[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14298-14303]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               MARITIME POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in 
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 802) to amend the Act to Prevent 
Pollution from ships to implement MARPOL Annex VI.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Maritime Pollution 
     Prevention Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to or a repeal of a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Act to Prevent Pollution 
     from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2(a) (33 U.S.C. 1901(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the paragraphs (1) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (13), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(1) `Administrator' means the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency;'';
       (3) in paragraph (5) (as so redesignated) by striking ``and 
     V'' and inserting ``V, and VI'';
       (4) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated) by striking `` 
     `discharge' and `garbage' and `harmful substance' and 
     `incident' '' and inserting `` `discharge', `emission', 
     `garbage', `harmful substance', and `incident' ''; and
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (13) (as 
     redesignated) as paragraphs (8) through (14), respectively, 
     and inserting after paragraph (6) (as redesignated) the 
     following:
       ``(7) `navigable waters' includes the territorial sea of 
     the United States (as defined in Presidential Proclamation 
     5928 of December 27, 1988) and the internal waters of the 
     United States;''.

[[Page 14299]]



     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

       Section 3 (33 U.S.C. 1902) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) with respect to Annex VI to the Convention, and other 
     than with respect to a ship referred to in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) to a ship that is in a port, shipyard, offshore 
     terminal, or the internal waters of the United States;
       ``(B) to a ship that is bound for, or departing from, a 
     port, shipyard, offshore terminal, or the internal waters of 
     the United States, and is in--
       ``(i) the navigable waters or the exclusive economic zone 
     of the United States;
       ``(ii) an emission control area designated pursuant to 
     section 4; or
       ``(iii) any other area that the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and each State in which any 
     part of the area is located, has designated by order as being 
     an area from which emissions from ships are of concern with 
     respect to protection of public health, welfare, or the 
     environment;
       ``(C) to a ship that is entitled to fly the flag of, or 
     operating under the authority of, a party to Annex VI, and is 
     in--
       ``(i) the navigable waters or the exclusive economic zone 
     of the United States;
       ``(ii) an emission control area designated under section 4; 
     or
       ``(iii) any other area that the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and each State in which any 
     part of the area is located, has designated by order as being 
     an area from which emissions from ships are of concern with 
     respect to protection of public health, welfare, or the 
     environment; and
       ``(D) to any other ship, to the extent that, and in the 
     same manner as, such ship may be boarded by the Secretary to 
     implement or enforce any other law of the United States or 
     Annex I, II, or V of the Convention, and is in--
       ``(i) the exclusive economic zone of the United States;
       ``(ii) the navigable waters of the United States;
       ``(iii) an emission control area designated under section 
     4; or
       ``(iv) any other area that the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and each State in which any 
     part of the area is located, has designated by order as being 
     an area from which emissions from ships are of concern with 
     respect to protection of public health, welfare, or the 
     environment.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraph (2),'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3),''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) With respect to Annex VI the Administrator, or the 
     Secretary, as relevant to their authorities pursuant to this 
     Act, may determine that some or all of the requirements under 
     this Act shall apply to one or more classes of public 
     vessels, except that such a determination by the 
     Administrator shall have no effect unless the head of the 
     Department or agency under which the vessels operate concurs 
     in the determination. This paragraph does not apply during 
     time of war or during a declared national emergency.'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (c) through (g) as 
     subsections (d) through (h), respectively, and inserting 
     after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Application to Other Persons.--This Act shall apply 
     to all persons to the extent necessary to ensure compliance 
     with Annex VI to the Convention.'';
       (4) in subsection (e), as redesignated--
       (A) by inserting ``or the Administrator, consistent with 
     section 4 of this Act,'' after ``Secretary'';
       (B) by striking ``of section (3),'' and inserting ``of this 
     section,''; and
       (C) by striking ``Protocol, including regulations 
     conforming to and giving effect to the requirements of Annex 
     V'' and inserting ``Protocol (or the applicable Annex), 
     including regulations conforming to and giving effect to the 
     requirements of Annex V and Annex VI''; and
       (5) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(i) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to restrict in a manner inconsistent with 
     international law navigational rights and freedoms as defined 
     by United States law, treaty, convention, or customary 
     international law.''.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 4 (33 U.S.C. 1903) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively, and inserting after subsection (a) 
     the following:
       ``(b) Duty of the Administrator.--In addition to other 
     duties specified in this Act, the Administrator and the 
     Secretary, respectively, shall have the following duties and 
     authorities:
       ``(1) The Administrator shall, and no other person may, 
     issue Engine International Air Pollution Prevention 
     certificates in accordance with Annex VI and the 
     International Maritime Organization's Technical Code on 
     Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel 
     Engines, on behalf of the United States for a vessel of the 
     United States as that term is defined in section 116 of title 
     46, United States Code. The issuance of Engine International 
     Air Pollution Prevention certificates shall be consistent 
     with any applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act or 
     regulations prescribed under that Act.
       ``(2) The Administrator shall have authority to administer 
     regulations 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of Annex VI to 
     the Convention.
       ``(3) The Administrator shall, only as specified in section 
     8(f), have authority to enforce Annex VI of the 
     Convention.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), as redesignated, by redesignating 
     paragraph (2) as paragraph (4), and inserting after paragraph 
     (1) the following:
       ``(2) In addition to the authority the Secretary has to 
     prescribe regulations under this Act, the Administrator shall 
     also prescribe any necessary or desired regulations to carry 
     out the provisions of regulations 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 
     and 19 of Annex VI to the Convention.
       ``(3) In prescribing any regulations under this section, 
     the Secretary and the Administrator shall consult with each 
     other, and with respect to regulation 19, with the Secretary 
     of the Interior.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (c), as 
     redesignated, the following:
       ``(5) No standard issued by any person or Federal 
     authority, with respect to emissions from tank vessels 
     subject to regulation 15 of Annex VI to the Convention, shall 
     be effective until 6 months after the required notification 
     to the International Maritime Organization by the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 6. CERTIFICATES.

