[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6714-6716]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) has 
7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 1 
minute remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, almost 2 years ago 
to the day, now Speaker Pelosi released a statement, which I quote, 
``Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular 
gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price when 
President Bush first came into office.''
  Speaker Pelosi went on to claim, and I quote again, that ``Democrats 
have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Speaker, the Pelosi petroleum price increase continues to rise, 
with the average price over $3.50, hitting consumers at the pump every 
time they fill up their car.
  By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand 
against these high prices and demand to see the secret plan that 
Speaker Pelosi has to reduce gas prices that Democrats have been hiding 
from the American people since taking control of Congress 17 months 
ago. I for one would love to see it, but I am afraid that, much like 
their promises to run the most honest, open and ethical Congress in 
history, it simply does not exist.
  I submit for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on 
H.R. 2830.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


            H.R. 2830--Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     2830 in its current form because it would adversely affect 
     homeland security, protection of the marine environment, and 
     maritime safety and would unreasonably intrude upon the 
     Commandant's authority and discretion to command and control 
     the Coast Guard. Cumulatively, these provisions would 
     compromise the organizational efficiency and operational 
     effectiveness of the Coast Guard; ultimately, they could 
     diminish its effectiveness in carrying out its safety, 
     security, and stewardship missions. Notwithstanding the other 
     provisions of the measure that would enhance Coast Guard 
     operations, the Administration strongly opposes House passage 
     of H.R. 2830.
       The Administration urges the House to modify the 
     problematic parts of the bill, including the following:
       First, the section of the bill that would require the Coast 
     Guard to provide security around liquefied natural gas 
     terminals and vessels should be eliminated because it 
     provides an unwarranted and unnecessary subsidy to the owners 
     of private infrastructure that is contrary to the existing 
     assistance framework and would divert finite Coast Guard 
     assets from other high-priority missions, as determined by 
     the Commandant. If H.R. 2830 were presented to the President 
     with this provision, his senior advisors would recommend that 
     he veto the bill.
       Second, the Administration strongly urges the House to 
     adopt the Administration's proposal to introduce 
     organizational flexibility into the Coast Guard command 
     structure and alignment with the other armed forces, rather 
     than the language of Section 210. This section as currently 
     worded would exchange one statutorily-mandated command 
     structure for another, thus defeating the purpose of the 
     Administration's initiative.
       Third, the Administration urges the House to substitute the 
     Administration's recently transmitted proposal for the 
     regulation of ballast water treatment for the existing 
     language of title V. The Administration's substitute language 
     would provide for the effective and efficient implementation 
     of ballast water treatment standards and for the development 
     of enforceable national uniform standards to control 
     discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels 
     without the use of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
     System (NPDES) permit. Absent such language (or a decision of 
     the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), as of September 30, 2008, 
     discharges incidental to the normal operation of upwards of 
     13 million vessels--including recreational vessels, towboat 
     vessels, commercial fishing boats, barges, and large ocean-
     going vessels--will be prohibited by the Clean Water Act 
     unless NPDES permits covering such discharges are in place.
       As well, the Administration urges the House to delete those 
     provisions of the bill that would adversely affect Coast 
     Guard missions. Specifically, the Administration urges the 
     House to delete those provisions that would: (1) diminish the 
     authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the 
     Commandant concerning how leadership positions within the 
     Service will be graded or placed; (2) reduce or eliminate the 
     Coast Guard's capacity or authority to carry out and 
     adjudicate its merchant mariner licensing mission and support 
     other vital security adjudications of the Department of 
     Homeland Security; (3) establish an interim work authority 
     for a newly hired seaman on an offshore supply vessel or 
     towing vessel, as such authority would open a dangerous 
     security loophole and undermine the security objectives of 
     the Transportation Worker Identification Credential; and (4) 
     prescribe contracting and acquisition practices for the 
     Deepwater program, as these practices would increase the 
     costs of, and add delay to, the Deepwater acquisition process 
     and circumvent review and approval authority of Coast Guard 
     technical authorities. Similarly, while the provision that 
     would alter admission procedures for the U.S. Coast Guard 
     Academy may ultimately be acceptable, this provision has not 
     previously been shared, or even discussed, with the 
     Administration. The Administration, therefore, urges the 
     House to delete this provision.
       Finally, the Administration strongly urges the House to 
     adopt the Administration's proposal to protect seafarers who 
     participate in investigations and adjudication of 
     environmental crimes or who have been abandoned in the United 
     States, and thus facilitate the Government's ability to 
     investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. Similarly, 
     the Administration strongly urges the House to restore the 
     much-needed authority to prosecute those who would smuggle 
     undocumented aliens into the United States by sea (Maritime 
     Alien Smuggling Law Enforcement Act).
       The Administration looks forward to working with Congress 
     to address these concerns and other problems with the bill 
     previously identified in letters from the Department of 
     Homeland Security.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, we have sat here for the past hour and 
listened to so many speakers talk about energy, when the underlying 
bill is actually the Coast Guard reauthorization bill. But if our 
colleagues want to talk about energy, then I think we should point out 
some very obvious facts to them.
  First of all, when the Clinton administration finished in the White 
House, oil was at $27 a barrel. It is now at $119 a barrel, a 
significant increase. Yet they try to point the finger at this 
Congress, this Democratic Congress that has been in the majority for 16 
months. Yet on every bill that we bring up, every bill that the 
Democrats bring before this Congress that attempts in any way, shape, 
fashion or form to reduce the price of oil, we get nothing but ``no'' 
votes from the other side of the aisle. That is their response to high 
energy costs. That is what they want to do to the American people in 
terms of the energy costs.
  I said earlier in the debate a point that I think is very important. 
They want to talk about priorities as what we do for the big energy 
companies, what we do for the big oil companies. Well, that is not the 
priority of this

