It is unworkable, and I hope our colleagues understand
the consequences if this amendment were to pass. I urge opposition to
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I strongly support the Dingell/Slaughter
amendment and urge its adoption by the House.
This is not primarily a shipping issue, or a sportsman's issue, or an
issue for the environmental community. For me, it's a Great Lakes
issue. I believe that all sides of this debate support reasonable and
achievable ballast water standards that are protective of our nation's
aquatic ecosystems against the spread of invasive species. But we can
do better than the standards that have been grafted onto this Coast
Guard bill.
I represent Lake St. Clair, which is a small but important lake in
the Great Lakes system. The lake is heavily used for fishing, boating,
and swimming, and it is a source of drinking water for millions. Lake
St. Clair is also ground zero for the invasion of zebra mussels in the
United States. In the mid-1980s, a ship that had come from a port in
Europe dumped its ballast water into Lake St. Clair. From that moment,
we have fought a losing battle against the zebra mussels. They have
spread throughout the Great Lakes and gone on to invade the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers and beyond. The zebra mussels have literally
changed the very ecology of the Great Lakes. Millions of dollars are
spent each year trying to control them.
Unfortunately, the zebra mussels are not an isolated incident.
Hundreds of non-indigenous aquatic invaders have made their way into
the Great Lakes in the ballast water of ships. At long last, it's time
for the United States to adopt strong ballast water discharge
standards. It is the failure of the federal government and this
Congress to do so that has prompted the states to take action.
The proposed ballast water standards in the bill before the House are
inadequate and risk further damage to the Great Lakes and other aquatic
ecosystems in the United States. I cannot support them. I urge the
House to adopt the Dingell/Slaughter amendment.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I understand that some are arguing that
maintaining the ``status quo'' in states can set disparate ballast
standards is better than moving any legislation establishing a stronger
national ballast water standard, which is widely agreed upon as a
necessary tool in our fight against waterborne invasive species.

[[Page H7376]]

While I share their concerns about the need to address this issue, I
cannot support that stance. We need a national ballast water standard
and if the House does not take a position in this bill, I am afraid
that this issue will once again fall off the Congressional agenda. I
feared a yes vote on the Slaughter-Dingell amendment--which would strip
out the ballast water section altogether--would take away the last
realistic chance for the House to consider this issue. This concern is
relevant given that the ``Super Committee'' is set to dominate the
legislative agenda in both Chambers, and after that, the upcoming
elections.
The House last passed legislation setting a national ballast water
standard in 2007. We can't wait another four years to even begin this
discussion. I also recall, at that time, just like now, ballast water
legislation was attached to Coast Guard reauthorization legislation.
I hear concerns about the need to protect and improve states' rights
to protect their waters and the citizens and industries that depend on
them. For this reason, I supported an amendment by Congressman Tim
Bishop that would strengthen the provision of the ballast water section
of the bill to allow states' to enact stronger protections, with
federal approval, to ensure they meet key standards.
No legislation is perfect. However, we have a legislative process by
which we can work to improve and address concerns. I know that a number
of my colleagues spoke during the debate about continuing to work
together to improve the ballast water provision. I look forward to
working with my colleagues and the Senate further on this issue.
I cast my vote on this amendment reluctantly. I am concerned that
simply sending the ballast water issue back to Committee, rather than
to the Senate, would have likely been a death knell for further action
in the 112th Congress. We have waited long enough. The Great Lakes
can't wait. Wisconsin can't wait any further.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 112-267.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 707. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR VESSELS OF HISTORICAL
SIGNIFICANCE.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title or the amendments made by this title, a qualified
vessel shall operate for the life of the vessel under the
terms and conditions of the Vessel General Permit, as in
effect on November 1, 2011, without regard to any expiration
dates in such permit.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Qualified vessel.--A vessel is a qualified vessel for
purposes of subsection (a) if the vessel is, as of November
1, 2011--
(A) on, or nominated for inclusion on, the list of National
Historic Landmarks; and
(B) subject to part 5.3 of the Vessel General Permit.
(2) Vessel general permit.--The term ``Vessel General
Permit'' has the definition given such term in section 321(a)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as added by
section 702.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I rise today in support of my amendment,
along with the co-leads, Chairman Tom Petri from Wisconsin and
Congressman Dan Benishek of Michigan.
Today we're talking about a particular ship, the SS Badger located in
Ludington, Michigan. It travels between Ludington and Manitowoc,
Wisconsin. This particular ship has been operating on the Great Lakes
for over 50 years, most recently coming back into service in 1991,
using all private dollars to make that happen.
Its uniqueness is recognized by the designation of the National
Register of Historic Places and by both the States of Wisconsin and
Michigan. Its propulsion system is recognized as a mechanical
engineering landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
The Badger is currently operating under special rules developed by
the EPA in 2008. These rules are set to expire at the end of 2012.
Without certainty provided by this amendment, the Badger could very
easily, frankly, be forced off the Great Lakes at the end of 2012.