       Section 5 (33 U.S.C. 1904) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in section 4(b)(1), the 
     Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``Secretary under the 
     authority of the MARPOL protocol.'' and inserting ``Secretary 
     or the Administrator under the authority of this Act.''; and
       (3) in subsection (e) by striking ``environment.'' and 
     inserting ``environment or the public health and welfare.''.

     SEC. 7. RECEPTION FACILITIES.

       Section 6 (33 U.S.C. 1905) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary and the Administrator, after consulting 
     with appropriate Federal agencies, shall jointly prescribe 
     regulations setting criteria for determining the adequacy of 
     reception facilities for receiving ozone depleting 
     substances, equipment containing such substances, and exhaust 
     gas cleaning residues at a port or terminal, and stating any 
     additional measures and requirements as are appropriate to 
     ensure such adequacy. Persons in charge of ports and 
     terminals shall provide reception facilities, or ensure that 
     reception facilities are available, in accordance with those 
     regulations. The Secretary and the Administrator may jointly 
     prescribe regulations to certify, and may issue certificates 
     to the effect, that a port's or terminal's facilities for 
     receiving ozone depleting substances, equipment containing 
     such substances, and exhaust gas cleaning residues from ships 
     are adequate.'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by inserting ``or the Administrator'' 
     after ``Secretary'';
       (3) in subsection (e) by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary may deny the entry of a ship to a port 
     or terminal required by the MARPOL Protocol, this Act, or 
     regulations prescribed under this section relating to the 
     provision of adequate reception facilities for garbage, ozone 
     depleting substances, equipment containing those substances, 
     or exhaust gas cleaning residues, if the port or terminal is 
     not in compliance with the MARPOL Protocol, this Act, or 
     those regulations.'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(1) by striking ``Secretary is'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary and the Administrator are''; and
       (5) in subsection (f)(2) by striking ``(A)''.

     SEC. 8. INSPECTIONS.

