[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6705-6713]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2830, COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT 
                                OF 2008

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call

[[Page 6706]]

up House Resolution 1126 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1126

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2830) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Coast Guard for fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments in the nature of 
     a substitute recommended by the Committees on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure, Homeland Security, and the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only 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 in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  In the engrossment of H.R. 2830, the Clerk shall--
        (a) add the text of H.R. 2399, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 2830;
       (b) conform the title of H.R. 2830 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of H.R. 2399;
       (c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (d) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       Sec. 3.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 2830 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.
       Sec. 4.  The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is 
     authorized, on behalf of the Committee, to file a 
     supplemental report to accompany H.R. 2830.

                              {time}  1400

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I ask 
unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which 
to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1126 provides for consideration of H.R. 
2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008, under a structured 
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes 
controlled by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 20 
minutes controlled by the Committee on Homeland Security. The rule 
makes in order 15 of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules 
Committee.
  This rule also takes steps to prevent terrorist acts against our 
Nation by allowing for the text of H.R. 2399, the Alien Smuggling and 
Terrorism Prevention Act, to be added upon House passage of the Coast 
Guard Reauthorization Act, and for the whole package to be sent over to 
our colleagues in the Senate. The Alien Smuggling and Terrorism 
Prevention Act, which passed the House on May 22, 2007, by an 
overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 412-0, provides strong new enforcement 
tools at the border, including increased criminal penalties for alien 
smuggling, human trafficking and slavery, drug trafficking, and 
terrorism or espionage.
  It also subjects smugglers and traffickers to even higher penalties 
for transporting persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an 
engine or storage compartment, or for causing serious bodily injury.
  It directs the Department of Homeland Security to check against all 
available terrorist watch lists, alien smugglers, and smuggled 
individuals who are interdicted at the U.S. land, air and sea borders.
  And it tightens proof requirements for distinguishing covert 
transportation of family members or others for humanitarian reasons for 
which the penalties are less severe.
  Since the September 11, 2001, terrorists attacks, the Coast Guard has 
served as the primary agency responsible for our Nation's maritime 
security. The fact that the Coast Guard has risen to meet this 
heightened responsibility, while at the same time continuing to fulfill 
its nonsecurity missions, is a testament to the commitment and honor to 
the service men and women of the Coast Guard.
  The bill that this rule provides for consideration will ensure that 
the Coast Guard can continue to perform all facets of its mission in an 
uncompromising way. H.R. 2830 provides the necessary resources by 
authorizing 1,500 additional Coast Guard personnel and increasing the 
funding to the Coast Guard by $8.4 billion, $200 billion over the 
President's request.
  The underlying legislation sets requirements for security around 
vessels that transport, and facilities that process, liquefied natural 
gas, giving the Coast Guard the responsibility for enforcing security 
zones and requiring it to certify that State or local governments have 
the necessary resources before they can assist in security patrols 
around facilities. It also directs the Department of Homeland Security 
to analyze the threat of a terrorist attack on gasoline and chemical 
shipments and report to Congress.
  H.R. 2830 will bolster port security and immigration enforcement by 
establishing an Assistant Commandant for Port and Waterways Security, 
authorizing additional maritime security teams and by establishing the 
Waterway Watch Program whereby civilian boaters can notify the Coast 
Guard of suspicious activity.
  The Coast Guard Authorization Act enhances safety standards in one of 
America's most dangerous occupations--the one portrayed on the popular 
television series ``The Deadliest Catch''--by increasing safety 
equipment requirements on fishing vessels, requiring training for 
vessel operations, and by changing the appeals process for suspending 
and revoking a mariner's license.
  The bill also addresses one of the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater 
Systems Program, which has been beleaguered by several well-publicized 
delays, cost overruns, and problems with the designs of certain 
replacement assets. The bill increases accountability for the Deepwater 
Program by addressing systemic contract management problems and 
establishing a civilian chief acquisition officer reporting directly to 
the Coast Guard commandant.
  H.R. 2830 also requires ships to begin installing water treatment 
systems to reduce the spread of invasive species in ballast water 
carried by the ships. These requirements are a step in the right 
direction because they will protect the waterways of every State and

[[Page 6707]]

