[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16747-16787]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2011

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

                              {time}  1129


                     In the Committee of the Whole

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

                              {time}  1130

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

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

                   Statement of Administration Policy


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

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

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

[[Page 16748]]

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

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

                              {time}  1140

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

[[Page 16749]]

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

                              {time}  1150

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

[[Page 16750]]

try to come up with a sweet spot where we could agree. We were unable 
to get there. It was not for a lack of trying. I am very grateful to 
the gentleman from New Jersey for his willingness to work with me on 
this; but later we will be offering this amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues will support it.

                                                  California State


                                             Lands Commission,

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

                                         The Environmental Council


                                                of The States,

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

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York for dialoguing and for 
articulating his point. We have tried very

[[Page 16751]]

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

                              {time}  1200

  This is an example for us in Congress, an example that we must follow 
to improve not only our marine transportation system, but also to 
create jobs and to sustain an environment in which American business 
can flourish. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
so we can bridge a better partnership with our local businesses to 
improve the maritime transportation system and put our Nation back on a 
path of economic vitality.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), whom we affectionately 
refer to as Dr. Illie.

[[Page 16752]]


  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank my good friend from New Jersey for the 
time.
  I rise in strong support of this Coast Guard reauthorization bill 
that is being considered on the floor today. I have the unique pleasure 
of representing over 265 miles of pristine coastline, ranging from 
Miami Beach all of the way down to Key West. In fact, two of the 
largest Coast Guard sectors in the United States, Sector Miami, 
commanded by Captain Christopher Scraba, and Sector Key West commanded 
by Captain Pat DeQuattro, are located in my congressional district. As 
such, ensuring that the brave men and women of the Coast Guard have the 
tools they need to effectively patrol our coast is of utmost concern to 
me and to all of the residents in my congressional district.
  This legislation before us is a fiscally responsible reauthorization 
of the U.S. Coast Guard and will include practical reforms which will 
ensure greater efficiency in the replacing of aging assets and improved 
utilization of all of its resources.
  This is particularly important in my district as our two sectors have 
been working day and night to stop drugs from being smuggled into our 
country. These drug smugglers are becoming more sophisticated and more 
brazen in their efforts to bring illicit drugs to our shores. Just last 
month alone, the U.S. Coast Guard seized and then unloaded over 2,300 
pounds of marijuana and nearly 900 pounds of cocaine in Sector Key 
West. Without providing upgrades to our aging assets, it will become 
more and more difficult to keep pace with these drug smugglers as their 
technology attempts to surpass ours.
  That is why I rise in strong support of this Coast Guard 
reauthorization bill, and I thank Dr. Frank for giving me the time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank 
the chairman and our ranking member for the great work that they have 
done not only this time but over the years.
  As a member of the subcommittee, I have had an opportunity to--and 
earlier in previous sessions as chairman of the subcommittee--I've had 
an opportunity to visit many Coast Guard facilities. I am so amazed by 
what I see when I see so many young people who give their lives, their 
blood, sweat and tears to save other people and to make sure that our 
waterways are kept safe, and to make sure that our coasts are guarded. 
I call them the thin blue line at sea.
  I do support this legislation because I think it is very important. 
There are some concerns I have, but I do want to commend the chairman. 
I understand that we have a manager's amendment that adds a modified 
version of H.R. 2839, the Piracy Suppression Act, as a title to this 
bill, and I think that is very, very important. The piracy provisions 
include those that require the Department of Transportation to 
establish a training program for U.S. mariners on the use of force 
against pirates and require a report from DOD within 180 days on 
actions taken to protect foreign-flag vessels from acts of piracy on 
the high seas. I will definitely support that because I think it is 
very, very important.
  We've seen, and I know the chairman has spent a lot of time on this, 
what has happened with regard to these pirates. They feel they can just 
board our ships and hold our folks hostage, and we cannot allow that to 
happen. I want to applaud the chairman and the ranking member for 
bringing that about.
  I'm going to have an amendment a little bit later on which addresses 
an issue which is important to me, and that is the ombudsman. I've said 
many times that we put this in the last authorization because a lot of 
the folks at the ports and a lot of our mariners were complaining. They 
were saying that the Coast Guard would come and want to make changes 
and say their way or the highway. One of the things that we wanted to 
do so commerce could freely flow, we wanted to have somebody come along 
and actually sit down and reason so that things could be worked out in 
a way that would be less onerous to the mariner community.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I'm hoping that amendment does pass because our 
Republican friends have constantly said that they want to do away with 
regulations that might impede the flow of commerce, and I think that my 
amendment is a step in that direction. I know that the Coast Guard may 
not like it, but I think an ombudsman would bring about a fair balance 
so that we can achieve the things that we need to achieve.
  With that, again I applaud the chairman and the ranking member for 
bringing this bill forward.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  We have no more speakers on the general debate, so I will take a few 
minutes here to conclude on our side for general debate, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to close on general debate.
  The points that were made earlier, I do want to reemphasize a few 
points. One is a concern we have about the decommissioning process and 
the decommissioning of the two icebreakers that are in the U.S. Coast 
Guard fleet. The administration has a statement of administration 
policy, which you've allowed to be entered into the Record. I think a 
follow-up to that point would be that we certainly would want to hear 
from the administration sooner rather than later about a plan for what 
some would call an organic capability of our icebreaker fleet. That is 
a U.S. Coast Guard-owned and -operated icebreaker fleet, rather than 
being left with the potential and real possibility of having to lease 
icebreakers from other countries to do the work that otherwise we would 
be doing. That continues to be a major concern.
  We have heard, as well, concerns about the ballast water title and 
are expecting amendments and further debate on that as the afternoon 
progresses.
  Certainly we are going to have an en bloc amendment, and we will have 
time to discuss those. I just want to underscore one of those from Mr. 
McIntyre and the role that the marine transportation system plays, or 
the MTS as we call it, which consists of waterways and ports and 
intermodal land-side connections that allow our various modes of 
transportation to move people and goods to and from and on the water.
  The MTS is vitally important to our economy. It's vitally important 
to waterborne cargo and the associated activities which contribute more 
than $649 billion annually to the U.S. gross domestic product, 
sustaining more than 13 million jobs. Section 401 of this underlying 
bill would codify the committee on the marine transportation system, a 
Federal interdepartmental committee chaired by the Secretary of 
Transportation.
  And I think it is just important to underscore further about this 
MTS, the marine transportation system, and the role that the Coast 
Guard plays in maintaining that. It can be somewhat invisible to folks 
if they're not on the water a lot, but the role that the U.S. Coast 
Guard plays in maintaining that marine transportation system that 
therefore underlies the economic growth potential that we have from a 
well-balanced and well-developed marine transportation system is 
important and is one of the underlying reasons why we even have a Coast 
Guard authorization bill each year to support the great work of the 
U.S. Coast Guard.

                              {time}  1210

  I would encourage Members to take a hard look at this bill. We've got 
some amendments coming up that Members will bring up, and we'll have 
good debate on those. But certainly as far as general debate goes, I'd 
like to take this time now to yield back the balance of my time and 
urge people to support the underlying bill.

[[Page 16753]]


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

[[Page 16754]]

In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top 
priority for our nation.
  In 1787, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper Number 12 laid the 
foundation for the modern Coast Guard when he noted that ``[a] few 
armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports, 
might at a small expense, be made useful sentinels of our laws.''
  I believe protecting our country by air, land, and sea is critical to 
our national security interests. As Coast Guard is beneficial to our 
maritime interests, and consequently, our national security it is 
imperative that we provide the Coast Guard with the funding they need.
  In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 the focus of many federal 
agencies shifted to include an increased emphasis on Homeland Security. 
Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, a number of security missions 
were assigned to the Coast Guard. Without question the first mission of 
our Coast Guard has been to protect our ports, waterways and to focus 
on coastal security. They have completed this mission with honor for 
centuries.
  Across the United States there are currently more than 350 major 
ports of which 23 are located in my home state of Texas.
  I am honored to represent the 18th Congressional District which 
includes the Port of Houston, one of our nation's busiest ports. More 
than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 
2010 and it has been ranked as first in foreign waterborne tonnage for 
the 15th consecutive year.
  The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports located in 203 
countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. 
Maritime ports are major centers of trade, commerce, and travel along 
our nation's coastline. All of these ports are protected by the Coast 
Guard.
  As a Representative from Texas, a border state, I am extremely 
concerned with curtailing the flow of illegal drugs entering into the 
United States. The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for maritime 
drug interdiction.
  Houston has been classified by the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy (ONDCP) as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, and in a 2009 
report, the ONDCP expressed concern that ``the sheer volume of maritime 
traffic and foreign cargo that passes through the port offers another 
avenue for drug smuggling.''
  The Coast Guard is responsible for and has coordinated with other 
federal, state, and local agencies and countries within the region to 
disrupt and deter the flow of illegal drugs into Houston and other 
ports. This coordinated effort has resulted in a decrease in the supply 
of illicit substances being transported all over the country.
  The Coast Guard protects the interests of American citizens and 
American commerce abroad. Last year, 73.2 million tons of exports left 
the Port of Houston to be sold to countries around the world. These 
exports represented $70.8 billion dollars, and countless American jobs.
  The international counter--piracy efforts of the Coast Guard focus on 
preventing attacks of piracy that threaten American commercial vessels 
and cargo. The Coast Guard also performs vital counter terrorism 
measures in ports abroad to ensure the safety of Americans across the 
globe.
  In addition, in Houston the Coast Guard routinely conducts integrated 
operations with city, county, state and Federal Law Enforcement 
partners. The joint agency Houston Area Maritime Operations Center is a 
prime example of the type of coordination efforts directed under a 
recent Maritime Operations Coordination Plan signed by the U.S. Coast 
Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
  The Port of Houston as one of the world's busiest ports is a 
tremendous responsibility which has been smoothly operated by the Coast 
Guard. In terms of maritime traffic and cargo, the Port of Houston 
ranks first in the nation for number of ship arrivals and second in 
total cargo tonnage. Houston handles over 50 percent of all 
containerized cargo arriving at Gulf of Mexico ports.
  Houston is the Energy capitol of the United States for a reason, more 
than 50 percent of the gasoline used in the United States is refined in 
this area. With more than 100 petrochemical waterfront facilities, 
Houston has the second largest such complex in the world. Major 
corporations such as Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Saudi ARAMCO, Stolt Nielson, 
Odfjell USA Inc., Sea River and Kirby Marine have national or 
international headquarters in Houston.
  These operations typically involve the Harris County Sheriff's Office 
and local city Police Department marine divisions as well as CBP, ICE, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 
and Explosives and other Federal partners. Efforts are underway with 
The Coast Guard's processes with neighboring sectors to align and 
streamline their operations across all jurisdictional boundaries. They 
need funding to continue to serve our country.
  The Coast Guard relies on their port partners to act as both their 
eyes and ears on the water. With an average of 350 daily tow movements 
in the Houston Ship Channel and more than 100 waterfront facilities 
with a vigilant security presence, marine industry stakeholders are 
well positioned to recognize when things are out of the ordinary and 
serve as a valuable resource by diligently reporting breaches of 
security and suspicious activity. We also receive reports on fraudulent 
use of the Transportation Worker Identification Card, and work closely 
with our local enforcement and legal agencies such as the Harris County 
District Attorney to ensure these cases are prosecuted.
  In recognition of the significance of Houston's shipping activity, 
the State of Texas formally established the Houston Ship Channel 
Security District (HSCSD) in 2010.
  The HSCSD represents a unique public-private partnership formed to 
improve security and safety for facilities, employees and communities 
surrounding the Houston Ship Channel. The Coast Guard played an 
instrumental role in the formation of the HSCSD, and continues to work 
closely with the HSCSD to ensure alignment of priorities and unity of 
effort. As Sector Commander, I am a member of the HSCSD Advisory 
Council and Sector Port Security specialists attend HSCSD board 
meetings. The district provides oversight of comprehensive and cost-
effective security solutions, leveraging more than $30 million in 
Federal Port Security grants along with $4 million in annual member 
assessments to install technology and security infrastructure and 
provide funds for specific security projects, maintenance and 
operational services.
  The Port of Houston accommodates a large number of tankers carrying 
crude oil, refined products and chemical cargoes. With approximately 
9,600 deep draft ship arrivals each year, the Coast Guard maintains a 
very extensive Port State Control program in the Houston-Galveston 
area. The Port State Control program ensures the safe carriage of 
hazardous materials in bulk. Because over 90 percent of cargo bound for 
the United States is carried by foreign-flagged ships, this national 
program prevents operation of substandard foreign ships in U.S. waters.
  The Sector also makes excellent use of its robust Vessel Traffic 
Service (VTS). The VTS's primary role is facilitating safe vessel 
transits in the waterways and ports along the Houston Ship Channel. The 
VTS cameras, Automatic Identification System (AIS) feeds, remote radar 
observation capability, and radio communications, also provide an 
additional layer of security. In addition to the VTS resources in the 
Houston Ship Channel, Sector Houston-Galveston has access to feeds from 
three AIS receivers mounted on offshore oil platforms, which provide 
heightened awareness of activities in the maritime domain.
  With a homeland security mission of this magnitude, it is essential 
that the Coast Guard be fully funded. This bill will authorize $8.49 
billion dollars in 2012, $8.6 billion dollars in 2013, and $8.7 billion 
in 2014. It is certainly the duty of this Congress and the 
Administration to ensure the brave men and women who serve in the Coast 
Guard have the resources necessary to perform the wide range of duties 
assigned to them.
  This measure contains a private-sector mandate as defined in Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act (UMRA). The bill would require operators to locate a 
standby vessel within 3 nautical miles of offshore oil and gas 
facilities when certain activities are being performed and within 12 
nautical miles of facilities at all other times. The cost of that 
mandate would depend on several factors. The bill would allow operators 
to share one standby vessel among multiple facilities and to use 
standby vessels for other purposes.
  For operators that can use those measures, the cost of the mandate 
would tend to be lower. At the same time, the bill would authorize the 
Coast Guard to require standby vessels to be located closer than 3 or 
12 nautical miles to offshore facilities if necessary to address delays 
caused by weather or other conditions. Reducing the minimum distance 
from facilities would increase the number of vessels necessary for 
compliance and increase the cost of the mandate for some operators. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the aggregate cost of the 
mandate would probably exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA 
for private-sector mandates ($142 million in 2011, adjusted annually 
for inflation).

