Increasing the amount provided for the Members' Representational Allowance of a Member of the House of Representatives who employs a veteran with a service-connected disability.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which deals with a huge issue which is going to unfold in our country over the next decade, and that is the indisputable need for our country to have a large importation of liquefied natural gas into our country. In New England, already 20 percent of our natural gas is in the form of liquefied natural gas. It comes from overseas. This is a good thing, and it is something that has to expand, not only in New England but all across our country.

The good news is that in the year 2001, there were only two LNG facilities licensed in the United States, one of them in Everett, Massachusetts, in the middle of my congressional district. This is something, however,

which is a legacy from a period that existed before 9/11. There are now 30 proposed additional LNG facilities in the United States, and nine of them have already been licensed.

The question going forward now is not do we need more LNG; the question is how will we have the importation of LNG be done consistent with homeland security principles. And here is the issue: in Boston, right here, coming in a couple of times a month, at least, comes this huge tanker right through the middle of Boston. That is East Boston High School right above it. Outside of Manhattan, this is the most densely populated part of the United States.

Now, we cannot do anything about this facility. It is there. Maybe over time we can phase it out, but it is going to be there. The issue is, going forward, what will be the role of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard which, in this picture, is escorting this LNG tanker right into Boston Harbor, which has to shut down every time one of these tankers comes in? What should the role of the Coast Guard be?

What my amendment says is this: since we are going to have this large importation of LNG in terminals all across our country in the next generation, let us: One, require the Coast Guard to prepare a report on any measures needed to ensure public safety and security of the proposed facility and transportation routes to and from the facility; and, two, require the Coast Guard to report on any action taken by the facility owner or by appropriate Federal and State regulators in response to any findings or recommendations made by the Coast Guard with respect to the proposed facility, including what measures have been put in place to mitigate potential risks; and, third, require the Coast Guard to approve any construction or expansion of an LNG facility before it can go forward, and direct the Coast Guard to not approve any such construction or expansion if it determines that the proposed facility or the expansion of the existing facility would pose a substantial risk to public safety and security in light of the potential loss of life and damage to property that could result.

We know that if that tank was exploded, if the tanks that are on the land where the tanker is going to unload the LNG, that the event would be catastrophic in the middle of the city of Boston; but the same would be true across the whole country. The Sandia Laboratories, in studying an incident that could occur with a tanker such as this, sees a radius of upwards of 2,000 feet that would have levels of heat and fire that would burn buildings, damage steel tanks and machinery; and one can imagine what would happen to every human being inside that radius.

So, for me, to leave it to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to have exclusive jurisdiction over where one of these facilities is sited, without taking into account what the Coast Guard will have to do as a part of the Department of Homeland Security in safeguarding that shipment, is, in a post-9/11 period, reckless. In a post-New Orleans period, it is reckless.

We must give the people who live in these densely populated areas the benefit of the doubt that the Coast Guard would raise the questions about homeland security, about what would happen if there were a terrorist attack, and then suggest perhaps that the facility be built offshore, and that there be a pipeline brought in, that the facility be built in a more remote area of the State and a pipeline be built to bring it down; but it should be the Coast Guard, the agency of expertise.

I urge an ``aye'' vote to protect public safety in all communities where LNGs will be imported in the generation ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me clear up some misinformation which has been disseminated out here on the House floor. We have, in fact, not debated this issue ever before in the House.

What happened in the energy bill was that the Republican majority made a determination that they were going to remove governors and mayors from the decision-making process as to where an LNG facility can be sited. Until August of 2005, mayors and governors had a say. Now they do not because of the energy bill.

Now we all know that when and if a catastrophic event occurs, people in our country have learned not to depend

upon the Federal Government. They know that the first call has to go to the local fire, the local police. That is who they are going to call, and they have good reason to after what happened in New Orleans. I do not think any city or town is going to repeat the mistake which New Orleans made in waiting for Department of Homeland Security to respond.

But let us just say for the sake of discussion that we are going to remove the mayor and we are going to remove the governor from any say on where an LNG facility can go in the most densely urban populated parts of this State. What my amendment says is, at least allow the Federal Government to have a role. At least allow the Department of Homeland Security to have a role. But the Republican majority says, no, we are only going to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has no jurisdiction over homeland security, no responsibility to look at the public safety issues, they alone will look at these issues.