territory of the United States, and the industries and communities that 
rely upon them, from aquatic invasive species that enter the waters of 
the United States via the ballast water systems of commercial vessels. 
The bill also addresses other environmental concerns by requiring 
double hulls for U.S. ships carrying over 600 cubic meters of oil and 
providing for implementation of an international agreement on maritime 
pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule provides for consideration is 
the product of extensive hearings and consideration by the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Homeland Security 
Committee and the Judiciary Committee. I commend the chairmen and 
ranking members of those committees for their commitment to addressing 
the needs of the Coast Guard and our Nation's maritime security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York 
for yielding me the time for this important proposed rule for 
consideration of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 
2008.
  Unlike my colleague, I rise in opposition to the structured rule, and 
I would like to quote a colleague whose opinions on these matters I 
respect to explain why.
  On September 15, 2005, my Democrat Rules Committee colleague from 
Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings, correctly stated that the modified 
open rule under which the Coast Guard was last reauthorized was 
insufficient in living up to how this House should be run.
  While that Republican rule permitted Members who preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record to offer those amendments, he 
noted his disappointment ``that the preprinting of amendments was even 
required. Despite the majority's claim, this legislative process which 
they call open is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because 
every Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.''
  Mr. Speaker, as imperfect and insufficient as that rule may have been 
to Mr. Hastings in 2005 and his minority Democrat colleagues, today's 
rule pales and fails in comparison--despite the often-repeated Democrat 
promises to run the most open, honest and ethical House in history.
  This rule, which is even more restrictive, makes in order a majority 
of Democrat amendments and strips every Member with a new, good and 
germane idea of how to improve this legislation of the ability to come 
to the floor and even to offer it.
  While the Democrats on the Rules Committee may have been following 
the wishes of their committee chairman by reporting out this rule, they 
have once again directly contradicted their campaign promises of their 
own leadership to run an open House of Representatives, instead 
choosing to become the most closed Congress in history.
  Mr. Speaker, while this rule and this standard of recurring policy of 
closing down the legislative process is bad for the House, the effect 
of this legislation is even worse for American consumers. It continues 
the same flawed ``no-energy energy policy'' that Democrats have 
followed blindly for the last 17 months.
  A provision included in this legislation would essentially shut down 
the development of new LNG plants which seem counterintuitive given 
today's energy crisis. Natural gas is one of the most clean-burning 
fossil fuels, and passing this provision would only further reduce our 
energy supply while moving us further from energy independence for 
which Republicans have consistently advocated.
  Time and time again this Democrat leadership has consistently 
promised to deliver a ``commonsense'' energy plan to reduce the cost of 
gasoline. However, since my friends on the other side of the aisle have 
taken control of Congress, the average price of a gallon of gasoline 
has risen more than a dollar, from $2.33 in January 2007 to just over 
$3.51 this week.
  I have supported a number of this Congress's bipartisan efforts to 
reduce demand--like legislation to increase CAFE standards. But 
Americans literally cannot afford for Congress to continue to ignore 
the supply-side issues and problems associated with this overall issue. 
Specifically, that this Democrat majority continues to pursue a 
national energy policy that does absolutely nothing to increase our 
ability to produce more energy. Without a supply-side response, prices 
will continue to rise.
  It is a fact that enough oil exists in deep waters off America's 
coasts and in our Federal lands to power 60 million cars for 60 years. 
Yet these domestic resources remain off-limits to exploration because 
of the Democrat policies that pervade this House.
  In 1995, the Clinton administration vetoed the bill that would have 
allowed environmentally sound domestic exploration in Alaska. During 
this debate, opponents of the legislation argued that the benefits 
would be at least 10 years away and would not be worth it. Well, it is 
now more than 10 years later and the cost of crude oil has gone from 
just under $20 a barrel to nearly $120 a barrel and we are no closer to 
energy independence than we were 13 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope for the sake of American consumers, and for the 
sake of their paychecks, that it does not take this Democrat majority 
another 10 years to realize that now is the time that we should focus 
on ways to utilize our own energy resources. It is called energy 
independence.
  For prices to fall, Congress should be considering legislation that 
increases supply and reduces demand, not legislation like today's, that 
simply reduces the supply of one of the planet's cleanest fossil fuels.
  These are basic commonsense economic principles that should be part 
of a commonsense plan. I encourage all of my colleagues to recognize 
that now is the time to stop ignoring our untapped domestic supply. I 
oppose this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my friend from Dallas for his 
very thoughtful statement. He has made the case that we want to defeat 
the previous question on this so that any Member, Democrat or 
Republican alike, would have the opportunity to offer their thoughtful 
proposals as to how we would deal with this issue of skyrocketing 
gasoline prices.
  I represent Southern California, and I will tell you that it is a 
major concern of my constituents. And I know my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, as we have seen this dramatic increase take place 
over the past year plus, year and a half, agree it is very, very 
troubling.

                              {time}  1415

  And I was struck. I've had the benefit of looking at the advance copy 
of Mr. Sessions' closing remarks. His thoughtful staff has coined 
actually a very, very apropos phrase here in describing what we have as 
the Pelosi Petroleum Price Increase--PPPI. And I think that really does 
coin it very well, because we know that 2 years ago tomorrow, Speaker 
Pelosi made this statement: ``The Democrats have a commonsense plan to 
deal with skyrocketing gasoline prices.''
  Now since that period of time, and I just was struck, I saw a cartoon 
in today's USA Today in which they go through this litany of proposals. 
We're telling Big Oil to make sure that they bring prices down, and 
proposals are thrown out in this cartoon, saying, Why don't we deal 
with the question of nuclear energy? Absolutely not.
  Why don't we look at clean coal? Absolutely not.
  Why don't we look at possibly responsible, environmentally sound 
exploration in ANWR? Absolutely not.
  Why don't we look at using the cleanest, safest, most cost effective 
energy source, that being nuclear? We haven't built a nuclear power 
plant in 30 years. Absolutely not.
  Why don't we increase our refinery capacity? There has not been a 
single new refinery built in 30 years.