{time} 1320

With an annual economic impact of roughly $35 million between two
small port cities both in Wisconsin and Michigan, keeping the Badger
operational is absolutely vital to our communities. I urge all of my
colleagues today to join us in recognizing the historic significance of
these Great Lake steamships by supporting the Huizenga-Petri-Benishek
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Who seeks time in opposition?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At this time I yield to my colleague, Chairman Tom Petri from
Wisconsin.
Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for offering the amendment, and I
rise in support of it.
Mr. Chair, this amendment recognizes the unique and special character
of historic ships and would keep in place the current EPA vessel
discharge program for historic ferries.
I am particularly interested in this because the SS Badger, which
operates on Lake Michigan between Ludington, Michigan, and Manitowoc,
Wisconsin, in my Congressional district, is believed to be the last
coal fired vessel in regular commercial service.
This 50-year-old ship is an important part of our history, culture
and tradition. It is currently on the National Register of Historic
Places and has been nominated as a National History Landmark as an
important part of our heritage.
The economic impact on Manitowoc, a small city of only 34,000 people,
is $14 million a year, and the Badger is responsible for providing
about 250 jobs on both sides of the lake. It attracts about 100,000
visitors to our cities each year.
Under this amendment, historic ferries would continue to operate
under the parameters of the current general vessel permit. The Badger
management has spent significant resources over the last few years
trying to find a way to convert the vessel to a more modern propulsion
system. But it is a difficult, complicated, and costly task.
Even with the passage of this amendment, the owners of the Badger
will continue working with the Maritime Administration and the Great
Lakes Maritime Research Institute on a program to repower steamships--
with the Badger serving as the model vessel for the study.
Congress and the EPA have recognized the special nature of historic
steamships before. Just a couple years ago, we exempted more than 50
older and unique Great Lakes steamships from new air emission rules. (I
might add that effort was spearheaded by then-Chairmen Dave Obey and
Jim Oberstar.) This amendment follows that model, and I urge my
colleagues to support it today.
The discharge from the Badger has been repeatedly tested and it is
non-toxic and NOT hazardous. It uses high quality, low-sulfur coal. The
Badger operators have taken many steps over the years to reduce
discharges and coal use. Some act as if the Badger has been out of
compliance for decades--but prior to 2008, ``discharges incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel'' were excluded from getting discharge
permits. It was a 2006 court decision that required the new permits.
The Badger serves as an extension of Hwy. 10 across Lake Michigan and
carries semi-trucks and large oversized vehicles and other vehicles
that otherwise would be driving around the Lake and through the
congested Chicago area. By one estimate, that saves one million gallons
of fuel each year and reduces air emissions.
The environment will not be saved by shutting down the Badger, but
you will kill jobs, our local economy and a bit of our history.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. At this time, Mr. Chair, I yield to my
fellow Congressman from Michigan, Representative Dan Benishek.
Mr. BENISHEK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate my fellow freshman and colleague from Michigan for his
leadership on this issue.

[[Page H7377]]

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that addresses a growing
problem with our friends at the EPA--their love of bureaucratic red
tape. I represent a district with more Great Lakes coastline than any
other. Shipping and ferries are a part of the Great Lakes heritage. The
USS Badger continues this tradition, transporting travelers, cars,
trucks, and equipment across Lake Michigan.
Don't be confused. This amendment does not make the Badger exempt
from EPA regulations. The EPA will continue to regulate discharge
limits and other requirements. It simply keeps in place the current
regulations that recognize the Badger as a unique and historic vessel.
Keeping the Badger operational means saving 1 million gallons in fuel a
year from vehicles driving around the lake. Passing this amendment is
simple and common sense. It allows a national historic place to
continue to function on the Great Lakes.
I urge passage.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Olson

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 112-267.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike section 608 of the committee print and insert the
following:

SEC. 608. STANDBY VESSELS.