[[Page 16755]]

  However, I do have certain reservations about some of the provisions 
in this legislation. At the request of President Obama's 
Administration, Congress has appropriated funding to reactivate the 
USGC Polar Star, a heavy icebreaking vessel. The ship is to be 
reactivated by December 2012 for 7 to 10 years of service. The Polar 
Star is deployed to assist researchers throughout the Polar Regions, 
and is essential to United States icebreaking capabilities. Ice 
breaking vessels create pathways through which supply ships can travel, 
facilitating important research. In its current form, the bill 
decommissions the Polar Star within 3 years, creating a gap in the 
nation's icebreaking abilities.
  As a senior Member on the Homeland Security Committee, I have a deep 
commitment to creating a stronger and more secure America. I have 
worked with my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to pass 
legislation that ensures that our nation is receiving the security that 
our citizens deserve. As the potential threats and vulnerabilities 
along our coast line may always exist. We rely upon Coast Guard and 
their active involvement with hundreds of partners who are directly 
involved with or impacted by the maritime industry in the Houston-
Galveston area of responsibility, this Sector is committed to deterring 
incidents before they happen and is well-prepared to respond to them 
should they occur. The Coast Guard is vital to the protection of our 
national security.
  Both sides of the aisle have a strong respect for the Coast Guard as 
well as for the men and women who work on manned stations off of our 
shores. I understand that Representative Mica has agreed to honor the 
purpose of an amendment offered by Representative Olson that would have 
require the Commandant of the Coast Guard in consultation with 
appropriate representatives of industry to conduct a feasibility study 
to determine the capability, cost, and benefits of requiring the owner 
or operator of a manned facility, installation, unit, or vessel to 
locate a standby vessel nearby. I would have supported this amendment 
because although a properly designed and equipped standby vessel in the 
immediate vicinity of manned outer continental shelf facilities may, in 
some cases, improve safety on the outer continental shelf.
  In the event of a major casualty to an offshore installation, the 
immediate presence of a properly designed and equipped standby vessel, 
manned by a specially trained crew, might in some cases increase the 
chances of survival of the installation's crew members. We must not, 
however, forget the fact that historically the main cause of rig and 
platform abandonment has been due to severe weather. Unless these 
standby vessels are designed to withstand those severe conditions, 
requiring them to remain on scene could place the vessels and their 
crews in jeopardy. In addition, it is severely risky to board a standby 
vessel in severe weather conditions. For these reasons I would support 
a feasibility study to determine the effectiveness of using standby 
vessels for manned stations.
  In addition, I support the amendment offered by Representative 
Thompson that would add a new section to the end of Title II in the 
bill to open admissions to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to eligible 
candidates nominated by Congress.
  Specifically, the amendment would require the U.S. Coast Guard to 
ensure that, beginning in academic year 2014, half of the incoming 
class is composed of eligible candidates nominated by the Vice 
President or, if there is no Vice President, by the President pro 
tempore of the Senate; Senators; Representatives; and Delegates to the 
House of Representatives. This will help to ensure that the Coast Guard 
has an even more diverse pool of candidate from across the United 
States.
  The Coast Guard is proud of that legacy and their role in our 
national strategy is vital to keep our homeland secure. The safety and 
security of our nations and its citizens must be our highest priority, 
despite difficult economic circumstances. We need to make sure the 
Coast Guard is fully funded, and have the resources they need.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today the House of Representatives debated 
a bill that combines a Coast Guard reauthorization with unrelated 
provisions that will hurt our environment, our economy, and maritime 
workers. This bill will eliminate the ability of states to protect 
their waters from invasive species and significantly limit the rights 
of injured maritime workers, the families of workers who die at sea, 
and workers who are wrongfully denied their earned wages. This bill 
puts the profits of maritime corporations above the safety of our 
environment, our economy, and maritime workers.
  Invasive species are a major threat to our environment and our 
economy, costing the U.S. economy over $120 billion annually. In 
communities that rely on our lakes, rivers, and oceans, invasive 
species can decimate local economies, as they take over fisheries and 
damage water infrastructure. If zebra or quagga mussels were to spread 
from the Great Lakes to Oregon's rivers, for example, they could wreak 
havoc on not only our sensitive ecosystems but also cause major 
problems for hydropower production. These species could clog pipes and 
dam intakes in the Columbia River, potentially costing the Pacific 
Northwest $25.5 million a year to clean up. Ballast water is the 
primary source of invasive species into our water, as ships from around 
the world release water from their last port of call into our waters.
  This bill will prevent states from introducing common sense controls 
on ballast water releases in state waters. The bill sets a low national 
standard, and does not allow states to choose higher protections for 
sensitive local waters. It also removes one of the protections we 
already have--a federal permit requirement under the Clean Water Act. 
The bill will also further undermine the Clean Water Act by restricting 
public participation, and opens the door to future threats to our water 
quality.
  This bill also harms the rights of maritime workers. The bill caps 
the amounts workers can recover when their employer wrongfully 
withholds their wages, and lessens the incentive to enforce wage laws 
because there is less to recover. Many maritime workers, especially 
fisherman, are not protected by many workers' compensation laws. Their 
only recourse is the right to go to a court to force boat owners to pay 
compensation or face the loss of their fishing permit. This bill would 
eliminate this right, and make it easier for boat owners to avoid 
compensating the families of killed or injured workers. The bill also 
incentivizes hiring non-U.S. citizens, as it removes the requirement 
for cruise ships to provide the same treatment for U.S. and non-U.S. 
citizens in U.S. waters. This makes it cheaper to hire non-U.S. 
citizens, eliminating American jobs.
  This bill is a bad deal for the environment, for the economy, and for 
U.S. workers. While I support the Coast Guard, I oppose this 
legislation. I urge the House to vote on a Coast Guard authorization 
bill without provisions that threaten our environment and our economy.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chair, attached are exchange of letters between the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committees on 
Judiciary and Homeland Security regarding provisions included in H.R. 
2838 for inclusion in the Congressional Record.
                                  ____
                                  
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2011.
     Hon. John Mica,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 2838, the 
     ``Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011,'' 
     which was reported favorably by your committee on September 
     8. As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions 
     in H.R. 2838 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, we are able to agree to forego 
     action on this bill in order that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 2838 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and 
     requests your support for any such request.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 2838, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
           Transportation and Infrastructure,
                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2011.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     2838, the ``Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 
     2011.'' I acknowledge that by forgoing action on this 
     legislation, your Committee is not diminishing or altering 
     its jurisdiction.
       I also concur with you that forgoing action on this bill 
     does not in any way prejudice the

[[Page 16756]]

     Committee on the Judiciary with respect to its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the 
     future, and I would support your effort to seek appointment 
     of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this legislation.
       I will include our letters on H.R. 2838 in the 
     Congressional Record during House floor consideration of the 
     bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this 
     legislation, and I look forward to working with the Committee 
     on the Judiciary as the bill moves through the legislative 
     process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John L. Mica,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 2011.
     Hon. John Mica,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 2839, the 
     ``Piracy Suppression Act of 2011,'' which was reported 
     favorably by your committee on September 8, 2011. As a result 
     of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 2839 
     that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary, we are able to agree to forego a formal 
     referral on this bill.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 2839 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and 
     requests your support for any such request.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 2839, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
           Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 2011.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     2839, the ``Piracy Suppression Act of 2011.'' I acknowledge 
     that by forgoing a formal referral request on this 
     legislation, your Committee is not waiving any jurisdiction 
     over the subject matter contained in this or similar 
     legislation and that your Committee will be appropriately 
     consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation 
     moves forward.
       Further, I would fully support your effort to seek 
     appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving this or similar 
     legislation.
       I will include our letters on H.R. 2839 in the 
     Congressional Record during House floor consideration of the 
     bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this 
     legislation, and I look forward to working with the Committee 
     on the Judiciary as the bill moves through the legislative 
     process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John L. Mica,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                               Washington, DC, September 14, 2011.
     Hon. John Mica,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing regarding the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Homeland Security 
     over provisions in H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Act of 2011, which the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure ordered to be reported on 
     September 8, 2011.
       I understand the importance of advancing this legislation 
     to the House floor in an expeditious manner. Therefore, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security will not assert its 
     jurisdictional claim over this bill by seeking a sequential 
     referral. This action is conditional on our mutual 
     understanding and agreement that doing so will in no way 
     diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Homeland Security over the subject matter included in this or 
     similar legislation. I request that you urge the Speaker to 
     appoint members of this Committee to any conference committee 
     for consideration of any provisions that fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security in the 
     House-Senate conference on this bill or similar legislation.
       I also request that this letter and your response be 
     included in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
     report to H.R. 2838 and in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this measure on the House floor. Thank you 
     for your consideration of this matter.
           Sincerely,