       Section 8(f) (33 U.S.C. 1907(f)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(f)(1) The Secretary may inspect a ship to which this Act 
     applies as provided under section 3(a)(5), to verify whether 
     the ship is in compliance with Annex VI to the Convention and 
     this Act.
       ``(2) If an inspection under this subsection or any other 
     information indicates that a violation has occurred, the 
     Secretary, or the Administrator in a matter referred by the 
     Secretary, may undertake enforcement action under this 
     section.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding subsection (b) and paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall have all of the 
     authorities of the Secretary, as specified in subsection (b) 
     of this section, for the purposes of enforcing regulations 17 
     and 18 of Annex VI to the Convention to the extent that 
     shoreside violations are the subject of the action and in any 
     other matter referred to the Administrator by the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 9. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROTOCOL.

       Section 10(b) (33 U.S.C. 1909(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Annex I, II, or V'' and inserting ``Annex 
     I, II, V, or VI''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or the Administrator as provided for in 
     this Act,'' after ``Secretary,''.

     SEC. 10. PENALTIES.

       Section 9 (33 U.S.C. 1908) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Protocol,,'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Protocol,'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``or the Administrator as provided for in 
     this Act,'' after ``Secretary,'' the first place it appears;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, or the Administrator 
     as provided for in this Act,'' after ``Secretary''; and
       (C) in the matter after paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting ``or the Administrator as provided for in 
     this Act'' after ``Secretary,'' the first place it appears; 
     and

[[Page 14300]]

       (ii) by inserting ``, or the Administrator as provided for 
     in this Act,'' after ``Secretary'' the second and third 
     places it appears;
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, or the 
     Administrator as provided for in this Act,'' after 
     ``Secretary'' each place it appears; and
       (4) in subsection (f), by inserting ``or the Administrator 
     as provided for in this Act'' after ``Secretary,'' the first 
     place appears.

     SEC. 11. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       Section 15 (33 U.S.C. 1911) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 15. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       ``Authorities, requirements, and remedies of this Act 
     supplement and neither amend nor repeal any other 
     authorities, requirements, or remedies conferred by any other 
     provision of law. Nothing in this Act shall limit, deny, 
     amend, modify, or repeal any other authority, requirement, or 
     remedy available to the United States or any other person, 
     except as expressly provided in this Act.''.

     SEC. 12. LEGAL ACTIONS.

       Section 11 (33 U.S.C. 1910) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) of subsection (a) as 
     paragraph (4), and inserting after paragraph (2) the 
     following:
       ``(3) against the Administrator where there is alleged a 
     failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under 
     this Act which is not discretionary; or'';
       (2) by striking ``concerned,'' in subsection (b)(1) and 
     inserting ``concerned or the Administrator,''; and
       (3) by inserting ``or the Administrator'' after 
     ``Secretary'' in subsection (b)(2).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 802.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I smile because it's a delight to call the gentleman Mr. Speaker.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 802, as amended, the Maritime 
Pollution Prevention Act of 2008. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings) and I introduced this legislation at the outset of the 110th 
Congress to provide the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection 
Agency with the legal authority they need to implement Annex VI of the 
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
  The House passed H.R. 802 on March 26, 2007, by a vote of 359-48. 
Notwithstanding that overwhelming vote of approval, the bill languished 
in the place we affectionately call the other body for more than a 
year. But recently they have passed, with minor changes, that 
legislation. With House passage today, the bill can go to the President 
for consideration and for his signature.
  Global warming is a critical issue, not just for the United States, 
but for every Nation, for every person on the planet. The international 
maritime community has recognized their contribution to global warming 
and to ocean pollution and have developed an international convention 
to address air pollutants from diesel ships.
  For many years, the International Maritime Organization of the United 
Nations has been developing international standards to prevent 
pollution from ships that traverse the oceans. Those standards are now 
embodied in the International Convention for the Prevention of 
Pollution from Ships of 1973. The U.S. has implemented these 
environmental laws by enacting and amending the legislation known as 
the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, and when I served on the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, much of whose jurisdiction has 
now been absorbed by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, we worked on early versions of those amendments and 
environmental laws to implement and amend the APPS.
  Annex VI of the Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships 
limits the discharge of nitrogen oxides from large marine diesel 
engines; it governs the sulfur content of marine diesel fuel; prohibits 
the emission of ozone-depleting substances; it regulates the emission 
of volatile organic compounds in the transfer of cargoes between 
tankers and terminals. It sets standards for shipboard incinerators and 
fuel oil quality; and it establishes requirements for platforms and 
drill rigs at sea.
  The Senate ratified this treaty by unanimous consent in April, 2006. 
But it doesn't go into effect until we enact implementing legislation. 
The bill we consider today will implement Annex VI of the convention. 
It will provide the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency 
the authority necessary to develop U.S. standards and to enforce those 
standards on the thousands of U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels that 
enter U.S. waters.
  Recognizing the challenge that the world faces in combating worldwide 
climate change and global warming, we have to take every measure 
possible to contain and then reduce rising temperatures on this planet, 
and particularly the oceans that are deep reservoirs of oxygen but also 
reservoirs of carbon and of the acid that we are pouring into the 
atmosphere. And that combination of absorbing heat, acid, and carbon is 
having deleterious effects on the Nation's world coral reefs. There was 
a very enlightening program on this devastation of the coral reefs on 
the Science Channel just the other evening.