(a) Study.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard, in
consultation with appropriate representatives of industry,
shall conduct a feasibility study to determine the
capability, costs, and benefits of requiring the owner or
operator of a manned facility, installation, unit, or vessel
to locate a standby vessel--
(1) not more than 3 nautical miles from such manned
facility, installation, unit, or vessel while it is
performing drilling, plugging, abandoning, or workover
operations; and
(2) not more than 12 nautical miles from such manned
facility, installation, unit, or vessel while it is
performing operations other than drilling, plugging,
abandoning, or workover operations.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Olson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I believe that issuing a mandate of this nature without proper study
to determine if it will increase safety would be problematic. No one
takes safety more seriously than the companies operating offshore.
Since Deepwater Horizon, multiple safeguards have been put in place to
ensure worker safety. I simply believe that the Coast Guard should have
an opportunity to assess a provision of this nature before we establish
an arbitrary mandate that they'll have to comply with.
This amendment does not--does not--prevent us from implementing
measures to ensure worker safety. It simply requires a 6-month study
first to allow the Coast Guard to analyze the safety benefits so that
we can provide the safest environment for our offshore drilling
workers.
The Coast Guard may determine that standby vessels should be
required. If so, I will work to ensure that happens. I'm just asking
that we review this issue thoroughly and prudently before we rush to
legislate.
However, at this time, I understand the need to withdraw my amendment
and appreciate Chairman Mica's willingness to work with me to address
my concerns as we work through the legislative process. I also
appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana, whose provision in the bill I
sought to improve with my amendment. I am grateful for his commitment
to work with me on our differences.
With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-267, on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Cummings of Maryland.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
Amendment No. 6 by Mrs. Napolitano of California.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Bishop of New York.
Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Slaughter of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cummings

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 227, not voting 32, as follows:

[Roll No. 832]

AYES--174

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--227

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)

[[Page H7378]]

Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--32

Austria
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Burton (IN)
Capps
Cardoza
Coble
Davis (IL)
Filner
Gallegly
Giffords
Heinrich
Higgins
Issa
Jenkins
Jones
Murphy (CT)
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson
Ross (FL)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Schock
Smith (WA)
Sullivan
Sutton
Velazquez
Young (FL)

{time} 1350

Messrs. FORTENBERRY and SCHILLING changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, and Mr. GENE
GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 832, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 218, not voting 33, as follows:

[Roll No. 833]

AYES--182

Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kingston
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--218

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Bachus
Barletta
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Perlmutter
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Reichert
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--33

Austria
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Burton (IN)
Capps
Cardoza
Coble
Davis (IL)
Filner
Gallegly
Giffords
Heinrich
Higgins
Issa
Jenkins
Jones
Murphy (CT)
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson
Ross (FL)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Sullivan
Sutton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Westmoreland
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1354

Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 833, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page H7379]]

The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 364,
noes 37, not voting 32, as follows:

[Roll No. 834]

AYES--364

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olver
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--37

Ackerman
Amash
Berman
Blackburn
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Cantor
Clarke (NY)
Crowley
Diaz-Balart
Edwards
Fudge
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Honda
Hultgren
Johnson, E. B.
Kildee
Larsen (WA)
Long
Manzullo
Meeks
Mulvaney
Olson
Rangel
Ribble
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Schmidt
Stivers
Terry
Tiberi
Towns
Walberg
Walsh (IL)

NOT VOTING--32

Austria
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Burton (IN)
Capps
Cardoza
Coble
Davis (IL)
Filner
Gallegly
Giffords
Grijalva
Heinrich
Higgins
Issa
Jenkins
Jones
Murphy (CT)
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson
Ross (FL)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Sullivan
Sutton
Velazquez
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

{time} 1401

Messrs. HONDA and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. BLACK and Messrs. JOHNSON of Ohio, PALAZZO, and NUNES changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 834, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Bishop) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 835]

AYES--174

Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Camp
Campbell
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rogers (MI)
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--225

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx

[[Page H7380]]

Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--34

Austria
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Burton (IN)
Capps
Cardoza
Cassidy
Coble
Davis (IL)
Filner
Gallegly
Giffords
Heinrich
Herger
Higgins
Issa
Jenkins
Jones
Murphy (CT)
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson
Ross (FL)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Velazquez
Young (FL)

{time} 1405

Mr. CHAFFETZ and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 835, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 836]

AYES--161

Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Camp
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rigell
Rogers (MI)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--237

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hirono
Holden
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--35

Austria
Bachmann
Berg
Bishop (GA)
Burton (IN)
Capps
Cardoza
Coble
Davis (IL)
Filner
Gallegly
Giffords
Heinrich
Higgins
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jones
Murphy (CT)
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson
Ross (FL)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Shuster
Smith (WA)
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Velazquez
Young (FL)

{time} 1409

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 836, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

____________________