                                                Peter T. King,

     Chairman.
                                  ____


         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
           Transportation and Infrastructure,
                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2011.
     Hon. Peter T. King,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     2838, the ``Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 
     2011.'' I acknowledge that by forgoing a sequential referral 
     on this legislation, your Committee is not diminishing or 
     altering its jurisdiction.
       I also concur with you that forgoing action on this bill 
     does not in any way prejudice the Committee on Homeland 
     Security with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on 
     this bill or similar legislation in the future, and I would 
     support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate 
     number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving 
     this legislation.
       I will include our letters on H.R. 2838 in the 
     Congressional Record during House floor consideration of the 
     bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this 
     legislation, and I look forward to working with the Committee 
     on Homeland Security as the bill moves through the 
     legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John L. Mica,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I would like the record to unequivocally 
show that I strongly support reauthorizing our Nation's Coast Guard but 
oppose final passage of H.R. 2838 due to the controversial ballast 
water discharge provisions that were included in the bill.
  I represent a district in the Great Lakes region that contains over 
60 miles of coastline on Lake Ontario, a body of water that sees its 
fair share of shipping. New York State is the entry point for 
commercial shipping into the rest of the Great Lakes from the Saint 
Lawrence Seaway and I have serious concerns about how and what 
international commercial shipping vessels discharge into New York 
waters on their way to the rest of the Great Lakes.
  Each minute, 40,000 gallons of ballast water containing thousands of 
foreign bacteria, viruses, animals and plants, are discharged into U.S. 
waters. Globally, it is estimated that more than 10,000 marine species 
each day may be transported across the oceans in the ballast water of 
cargo ships. Ballast water has been identified as a common mechanism 
for the transfer of harmful invasive species that threaten the 
livelihood and recreation of the millions of residents who depend on 
them annually.
  The Coast Guard is in the process of finalizing its rulemaking 
process for a national Ballast Water Discharge Standard (BWDS) that 
would act as a floor for regulation on this issue, not a ceiling, and 
would allow states to impose stricter standards if they determine their 
waters are at risk. Title VII of H.R. 2838 would preempt this process 
by setting a weak national standard for the regulation of ballast water 
discharged into U.S. waters and would prevent states from implementing 
stronger than national standards when necessary. During consideration 
of H.R. 2838, I offered an amendment to strike Title VII or H.R. 2838. 
While, the amendment failed by a vote of 161 to 237, it received strong 
bipartisan support.
  Unfortunately, while I strongly support the Coast Guard, I cannot 
support legislation that restricts the ability of States to protect 
against the threat of invasive species. The ballast water provisions in 
H.R. 2838 restrict these very protections.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise regarding H.R. 2838, the Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.
  H.R. 2838 reauthorizes the activities of the U.S. Coast Guard and 
authorizes funding for the resources necessary to support the men and 
women who put their lives at risk every day to promote the safety and 
livelihoods of the people who use our country's waterways. The bill 
provides these resources in a fiscally responsible manner that advances 
the mission of the Guard while improving administration and reducing 
costs.
  Our nation's waterways are the recreational and commercial arteries 
of the country. The safe and reliable movement of goods and people on 
our lakes, rivers and along our coastlines, helped to build the United 
States into

[[Page 16757]]

the country it is today. Since its creation, the Coast Guard has played 
a vital role in America's economic and national security. The 
investments authorized by this bill will help to ensure the continued 
availability of the critical resources necessary for the Coast Guard to 
continue serving and protecting the people of the United States.
  Despite its benefits, the bill has a major flaw. While the underlying 
bill enjoys bipartisan support, I share the Administration's concern 
about the Majority's insistence on attaching controversial ``ballast 
water'' language to the measure, whose effect would be to undermine the 
Clean Water Act and hinder states' efforts to control invasive species. 
For that reason, I will support the Dingell-Slaughter and Bishop 
amendments addressing this issue and will oppose final passage if they 
are not adopted.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chair, H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Act 2011, authorizes Coast Guard funding for Fiscal 
Years 2012, 2013 and 2014. The authorized levels were approved in the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Budget Views and 
Estimates, and reflect the levels set in the House-passed Budget 
Resolution.
  Following up on the Committee's Sitting on Our Assets Report, H.R. 
2838 decommissions two aging icebreakers, neither of which currently 
operates. The bill also restricts the purchases of future National 
Security Cutters (NSCs) until current NSCs meet long-promised mission 
performance capabilities.
  In addition to authorizing the Coast Guard and making improvements to 
the service's programs and capabilities, the bill also improves the 
administration of maritime transportation, including--clarifying the 
circumstances under which a foreign seaman injured outside the United 
States can sue in United States courts.
  The bill incorporates H.R. 2840, the Commercial Vessel Discharges 
Reform Act of 2011. H.R. 2840 establishes a uniform national standard 
for ballast water discharges. This provision is strongly supported by 
the U.S. and international maritime industry. It protects the 
environment and makes maritime transportation more efficient.
  H.R. 2838 also incorporates an amended version of H.R. 2839, the 
Piracy Suppression Act of 2011, which authorizes additional actions to 
suppress piracy. It also improves the tracking of ransom payments to 
pirates to assure these payments do not fund terrorism.
  This bill promotes maritime safety and security and make makes 
maritime commerce more efficient. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' 
on H.R. 2838.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print 
dated October 28, 2011. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2838

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

Sec. 1. Short title.

                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

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

             TITLE II--COAST GUARD AND SERVICEMEMBER PARITY

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

                     TITLE III--COAST GUARD REFORM

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

                   TITLE IV--SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

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

                  TITLE V--FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Sec. 501. Authorization of appropriations.

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

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

             TITLE VII--COMMERCIAL VESSEL DISCHARGES REFORM

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

                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 16758]]

       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, 350 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition, 1,200 student years.

             TITLE II--COAST GUARD AND SERVICEMEMBER PARITY

     SEC. 201. ACADEMY EMOLUMENTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 203. APPOINTMENTS OF PERMANENT COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.

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

     SEC. 204. MINOR CONSTRUCTION.

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) In General.--Whenever the Commandant conducts an 
     accident investigation of an accident involving an aircraft 
     under the jurisdiction of the Commandant, the records and 
     report of the investigation shall be treated in accordance 
     with this section.
       ``(b) Public Disclosure of Certain Accident Investigation 
     Information.--
       ``(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Commandant, upon 
     request, shall publicly disclose unclassified tapes, 
     scientific reports, and other factual information pertinent 
     to an aircraft accident investigation.
       ``(2) The Commandant shall not disclose the information 
     requested in paragraph (1) unless the Commandant determines--
       ``(A) that such tapes, reports, or other information would 
     be included within and releasable with the final accident 
     investigation report; and
       ``(B) that release of such tapes, reports, or other 
     information--
       ``(i) would not undermine the ability of accident or safety 
     investigators to continue to conduct the investigation; and
       ``(ii) would not compromise national security.
       ``(3) A disclosure under paragraph (1) may not be made by 
     or through officials with responsibility for, or who are 
     conducting, a safety investigation with respect to the 
     accident.
       ``(c) Opinions Regarding Causation of Accident.--Following 
     an aircraft accident referred to in subsection (a)--
       ``(1) if the evidence surrounding the accident is 
     sufficient for the investigators who conduct the accident 
     investigation to come to an opinion as to the cause or causes 
     of the accident, the final report of the accident 
     investigation shall set forth the opinion of the 
     investigators as to the cause or causes of the accident; and
       ``(2) if the evidence surrounding the accident is not 
     sufficient for the investigators to come to

[[Page 16759]]

     an opinion as to the cause or causes of the accident, the 
     final report of the accident investigation shall include a 
     description of those factors, if any, that, in the opinion of 
     the investigators, substantially contributed to or caused the 
     accident.
       ``(d) Use of Information in Civil Proceedings.--For 
     purposes of any civil or criminal proceeding arising from an 
     aircraft accident referred to in subsection (a), any opinion 
     of the accident investigators as to the cause of, or the 
     factors contributing to, the accident set forth in the 
     accident investigation report may not be considered as 
     evidence in such proceeding, nor may such report be 
     considered an admission of liability by the United States or 
     by any person referred to in such report.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Commandant shall prescribe 
     regulations to carry out this section.
       ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `accident investigation' means any form of 
     investigation by Coast Guard personnel of an aircraft 
     accident referred to in subsection (a), other than a safety 
     investigation; and
       ``(2) the term `safety investigation' means an 
     investigation by Coast Guard personnel of an aircraft 
     accident referred to in subsection (a), that is conducted 
     solely to determine the cause of the accident and to obtain 
     information that may prevent the occurrence of similar 
     accidents.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of 
     such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

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

     SEC. 206. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE EXPEDITED HIRING AUTHORITY.

       Section 404 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-281; 124 Stat. 2950) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``as shortage 
     category positions;'' and inserting ``as positions for which 
     there exists a shortage of candidates or there is a critical 
     hiring need;''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraph'' and inserting ``section''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``2012.'' and inserting ``2015.''.

     SEC. 207. COAST GUARD HOUSING REPORT.

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

     SEC. 208. ADVANCE PROCUREMENT FUNDING.

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

     ``Sec. 577. Advance procurement funding

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

``577. Advance procurement funding.''.

                     TITLE III--COAST GUARD REFORM

     SEC. 301. REPEALS.

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

     SEC. 302. INTERFERENCE WITH COAST GUARD TRANSMISSIONS.

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

     SEC. 303. NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTERS.

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

     ``Sec. 569a. National security cutters

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

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

     SEC. 304. MAJOR ACQUISITIONS REPORT.

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

     ``Sec. 569b. Major acquisitions report

       ``(a) Major Acquisition Programs Implementation Report.--In 
     conjunction with the transmittal by the President of the 
     budget of the United States for fiscal year 2013 and every 
     two fiscal years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives a report on the status of all 
     major acquisition programs.
       ``(b) Information To Be Included.--The report shall include 
     for each major acquisition program--
       ``(1) a statement of Coast Guard's mission needs and 
     performance goals for such program, including a justification 
     for any change to those needs and goals from any report 
     previously submitted under this subsection;
       ``(2) a justification for how the projected number and 
     capabilities of each planned acquisition program asset meets 
     those mission needs and performance goals;
       ``(3) an identification of any and all mission hour gaps, 
     accompanied by an explanation on how and when the Coast Guard 
     will close those gaps;
       ``(4) an identification of any changes to such program, 
     including--
       ``(A) any changes to the timeline for the acquisition of 
     each new asset and the phase out of legacy assets; and
       ``(B) any changes to the costs of new assets and legacy 
     assets for that fiscal year, future fiscal years, or the 
     total acquisition cost;
       ``(5) a justification for how any change to such program 
     fulfills the mission needs and performance goals of the Coast 
     Guard;
       ``(6) a description of how the Coast Guard is planning for 
     the integration of each new asset acquired under such program 
     into the Coast Guard, including needs related to shore-based 
     infrastructure and human resources;
       ``(7) an identification of how funds in that fiscal year's 
     budget request will be allocated, including information on 
     the purchase of specific assets;
       ``(8) a projection of the remaining operational lifespan 
     and lifecycle cost of each legacy asset that also identifies 
     any anticipated resource gaps;
       ``(9) a detailed explanation of how the costs of the legacy 
     assets are being accounted for within such program;
       ``(10) an annual performance comparison of new assets to 
     legacy assets; and
       ``(11) an identification of the scope of the anticipated 
     acquisitions workload for the next fiscal year; the number of 
     officers, members, and

[[Page 16760]]

     employees of the Coast Guard currently assigned to positions 
     in the acquisition workforce; and a determination on the 
     adequacy of the current acquisition workforce to meet that 
     anticipated workload, including the specific positions that 
     are or will be understaffed, and actions that will be taken 
     to correct such understaffing.
       ``(c) Cutters Not Maintained in Class.--Each report under 
     subsection (a) shall identify which, if any, Coast Guard 
     cutters that have been issued a certificate of classification 
     by the American Bureau of Shipping have not been maintained 
     in class with an explanation detailing the reasons why they 
     have not been maintained in class.
       ``(d) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     term `major acquisition program' means an ongoing acquisition 
     undertaken by the Coast Guard with a life-cycle cost estimate 
     greater than or equal to $300,000,000.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of 
     such chapter is further amended by adding at the end of the 
     items relating to such subchapter the following:

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

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

     SEC. 305. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION BACKLOG.