[[Page 6715]]

side of the aisle. We want to talk about alternative energy. We want to 
talk about reducing the dependence on foreign oil, reducing the 
dependence on gas and on fossil fuels, thereby making our country 
stronger, both domestically and internationally. If they want to talk 
about gas and oil, that is the debate. But this debate is about the 
Coast Guard bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the Coast Guard are to be commended 
for their service to our country and their commitment to the 
multifaceted mission of the Coast Guard. They serve their country, they 
risk their lives, just to keep us safe, safe along our coasts, safe 
along our inland waterways; not thousands of miles away, but right here 
in the United States. We need to ensure that they have the tools and 
the support to do the job in the best way that they can. The Coast 
Guard deserves and needs this bill. The American people deserve and 
need this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, after extensive consideration by three House committees, 
it is time to bring the Coast Guard authorization bill to the floor.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 1126 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the operation of the previous question, it 
     shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which 
     the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of 
     lowering the national average price per gallon of regular 
     unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For 
     purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a 
     statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 
     by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration 
     shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.
       Sec. 6. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall 
     introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill 
     to provide a common sense plan to help bring down 
     skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the 
     appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause I 
     of rule X.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution [and] has no substantive legislative 
     or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what 
     they have always said. Listen to the definition of the 
     previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H. Res. 1126, the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2830, the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007. I also strongly support the 
underlying legislation, which will provide our Nation's Coast Guard 
with the resources it needs in order to successfully execute all of its 
missions.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressmen Oberstar and 
Cummings, for introducing this bill, as well as the Chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Thompson, for his leadership 
on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to work with 
Chairman Thompson and offer an amendment during our Homeland Security 
Committee markup to this important legislation, which I felt improved 
the bill. My amendment mandated the creation of a strategic plan to 
utilize assistance programs to assist ports and facilities that are 
found by the Secretary not to maintain effective anti-terrorism 
measures. I am also offering an amendment on the House floor today 
calling on the Secretary of Homeland Security to examine the challenges 
and delays faced by transportation workers seeking to obtain TWIC cards 
at enrollment sites and mandates the development of timelines and 
benchmarks for implementing the findings of this assessment.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I believe protecting 
our Nation by air, land, and sea to be critical to our national 
security interests. This bill, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
2007, sets forth various provisions that will be beneficial to our 
maritime interests, and consequently to our national security. Included 
in the provisions are the establishments of grants for international 
maritime organizations, the establishment of the Merchant Mariner 
Medical Advisory Committee, and codified various provisions relating to 
Coast Guard personnel matters.
  For some years now, I have been concerned about the diversion of 
Coast Guard resources from their historic missions of search and rescue 
and marine safety, to homeland security missions. Since the creation of 
the Department of Homeland Security, and the Coast Guard's inclusion in 
the Department, one of the greatest challenges has been ensuring that 
the funds that the Coast Guard have traditionally received in order to 
perform there duties remain intact so that they can fulfill the 
responsibilities that American citizens rely on them to perform, namely 
ensuring the safety of our nations seas, lakes, rivers, and ports.
  We have to ensure that the Coast Guard will get their full funding 
needed to carry out their responsibilities, and that is precisely what 
this legislation does. This act authorizes appropriations for FY2008 
for the Coast Guard. Furthermore, this act also authorizes the FY2008 
levels of Coast Guard active duty military personnel and average 
military training student loans, allowing for sufficient human 
resources for the Coast Guard to achieve its designated goals. This 
bill explicitly authorizes end-strength by 1,500 members to 47,000 and 
increasing Coast Guard funding to $8.4 billion which has not been done 
since the 1970's.
  The act also includes provisions regarding shipping and navigation, 
vessel size limits, maritime drug law enforcement, fishing vessel 
safety, liability limits for natural gas deepwater ports, claims 
against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, dry bulk cargo residue, 
merchant mariner matter, and security.
  Mr. Speaker, every year, 95 percent of the goods coming into the 
United States arrive at our nation's seaports. These goods are shipped 
from ports around the world, some from developed countries and others 
from developing countries. I am particularly concerned about ports in 
developing countries. Developing countries have limited resources which