[[Page 6708]]

  Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of proposals that we very much 
hope we will be allowed to offer. The way to do that is to defeat the 
previous question on this rule so that we can say to our constituents, 
we are going to take firm, bold, dramatic steps to decrease the cost of 
the gasoline that they are putting in their cars every single day.
  I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank him for his very 
thoughtful comments.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. I believe that what the 
gentleman from California is saying is this: Is that we need supply-
side answers to a problem when America needs the energy the most right 
now. And supply-side answers is what we would get if we defeat this 
rule.
  We reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend from Texas for his comments.
  I would just like to make two points in that regard. The first point 
is that he mentioned that this bill doesn't deal with the LNG issue. 
And I would beg to differ. This bill ensures that the Coast Guard will 
be there to ensure and protect the safety of our liquefied natural gas 
facilities that are built out in the deep water or out in the ocean. 
It's critical. Security is absolutely critical to these facilities, and 
that's exactly what this bill insures.
  Secondly, my friend mentions that we have not done anything about 
energy. Well, I would respectfully say that anyone who says that, I 
would have to ask them where have they been for the past 16 months. We 
have done a great deal with respect to energy. The difference is that 
we haven't done anything to help large oil companies because we believe 
that they are part of the problem. We have done things to help develop 
alternative energy, because that is the future of America. It's about 
making America less dependent on foreign oil and less dependent on the 
large oil companies. That's what we have done. That's what Democrats 
believe in, and that's what we will continue to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I would like to associate myself with his opening 
comments in regards to both the previous question as well as the rule. 
However, I'd like to speak to the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act. I believe this legislation is of tremendous 
importance for our magnificent Great Lakes actually because of title V 
which at long last provides for Federal regulations of ballast water in 
the lakes.
  And why is this important? Because since the Great Lakes were opened 
to international shipping in the fifties and the sixties, many invasive 
species have entered the lakes through the untreated ballast water of 
the oceangoing freighters, also known as salties.
  Let me just share with you some of these species and the problems 
that they have caused on the very delicate ecosystem of our Great 
Lakes.
  The round goby was introduced to the Great Lakes in the late eighties 
through untreated ballast water. This fish is an aggressive and 
voracious feeder that can forage in total darkness. They can take over 
prime spawning grounds for native fish and upset the ecosystem. These 
unwanted invaders are flourishing in the Great Lakes and they are 
causing great damage, Mr. Speaker.
  The ruffe entered the lakes in 1986 through untreated ballast water 
from Eurasia. This spiny perch is capable of explosive population 
growth that threatens native fish like walleye and pike, and their 
spiny gills make them very difficult for native predators to eat.
  Another species, the spiny water flea, also entered the lakes around 
1986 from its home in Great Britain and Northern Europe from untreated 
ballast water. These are actually not insects, but they're tiny 
crustaceans that have resource managers very worried because they 
compete for food directly with young native perch and other small fish. 
It also makes it very difficult for small fish to consume, so only 
larger fish can actually feed on them, again leading to explosive 
growth of this invasive species.
  Another species, the zebra mussel, which was first discovered in 1988 
and introduced into Lake St. Clair actually by the Caspian Sea, again 
from untreated ballast water. These species have had a tremendously 
negative impact on recreational watercraft and drinking water intake 
pipes throughout Southeast Michigan, and now have spread throughout the 
entire Great Lakes.
  In addition, they have filtered the water to such a degree that when 
combined with the historic low lake levels that we are currently 
experiencing, and increased nutrients in the water, it's led to very 
destructive and dangerous algae blooms throughout the lakes, which are 
causing beach closures and all kinds of other problems.
  These unwanted species have cost State and local governments tens if 
not hundreds of millions of dollars to combat the damage that they have 
caused. And all of this is why I have been fighting for ballast water 
regulation since I came to the Congress, and why I worked very hard to 
see that it was included in this important legislation.
  The passage of this legislation will place new requirements on 
oceangoing vessels entering the Great Lakes. Vessels operating in 
United States waters will be required to operate ballast water 
treatment systems that meet interim standards beginning next year, and 
more stringent standards will take effect in the year 2012.
  Until ballast water treatment systems are installed, vessels bound 
for United States ports must exchange their ballast water and perform 
salt water flushing.
  And States like my State of Michigan, which have grown tired of 
waiting for Federal action, and have actually initiated their own 
ballast requirements, will be able to operate our own programs until 
the final Federal standards do take effect.
  I certainly want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica 
for their leadership on this issue. Again, I oppose this rule; however, 
I do support the underlying legislation. I think it is long past time 
to act on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the Coast Guard 
Authorization piece of legislation that will greatly assist in 
protection of a great national treasure, our magnificent Great Lakes.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. 
Hall.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with and 
concur with the comments of my colleague, the gentlelady from Michigan, 
regarding the merits of the bill. I'm pleased to serve on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and I'm happy to say that Chairman 
Oberstar always goes the extra mile to incorporate everybody's opinions 
from both sides. And I believe this is a good bill that deserves all of 
our support.
  Regarding the allegations or the comments that are being made about 
this Congress not being interested in or producing bills that will 
produce energy, I beg to differ.
  H.R. 2264, holding OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, we call it 
the NOPEC Act, which was passed on May 27 of last year, with 220 
Democrats voting for it, and 125 Republicans voting against it.
  Cracking down on gas price gouging, H.R. 1252, passed May 23 of last 
year, opposed by 140 Republicans, including all of the Republican 
leadership, 228 Democrats voting in favor of it.
  Repealing those subsidies that were given to profit-rich big oil 
companies. We're talking about ExxonMobil and the other big oil 
companies that have made the biggest profits of the history of any 
industry in the world. And, by the way, the five CEOs of the five 
biggest oil companies testified a couple of weeks ago before the Select 
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. I sat there while 
all five of them talked about how they couldn't