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

     ``Sec. 693. Annual report to Congress

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

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

     SEC. 306. COAST GUARD AUXILIARIST ENROLLMENT ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 823 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``citizens of the United States and its territories 
     and possessions,'' and inserting ``nationals of the United 
     States (as such term is defined in section 101(a)(22) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) and 
     aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as such 
     term is defined in section 101(a)(20) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101 (a)(20))),''.

     SEC. 307. DECOMMISSIONINGS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 309. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES.

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

     SEC. 310. RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF AIRCRAFT.

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

                   TITLE IV--SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

     SEC. 401. COMMITTEE ON THE MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 402. REPORT ON DETERMINATIONS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard 
     is operating shall provide to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on--
       (1) the loss of United States shipyard jobs and industrial 
     base expertise as a result of rebuild, conversion, and 
     double-hull work on United States-flag vessels eligible to 
     engage in the

[[Page 16761]]

     coastwise trade being performed in foreign shipyards;
       (2) enforcement of the Coast Guard's foreign rebuild 
     determination regulations; and
       (3) recommendations for improving the transparency in the 
     Coast Guard's foreign rebuild determination process.

     SEC. 403. DOCKSIDE EXAMINATIONS.

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

     SEC. 404. RECOURSE FOR NONCITIZENS.

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

     SEC. 405. MARITIME LIENS ON FISHING PERMITS.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 406. SHORT SEA TRANSPORTATION.

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

     SEC. 407. MISSION OF THE MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.

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

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

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

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

                  TITLE V--FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

     SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 601. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 603. NOTICE OF ARRIVAL.

       The regulations required under section 109(a) of Public Law 
     109-347 (33 U.S.C. 1223 note) on notice of arrival for 
     foreign vessels on the Outer

[[Page 16762]]

     Continental Shelf shall not apply to a vessel documented 
     under section 12105 of title 46, United States Code, unless 
     such vessel arrives from a foreign port or place.

     SEC. 604. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO TITLE 14.

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

                 ``CHAPTER 1--ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES

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

     ``Sec. 1. Establishment of Coast Guard

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

     ``Sec. 2. Primary duties

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

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

       ``(a) The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department 
     of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in 
     the Navy.
       ``(b) Upon the declaration of war if Congress so directs in 
     the declaration or when the President directs, the Coast 
     Guard shall operate as a service in the Navy, and shall so 
     continue until the President, by Executive order, transfers 
     the Coast Guard back to the Department of Homeland Security. 
     While operating as a service in the Navy, the Coast Guard 
     shall be subject to the orders of the Secretary of the Navy, 
     who may order changes in Coast Guard operations to render 
     them uniform, to the extent such Secretary deems advisable, 
     with Navy operations.
       ``(c) Whenever the Coast Guard operates as a service in the 
     Navy:
       ``(1) applicable appropriations of the Navy Department 
     shall be available for the expense of the Coast Guard;
       ``(2) applicable appropriations of the Coast Guard shall be 
     available for transfer to the Navy Department;
       ``(3) precedence between commissioned officers of 
     corresponding grades in the Coast Guard and the Navy shall be 
     determined by the date of rank stated by their commissions in 
     those grades;
       ``(4) personnel of the Coast Guard shall be eligible to 
     receive gratuities, medals, and other insignia of honor on 
     the same basis as personnel in the naval service or serving 
     in any capacity with the Navy; and
       ``(5) the Secretary may place on furlough any officer of 
     the Coast Guard and officers on furlough shall receive one 
     half of the pay to which they would be entitled if on leave 
     of absence, but officers of the Coast Guard Reserve shall not 
     be so placed on furlough.

     ``Sec. 4. Secretary defined

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

     SEC. 605. DISTANT WATER TUNA FLEET.

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

     SEC. 606. WAIVERS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 608. STANDBY VESSELS.

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

                     ``CHAPTER 807--STANDBY VESSELS

``Sec.
``80701. Standby vessels.

     ``Sec. 80701. Standby vessels

       ``(a) In General.--The owner or operator of a manned 
     facility, installation, unit, or vessel shall locate a 
     standby vessel--
       ``(1) not more than 3 nautical miles from such manned 
     facility, installation, unit, or vessel while it is 
     performing drilling, plugging, abandoning, or workover 
     operations; and
       ``(2) not more than 12 nautical miles from such manned 
     facility, installation, unit, or vessel while it is 
     performing operations other than drilling, plugging, 
     abandoning, or workover operations.
       ``(b) Improved Standby Vessel Response Time.--
       ``(1) In general.--A Coast Guard District Commander may 
     reduce the distances prescribed in subsection (a) for the 
     area of command of the District Commander if the District 
     Commander determines the reduction is necessary to address 
     delays in standby vessel response times caused by inclement 
     weather, high seas, or other conditions that prolong standby 
     vessel response time or lessen the time survivors of an 
     accident can remain in the water.
       ``(2) Approximation of normal response time.--Any reduction 
     under paragraph (1) shall be made to a distance that, in 
     weather conditions necessitating the reduction, ensures that 
     a standby vessel's response time approximates that of a 
     standby vessel covering the distance prescribed in subsection 
     (a) during normal weather conditions.
       ``(3) Prevention of hypothermia.--Any reduction under 
     paragraph (1) made due to water temperature or other factors 
     that reduce the time survivors of an accident can remain in 
     the water shall be made to a distance at which a standby 
     vessel can be assumed to reach the survivor before the onset 
     of hypothermia.
       ``(4) Notice to owners and operators.--Before exercising 
     the authority in paragraph (1), a District Commander shall 
     provide 72 hours notice to the owners and operators of 
     standby vessels and owners and operators of manned 
     facilities, installations, units, and vessels operating in 
     the District Commander's area of command.

[[Page 16763]]

       ``(c) Multiple Platforms and Uses.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to prohibit--
       ``(1) use of one standby vessel for more than one manned 
     facility, installation, unit, or vessel; or
       ``(2) use of a standby vessel for other purposes.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of such subtitle is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

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

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

     SEC. 609. CAP ON PENALTY WAGES.

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

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

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on factors under the authority of the Coast 
     Guard that impact the ability of vessels documented in the 
     United States to effectively compete in international 
     transportation markets.
       (b) Content.--The report shall include--
       (1) a review of differences in Coast Guard policies and 
     regulations governing the inspection of vessels documented in 
     the United States and the policies and regulations of the 
     International Maritime Organization governing the inspection 
     of vessels not documented in the United States;
       (2) a statement on the impact such differences have on 
     operating costs for vessels documented in the United States; 
     and
       (3) recommendations on whether to harmonize any differences 
     in the policies and regulations governing inspection of 
     vessels by the Coast Guard and the International Maritime 
     Organization.
       (c) Consultation.--In preparing the report, the Commandant 
     may consider the views of representatives of the owners or 
     operators of vessels documented in the United States and the 
     organizations representing the employees employed on such 
     vessels.

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

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on drug interdiction in the Caribbean basin.
       (b) Content.--The report shall include--
       (1) a statement of the Coast Guard mission requirements for 
     drug interdiction in the Caribbean basin;
       (2) the number of maritime surveillance hours and Coast 
     Guard assets used in each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011 
     to counter the illicit trafficking of drugs and other related 
     threats throughout the Caribbean basin; and
       (3) a determination of whether such hours and assets 
     satisfied the Coast Guard mission requirements for drug 
     interdiction in the Caribbean basin.

             TITLE VII--COMMERCIAL VESSEL DISCHARGES REFORM

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 702. DISCHARGES FROM COMMERCIAL VESSELS.

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

     ``SEC. 321. DISCHARGES FROM COMMERCIAL VESSELS.

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

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

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

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

       ``(ii) an emission of an air pollutant resulting from the 
     operation onboard a commercial vessel of a vessel propulsion 
     system, motor driven equipment, or incinerator.

[[Page 16764]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(v) Consideration of petitions.--

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

       ``(c) Ballast Water Performance Standard for Commercial 
     Vessels.--
       ``(1) In general.--To meet the ballast water performance 
     standard, an owner or operator shall--
       ``(A) conduct ballast water treatment before discharging 
     ballast water from a commercial vessel into navigable waters 
     using a ballast water treatment technology certified for the 
     vessel (or class, type, or size of vessel) under subsection 
     (e); and
       ``(B) ensure that any ballast water so discharged meets, at 
     a minimum, the numerical ballast water performance standard 
     set forth in the International Convention for the Control and 
     Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, as adopted 
     on February 13, 2004, or a revised numerical ballast water 
     performance standard established under subsection (d).

[[Page 16765]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 16766]]

       ``(i) maintains the treatment technology in proper working 
     condition; and
       ``(ii) maintains and uses the treatment technology in 
     accordance with--