Well, you know, the recriminations which have taken place in the last 2 weeks all turn on one question. Why did not people listen to the Corps of Engineers? Why did not we give more protection to those people in that community? But we all know that the Corps of Engineers was ignored, that their warnings were ignored.

What the majority Republican party wants to do is to tell the Coast Guard, we do not want to have your view on where an LNG facility should be sited if you are going to tell us you disagree with the energy decision.

It should be all energy. No homeland security at all. No protection for the people who will be living in the mile or two around that facility. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is what this debate is all about.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and, by the way, each of them could not try harder to get more geographically far away in Nebraska and Illinois from the coastline, our experts today. Mark Twain used to say, an expert is anyone who lives more than 1,000 miles away from a problem, and we have got two experts here today telling us on the coastline what we need.

Well, what we need, ladies and gentlemen, is the Coast Guard to make a determination as to whether or not they can protect against a catastrophic event, and what they are saying is no Coast Guard, no governor, no mayor, nobody but the energy companies. That is what it is all about. It is about the energy companies.

Yes, we need a doubling, yes, we need a tripling, a quadrupling of LNG in our country.

I have the number one facility in America in my district. We need it in New England more than anyone else. But as a homeland security issue, it should have the Coast Guard making a determination as to whether or not it can be protected against a terrorist attack. And if an alternative is possible offshore or in a more remote area of that State, then they should be given the right to participate in that decision.

If you just leave it to the energy companies, which is what the Republicans want to do, this is just a continuation of their energy bill, letting the consumers get tipped upside down because the energy companies do not want to spend a few extra bucks to add into homeland security, the same way as the catastrophic events of New Orleans were just over saving a few bucks.

Well, this is your chance to do something about LNG facilities in densely populated areas, to give a say to the Coast Guard, rule out your Governor, rule out your mayor, but at least the Coast Guard, at least a part of the Federal Government should be part of this. If you want a Federal solution to the energy problem, you also have to have a Federal component to homeland security in 2005.

Al Qaeda is not taking a break. Al Qaeda is out there. Al Qaeda used the Boston LNG terminal as the route to bring in their Al Qaeda agents.

Richard Clarke in his book said on September 11, 2001 when he was asked to take over in charge of all homeland security response, his first thought was shut down the port of Boston, call the Coast Guard commandant there. That is where Abdul Meskini and the other al Qaeda agents had come in on the LNG tanker from Algeria into Boston Harbor. That is how they got here. Abdul Meskini is in prison right now for the LAX millennium bombing plot.

So let us not kid ourselves. They are coming for urban areas. They are coming for the high-impact areas. They are coming for LNG facilities. They are coming for nuclear facilities. They want to use airplanes. They want the biggest event possible. They want London. They want Madrid. They want New York. They want L.A.

They want the big urban populated areas. Let us not kid ourselves. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment. Give the Coast Guard the homeland security ability to be able to make a decision to protect the citizens of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I will notify the majority that I intend on withdrawing my amendment, but I just wanted to make this commonsense suggestion at this time that perhaps we could continue to discuss and work on in the months ahead.

My amendment deals with the reality that, especially in coastal areas, that there are huge containers of very dangerous chemicals and other toxic chemicals that are stored in those coastal areas right onshore and that, in many instances, those particular toxic materials have a now more modern, substitutable chemical which could be used in order to achieve the same purposes for the industries within our country.

What my amendment says is that when the Coast Guard writes an area maritime transportation security plan, it will now be required to list facilities located within the area that could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, but the Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely populated areas or other sensitive areas that might have important economic or national security significance so that the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack might be reduced.

When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability assessment for these facilities, as required under the law, it will also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and it will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its national maritime transportation security plan.

Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept the facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS does on its own.

Hurricane Katrina taught us a lesson. They will probably have to level a couple of hundred thousand homes in New Orleans, largely because of the toxic materials that have now infiltrated into those homes. Here we have an opportunity moving forward to make sure that we are reducing the most toxic chemicals, even as we substitute other chemicals that can be used in the very same processes to keep our American economy humming.