[[Page 6709]]

help it they were making so much money. One of my colleagues from the 
Republican side during his 5 minutes of questioning, Representative 
Walden, said, ``I'm a small businessman''--and if I can paraphrase 
because I don't know if this is an exact quote--``I'm a capitalist,'' 
said Representative Walden. ``And when I had a very good year where my 
profit is so high that it's better than I even could have imagined, I 
start to ask whether I can lower the prices to my consumers.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HALL of New York. ``I start to think,'' said Representative 
Walden to the oil company executives, ``about whether I might be able 
to lower the price at the pump and lower the price to my consumers. 
Have you ever thought about doing that, now that you're making such a 
big profit?''
  And one by one, all five of them said, ``Oh, we don't control the 
price at the pump.''
  I think that's as good a case as one needs to hear for government 
regulation and possible legislation to make sure that there are not 
excess profits or gouging going on in this current state of the 
economy, and especially the oil economy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  It's unfortunate that we're here today to consider an important piece 
of legislation, our Coast Guard reauthorization, and it's also 
unfortunate we're discussing the rule under which that legislation will 
be brought to the floor, and that's a closed rule.
  Unfortunately, this is the first time in at least 20 years that this 
Coast Guard reauthorization has been considered under a closed rule, 
not an open rule. I think it's particularly unfortunate that this year, 
when the Democrat leadership has chosen to restrict debate on this 
important legislation that has a number of important provisions, 
including a provision to provide a transportation worker identification 
card and straighten out some of the problems we've had in trying to get 
a single transportation worker identification card at our ports and 
other facilities that we can use.
  I had an amendment that would have allowed my State of Florida, and 
other States, a simpler method of obtaining an FBI background check on 
port workers than is currently available. It would also have saved port 
workers the cost of paying for the same background check twice.
  I brought here the TWIC card. We've been waiting since 2002 for this 
TWIC card, Federal card. We still don't have this card. In fact, the 
irony of this is they allowed several amendments; one to allow any 
identification, there's going to be an amendment that's put in order. I 
can use my driver's license in the interim.
  Then there's another amendment that they allowed to allow them to 
enroll for a TWIC card 24/7. The ironies of not allowing something to 
have a State, again, work with the Federal Government and even go 
beyond the requirements like Florida does in trying to look at the 
background, the criminal background of the individual. So that's been 
eliminated, and my opportunity to present that, from this rule and 
consideration of this legislation.
  Also, I'm going to take great exception with this bill because of 
some other restrictions they put on. Bringing in liquefied natural gas. 
Natural gas prices are soaring. Prices are high, and this bill creates 
more red tape, more impediments, and actually will reduce the supply 
and increase the cost to the consumer out there who's trying to pay 
those expensive bills for energy.
  So this bill does nothing for energy. And it takes a trusted port 
worker, transportation worker card and makes a continual farce out of 
the whole process, and not allowing a reasonable relationship between 
the State and Federal Government.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. 
Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this rule. Every day the valiant men and women of the United States 
Coast Guard save lives and protect the welfare of our great country. 
And every day the Coast Guard lives its motto and stands always ready 
to help those in need.

                              {time}  1430

  Since the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard 
has taken on the enhancement role in homeland security. Yet the 
President has consistently submitted budgets that fail to give the 
Coast Guard adequate resources to execute all its missions. Now it's 
our turn to help them.
  The legislation to be considered today, H.R. 2830, funds the Coast 
Guard at $8.4 billion, $200 million over the President's budget. It 
also increases the Coast Guard in strength to 47,000 by adding 1,500 
new members. The bill authorizes additional maritime security response 
teams to provide anti-terrorism protection for strategic shipping, 
high-interest vessels, and other critical infrastructure. These teams 
are the Coast Guard's quick response force. They can be deployed 
rapidly anywhere in the Nation via air, ground, or sea to respond to 
changing threat conditions.
  H.R. 2830, Mr. Speaker, also authorizes additional K-9 detection 
teams to detect explosives, drugs, and smuggled persons.
  Additionally, this bill authorizes the Waterway Watch program, a 
nationwide initiative modeled after Neighborhood Watch programs, to 
allow fishermen, recreational boaters, and others who work or play on 
American waterways to notify the Coast Guard of suspicious activities.
  Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has struggled to develop much-needed port 
security regulations, including those mandated by the Safe Ports Act, 
such as long-range vessel tracking and enhanced crew member 
identification. H.R. 2830 address this critical gap and others by 
creating a dedicated assistant commandant for port and waterway 
security to oversee port security measures.
  With respect to liquefied gas terminals, the bill requires the Coast 
Guard to protect and enforce the security zones around all existing LNG 
facilities. Admiral Allen himself has acknowledged, Mr. Speaker, to 
Congress that when it comes to the proliferation of LNG facilities, he 
doesn't have the resources necessary to fulfill the Coast Guard's port 
security responsibilities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. That allows, Mr. Speaker, the Coast 
Guard to partner with the State and local entities to protect the 
security zones around LNG facilities.
  Last, and certainly not least, Mr. Speaker, the improvements that the 
bill makes in the Deepwater program. In the future, there will be 
contract managers at the Coast Guard that know their job and never 
again will the Coast Guard be in the absurd position of accepting boats 
that don't float.
  I urge a ``yes'' on the rule and on the underlying bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, as an environmentalist and a protector of 
our Great Lakes, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2830's ballast 
water management requirements and its stated goal of eliminating 
aquatic invasive species from our waters.
  Ballast water management and the broader issue of aquatic invasive 
species is a matter that has received far too little attention, given 
its dramatic impact on the economy and the environment.
  For several years, I have strongly supported a comprehensive approach 
to stopping the influx of aquatic invasive species, and this bill 
provides a very, very good start.
  Although aquatic invasive species enter into ecosystems through many