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

       ``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall cease to apply 
     with respect to a commercial vessel after the first to occur 
     of the following:
       ``(i) The expiration of the service life of the ballast 
     water treatment technology of the vessel, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(ii) The expiration of service life of the vessel, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(iii) The completion of a major conversion of the vessel.
       ``(4) Testing protocols.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary, shall issue guidelines 
     specifying land-based and shipboard testing protocols or 
     criteria for--
       ``(A) certifying the performance of ballast water treatment 
     technologies under this subsection; and
       ``(B) certifying laboratories to evaluate such treatment 
     technologies.
       ``(5) Prohibition.--Following the date on which the 
     requirements of subsection (b)(1) apply with respect to a 
     commercial vessel pursuant to the implementation schedule 
     issued under subsection (b)(3)(B), no manufacturer of a 
     ballast water treatment technology shall sell, offer for 
     sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into 
     interstate commerce, or import into the United States for 
     sale or resale, a ballast water treatment technology for the 
     commercial vessel unless the technology has been certified 
     under this subsection.
       ``(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator, shall establish an 
     alternative method of compliance with this section for a 
     commercial vessel having a maximum ballast water capacity of 
     less than 8 cubic meters.
       ``(2) Factors for consideration.--In establishing an 
     alternative method of compliance under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) the effectiveness of the alternative method in 
     reducing the risk of the introduction or establishment of 
     aquatic nuisance species relative to the performance 
     standard; and
       ``(B) any other factor the Secretary considers appropriate.
       ``(3) Best management practices.--The Secretary may 
     establish as an alternative method of compliance appropriate 
     ballast water best management practices to minimize the 
     introduction or establishment of aquatic nuisance species.
       ``(g) Geographically Limited Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsections (c), (e), and (i) shall not 
     apply to a commercial vessel that--
       ``(A) operates exclusively within a geographically limited 
     area, as determined by the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Administrator; or
       ``(B) operates pursuant to a geographic restriction issued 
     for the commercial vessel under section 3309 of title 46, 
     United States Code.
       ``(2) Petition for determination by the secretary.--
       ``(A) Submission of petitions.--Following the date of 
     issuance of final regulations under subsection (b), an owner 
     or operator may petition the Secretary for a determination 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Determinations.--The Secretary shall approve or deny 
     a petition submitted by an owner or operator under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Deadline.--If the Secretary does not approve or deny 
     a petition submitted by an owner or operator under 
     subparagraph (A) on or before the last day of the 90-day 
     period beginning on the date of submission of the petition, 
     the petition shall be deemed approved.
       ``(3) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the 
     Administrator and the Governor of each State the waters of 
     which could be affected by the discharge of ballast water 
     from a commercial vessel for which a petition has been 
     granted under paragraph (2) of the granting of any such 
     petition.
       ``(4) Best management practices.--For a commercial vessel 
     for which a petition is granted under paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall require the owner or operator to implement 
     appropriate ballast water best management practices to 
     minimize the introduction or establishment of aquatic 
     nuisance species.
       ``(h) Reception Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--An owner or operator shall discharge 
     ballast water in compliance with subsection (c) or (f) unless 
     discharging ballast water into--
       ``(A) an onshore facility for the reception of ballast 
     water that meets standards issued by the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary; or
       ``(B) an offshore facility for the reception of ballast 
     water that meets standards issued by the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator.
       ``(2) Issuance of standards.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this section--
       ``(A) the Administrator, in consultation with the 
     Secretary, shall issue the standards referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A); and
       ``(B) the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator, shall issue the standards referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(3) Sole method of discharge.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator, and upon petition by an 
     owner or operator, may issue to an owner or operator a 
     certificate stating that a commercial vessel is in compliance 
     with the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(A) if discharging 
     ballast water into a facility meeting the standards issued 
     under this subsection is the sole method by which the owner 
     or operator discharges ballast water from the commercial 
     vessel.
       ``(4) Ballast water management plans.--An owner or operator 
     discharging ballast water under this subsection shall 
     discharge such water in accordance with a ballast water 
     management plan approved under subsection (i).
       ``(i) Commercial Vessel Ballast Water Management Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--An owner or operator shall discharge 
     ballast water in accordance with a ballast water management 
     plan that--
       ``(A) meets requirements prescribed by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) is approved by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Foreign commercial vessels.--The Secretary may 
     approve a ballast water management plan for a foreign 
     commercial vessel on the basis of a certificate of compliance 
     issued by the country of registration of the commercial 
     vessel if the requirements of the government of that country 
     for a ballast water management plan are substantially 
     equivalent to regulations issued by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Recordkeeping.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided by subparagraph (B), 
     an owner or operator shall maintain in English and have 
     available for inspection by the Secretary a ballast water 
     record book in which each operation of the commercial vessel 
     involving a ballast water discharge is recorded in accordance 
     with regulations issued by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Alternative means of recordkeeping.--The Secretary 
     may provide for alternative methods of recordkeeping, 
     including electronic recordkeeping, to comply with the 
     requirements of this paragraph.
       ``(j) Regulation of Ballast Water Discharges.--Effective on 
     and after the date of enactment of this section--
       ``(1) the Administrator (or a State in the case of a permit 
     program approved under section 402) shall not require any new 
     permit or permit condition under section 402 for any 
     discharge of ballast water from a commercial vessel into 
     navigable waters; and
       ``(2) except as provided by subsection (k), a State or 
     political subdivision thereof shall not adopt or enforce any 
     law or regulation of the State or political subdivision with 
     respect to such a discharge.
       ``(k) State Authority.--
       ``(1) State programs.--The Governor of a State desiring to 
     administer its own inspection and enforcement authority for 
     ballast water discharges within its jurisdiction may submit 
     to the Secretary a complete description of the program the 
     Governor proposes to establish and administer under State 
     law. In addition, the Governor shall submit a statement from 
     the State attorney general that the laws of the State provide 
     adequate authority to carry out the described program.
       ``(2) Approval.--The Secretary, with the concurrence of the 
     Administrator, may approve a program of a State submitted 
     under paragraph (1) providing for the State's own inspection 
     and enforcement authority for ballast water discharges within 
     its jurisdiction, if the Secretary determines that the State 
     possesses adequate resources to--
       ``(A) inspect, monitor, and board a commercial vessel at 
     any time, including the taking and testing of ballast water 
     samples, to ensure the commercial vessel's compliance with 
     this section;
       ``(B) ensure that any ballast water discharged within the 
     waters subject to the jurisdiction of the State meets the 
     requirements of this section;
       ``(C) establish adequate procedures for reporting 
     violations of this section;
       ``(D) investigate and abate violations of this section, 
     including the imposition of civil and criminal penalties 
     consistent with subsection (o); and
       ``(E) ensure that the Secretary and the Administrator 
     receive notice of each violation of this section in an 
     expeditious manner.
       ``(3) Compliance.--Any State program approved under 
     paragraph (2) shall at all times be conducted in accordance 
     with this subsection.
       ``(4) Withdrawal of approval.--Whenever the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator, determines, after 
     providing notice and the opportunity for a public hearing, 
     that a State is not administering a program in accordance 
     with the terms of the program as approved under paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary shall notify the State, and, if 
     appropriate corrective action is not taken within a period of 
     time not to exceed 90 days, the Secretary, with the 
     concurrence of the Administrator, shall withdraw approval of 
     the program. The Secretary shall not withdraw approval of a 
     program unless the Secretary has first notified the State and 
     made public, in writing, the reasons for the withdrawal.
       ``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall limit the authority of the 
     Administrator or the Secretary to carry out inspections of 
     any commercial vessel under subsection (n).
       ``(6) State laws.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, a State may enact such laws as are necessary to 
     provide for the implementation of the State ballast water 
     inspection and enforcement program provided under this 
     subsection. The requirements for a ballast water

[[Page 16767]]

     inspection and enforcement program contained in such State 
     law shall be substantively and procedurally equivalent to 
     those required in this section, and any requirements relating 
     to recordkeeping, reporting, and sampling or analysis 
     contained in such State law shall be substantively and 
     procedurally equivalent to the requirements of this section 
     and its implementing regulations and guidance.
       ``(l) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operations of a 
     Commercial Vessel.--
       ``(1) Evaluation of incidental discharges.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary, shall complete an evaluation of 
     discharges incidental to the normal operation of a commercial 
     vessel.
       ``(B) Factors.--In carrying out the evaluation, the 
     Administrator shall analyze--
       ``(i) the characterization of the various types and 
     composition of discharges incidental to the normal operation 
     of a commercial vessel by different classes, types, and sizes 
     of commercial vessels;
       ``(ii) the volume of such discharges for representative 
     individual commercial vessels and by classes, types, and 
     sizes of commercial vessels in the aggregate;
       ``(iii) the availability and feasibility of implementing 
     technologies or best management practices for the control of 
     such discharges;
       ``(iv) the characteristics of the receiving waters of such 
     discharges;
       ``(v) the nature and extent of potential effects of such 
     discharges on human health, welfare, and the environment;
       ``(vi) the extent to which such discharges are currently 
     subject to and addressed by regulations under existing 
     Federal laws or binding international obligations of the 
     United States; and
       ``(vii) any additional factor that the Administrator 
     considers appropriate.
       ``(2) Regulation of incidental discharges.--Effective on 
     and after the date of enactment of this section--
       ``(A) the Administrator (or a State in the case of a permit 
     program approved under section 402) shall not require any new 
     permit or permit conditions under section 402 for any 
     discharge incidental to the normal operation of a commercial 
     vessel; and
       ``(B) a State or political subdivision thereof shall not 
     adopt or enforce any law or regulation of the State or 
     political subdivision with respect to such a discharge.
       ``(m) Effect on Vessel General Permit.--
       ``(1) Expiration.--Notwithstanding the expiration date set 
     forth in the Vessel General Permit, the Vessel General Permit 
     shall expire as follows:
       ``(A) The terms and conditions of section 6 of such permit 
     or any law of a State regulating the discharge of ballast 
     water or any discharge incidental to the normal operation of 
     a commercial vessel, upon the date of enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(B) For each commercial vessel, the terms and conditions 
     of such permit (except the terms and conditions referred to 
     in subparagraph (A)) applicable to a discharge of ballast 
     water--
       ``(i) on the date on which--

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a 
     Covered Vessel.--
       (1) No permit required.--Section 402 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(s) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a 
     Covered Vessel.--No permit shall be required under this Act 
     by the Administrator (or a State, in the case of a permit 
     program approved under subsection (b)) for a discharge 
     incidental to the normal operation of a covered vessel (as 
     defined in section 312(p)).''.
       (2) Best management practices for covered vessels.--Section 
     312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Best Management Practices for Covered Vessels.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Covered vessel.--The term `covered vessel' means 
     every description of watercraft, or other artificial 
     contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of 
     transportation on water, that is engaged in commercial 
     service (as defined under section 2101 of title 46, United 
     States Code), and--
       ``(i) is less than 79 feet in length; or
       ``(ii) is a fishing vessel (as defined in section 2101 of 
     title 46, United States Code), regardless of length of the 
     vessel.
       ``(B) Discharge incidental to the normal operation of a 
     covered vessel.--The term `discharge incidental to the normal 
     operation of a covered vessel' means a discharge incidental 
     to the normal operation of a commercial vessel (as defined in 
     section 321), insofar as the commercial vessel is a covered 
     vessel.
       ``(2) Determination of discharges subject to best 
     management practices.--
       ``(A) Determination.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating, shall determine the discharges incidental to the 
     normal operation of a covered vessel for which it is 
     reasonable and practicable to develop best management 
     practices to mitigate the adverse impacts of such discharges 
     on the waters of the United States.
       ``(ii) Promulgation.--The Administrator shall promulgate 
     the determinations under clause (i) in accordance with 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In making a determination under 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall consider--

[[Page 16768]]

       ``(i) the nature of the discharge;
       ``(ii) the environmental effects of the discharge, 
     including characteristics of the receiving waters;
       ``(iii) the effectiveness of the best management practice 
     in reducing adverse impacts of the discharge on water 
     quality;
       ``(iv) the practicability of developing and using a best 
     management practice;
       ``(v) the effect that the use of a best management practice 
     would have on the operation, operational capability, or 
     safety of the vessel;
       ``(vi) applicable Federal and State law;
       ``(vii) applicable international standards; and
       ``(viii) the economic costs of the use of the best 
     management practice.
       ``(C) Timing.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(i) make initial determinations under subparagraph (A) 
     not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) every 5 years thereafter--

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 704. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


               Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Page 56, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 612. REPORT ON SURVIVAL CRAFT.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on the carriage of survival craft that 
     ensures no part of an individual is immersed in water.
       (b) Content.--The report shall include information on--
       (1) the number of casualties as the result of immersion in 
     water by vessel type and area of operation reported to the 
     Coast Guard for each of fiscal years 1991 through 2011;
       (2) the effect the carriage of such survival craft has on 
     vessel safety, including stability and safe navigation;
       (3) the efficacy of alternative safety systems, devices, or 
     measures; and
       (4) the cost and cost-effectiveness of requiring the 
     carriage of such survival craft on vessels.
       Page 58, line 15, after ``technology'' insert ``to reduce 
     or eliminate aquatic invasive species''.
       Page 62, line 2, strike ``or'' at the end.
       Page 62, line 7, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; or''.
       Page 62, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(iii) a discharge into navigable waters from a commercial 
     vessel when the commercial vessel is operating in a capacity 
     other than as a means of transportation on water.
       Page 64, line 3, strike ``December 19, 2008,'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end of line 5 and insert 
     ``February 6, 2009.''.
       Page 65, line 12, strike ``point'' and insert ``port or 
     place''.
       Page 65, line 22, insert ``, if such system does not 
     introduce aquatic nuisance species into navigable waters, as 
     determined by the