                              {time}  1530

  It is something that I witnessed myself when I lived in Haiti and did 
snorkeling and exploring of the coral reefs. This was in the 1950s. You 
could see the dead reefs on the one side, and the vibrant, growing 
coral reefs and the abundance of life on those coral reefs, filtering 
out deleterious elements in the ocean water. But on the other side, the 
dead reef and a testament to the effects of pollution in our waters. 
And that was 50 years ago.
  So the Senate amendments do not affect the application of MARPOL VI 
to the thousands of vessels that enter our ports. Their amendment 
clarifies that the United States can enforce MARPOL VI on vessels that 
are registered in countries which are not party to the convention when 
those vessels are in our 200 mile economic zone if the Coast Guard is 
on board of the vessel to enforce other annexes to the convention and 
to the extent that this enforcement does not violate international law.
  In addition, the Senate amendment clarifies that an individual, a 
person, may bring a civil action if the Administrator of EPA has failed 
to perform any act or duty not discretionary under the act, and that is 
similar to civil action that may be brought under other provisions of 
law on application of other annexes to the convention.
  The delay by the Senate, I regret, may have near term unfortunate 
consequences for the United States in the IMO negotiations that will 
take place this coming October to reduce emissions from ships. Under 
the terms of the convention, only parties to the convention may vote on 
those reduction measures, and a nation is not party to the convention 
until 90 days after its instruments of ratification have been deposited 
with the IMO. The Senate delay means we may not meet that deadline and 
the U.S. may not be able to vote to improve increased standards, even 
though delegates representing the United States chaired the working 
group that met over many sessions to negotiate these new, more rigorous 
standards.
  So, given the importance of completing action on this legislation, I 
asked our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, to schedule this bill as quickly 
as possible immediately upon the House's return to session today. I 
thank the majority leader for his consideration, and I am hopeful we 
get the bill to the President's desk without delay.
  I would also like to take the opportunity to thank our chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. 
Cummings, who has devoted a great deal of energy to the work of the 
subcommittee and to this particular issue in developing this 
legislation, and to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking 
member of our committee,

[[Page 14301]]