Mr. Chairman, the events of the past few weeks have served as a wake- up call in so many areas of our lives. We've learned just how vulnerable some of our cities are to Mother Nature, how vulnerable our oil and gas infrastructure is, and, frankly, how vulnerable we all are as we contemplate the implications of our failed response to Hurricane Katrina to future terrorist attacks that will come with no National Weather Service warnings and could be even more devastating.

While the debate over how we can ensure that we move more quickly and efficiently to respond to the next Katrina or 9/11 will wait until another day, there are aspects of the bill in front of us today that can be changed to increase the chances that the potential consequences of such a catastrophe are minimized.

We have learned, for example, that the hurricane has rendered several gulf coast refineries inoperable, and in some cases this may be the status quo for months. We have also learned that the extent to which the hurricane caused breaches in these and other facilities storing toxic chemicals is not yet clear--the very preliminary EPA tests show highly elevated levels of lead and other toxic materials in some areas of New Orleans, and EPA is really only just beginning its environmental sampling process. We may be looking at an environmental catastrophe that requires an enormous amount of money to remediate, in addition to all the other reconstruction and relief costs.

And, though the hurricane was certainly a catastrophe in and of itself, the reality is that a terrorist attack on just one facility containing toxic chemicals could have led to even more

fatalities. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report I requested, there are about 50 facilities in Louisiana at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk, as well as 2 facilities that could impact more than 1 million people. In Florida, there are more than 20 facilities at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk and 7 facilities that could impact more than 1 million people, and in Mississippi, there are 2 facilities at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk. Nationwide, more than 100 facilities pose a risk to more than 1 million people--an attack on or major natural disaster near any of these facilities could result in widespread deaths, injuries and environmental contamination.

While some of the chemicals stored in these facilities are necessary to the products or processes being undertaken there, others are not. For example, a 2003 report entitled ``Eliminating Hometown Hazards'' by Environmental Defense lists several wastewater treatment facilities in Louisiana that use chlorine in amounts that could place hundreds of thousands of people at risk, even though safer and economically competitive alternatives exist and are currently in use elsewhere. Press reports indicate that many wastewater treatment facilities in the areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina have been disabled, but it is unclear as to the status of the stores of toxic chlorine that must have been onsite. Another 2003 report entitled ``Needless Risk: Oil Refineries and Hazard Reduction'' by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund describes a cost-effective alternative to hydrofluoric acid, which is used by many refineries, including Chalmette Refining in New Orleans which reportedly has 600,000 pounds of hydrofluoric acid stored on site. According to the Energy Information Administration and press reports, the Chalmette facility spilled tens of thousands of barrels of oil into the surrounding neighborhoods and could be closed for months, but it is unclear as to the status of the stores of hydrofluoric acid that must have been onsite.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act addressed some of the security concerns associated with chemical facilities located at or near ports and waterways. As the damage assessment and remediation associated with Hurricane Katrina proceeds, I believe that we need to focus not just on cleaning up the damage, but also on trying to reduce the consequences of similar damage occurring in the future, be it due to hurricanes, earthquakes or terrorist attacks. Other legislation may address the need to strengthen the levee system surrounding New Orleans so that future hurricanes can't breach them as easily--my amendment seeks to reduce the potential environmental consequences associated with a future breach of the facilities that house toxic materials.

Specifically, my amendment makes the following common-sense changes to the Maritime Transportation Security Act:

When the Coast Guard writes its Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans, it will now be required to list facilities located within the area that could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack.

The Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely populated areas or in other sensitive areas that might have important economic or national security significance, so that the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack might be reduced.

When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability assessments for these facilities as required under the law, it will also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its National Maritime Transportation Security Plan.

Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept a facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS does on its own.

Hurricane Katrina taught us that we can't ignore the experts' warnings forever--sooner or later, being shortsighted will catch up to us, and as we've seen, the price we may pay may be both costly and to some extent avoidable. My amendment incorporates some of the experts' warnings on chemical facility security into existing requirements for these facilities. Let's not be short-sighted again. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin just by stating that we were briefed by the EPA yesterday and that the EPA has indicated that they have only just begun sampling and that they have, in fact, found highly elevated levels of lead, e.coli and other toxic substances. We are only at the beginning of this entire story.