[[Page 6710]]

different pathways, such as natural migration, attaching themselves to 
ships, and aquaculture, the most common pathway is through ballast 
water. Ballast water is pumped on board a ship to control its stability 
at sea. Ships often take on ballast water at an initial port and 
discharge it at their destination port. When a ship pumps harbor water 
into its ballast tanks, it usually also sucks up aquatic species from 
that harbor. When those ballast tanks are emptied, those aquatic 
species are introduced into a new ecosystem and they become invasive 
species.
  Since some ships are capable of holding millions of gallons of 
ballast water, the potential for spreading invasive species is large. 
Once an invasive species takes hold in a new environment, it has the 
ability to disrupt the balance of an ecosystem and cause significant 
environmental and economic harm.
  In the United States, invasive species cost tens of billion of 
dollars each year. For example, Zebra mussels have cost the various 
entities in the Great Lake's basin an estimated $5 billion for expenses 
relating to cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration 
equipment and so forth. Sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes 
cost approximately $10 million to $15 million annually. And on top of 
these expenses, there is the cost of lost fisheries due to these 
invaders. For these reasons, combating aquatic invasive species is a 
central element of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration strategy to 
protect and restore the Great Lakes.
  However, invasive species are not just a problem in the Great Lakes. 
Invasive species also affect coastal regions throughout the United 
States. From the Chinese mitten crabs in the North Pacific, to Asian 
sea squirts in New England, to New Zealand boring pill bugs in the 
Pacific Northwest, to Asian carp in the Mississippi River, to Zebra 
mussels across the United States, these foreign invaders cause 
significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America.
  If we do not pass this bill into law, we are just opening the door 
for many more invasive species to arrive via ballast water. The goal of 
H.R. 2830 is to eliminate invasive species in ballast water by 2015. To 
meet this goal, the bill requires vessels operating in U.S. waters to 
be outfitted with ballast water treatment systems that meet interim 
standards starting in 2009, with more stringent standards starting in 
2012.
  This is an excellent bill. I urge everyone to support it and vote for 
it.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland, the chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, I rise 
today in strong support of H. Res. 1126 which provides a rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 2830 and makes in order an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The base text of H.R. 2830, which was ordered to be reported by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in June 2007, already 
includes many significant provisions to strengthen the Coast Guard and 
respond to challenges we face in maritime transportation. For example, 
the bill, as reported, includes standards to prevent the continued 
introduction of invasive species in U.S. waters through ballast water. 
The bill creates an ombudsman in each Coast Guard district to serve as 
a liaison between the Coast Guard and the port community. And the bill 
introduces critical measures to improve the safety of the United States 
fishing industry, one of our Nation's deadliest professions.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute adds critical titles that 
address specific issues considered by the Committee on Transportation 
and the Coast Guard Subcommittee after the bill was reported. 
Specifically, the amendment includes titles that strengthen both the 
Coast Guard's homeland security functions and its maritime safety 
missions. The amendment in the nature of a substitute also transfers 
the appeals of cases in which the Coast Guard decides to spend or 
revoke a mariner's credential to a neutral agency, the National 
Transportation Safety Board.
  Further, the amendment includes the text of H.R. 2722, the Integrated 
Deepwater Program Reform Act which previously passed the House by a 
vote of 426-0 and which would strengthen the Coast Guard's ability to 
manage the $24 billion, 25-year Deepwater procurements.
  Similarly, the amendment includes the text of the Maritime Pollution 
Prevent Act to reduce emissions from ships. This measure also 
previously passed the House. Adoption of H. Res. 1126 would enable the 
House to consider long-overdue legislation to authorize the Coast Guard 
and to strengthen our U.S. maritime industry, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the favorite son from North Carolina, the gentleman, Mr. 
Coble.
  Mr. COBLE. I thank my friend from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill. We in the Congress cannot lose sight of the purpose of Deepwater, 
which is to provide the men and women of the Coast Guard with the 
necessary tools to protect our homeland. I applaud actions undertaken 
to move this program in the right direction and support this language. 
I remain concerned, however, that some provisions in H.R. 2830 may 
create undue burdens and delays, which will, in turn, delay the 
desperately needed modernization and may ultimately add to the overall 
costs.
  The marine safety components of the underlying bill also cause me 
concern. Previously, the Commandant announced a number of changes he 
had directed the Coast Guard to implement regarding marine safety. 
Under his leadership, his able leadership, I might add, the men and 
women of the Coast Guard continue to examine and improve upon the Coast 
Guard's marine safety role.
  Having served in the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve, I know 
this armed service is unique because of its structure and flexibility. 
On a daily basis, Coast Guard men and women focus on drug interdiction, 
environmental protection, migrant interdiction, port security, search 
and rescue, homeland security, maritime safety, and aids to navigation. 
The list is almost endless. Each of these roles complements the other.
  I continue to support efforts to provide stakeholders an opportunity 
to voice their concerns, provide constructive feedback, and work 
together to improve the marine safety aspect of the Coast Guard. At the 
same time, however, I firmly believe that we should give the Coast 
Guard the time, opportunity, and resources to improve and expand on its 
marine safety efforts prior to congressional intervention.
  I'm equally concerned regarding the underlying bill which lacks 
provisions that would provide the Coast Guard the authority to protect 
seafarers who facilitate the government's ability to investigate and 
prosecute environmental crimes. This is another example where current 
law impedes our ability to prosecute criminals.
  I would also like to express my concern with section 720 of the 
underlying bill which addresses security at liquefied natural gas 
facilities. Consistently, I have cast votes in favor of legislation 
which I believe will help to make our Nation energy independent. While 
there has not been focused attention on LNG, it remains a viable energy 
alternative. Therefore, I'm concerned by provisions that would 
designate the Coast Guard as the sole agency responsible for LNG 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 2830, the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 2007.
  I'd like to first comment on provisions in the underlying bill which 
affect the Deepwater program. We in Congress cannot lose sight of the 
purpose of Deepwater, which is to provide the men and women of the 
Coast Guard with the necessary tools to protect our homeland. I applaud 
actions undertaken to move this program in the right direction and 
support this language. I remain concerned, however, that some 
provisions in H.R. 2830 may create undue burdens and delays which in 
turn will delay this desperately needed modernization and may 
ultimately add to the overall costs.