for his cooperation and support in moving the bill last year and 
expediting today's action considering the bill, and to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), ever the thoughtful, considerate, legal 
expert of the committee. I am grateful for his contribution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support today of the Senate amendment 
to H.R. 802, the Maritime Prevention Pollution Act of 2008. I want to 
give credit and pay tribute to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 
Oberstar, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings of 
Maryland, for their diligence in working this bill and working the will 
of the committee and today the will of the House. I join Mr. Oberstar 
in expressing my regret that the other body has not acted in as prompt 
a fashion, and therefore we may be too late with this legislation. 
Hopefully that isn't the case.
  This type of legislation is exactly what our committee should be 
about. Those of us, as the current occupant of the chair who hails from 
the Great Lakes region, as does the chairman of the full committee, 
know the great work that has gone into the restoration of the Great 
Lakes over many, many years. I am reminded as I listened to the 
chairman talk about the action or inaction of the other body that 
Johnny Carson, before the restoration of Lake Erie in particular was in 
full swing, used to joke that Lake Erie was a place where fish went to 
die. I think it is appropriate to say that at this moment in time, the 
Senate, regardless of who is in charge, is a place where bills go to 
die.
  This bill will implement international requirements to reduce air 
emissions from ships for purposes of U.S. law and will establish more 
stringent standards for the emissions of airborne pollutants from ships 
as well as the sulfur content of fuel oil used in United States waters.
  As Members may remember, the House first passed this bill in March of 
2007, again thanks to the splendid leadership of Chairman Oberstar and 
Chairman Cummings, with a broad bipartisan majority. Since that time, 
the bill has languished in the other body, to the point where we may 
well be prevented from voting on proposed amendments to the underlying 
convention at the next meeting of the International Maritime 
Organization. As a result, our abilities to push for strengthened 
measures have been significantly weakened.
  Nonetheless, this is important legislation. I am pleased we will be 
sending it to the President as a first step to improve environmental 
conditions in our ports and along our coasts. I urge all Members to 
join me in supporting this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
Chair of the Coast Guard and Maritime Affairs Subcommittee, my good 
friend, the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for yielding and for 
his tremendous leadership of our Transportation Committee and getting 
this bill to the floor and his cosponsorship. I also want to thank Mr. 
LaTourette for his leadership, and certainly our ranking member of our 
overall committee, Mr. Mica.
  At the beginning of the 110th Congress, Mr. Speaker, Chairman 
Oberstar laid out an agenda for the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee focusing on three critical objectives: Ensuring the safety 
and security of transportation and infrastructure; supporting expanded 
investment; and combating global warming.
  The measure before us today, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 
2008, H.R. 802, represents yet another step towards the achievement of 
this agenda, and I applaud Chairman Oberstar for his focused leadership 
on one of the most urgent transportation issues confronting our Nation.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation, I rise in strong support of H.R. 802, which would 
institute the legal changes needed to bring the United States into 
compliance with Annex VI of the International Convention for the 
Prevention of Pollution From Ships, known as MARPOL.
  This legislation passed the House of Representatives on March 26, 
2007, by a vote of 359-48. The bill finally passed the Senate with a 
minor amendment at the end of last month, and that amended bill now 
returns to the House for our consideration.
  MARPOL is a treaty negotiated by the members of the International 
Maritime Organization, the United Nations body responsible for 
developing the treaties that are essentially the sole international 
regulations for ocean shipping.
  The MARPOL convention currently has six annexes limiting various 
forms of pollution from ships. Annex VI was negotiated to control air 
pollution and has been in force internationally since 2005. With the 
enactment of H.R. 802, the United States would finally align our 
Nation's laws to comply with this annex. Among other measures, Annex VI 
imposes limits on the sulfur content of the fuel utilized by ships, 
limits the emission of nitrogen oxides from ships' engines, and 
prohibits the deliberate release of substances that deplete atmospheric 
ozone.
  In the United States, ships are essentially the last major non-
regulated source of ozone depleting emissions and they are a growing 
threat to the world's air quality. In fact, some estimates suggest that 
the emissions of sulfur oxide from ships may now exceed the combined 
output from all the cars, trucks and buses in the world.
  Unfortunately, the missions standards imposed by Annex VI are still 
very moderate. As a result, the United States has been actively working 
with our international partners to strengthen the annex's emissions 
controls through the development of new amendments. Among other 
changes, these proposed amendments which are now under consideration by 
the IMO would reduce allowable sulfur content in fuel from the current 
4.5 percent to 3.5 percent in 2012, and require subsequent reductions 
through 2020.
  A vote is scheduled on these new amendments by the current parties to 
Annex VI in October of this year. Critically, if the United States has 
not deposited with IMO its instrument of ratification of Annex VI at 
least 3 months prior to that vote, the United States will not be 
allowed to vote for the strengthened emission controls that we have 
worked to craft.
  Mr. Speaker, implementation of the United States MARPOL Annex VI 
offers us the first opportunity to limit emissions from ships. Further, 
by joining this treaty now, we ensure that the United States can 
continue to lead the effort to achieve additional reductions in 
polluting emissions from oceangoing vessels.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt H.R. 802 today, and I urge the 
President to sign this measure as quickly as possible.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that it will come as a surprise to the Speaker 
that I spend just a couple of minutes talking about energy today, and I 
want to talk about it in the context of our committee.
  I think the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, can 
probably cite the statistic, but every year I have been here, and this 
is my 14th year in the United States Congress, the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, I think under both Republican and Democratic 
leadership, has distinguished itself in the bipartisan and efficient 
way in which we craft our legislation and actually get something done, 
when the other body is willing and when the chief executive is willing 
to sign it.
  I thought I heard before our July 4th recess Mr. Oberstar talk about 
the many numbers of bills that we have actually moved through the 
House, through the Senate, that have been signed into law, and it far 
exceeds a lot of the work that some of the other more contentious 
committees in this