[[Page 16769]]

     Secretary in consultation with the Administrator'' before the 
     semicolon at the end.
       Page 71, line 11, strike ``this subparagraph'' and insert 
     ``clause (ii)(II)''.
       Page 86, line 8, strike ``guidelines specifying'' and 
     insert ``requirements for''.
       Page 87, beginning on line 6, strike ``this section for'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end of line 8 
     and insert the following: ``this section for--
       ``(A) a commercial vessel having a maximum ballast water 
     capacity of less than 8 cubic meters; and
       ``(B) a commercial vessel that is 3 years or fewer from the 
     end of its useful life, as determined by the Secretary 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B)(v).
       Page 87, line 24, strike ``Subsections (c), (e), and (i)'' 
     and insert ``Subsection (c)''.
       Page 88, beginning on line 2, strike ``, as determined by 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator''.
       Page 88, line 7, insert ``, or an equivalent restriction, 
     as determined by the Secretary, issued by the country of 
     registration of the commercial vessel'' before the period.
       Page 107, line 10, insert ``, in consultation with the 
     Administrator,'' before ``shall promulgate''.
       Page 110, after line 18, add the following:

                           TITLE VIII--PIRACY

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 804. SECURITY OF GOVERNMENT IMPELLED CARGO.

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

     SEC. 805. GAO STUDY.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on 
     efforts to track ransom payments paid to pirates operating in 
     the waters off Somalia and improve the prosecution of such 
     pirates. The report shall include--
       (1) the status of Working Group 5 of the Contact Group on 
     Piracy Off the Somali Coast, any efforts undertaken by the 
     Working Group, and recommendations for improving the Working 
     Group's effectiveness;
       (2) efforts undertaken by the United States Government to 
     implement and enforce Executive Order 13536, including 
     recommendations on how to better implement that order to 
     suppress piracy;
       (3) efforts undertaken by the United States Government to 
     track ransom payments made to pirates operating off the coast 
     of Somalia, the effectiveness of those efforts, any 
     operational actions taken based off those efforts, and 
     recommendations on how to improve such tracking;
       (4) actions taken by the United States Government to 
     improve the international prosecution of pirates captured off 
     the coast of Somalia; and
       (5) an update on the United States Government's efforts to 
     implement the recommendation contained in General 
     Accountability Office report GAO-10-856, entitled ``Maritime 
     Security: Actions Needed to Assess and Update Plan and 
     Enhance Collaboration among Partners Involved in Countering 
     Piracy off the Horn of Africa'', that metrics should be 
     established for measuring the effectiveness of counter piracy 
     efforts.


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

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


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

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


          Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Cummings of Maryland

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

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

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

[[Page 16770]]




            Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

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

     SEC. 409. CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES.

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


         Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

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

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

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

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

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

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


            Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Brown of Florida

       At the end of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 612. REQUIREMENT OF CORPS.

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


          Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Ribble of Wisconsin

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

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the en bloc 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in support of Mr. LoBiondo's manager's amendment and 
appreciate its consideration en bloc with other amendments.
  In general, the amendment provides helpful technical and clarifying 
changes to the underlying committee print which will improve the bill. 
In particular, the provision that grants the Coast Guard discretionary 
authority to extend the duration of medal certificates is important 
because it will help ensure that mariners are not left on the dock 
simply because of administrative backlogs within the Coast Guard 
preventing the timely issuance of new certificates.
  Also I support the inclusion of the amended version of Chairman 
LoBiondo's piracy legislation, H.R. 2039, the Piracy Suppression Act of 
2011, and expect that it will help to strengthen our efforts abroad to 
address the growing threat piracy poses to maritime commerce.
  In regards to additional amendments in the en bloc, Mr. Shuler's 
Amendment No. 2 is an important one and encourages all federal agencies 
certainly to enter into contracts and buy products produced in the 
U.S., creating jobs for Americans, and the Coast Guard should be no 
exception.
  With regards to Mr. Cummings' amendment, I am certainly supportive of 
that. It mirrors H.R. 3202. Waivers granted by the Maritime 
Administration this past summer to allow foreign-flagged vessels to 
transport oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to other areas in 
U.S. territorial waters raised legitimate concerns that the 
administrative waiver process lacked transparency and accountability. 
This amendment would establish new notice and justification 
requirements for waivers of our Coast Guard's laws and would help to 
ensure that our merchant fleet is not unnecessarily disadvantaged in 
the future.
  With regards to Mr. Murphy's amendment, the gentleman from 
Connecticut, I can think of no reason why it would not be appropriate 
for the Coast Guard, when it is soliciting for competitive proposals, 
to also seek optional job impact statements from these companies 
bidding on the contract. This will allow the contract officer to assess 
not only cost comparisons, but also job creation comparisons when 
making an award and would serve the interests of both the Federal 
Government and the offerer. This would appear to me to be a good way at 
little or not cost to better leverage the job-creating potential of 
contracts awarded by the Coast Guard. And certainly I want to thank the 
chairman for including Mr. Murphy's amendment into the en bloc 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, certainly there are a few other amendments that folks can 
speak to at the time that they wish, but we have no objection to the en 
bloc, and we encourage its support and its passage.

[[Page 16771]]

  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the McCaul 
Amendment to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.
  For over 75 years, the Jones Act allowed only one non-governmental 
organization, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), a not-for-profit 
marine classification society located in my district in Houston, the 
authority to review and inspect U.S. flagged vessels on behalf of the 
U.S. Coast Guard.
  In 1996, Congress expanded this authority to allow foreign-based 
classification societies to perform similar tasks.
  Today, five foreign classification societies act as Agents of our 
government on behalf of the Coast Guard.
  Unfortunately, four of these foreign organizations also act as Agents 
of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the review and inspection of Iranian 
flagged vessels.
  These foreign-based classification societies also continue to have 
business interest with, and often operate within, other rogue nations 
and state sponsors of terrorism.
  I support the McCaul Amendment, which would close this loophole in 
our laws and send a clear message to foreign-based classification 
societies that you must choose to work with the United States or work 
with state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the word 
and spirit of the Iranian sanctions regime that this Chamber has 
supported time and again, and vote in favor of this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cummings

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

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

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

                              {time}  1220

  I authored the provisions creating the ombudsman at the request of 
the port community, which approached me seeking another mechanism to 
engage with the Coast Guard to ensure that the application of 
regulations achieves critical safety and security objectives while 
having the least possible impact on commerce.
  Many Members of Congress, and particularly those on the other side of 
the aisle, profess that limiting the power of government and ensuring 
that businesses are not burdened by inappropriate regulations are among 
their top priorities. Given these priorities and given the need to 
ensure that regulations do not threaten commerce or jobs, I am frankly 
quite deeply surprised that the majority would seek to eliminate a 
provision that specifically provides businesses with an avenue through 
which they can seek changes in regulatory decisions in an effort to 
improve their businesses.
  Let me also be clear that I understand that the Coast Guard has not 
yet appointed any ombudsman--and I know that the service would probably 
prefer never to appoint an ombudsman because they would prefer that 
their regulatory decisions not be challenged. That said, rather than 
eliminating the requirement that the Coast Guard appoint an ombudsman, 
I believe that this authority should be implemented quickly to give 
businesses the opportunity to improve the application of Coast Guard 
regulations.
  Finally, let me also explain that this provision does not require any 
new personnel to be hired. The statutory language is clear, and staff 
have reconfirmed with the Coast Guard that the position of ombudsman 
could be a collateral duty that a qualified staff member performs in 
addition to their other duties. This is not my ideal arrangement, but I 
raise this point so that it is clear that the implementation of this 
provision does not require the Coast Guard to hire new staff members.
  I urge all Members who are concerned about the impact that undue 
regulatory burdens may have on commerce to join me in supporting this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his 
kind comments. And it is correct, we've had an outstanding working 
relationship. We've been able to come together on many issues and share 
a lot of information that has helped us both come to a better 
conclusion.
  Unfortunately, in even great relationships sometimes there is some 
disagreement. It's an honest disagreement on how we should proceed. I 
understand the gentleman's argument, but I believe that the provision 
is duplicative and costly. The implementation of this language I think 
will worsen the challenges for the Coast Guard at a time when they're 
facing very difficult money constraints. We've heard the talk about how 
they don't have the resources to do what they need to do, and we have 
to worry about their critical missions being able to be conducted.
  The Coast Guard does not support the adoption of this provision; they 
did not last year. I, once again, want to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland for working so closely with me, but, unfortunately, I have to 
oppose this particular amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I support Mr. Cummings' amendment striking 
the provision in the underlying bill that would eliminate the 
requirement for the Coast Guard to establish ombudsmen in Coast Guard 
districts around the country.

[[Page 16772]]

  In committee, Mr. Cummings offered and subsequently withdrew his 
amendment in the hope that some compromise could be reached. Because 
the program is little more than a year old, I suggest that it might be 
premature for Congress to repeal this new program. But I certainly do 
want to recognize the work that Mr. Cummings and Mr. LoBiondo did to 
try to find some accommodation.
  But I do encourage people to support this amendment to allow the 
ombudsman program to continue so that we might be better able to get a 
fair evaluation of the program in the future.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

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

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 2__. ACADEMY NOMINATIONS.

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

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

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

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  My amendment would allow Members of Congress to nominate qualified 
candidates for admission to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
  Located in New London, Connecticut, the Coast Guard Academy is one of 
the five prestigious U.S. service academies. The others are the 
Military Academy in West Point, New York; the Naval Academy in 
Annapolis, Maryland; the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, 
Colorado; and the Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York.
  These service academies provide 4-year undergraduate educations on a 
tuition-free basis to help mold talented young people into the Nation's 
future leaders. Upon graduation, service academy cadets become 
commissioned officers in active or reserve components of the military, 
the Merchant Marines, or the U.S. Coast Guard.
  Under current law, Members of Congress are authorized to nominate 
candidates to all U.S. service academies except the U.S. Coast Guard 
Academy. The Coast Guard Academy uses an admissions process similar to 
the processes used at traditional civilian colleges and universities.
  On an average, the Coast Guard accepts almost 400 applicants each 
academic year. Of those 400 applicants, a disproportionate number hail 
from States that border the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The rest of 
the country is largely underrepresented. My amendment seeks to foster 
greater geographic diversity in the Coast Guard Academy's applicant 
pool by allowing each Member of Congress to nominate up to three 
qualified candidates. Similar language that I offered with the 
gentleman from Maryland, Representative Cummings, was accepted by voice 
vote during consideration of the 2012 Coast Guard authorization bill. I 
want to recognize Representative Cummings as a cosponsor of my 
amendment and a true partner in this effort.
  Under my amendment, for academic year 2013, the Coast Guard would be 
required to allocate a quarter of the slots in the incoming class to 
qualified candidates submitted through the congressional nomination 
process. In subsequent academic years, half of the slots would be 
filled through the congressional nomination process.
  My amendment does not require the Coast Guard to alter or lower its 
selection criteria. To the contrary, it anticipates that the Coast 
Guard will utilize its criteria to select the best candidates from the 
pool of Member-nominated candidates to fill half of the slots in the 
incoming class, just as it will do in filling the remaining slots in 
the other half of the class.
  Additionally, my amendment does not require the Coast Guard to 
increase class sizes; that's a decision for the Coast Guard. At its 
essence, it seeks to ensure that the Coast Guard attracts the best 
candidates from all over the country by increasing the applicant pool.
  Each of us has experienced the disappointment of having a talented 
young person that we nominated to one of the four other service 
academies rejected. We all understand that it's a very competitive 
process and slots are scarce. I, for one, would welcome the opportunity 
to bring that person to the attention of the Coast Guard Academy and 
help put him or her on a path to accomplishing much for themselves, 
their families, and the Nation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I appreciate what the gentleman from Mississippi is 
attempting to do here; however, I don't think this is workable. Every 
Member of Congress would, every 4 years, get to nominate someone to the 
Coast Guard Academy. I send a number of qualified young people in that 
direction every year. And the Coast Guard strongly opposes this 
amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  First of all, I just want to salute the amazing effort by 
Representative Cummings and Representative Thompson over the last 4 or 
5 years to really, I think, profoundly change behavior at the Academy's 
admissions office in terms of forcing them to widen the

[[Page 16773]]

scope of their search for qualified students all across America. In the 
incoming class this year, we have students who hail from 48 States. We 
have 31 percent female cadets starting this year and 21 percent 
minority.