[[Page 6711]]

  The marine safety components of the underlying bill also cause me 
concern. Previously, the Commandant announced a number of changes he 
had directed the Coast Guard to implement regarding marine safety. 
Under his leadership, the men and women of the Coast Guard continue to 
examine and improve upon the Coast Guard's marine safety role.
  Having served in the Coast Guard and Reserve, I know the armed 
service is unique because of its structure and flexibility. On a daily 
basis, Coast Guard men and women focus on drug interdiction, 
environmental protection, migrant interdiction, port security, search 
and rescue, homeland security, and maritime safety. Each of these 
roles, in my opinion, complements the others.
  I continue to support efforts to provide stakeholders an opportunity 
to voice their concerns, provide constructive feedback, and work 
together to improve the marine safety aspect of the Coast Guard. At the 
same time, I firmly believe that we should give the Coast Guard the 
time, opportunity, and resources to improve and expand upon its marine 
safety efforts prior to congressional intervention.
  I am equally concerned the underlying bill lacks provisions that 
would provide the Coast Guard the authority to protect seafarers who 
facilitate the Government's ability to investigate and prosecute 
environmental crimes. This is another example where current law impedes 
our ability to prosecute criminals.
  I'd also like to express my concern with section 720 of the 
underlying bill which addresses security at liquefied natural gas 
facilities. Consistently, I have cast votes in favor of legislation 
which I believe will help to make our Nation energy independent. While 
there has not been focused attention on LNG, it remains a viable energy 
alternative. Therefore, I'm concerned by provisions that would 
designate the Coast Guard as the sole agency responsible for LNG 
security. In my opinion, this is neither reasonable nor practicable for 
the Coast Guard or the communities where these facilities currently 
exist. In my opinion, this provision will act as a barrier to entry for 
future facilities and result in higher energy prices for consumers. 
Later today or tomorrow, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting an amendment made in order which would strike this dangerous 
provision.
  Finally, I'd like to address the inclusion of H.R. 2399, the Alien 
Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act. It is my understanding that 
upon engrossment of H.R. 2830, this language will be included in the 
underlying bill. I support this action as maritime alien smuggling has 
become a business where smugglers game the system and have little to 
lose under the current law. The Coast Guard confronts smugglers on a 
routine basis who know they can use a lack of authority to their 
advantage. These kinds of cases are dangerous to our Coast Guard men 
and women and dangerous to the smuggled aliens and occur at increasing 
frequency.
  This measure is necessary because it provides a tool for the Coast 
Guard and Department of Justice to ensure the integrity of our maritime 
borders. Currently, there are enormous procedural and jurisdictional 
hurdles that protect and actually embolden alien smugglers. It will 
begin to deter unsafe and inhumane sea-based smuggling by delivering 
enhanced consequences to those who flee from or lie to our Federal law 
enforcement officers. Later today or tomorrow, the ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, will offer an 
amendment to clarify this authority. While I support the underlying 
measure, I believe the Smith amendment augments this provision and 
merits adoption.
  It is my hope that during the amendment process some of my concerns 
in the underlying bill will be alleviated, but as we speak I cannot 
support passage of H.R. 2830. That said, I look forward to working with 
my colleagues as this process moves forward.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Independence, Mr. 
Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, from 1995 until 2006, the Republican Party controlled 
the House of Representatives, and since January of 2001, they've 
controlled the White House as well. During this period, the leadership 
of the Republican Party in the Congress and in the White House have 
pumped literally billions of dollars of unnecessary subsidies into the 
pockets of Big Oil, tens of billions of dollars.
  They voted for royalty-free drilling for the biggest oil companies on 
offshore public lands. They've opposed all efforts to repeal billions 
in tax breaks for Big Oil. And in the 12 years they controlled the 
Congress up until the beginning of last year, they opposed high fuel 
economy standards for the vehicles which we drive in America so we 
could back out that oil that we import from the Persian Gulf.
  GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party,'' but now it stands for 
``Gas and Oil Party.''