[[Page 14302]]

body, by their nature, no criticism intended, can compile, and I think 
it is in direct correlation to and as a direct result of the respect 
that we have for each other on both sides of the aisle on that 
committee, and now the stern but fair leadership of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  That brings me to a frustration that I found and encountered over the 
Fourth of July recess. I was talking to Mr. Oberstar. I didn't quite 
have the adulation poured upon me at parades that he had in his 
district in Minnesota. There were some people that thought that $4.10 
was a little bit much to be paying at the pump.
  But the message that I got pretty loud and clear is that they want us 
to resolve it. When you pull into the gas station, there isn't a 
Republican pump and there isn't a Democratic pump and there isn't an 
independent pump, there is just gas that costs a lot of money today, 
and someone making $8 an hour in Ohio for a $320 per week gross 
paycheck is struggling, with $60, $70 filling up the tank to go to and 
from work.
  There are a lot of opinions, and I will get into those in just a 
second, but I was reminded for the 12 years we were in the majority I 
happened to be supportive of something known as Davis-Bacon, which is 
the Federal prevailing wage law, and our committee is responsible for 
producing the Water Resources Development Act.
  We were stymied for years in getting necessary water infrastructure 
projects out to our communities because of the sort of Davis-Bacon 
problem, and that is the then majority leader believed that if it came 
to a vote on an amendment, at that time by one of our colleagues who is 
not with us anymore, Mrs. Kelly of New York, that that issue would 
prevail, and much to the dismay of Members in the then majority party, 
who happened to be a majority of the majority but were a minority of 
the House, if that vote were permitted to have taken place. That was a 
frustrating thing, and, sadly, I think we find ourselves there again on 
this energy question.
  There are Members in this House who advocate additional exploration 
and drilling in the United States, both on and offshore, in the West, 
in Alaska, off the east coast and the west coast. There are some who 
say no. There are some who advocate a replenishment and an increased 
investment in renewable, wind and solar. The gentleman from Minnesota 
is an expert on photovoltaic electricity, and certainly he has passed 
legislation that would be supportive of increased research and 
development of that type of energy generation.
  There are those who believe like the French we should add nuclear 
power back into our portfolio. France, I believe, generates about 80 
percent of its power through nuclear power. We haven't had a nuclear 
power program in this country for a number of years. There are those in 
this House that object to that and don't think that that is a good idea 
as well.
  But the point is that I think that at $4, $4.10, $4.11, we have 
reached the price point where the American public, who has to get up 
and buy food, send their kids to school, pay their bills, pay their 
taxes and fill up their gas tanks, don't really want to hear why we 
disagree and what we can't agree on.