If I may say to the gentleman from Alaska, I know what the gentleman is saying about making amendments on this issue to other bills. He has to understand the frustration of being in the minority in this institution.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman has now been able successfully, I would say, to have all of his amnesia treatments be completely accepted by his system because I do not think he can really appreciate how many times I have gone before the Committee on Rules and asked for an amendment on this subject, on the energy bill, on the homeland security bill. So it is out of frustration, and I will admit that, it is out of frustration that I attempt to make it on the Coast Guard bill.

The gentleman has some good points, but this is a point that should be raised, and it should be raised especially in the aftermath of New Orleans and the toxicity that is now rampant throughout that community. There is just the need for us to have this discussion, and it is a Coast Guard mission in

general, safety and security, although I accept the gentleman's point that the EPA would be the point on that, but it is difficult for the minority to have amendments successfully accepted on any issue that deals with the EPA out here on the House floor.

That is the reason I raise the point, and that is the reason I announced I was going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw it as well, so the point would be made that it is an important subject. It should be made in other bills. This was an aperture that I was taking advantage of to really just begin the process of political education, although I know that political activation and political implementation are much further down the line and dependent upon the goodwill of the Committee on Rules and the Republican leadership that we have an amendment like that.

Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I appreciate the fact that it is an open rule; and, from a rules perspective, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. So I am out here, and all of a sudden I run into an open rule; and, believe it or not, for me, it is just you have got to make hay when the sun shines, my father used to say. So this is just my opportunity to be able to make the case, knowing at the end of the day that there were other bills that were more appropriate and agencies that had more expertise to be able to do the subject, and at the end of the day knowing that the Coast Guard will be the agency that deals with the consequences of something not being done.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), an admirer of the Coast Guard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to square what we are doing in the Coast Guard reauthorization for background checks with what we have already done in the Transportation Security Administration with respect to felony convictions of personnel to be hired by the agency in the TSA legislation concerning governing aviation.

There is no limitation on the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to go back beyond 7 years into the job applicant's background for convictions relating to espionage, sedition, treason, murder, conspiracy to attempt crimes; and we ought to have the same provisions in the Coast Guard security responsibilities and not prohibit the Secretary to go back beyond 7 years to look for violations that relate to espionage, sedition, treason, and crimes listed in our Homeland Security Act that relate to terrorism or State laws that are comparable.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

The airline provisions, yes; and the HAZMAT section as well.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the chairman about not reaching back. We confronted this issue in aviation in the legislation implementing the recommendations of the Pan Am 103 Commission requiring 10-year criminal background checks but not going further than that and having consideration of amnesty for those who paid their dues to society. We faced that.

But what we are dealing with here, as we did in the Maritime Security Act, the Port Security Grants Act, as we know it, is to allow the Secretary to go back for espionage, for sedition, for treason, for items that are related to security matters. The law applies to felonies in which the Secretary decides the individual is a terrorism security risk.

If the chairman is saying withhold on the amendment this time and we will work to include this language with these limitations in the conference, I will take the chairman at his word.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I concur in that concern, but I do want to have uniformity of application of law in the security arena, and I think the chairman agrees with that.

I further do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that we would have intervention by the Homeland Security if we struck this language from the manager's amendment because then it would not be subject to their jurisdiction. However, the chairman is an honorable man. He and I have had many agreements on a handshake, and we have worked things out.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, for myself, and I know I speak for the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), we are happy to accommodate the gentleman's concern.

I am particularly an aficionado of lighthouses. I think they have played an extraordinary role in the navigation maritime history of America, but lighthouses also played an extraordinary and important role in the development of commercial navigation, air navigation in the United States.

In the early days of aviation, the lighthouse service set up lighthouses on land with million-candle-powered lights with an arrow pointing to the next lighthouse where the nighttime flyer could chart his course and fly safely to a destination. Lighthouses really made maritime navigation safe, but they made aviation navigation safe as well. So preserving such a piece of history is really important, and I am really glad the gentleman has brought it to the attention of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Under the agreement that we have in committee, we do not support amendments that one or the other side disagrees with; and I support the committee position. I do want to observe, however, that this amendment is relatively benign. Had it been drafted differently, I think it easily could have been accepted.