                              {time}  1445

  Here's what the President said about giving incentives to Big Oil in 
2005. He said, ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need 
incentives for the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty 
of incentives for the oil industry.'' That's George Bush, April 2005 at 
$55 a barrel. Today, it's at $119 a barrel. But the Republicans, you 
know, they just can't kick a bad habit. Offering subsidies to Big Oil 
to drill is like subsidizing fish to swim, you just don't need to do 
it. They have all the incentives which they need right now. So the 
Democratic Party, assuming office just a year ago, under the leadership 
of Nancy Pelosi, she said, we're going to put a stop-payment order on 
these unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil.
  Last December, we passed the first increase in fuel efficiency 
standards in 35 years, increasing it to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. We 
increased the renewable fuel standard to 36 billion gallons, but the 
Republican opposition made it impossible for us to take the $18 billion 
in excessive and unnecessary tax breaks away from the oil company and 
to transfer it to the solar and to the wind and to the renewable energy 
industry. So we're taking that bill up again this year. The Republicans 
oppose it. They're saying, keep the tax breaks for Big Oil. Keep them 
away from the wind and the solar industry.
  They have no solutions for the 21st century. They have no plan to 
wean America off of this increased oil dependency. We have gone up from 
27 percent dependency to 61 percent dependency upon imported oil in 
just the last 20 years. This Republican policy is going to make us less 
secure, more financially dependent upon the Middle East, and it is 
going to cause an economic and national security catastrophe for our 
country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman made his point: 
Since the Democrat Party has taken over, prices at the pump have 
skyrocketed.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. This has been an interesting 
discussion. Oil prices record high, $119, gas prices, $11. And is 
Congress acting? What is on the table here to help Americans for 
affordable energy? Very little, folks. We're about restricting supply.
  Consumers are paying the highest prices. The people in my district, 
and I'm sure in yours, are struggling to drive long distances. I come 
from a rural district. People are paying $20 and $30 a day to drive to 
work. They can't afford that. They're struggling now to catch up with 
their winter heating bills, which were unreasonably high.
  Well, who's the bad guy? Who's causing this price rise? Mr. Markey 
from Massachusetts said it's Big Oil because they just charge too much. 
He also says it's because we're putting 70,000 barrels a day in the 
SPR. Well, why are oil prices high, folks? It's because this Congress, 
three decades ago, locked up supply. Look at the red on the map. That's 
the Outer Continental Shelf. We're the only country in the world who 
doesn't produce gas and oil there. The only country in the world. There 
are huge reserves in the Midwest.
  This body and the Democrat Party have been talking about locking up 
the shale rock, there's been legislation to do that, the Roan Plateau, 
the best gas reserve in the Midwest, locking them up.
  They talk about us not being dependent on foreign energy, but 
everything they're doing makes us dependent on foreign energy, where we 
have no control. Yes, prices for energy are set on Wall Street. Right 
or wrong, that's the

[[Page 6712]]