                              {time}  1545

  I think that they are looking for a solution. And there are a lot of 
people in both parties who are bellicose on this issue, and I don't 
intend to do that. But I think I would say that the time to have this 
national debate is now. We need to determine what direction the country 
is going to go in. And like most issues, the Democrats aren't 100 
percent correct, the Republicans aren't 100 percent correct. But we are 
expected to be the leaders of the Nation and we are expected to come up 
with solutions.
  So I would hope, not in the spirit of the old Water Resources 
Development Act where we were not permitted to have the House work its 
will, that the current leadership of the House would let the Members of 
the House work their will on what the energy policy of this country 
should be to give some relief to our citizens.
  And since I am in a commending mood, Mr. Speaker, I would nominate 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to be the designee of 
Speaker Pelosi to head up this effort and use the same bipartisan 
manner he uses on all other issues to get us out of this mess.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I thank the gentleman for that promotion, I think. But I most 
sincerely thank him for his comments on the work of our committee and 
for his partnership in shaping that success story that we have enjoyed 
and in partnership with Mr. Mica as well. It is representative of the 
historical tradition of the committee to work in a bipartisan spirit. 
Perhaps it is so because of the nature of our committee jurisdiction, 
as the gentleman has suggested in his comments.
  Indeed, as of the recess for Fourth of July, we had passed the 110th 
bill on that Thursday of the 110th Congress, the 110th bill from our 
committee, 64 of which have become public law or concurrent resolutions 
or House resolutions that were self-implementing; and that last 
measure, the 110th, was indeed to address the energy issue, to provide 
funding for transit and flexibility for transit authorities. And 
another bill that we passed by 311-104 was for the future of Amtrak, a 
bill that is now in House-Senate conference, and which I am confident 
we will bring to the House floor before the August recess to give 
Amtrak a new breath of life, incorporating some very significant 
Republican concepts and contributions that I think are important for 
the future of Amtrak. We did not operate in the committee on the 
principle of a majority of the majority, but rather on the principle of 
the best ideas that we could marshal and muster together and shape 
legislation that is beneficial for the future.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 802, the 
Marine Pollution Prevention Act of 2008. I also echo the comments of 
the ranking member in praise of the bipartisan nature of this 
legislation. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Mr. Cummings for 
their leadership in bringing this very important bill to the floor of 
the House.
  H.R. 802 authorizes the EPA and the Coast Guard to issue enforcement 
regulations for the MARPOL Treaty Annex VI, which was approved by the 
Senate 2 years ago, with the goal to reduce harmful emissions from 
large oceangoing ships.
  Implementation of this treaty amendment is an important first step 
for the protection of the health of our citizens in coastal areas of 
the United States. We know, for example, that large oceangoing ships 
are a major source of soot, sulfur dioxide, and smog-forming pollution, 
strongly associated with premature deaths, hospital visits, and asthma 
attacks. The emission from these ships can cause serious heart and lung 
problems, and can contribute to an increased risk of lung cancer.
  This is clearly important in my congressional district along 
California's South Central Coast. In 2005, more than 7,000 oceangoing 
transits were made along our coastline. As these ships come through the 
Santa Barbara channel, heading to the ports of Hueneme, Los Angeles, 
and Long Beach, it is the case that the prevailing wind conditions blow 
most of the air pollution onshore.
  Currently, these vessels emit over 45 percent of all the emissions of 
nitrogen oxides in Santa Barbara County, more than all the road 
vehicles combined. If left unregulated, these ships will contribute 
almost 75 percent of the county's nitrogen oxide pollution by 2020. 
This forecasted increase in air pollution from large ships could wipe 
out the hard won air quality improvements achieved in the last 30 years 
on California's central coast.
  It is very clear that action must be taken to reduce these emissions 
which