[[Page 6716]]

means their ability to maintain effective anti-terrorism measures is 
limited.
  We can not allow terrorists to exploit this limitation. Rather, we 
should work with developing countries and others to build up their 
anti-terrorism measures. This assistance will benefit all of us. The 
developing countries will gain the support they need, and we will close 
a potential gap in our own supply chain. Every gap we close is one less 
gap that can be exploited by terrorists. I am pleased that this bill 
requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a strategic 
plan to utilize existing assistance programs to assist foreign ports 
and facilities that are found by the Secretary not to maintain 
effective anti-terrorism measures. This bill furthermore authorizes the 
Coast Guard to lend, lease, and donate equipment and provide technical 
training to non-compliant foreign ports or facilities. The multiple 
layers of security enhancement authorized in this legislation will 
minimize the ability of terrorists to target to maritime commerce and 
negatively impact the global supply chain.
  I am pleased that the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007 includes 
specific provisions relating to Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs). 
Within this legislation, MSIs are defined as a historically Black 
college or university, a Hispanic serving institution, a Tribal College 
or University, a Predominantly Black institution, or a Native American-
serving institution. Section 901 of this important legislation states 
that the Commandant shall establish a management internship program for 
students at MSIs, enabling them to intern at Coast Guard headquarters 
or Coast Guard regional offices in an effort to support the development 
of civilian, career-midlevel, and senior managers for the service. This 
legislation furthermore instructs the Coast Guard to work with the 
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, the 
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and the American 
Indian Higher Education Consortium to create this internship program 
and authorizes $2 million to be appropriated to this program.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long stressed the importance of including this 
nation's MSIs in the effort to secure our nation. Section 903 of this 
legislation states that the Commandant shall establish a Coast Guard 
Laboratory of Excellence-MSI Cooperative Technology Program at three 
minority serving institutions to focus on priority security areas for 
the Coast Guard, such as global maritime surveillance, resilience, and 
recovery. It also calls on the Commandant to encourage collaboration 
among the minority serving institutions selected to participate in the 
cooperative technology program and institutions of higher education 
with institutional research and academic program resources and 
experience. These and other measures included within this bill are 
absolutely imperative as the Office of Workforce Planning has recently 
revealed that only 5 percent of the officer corps is African American 
and only 12 percent of the officer corps is comprised of ethnic 
minorities, while in the last 3 years the numbers of minority 
ascensions have actually decreased.
  The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007 also increases oversight 
and efficiency of the TWIC program, which was originally mandated six 
years ago, yet continues to flounder. To date only 230,000 out of an 
estimated 845,000 applicants have enrolled in the TWIC program, while 
the deadline for enrollment is September 25, 2008. While this provision 
of the Coast Guard Authorization is both timely and important, there is 
still more which must be done in order to ensure that the program is 
both effective and efficient, which is why I have offered an amendment.
  I would like to reiterate only few of the obstacles that workers have 
faced in my state of Texas as well in my district of Houston. For 
example, a marine worker enrolled at the Houston Port enrolled on 
December 13, 2007. To this date, he still does not yet have a TWIC 
card. He remained on hold for 4 hours and 10 minutes and was finally 
told by the operator that he would have to return to Houston to be 
fingerprinted again after APR. Incidentally, a representative of Higman 
Marine Services, Inc., asked the same question about their employee, 
and she was told that he should not return until June. This blatant 
inconsistency in service and information is simply unacceptable. 
Furthermore, another transportation worker went to the Beaumont center 
about 3 weeks ago to pick up his TWIC after being notified it was 
ready. He traveled from Hemphill, TX (117 miles), and was told that the 
card was accidentally shipped to Houston and he could drive there (85 
miles) to pick it up. He presently does not have his card. The list of 
incidences in which workers have to continually overcome structural 
impediments is too long for me to name. It is from my concern for these 
workers that I have introduced my amendment.
  My amendment calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to compile 
an assessment of the enrollment sites for transportation security cards 
issued under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code within 30 
days of enactment. The assessment should, at minimum, examine: The 
feasibility of keeping those enrollment sites open 24 hours per day, 
and 7 days per week, in order to better handle the large number of 
applicants for such cards; the feasibility of keeping those enrollment 
sites open after September 25, 2008; and the quality of customer 
service, including the periods of time individuals are kept on hold on 
the telephone, whether appointments are kept, and processing times for 
applications.
  My amendment furthermore calls on the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to develop timelines and benchmarks for implementing the findings of 
the assessment as the Secretary deems necessary. By identifying the 
areas in which enrollment sites for homeland security cards are 
ineffective and inefficient and creating a timeline through which to 
implement necessary changes and benchmarks to ensure their progress and 
accountability, we will make this Nation a safer place accessible to 
labor and operations alike.
  Long before the horrific events of September 11, 2001, citizens of 
America relied upon the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of our 
waterways, and we depend on them still. Therefore, I urge my fellow 
members of Congress to also support the Coast Guard Authorization Act 
of 2007 and ensure this rich and necessary tradition remains a thriving 
and useful part of not only our national defense strategy but also to 
protect us and the environment from those threats by sea.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________