                              {time}  1230

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


          Congressional Nominations at the Coast Guard Academy

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

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

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

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


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Palazzo

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

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

     SEC. 303. MAJOR ACQUISITIONS REPORT.

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

     ``Sec. 569a. Major acquisitions report

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

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would strike section 303 of the bill, which places 
harmful restrictions on the future contracting and construction of the 
United States Coast Guard national security cutter.
  The national security cutter is a much needed and extremely cost-
effective ship for the Coast Guard, and it has actively proven its 
value through highly successful counterdrug and other missions while 
replacing an aging Coast Guard fleet. This is a ship the Coast Guard 
desperately needs and replaces the 378-foot endurance cutters, most of 
which are 40 to 50 years old.
  Just recently, the commandant of the Coast Guard told the press, we 
can't the get rest of those out soon enough. On average, the Coast 
Guard's legacy high-endurance cutters are able to achieve approximately 
140 of their programmed 185 days under way a year.
  Maintenance costs continue to escalate, and further delay of the 
transition to national security cutters will

[[Page 16774]]

only exacerbate challenges we are already facing meeting fleet 
readiness and mission requirements. This ship represents the 
centerpiece of the Coast Guard fleet.
  The first two national security cutters are enabling the Coast Guard 
to meet a wide range of missions now. During initial deployment, the 
national security cutters have netted hundreds of millions of dollars 
in drug busts. In fact, the street value of cocaine seized in the NSC's 
first two deployments alone exceeds the total cost of building a 
national security cutter. It is easy to see that this ship is an 
exceptional investment in our national security.
  As it currently stands, H.R. 2838 would prohibit the Coast Guard from 
moving forward on NSC 6 and NSC 7. The $77 million pending in FY12 will 
enable the Coast Guard to contract for long lead time materials and 
transition to a planned construction contract in fiscal year '13. This 
is the most cost-effective method of procuring and building any ship, 
whether it's for the Coast Guard, Navy or the Marine Corps.
  As you delay shipbuilding contracts, labor costs and material costs 
go up as a result of standard inflation. As these costs go up, the 
costs to the taxpayers go up, called escalation.
  Simply put, by continuing steady production of this ship, we are 
saving the taxpayer money and creating a better product for the Coast 
Guard. This ship is extremely important to our Nation's industrial base 
which already faces a serious challenge in a time of tight budgets.
  National security cutters are responsible for 1,300 jobs in over 40 
States throughout the industrial base. In a time of deep cuts, this 
means real American jobs. We can't afford for America to lose more in 
terms of economic and national security. The continued, uninterrupted 
production could potentially save the taxpayers millions of dollars per 
ship and approximately 1,300 jobs across America.
  One of my greatest concerns remains the purchase of long lead time 
materials to ensure that we do not delay production in the future. I 
have spoken with Mr. LoBiondo today, and I believe that we can find a 
solution to this issue before or during the conference process. With 
the cooperation of the Coast Guard and my friends on the committee, I 
feel confident we can continue to deliver the best product to the Coast 
Guard at the best possible price to the taxpayer.
  I am willing to withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALAZZO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi and 
assure him that we have discussed and we will continue to work toward a 
common goal which we both share.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

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

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

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

                              {time}  1240

  The international officer provision was created because maritime 
officers in the western Pacific are primarily from western Pacific 
nations. U.S. maritime unions were not opposed to the provision. In 
order to meet the requirements of that provision, the bill has required 
tuna vessels to make an annual port call in American Samoa, some 2,000 
miles away.
  In 2006, the tuna fleet in the region was very small at 12 boats. 
American Samoa had a market to process the fish for those boats. Since 
2006, however, the tuna fleet in the western Pacific has grown to 38 
vessels.
  Mr. Chairman, approximately 25 of those vessels supply fish to 
western Pacific processors and then ship the fish product to 
California, to Georgia, to Illinois, to Puerto Rico for canning. These 
canneries provide thousands of U.S. jobs. These 25 vessels are still 
required to travel over 2,600 miles to American Samoa and waste 7 days 
at sea. This costs each boat more than half a million to make this 
unnecessary trip.
  The purpose of this amendment is to give these tuna boats the option 
of stopping in Guam in order to meet the requirement of visiting a U.S. 
port once a year, while receiving marine inspection by the largest 
Coast Guard sector station in the region.
  And, of course, Guam is very close to the tuna fishing grounds. 
Guam's Coast Guard infrastructure and personnel are excellently 
equipped to provide these tuna vessels with proper marine inspection 
and safety review on a timely basis.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment 
which will save our U.S. tuna industry millions of dollars. The U.S. 
House of Representatives is already on record supporting this 
provision. The provision was part of the Coast Guard authorization of 
2009 that overwhelmingly passed this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I yield my time to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I rise respectfully in opposition to the 
gentlelady's proposed amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps unknown to many of my colleagues of the House, 
for more than 50 years my little district of American Samoa has been 
the backbone of the U.S. tuna fishing and processing industries, just 
like Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have been the backbone of 
the rum industry.
  Today, the U.S. tuna processing industry includes three major brands 
of canned tuna, namely, Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, and StarKist.
  Bumble Bee was formerly owned by a Canadian company, then purchased 
by U.S. investors and is now resold to an investment group from Great 
Britain.
  Chicken of the Sea continues and has always been a subsidiary company 
of Thai Union, which currently is the world's largest producer of 
canned tuna.
  StarKist was formerly a subsidiary company of Heinz Foods Corporation 
out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, then was sold to Del Monte out of San 
Francisco, and it was purchased by the Dongwon Company out of South 
Korea.
  All three of these major tuna processor companies have corporate 
offices in Pittsburgh and in San Diego. However, their methods of 
processing and

[[Page 16775]]

canning of tuna are quite different, along with the manner in which our 
U.S. tuna fishing fleet has been operating given the tremendous change 
now taking place in the entire global tuna industry.
  I want to say that I have the utmost respect for my good friend, the 
gentlelady from California, and out of principle, I just want to 
respectfully say there are some very unique features of the situation 
and why I respectfully oppose the amendment.
  Eighty percent of the entire economy of my district depends on the 
tuna industry, and if something happens in terms of the balance between 
the processors and our fishing fleet, this is where the problems and 
the complications have come about.
  To the extent that the South Pacific Tuna Corporation, which owns 
about 25 of the 30 or 40 vessels that make up the U.S. tuna fishing 
fleet, the problem here is that we've got a problem of outsourcing, 
where two of these companies, Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee, do not 
process the whole fish.
  As far as tuna is concerned, 90 percent of the value of the tuna 
comes in the gutting and the processing. The canning is only about 10 
percent. What has happened is that Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee 
have chosen not to buy the whole fish but to simply buy the loins of 
the fish, as it was cleaned in foreign countries where workers there 
are paid only 60 cents an hour, as opposed to the only company that 
currently buys the whole fish, which is StarKist. They buy the whole 
fish, and it provides jobs for my district.
  Because of the global economic recession that we have experienced, 
and because of the terrible tsunami and earthquake that was subjected 
to my people 2 years ago, one of the processing companies, Chicken of 
the Sea, just took off after making billions of dollars worth of canned 
tuna in my little district, leaving the economy of my territory a 
disaster.
  What has happened is that there is another added feature of this 
whole problem with the tuna industry. We have what is now pending, the 
U.S. Regional Tuna Fishing Treaty with 16 other Pacific island 
countries. Part of the problem that came out of this treaty arrangement 
was, because the tuna fishing fleet at the time felt that because tuna 
was a highly migratory fish, they could go anywhere in the world and 
fish regardless of what the EEZ zones of these countries are. Well, 
they tried that in Latin America and we had our vessels confiscated. So 
what happens? Our tuna fishing fleet moved on to the western Pacific; 
and it was in that one incident that one of our vessels was confiscated 
by this little island country called the Solomon Islands, and the whole 
thing went up in the air.
  It was necessary that then-Secretary of State George Shultz and Mr. 
Negroponte came in and this was how we started having this regional 
tuna fishing treaty for and on behalf of the benefit of our tuna 
fishing fleet. And this is how we tried to do to make sure that there 
is a constant supply of tuna that could be brought in to be processed, 
the whole fish, by the two processing plants that we have in American 
Samoa. This is no longer the case.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues, vote down this proposed amendment.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 28, 2011.