[[Page 14303]]

are impacting the lives of thousands of people living in my district 
every single day. And as I address this situation so harmful to this 
particular part of the coastline, I am aware that every coastal 
district in this Nation, the Pacific Coast, Atlantic, Gulf, and the 
Great Lakes would be affected perhaps in similar ways. So would the 
people who wish to visit these beautiful coastal areas.
  The IMO, Mr. Speaker, is considering adopting new, more effective 
emission standards for large ships, but the U.S. will only have 
influence on these new standards if our country completes ratification 
of the MARPOL Annex VI Treaty via this implementing legislation. So I 
certainly hope we can seize this unique opportunity where industry, 
ports, environmental organizations, and regulatory agencies are aligned 
in moving forward to reduce emissions from this very large source of 
air pollution.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman for bringing this legislation to 
the floor of the House today which means so much to my constituents. I 
urge its immediate passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) has 
13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason that I nominated the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) as sort of the energy czar of the United States Congress 
is exactly the reasons that he indicated. If you look at the 
legislation that has effectively dealt in part with the difficulties we 
find ourselves in, the gentleman's transit legislation certainly gets 
people into mass transit and out of their automobiles and saves fuel.
  The gentleman's Amtrak legislation is historic, and in the short run 
a robust Amtrak means good things for America in terms of jobs and 
moving people to and from work. I think I saw something on the news 
where they were tracking what has happened to people's behaviors since 
the price of gas has gone up, and I believe Amtrak has seen a 13 
percent ridership increase since gas has increased, a testament to 
Amtrak, and also a testament to the gentleman's bill that made sure 
that Amtrak isn't operating hand to mouth as we move through this 
process.
  Similarly, the gentleman's vision for intercity rail in this country 
is again something where we lag far behind our friends in Asia and 
Europe, and he has for the first time, at least since I have been here, 
put real money, $350 million a year for 5 years, into the notion of 
high-speed intercity rail connections principally in the Midwest of the 
United States. But all of us recognize that that piece at least is some 
years away in terms of it being a viable alternative and impacting the 
cost of gasoline.
  So, again, I would make the suggestion that there are good ideas on 
both sides of this aisle. There are many gifted Members of Congress, 
both Republicans and Democrats. We should have a national debate. And, 
for the sake of the people that I represent and others represent, we 
should get something done and we should get them some relief today.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to Mr. Rayfield and we were trying to 
remember whether it was General William Tecumseh Sherman who said: If 
asked, I will not run. If nominated, I will not serve. If elected, I 
will not serve.
  I think that is what the gentleman from Minnesota said to my 
suggestion and I hope he in fact reconsiders that, because of all of 
the people in this body, he commands tremendous respect on both sides 
of the aisle. He has demonstrated again and again not only as the 
ranking member in previous Congresses of our committee but now as the 
chairman that he can put together the best ideas of both sides, and not 
only move forward ideas that he firmly believes in but find consensus 
and actually get bills done and signed into law. So I hope the 
gentleman, unlike my fellow Ohioan, General Sherman, reconsiders.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. And I thank the gentleman again for his ever thoughtful 
remarks, Mr. Speaker. If handed such a challenge, I would undertake it 
with vigor and with resolute purpose. But it hasn't been handed to me, 
although I appreciate the gentleman's offer.
  I think our committee has been able very successfully to attack these 
issues of short-term as well as long-term importance to the Nation, and 
we intend to continue pursuing the best interests of the country in the 
legislation we move from this committee, and to incorporate the good 
ideas from all members of the committee regardless of their political 
stature or standing.
  I recall so well during T-21, the shaping of the surface 
transportation legislation, Mr. Shuster, then the chairman, and I 
traveled the country to major points of congestion throughout America 
to advocate for more robust investment in surface transportation. And 
at one point, I believe it was in Atlanta at a news conference, the 
last question was, well, Mr. Oberstar, why are you traveling and 
participating in this news conference, you a Democrat, with Mr. 
Shuster, a Republican? And I said: Because I have never seen a 
Democratic bridge or a Republican road; but if we work together, we can 
build all-American roads and all-American bridges.
  The reporter then turned to Chairman Shuster and said: Why are you 
travelling with Mr. Oberstar? And he said, Because Jim Oberstar and I 
are joined at the hip.
  And I think if we could carry that spirit with vigor and honesty and 
with resoluteness of purpose, we can accomplish great things for this 
country and for this Congress. And I for that reason enjoy the 
participation of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and in the current context Mr. 
Cummings of Maryland, because there is a real sense of doing what is 
good for America and putting the country first and not our own personal 
agendas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the 
rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 802.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________