system. They set the prices. When you lock up supply, if we stopped 
growing as much corn, prices go up. If you stop making as much steel in 
this country, if you limit, steel prices are going to go up. We're 
limiting the production of energy.
  Are we against wind and solar? Absolutely not. Look at the chart 
here. Here's the renewables. They think that's going to be an instant 
answer. I want all the wind we can get, all the solar we can get, all 
the geothermal. We're promoting biofuels. On the biofuels issue, we 
mandated 35.5 billion gallons a year by 2030. We had 6.5 billion 
gallons last year.
  Corn prices have tripled. Wheat prices have tripled. Food prices are 
getting so people now are struggling to go to the grocery store after 
they've been to the gas station. If we have a bad crop failure down the 
road, not only are food prices going to go crazy, but ethanol prices. 
Folks, I think we better be very careful about the biofuels. I'm not 
opposing them, I never have, but I would be surprised if biofuels can 
increase the use of gasoline we need in growth. Energy prices, folks, 
are dependent on supply. If we double wind and solar tomorrow, we're at 
less than three-quarters of 1 percent of our energy supply. I hope we 
can do it.
  Folks, we need to produce energy so Americans can afford to live.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, one point that I would like to make at this 
time is that the gentleman talks about oil and talks about energy, but 
the thing that he fails to point out is that gas and oil are limited, 
they are not going to be there forever. We need to stop our reliance 
upon fossil fuels, upon gas and oil, and start to focus on renewable 
alternative energy and become less dependent on foreign oil, less 
reliant upon fossil fuels.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Stupak.
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, I would like to associate myself with the comments of 
Mrs. Miller and Mr. Ehlers from the other side as they talked about 
this very important Coast Guard bill. I am from the Great Lakes State. 
In fact, I have more shoreline than any other congressional district in 
the continental United States. I have over 1,600 miles of shoreline on 
the Great Lakes. It is critically important that we pass this Coast 
Guard bill.
  But on this point, my colleagues on the other side use a very 
important bill like the Coast Guard bill to talk about energy, that 
somehow Democrats are not doing enough and somehow the Speaker is 
responsible for high oil prices. If you take a look, the Republicans 
have been in charge, until last year, for the last 12 years. What was 
their policy? Their policy has been no policy, do nothing, let the oil 
companies get away with it, record profits, record pensions to their 
CEO. Remember the $400 million pension for ExxonMobil?
  I guess I agree with Mr. Peterson, the last speaker, maybe we ought 
to lock them up. We ought to lock them up when you see oil prices, when 
President Bush comes in, at $27 a barrel, we're up to $119. And where 
is it going to stop? Why do you see this rapid increase? Well, an ill-
advised war where everybody said when you get involved in a war in the 
Middle East, the longer you're there, the prices are going to go up. 
When you have no policy, sure oil prices are going to go up. When you 
pass, as the Republican Party did, the Enron loophole which allowed 
speculators to come into the market and drive up the price of oil, 
you're going to get these criminal record prices we're paying. So Mr. 
Peterson is right, we should lock them up. We should lock them all up.
  What have the Democrats done? Well, we've passed price gouging 
legislation, not once, but twice. And most of my friends on this side 
of the aisle, like Mr. Sessions and others who spoke here today, voted 
against it. How about the PUMP Act, Prevent the Unfair Manipulation of 
Prices. We have that legislation, all sponsored mostly by Democrats. I 
think we had two brave Republicans who came forward to help sponsor it.
  So what do we have here? You talk about refinery capacity. I'm 
chairman of Oversight and Investigations. A 1995 memo from the American 
Petroleum Institute to all the big oil companies was to say, shut down 
the refineries. You want record prices? Shut down the refineries. We 
have those memos. They're part of the Congressional Record. And what 
did they do? Between 1995 and 2002 they shut down over 30 refineries, 
including one just outside my district in Alma, Michigan, which used to 
refine 51,000 barrels a day, that's over 1 million gallons of gas, 
because there's 33 gallons of gas in every barrel of oil, they shut it 
down to increase the price so they could have their record profits, so 
they can pay their CEO a $400 million pension plan, so they can have 
$40 billion in profits, as we saw with ExxonMobil just last year.
  Democrats have been in charge now for, what, 16 months? What have we 
done?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. STUPAK. We've passed energy price gouging legislation. We have a 
PUMP Act to take the speculators and close the Enron loophole. We've 
passed the renewable portfolio standard.
  We are moving forward. And we ask our friends on this side of the 
aisle to join us, not use a good bill like the Coast Guard bill to 
somehow say the Speaker is responsible. It was the President of the 
United States who said he would jawbone the Saudis to produce more oil 
to bring down our prices. He jawboned them all right, they jawboned 
right through to our pocketbook, with record prices at the pump, record 
prices of oil coming into this country.
  Pass the PUMP Act. We can reduce the price of oil by $30 a barrel, as 
testified on December 12, 2007 by experts before our committee, the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. Stop the unfair manipulation of prices. 
Lower the price of oil. Give the American taxpayers relief. And pass 
the Coast Guard bill to clean up our environment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. I would like to thank my friend from 
Texas for recognizing me.
  I would like to thank my colleague down on the floor, who is just 
taking the chart down now. His chart actually makes a very good point, 
the price of oil has doubled in the last year. I hope they use that 
chart often.
  The issue that's facing the American people right now is our 
dependence on foreign oil and our gas prices. Energy is the foundation 
and the lifeblood of the American economy, creating the conditions that 
help us support good-paying jobs here in the United States and allowing 
our industrial base to compete with the rest of the world.
  We all know that middle class families, such as those that I 
represent in northeast Tennessee, are feeling significant pain at the 
pump. But the American family isn't the only place where the strains of 
spiking fuel prices can be felt. According to the recent news reports, 
local schools, law enforcement agencies and other community services 
are paying the price of these record-high oil prices.
  Unfortunately, Democrats in the House have been consistent in 
offering so-called energy legislation that weakens our ability to 
compete with emerging titans such as China, India and Russia. In the 
United States today, we're 63 percent dependent on foreign sources of 
oil, and that percentage is growing ever year. Gasoline prices have 
increased more than $1 per gallon since the majority took control of 
the House last year, as the last chart indicated, increasing from a 
nationwide average of $2.33 per gallon on the first day of the 110th 
Congress to now well over $3.50 per gallon.
  Not only has the majority party failed to end our reliance on Middle 
Eastern oil for essential energy, they have actually helped grow our 
independence to historic and dangerous

[[Page 6713]]

new levels all because of their refusal to allow for responsible energy 
production here at home. We need to use American energy.
  What we need is no more excuses. We need an energy policy that allows 
for the use of American energy now. We need to drill for oil in ANWR 
and off the Outer Continental Shelf. We need to use our abundant coal 
supplies through clean coal technology. We need to create safe nuclear 
power plants. We need to build new refineries. And we need to expand 
green energy, yes, green energy initiatives, like switch grass, wind 
power, solar power, hydroelectric power.
  We cannot tax and regulate ourselves into prosperity, and that's 
exactly the energy policies that have come out of this Congress. You 
cannot tax and regulate yourself into prosperity. We have to have an 
energy policy that actually has energy.
  The American middle class deserves better. They deserve an energy 
policy that is dependent on American energy, not foreign energy. 
Therefore, I recommend a ``no'' vote on the rule on the floor today so 
we can continue to talk about what is important to the American people, 
lowering the cost of energy.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  While I associate myself positively with the remarks on energy, I 
rise for a different reason in opposition to this rule.
  We have been battling with the Coast Guard and their budget 
submissions from OMB as to why narcotics are not considered part of 
their terrorism mission. We have made some progress with that, but I 
had an amendment submitted to reflect that drug interdiction is a 
homeland security mission as required under the Homeland Security Act. 
I do not understand why jurisdictional disputes would have stopped 
this. Both committees, Transportation and Homeland Security, should 
agree that it's part of terrorism, and both committees need to work on 
narcotics and make sure, because smugglers are smugglers, whether 
they're smuggling people or whether they're smuggling contraband. And 
if we get this mission separated, since every single person in the 
Coast Guard says their first concern is homeland security, what we wind 
up is neglecting the narcotics mission.
  My friend from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I have worked on the 
narcotics issue for a long time. And I would hope that petty 
jurisdictions in the House wouldn't stop us from moving ahead in a 
bipartisan way to make sure that narcotics are part of the terrorism 
mission. I hope this is fixed in any conference report.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman 
from New York does not have any additional speakers at this time. We 
have no further speakers on our side.
  Mr. ARCURI. That is correct. I do not have any additional speakers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 7 minutes remaining.

                          ____________________