     Re Docket No. USCG-2010-1146
     Docket Management Facility (M-30)
     U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground 
         Floor, New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing in support of the USCG's 
     Draft Policy Letter (CG-543) on ``Safety Requirements and 
     Manning Exemption Eligibility on Distant Water Tuna Fleet 
     Vessels'' published in the Federal Register on January 20, 
     2011.
       I am also writing to rebut misinformation put forward by 
     the South Pacific Tuna Corporation (SPTC) in response to 
     USCG-2010-1146.
     Legislative Background
       In 2005, as a Member of Congress representing the U.S. 
     Territory of American Samoa, I was involved with the 
     enactment of the initial 2006 foreign officer provision. At 
     the time, I was visited by many of the individuals now on the 
     (SPTC) team, as well as Mr. Dave Burney, now deceased, who 
     served as the Executive Director of the U.S. Tuna Foundation.
       Due to a shortage of licensed U.S. citizens willing to 
     serve as officers on U.S. tuna vessels, Mr. Burney and many 
     of the individuals now on the SPTC team sought my support for 
     a provision which would allow the U.S.-flag distant water 
     tuna fleet to employ internationally licensed personnel to 
     serve as officers (except for the master). These individuals 
     informed my office that this exemption was necessary to keep 
     American Samoa's economy stable and our canneries operational 
     given that the Territory's private sector economy is more 
     than 80% dependent, directly or indirectly, on the U.S. 
     fishing and processing industries.
       I was also informed that this provision was necessary to 
     build up the fishing fleet which had dwindled to about 12 or 
     14 boats. No boats meant no fish to American Samoa's 
     canneries and no fish meant no canneries.
       So, for the benefit of American Samoa, language was 
     inserted in the Senate to accommodate an exemption. However, 
     because Congress intended the provision to help American 
     Samoa's canneries and economy, the provision stipulated that 
     the exemption would only apply to tuna vessels home-ported in 
     American Samoa.
       Because of the uniqueness of the provision, Congress also 
     limited the provision to 48 months and set an expiration date 
     of July 10, 2010. Within that 48-month time period, it was my 
     understanding that the U.S. Tuna Foundation and the 
     individuals who are now part of the SPTC team would work to 
     establish a program to train U.S. citizens and Nationals to 
     serve as officers but this promise was not kept.
       Also, last year, without consultation, SPTC's lobbyist 
     sought to broaden the exemption to allow tuna vessels home-
     ported in Guam or CNMI to receive the same crew exemption as 
     tuna vessels home-ported in American Samoa. Although SPTC 
     failed in its attempt, it called into question SPTC's motive 
     for broadening an exemption since neither CNMI nor Guam have 
     a tuna industry. I believe SPTC's motive is easily explained 
     by a brief overview of the U.S. tuna fishing fleet.
     The U.S. Tuna Fishing Fleet
       The U.S. tuna fishing fleet is currently made up of about 
     39 vessels, with one license still available. About 14 of 
     these vessels are 100% U.S. owned. The other 25 tuna boats 
     are newer vessels, built in foreign countries, with 51% U.S. 
     ownership, and 49% foreign-ownership. Most of the foreign-
     built boats are part of a company known as the South Pacific 
     Tuna Corporation (SPTC).
       Mr. Chris Lischewski, CEO and former President of Bumble 
     Bee, is a part-owner of South Pacific Tuna Corporation. 
     Chicken of the Sea and/or its parent company, Thai Union, is 
     also a part-owner of the foreign-built tuna boats.
       Whether U.S. or foreign-built, all 39 tuna boats, or the 
     entire U.S. tuna fishing fleet, fishes under the auspices of 
     the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, a treaty between the United 
     States and 16 Pacific Island nations. Under the terms of the 
     Treaty, the U.S. government pays out $18 million annually to 
     the Pacific Island parties in return for the right of our 
     U.S. tuna boats to fish in the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) 
     of the 16 Pacific Island parties to the Treaty. The U.S. tuna 
     boats also pay the Pacific Island parties about $3 million or 
     more per year, depending on the amount of tuna they catch.
       According to the U.S. Department of State, the landed value 
     of the catch in 2008 was in excess of $200 million but the 
     value of the tuna as it moves through the processing and 
     distribution chain may be as much as $400 to $500 million.
       Of the approximate 300,000 metric tons of tuna that is 
     caught, which is referred to as whole fish, about 120,000 
     metric tons is direct-delivered to American Samoa per year. 
     Direct delivery means the tuna boats actually pull into 
     American Samoa's port and offload their catch. Given Chicken 
     of the Sea's closure, the amount of tonnage direct-delivered 
     to American Samoa is now less but with the presence of a new 
     cannery, Tri-Marine, we expect to be operating again at full 
     capacity.
       Contrary to SPTC's claims, American Samoa has the capacity 
     to process up to 280,000 metric tons with room for growth. 
     Nonetheless, for purposes of this statement, I want to point 
     out what happens to the other 180,000 metric tons which 
     American Samoa is not processing right now.
       What happens is that the foreign-built tuna boats owned by 
     SPTC, which Chicken of the Sea and/or Thai Union have part 
     ownership in, are transshipping their catch to foreign 
     nations where the tuna is cleaned, or loined, by workers who 
     are paid $0.75 cents and less per hour.
       In other words, 25 members of our very own U.S. tuna 
     fishing fleet sell off their catch to foreign nations and 
     then send the cleaned tuna loin back to Bumble Bee and 
     Chicken of the Sea so that these two tuna canneries can 
     maximize their corporate profits while off-shoring American 
     jobs. These 25 members of the U.S. tuna fishing fleet do this 
     despite the fact that they fly the U.S. flag and are 
     subsidized by the American taxpayer to the tune of $18 
     million per year to fish in the South Pacific Tuna Treaty 
     Area. And what does the American taxpayer get in return? We 
     get a depleted tuna stock not to mention the safety threat 
     these new boats pose.

[[Page 16776]]

       In the time it takes to make 3 direct-deliveries, the new 
     SPTC foreign-built tuna boats can make 5 transshipment 
     deliveries by off-loading their catch to a big mother ship 
     meaning that they can return more quickly to the South 
     Pacific Tuna Treaty fishing grounds where they can catch more 
     and more tuna at a more maddening pace, with very little U.S. 
     Coast Guard oversight because of SPTC's unwillingness to pull 
     into American Samoa's port, once a year.
       Disregarding U.S. interests was never the Congressional 
     intent of a crew exemption provision.
     S. 3607
       While SPTC would have the USCG believe that the U.S. House 
     of Representatives supported a permanent exemption, this is 
     not the case. What happened is SPTC had language inserted in 
     H.R. 3619 without the knowledge of Guam, CNMI or American 
     Samoa. But, last year, during conference, the U.S. House of 
     Representatives and Senate agreed with my position and put a 
     halt to SPTC's request to make this provision permanent.
       House and Senate also agreed to require the DWTF to undergo 
     a safety inspection in American Samoa once a year in order to 
     accommodate my request for an annual call on the Territory's 
     port.
       On the evening before the bill went for a vote, SPTC's 
     representatives visited my office and begged for an as-is 
     two-year extension conditioned on the promise that SPTC would 
     work to do right by American Samoa and honor its original 
     commitments. In good-faith, I agreed to work with SPTC.
     Conclusion
       Regrettably, I have reviewed SPTC's statement submitted to 
     the USCG and I am disappointed that once more, SPTC, has 
     misrepresented the facts surrounding this manning provision 
     or American Samoa's capabilities.
       The original intent of a crew exemption provision was to 
     bolster American Samoa's economy, not increase SPTC profits. 
     This is why the exemption was only granted to vessels 
     operating in and out of American Samoa. No other boats were 
     provided this exemption and I am hopeful that the USCG will 
     hold to Congressional intent and move forward with its Draft 
     Policy Letter.
           Sincerely,
                                            Eni F.H. Faleomavaega,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Hart Senate Office Building,

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

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Committee on Foreign Affairs,

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



                                     U.S. Department of State,

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

       Dear Mr. Faleomavaega: Thank you for your letter of June 28 
     regarding the 1987 South Pacific Tuna Treaty and for your 
     interest in the ongoing negotiations to amend and extend that 
     arrangement.
       We recognize the vital importance of sustainable tuna 
     fisheries to the Pacific and the significant contribution 
     that the U.S. industry supported by the Treaty makes to the 
     U.S. economy, particularly in American Samoa. We also 
     recognize that there have been important changes in the 
     Pacific since the Treaty was last extended. Under these 
     circumstances, changes to the Treaty will be necessary to 
     ensure that it remains an effective and viable agreement that 
     promotes responsible and sustainable tuna fisheries, provides 
     satisfactory economic returns to the

[[Page 16777]]

     Pacific Island Parties and contributes to the development of 
     the small-island developing States. We are currently working 
     to address these and other issues in the renegotiations, 
     including at our most recent meeting in Samoa in July.
       We appreciate your views on the issues of off-loading and 
     the allocation of days or licenses among the U.S. fleet. We 
     are sensitive to the need to negotiate an agreement that does 
     not put the United States at a competitive disadvantage.
       As the negotiations proceed, we will continue to keep you 
     apprised of their progress. Please do not hesitate to contact 
     us if we may be of assistance in this or any other manner.
           Sincerely,
                                                    David S. Adams
                         Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

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

                              {time}  1250

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(I) would have an unreasonable impact on the use of 
     traditional shipping lanes; or
       ``(II) would prohibit the discharge of ballast water in all 
     the waters of the State.

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

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment amends title VII 
of the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to recognize the importance of 
both

[[Page 16778]]

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

                              {time}  1300

  On September 7, Governor Daniels of Indiana joined Wisconsin Governor 
Walker and Ohio Governor Kasich in submitting a letter to New York 
Governor Cuomo opposing New York's extreme new ballast requirements.
  I urge all my colleagues to save maritime jobs not only in Indiana 
but across the Great Lakes and vote against these two amendments.


[[Page 16779]]


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

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

[[Page 16780]]




                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

       Strike title VII of the committee print.

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

                              {time}  1310

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

[[Page 16781]]

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

[[Page 16782]]

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


          Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

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

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

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

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

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

                              {time}  1320

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

[[Page 16783]]

  The Badger serves as an extension of Hwy. 10 across Lake Michigan and 
carries semi-trucks and large oversized vehicles and other vehicles 
that otherwise would be driving around the Lake and through the 
congested Chicago area. By one estimate, that saves one million gallons 
of fuel each year and reduces air emissions.
  The environment will not be saved by shutting down the Badger, but 
you will kill jobs, our local economy and a bit of our history.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. At this time, Mr. Chair, I yield to my 
fellow Congressman from Michigan, Representative Dan Benishek.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate my fellow freshman and colleague from Michigan for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that addresses a growing 
problem with our friends at the EPA--their love of bureaucratic red 
tape. I represent a district with more Great Lakes coastline than any 
other. Shipping and ferries are a part of the Great Lakes heritage. The 
USS Badger continues this tradition, transporting travelers, cars, 
trucks, and equipment across Lake Michigan.
  Don't be confused. This amendment does not make the Badger exempt 
from EPA regulations. The EPA will continue to regulate discharge 
limits and other requirements. It simply keeps in place the current 
regulations that recognize the Badger as a unique and historic vessel. 
Keeping the Badger operational means saving 1 million gallons in fuel a 
year from vehicles driving around the lake. Passing this amendment is 
simple and common sense. It allows a national historic place to 
continue to function on the Great Lakes.
  I urge passage.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Olson

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

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

     SEC. 608. STANDBY VESSELS.

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

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cummings

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 832]

                               AYES--174

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

[[Page 16784]]


     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--227

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

                             NOT VOTING--32

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

                              {time}  1350

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


         Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 833]

                               AYES--182

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

                               NOES--218

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

[[Page 16785]]



                             NOT VOTING--33

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1354

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


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 834]

                               AYES--364

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

                                NOES--37

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

                             NOT VOTING--32

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1401

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


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 225, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 835]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers

[[Page 16786]]


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

                               NOES--225

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

                             NOT VOTING--34

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

                              {time}  1405

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


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 237, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 836]

                               AYES--161

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

                               NOES--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hirono
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry

[[Page 16787]]


     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--35

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

                              {time}  1409

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chair, I was in my district today to attend to 
matters concerning the opening of a new federal courthouse in Buffalo. 
This is one of the largest federal projects completed in western New 
York in recent years, supporting hundreds of jobs. This striking 
structure, standing at the center of Buffalo's business district, is 
symbolic of Buffalo's rising opportunities in connection to our unique 
architecture and history.
  My presence in Buffalo caused me to miss several votes in the House 
today. As a strong supporter of both maritime commerce and the 
environmental protection of the Great Lakes, I would like to submit for 
the Record how I would have voted on the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Act and other matters.
  Had I been present I would have voted:
  Nay on rollcall 829.
  Nay on rollcall 830.
  Yea on rollcall 831.
  Yea on rollcall 832.
  Yea on rollcall 833.
  Yea on rollcall 834.
  Yea on rollcall 835.
  Yea on rollcall 836.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Smith of Nebraska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2838) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal 
years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LoBIONDO. 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. 2838.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________