The Coast Guard does have largely this authority. And while the chairman of the subcommittee has expressed a concern about the Coast Guard being drawn afield from its normal mission in looking into on- land facilities, actually if the Coast Guard felt there were a problem with their existing authority they could do what the gentleman's amendment proposes to direct them to do, they could say, look, we think this is a security problem or a safety problem and inspect it. And, in fact, any contractor with an ounce of sense would invite the Coast Guard in and say look at it before we go ahead.

I do want to observe, however, there is new technology that may make such facilities unnecessary in the short term and long term.

During this storm of Katrina in the gulf, an LNG facility offloaded 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas 100 miles offshore because the tanker had on board the new regassification technology that allows it to make the conversion necessary to discharge from the ship; and with 8-foot seas, they were able to discharge 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas. With the rate at which natural gas prices are rising, I think we need more of that capability.

I certainly sympathize with my colleagues in Massachusetts along Fall River who do not want to see one of these LNG ports in their river, close to human population, with all of the potential, but this is not the appropriate place to make that fix.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the majority is going to accept the amendment. We have previously agreed on the outcome.

Voyage data recorders are as important as they are in aviation. The flight data recorder, the voice data recorder in the cockpit helps us to understand outcomes of accidents or causes of accidents in investigating the tragedies in aviation.

The Coast Guard is working with the IMO to amend the Safety of Life At Sea Convention to require voyage data recorders for ships in the international service. But doing so for newly built ships, those that are under construction is one thing. The cost can be absorbed in the construction of the vessels. But older vessels that do not have automated engine rooms, do not have automated sensors are going to result in a huge cost, as much as $300,000 I have heard from vessel owners to retro-fit vessels.

So in accepting the gentleman's amendment, we must also have language when we get through conference, in the conference report, about somehow alleviating the cost on older vessels just as we do in aviation. There are ways of phasing in newer technology in aviation, the flight data recorder that records up to 150 parameters of operations of an aircraft, for example. We give airlines time and manufacturers time to incorporated the new technology into newer general aircraft.

I just raise this as a caution because I know the chairman has great concern for the financial effects on maritime navigation of actions we take in committee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent and purpose of the gentlewoman's amendment and her deep conviction in offering it, her concern that the Coast Guard undertake these evaluations and which the Coast Guard does as a matter of routine. But I think this will put a spotlight on this function of the Coast Guard and give a new urgency, especially in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in these new homeland security responsibilities to which the gentlewoman has referred, to do a more thorough and current evaluation of the Coast Guard active duty personnel strengths and impacts on their homeland security missions, as well as the traditional historic function of the Coast Guard.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman makes that request, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is proposing a very thoughtful amendment and making a very reasonable request, that the Secretary reimburse local port authorities, facility operators, State and local agencies when the security threat goes above green, if it goes to yellow, orange or red, and there are additional costs shouldered by local governments, that the Federal Government should pick up 50 percent of that cost. Is that the thrust of the amendment?

If the gentleman will further yield, that is generally what our concern is, that they should not shoulder all these additional costs. I think there should be some way that we can reach accommodation when we go to conference with the other body on accommodating the gentleman's concern.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

My concern is, very frankly, this has been in the manager's amendment for 3 months, and it is not new, but my big concern, and I understand he is trying to make it uniform with, I believe, the airline industry; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the other concern I have is the Homeland Security Act itself that we passed out of our committee had this provision in it, 7 years; and what I do not want is to preclude someone from being employed in a port, that, if there has been a felony created that is not terrorist related, sabotage related, or secession related, he be precluded from being able to be hired.

Some people say if he is a felon, he should not be hired. I can tell the Members that the business I am in, a lot of people in their earlier years probably got into some sort of trouble sometime, but they are not terrorists. These people are trying to make a good living, trying to provide for society and trying to be helpful to this Nation and are not a threat. I do not want someone unable to obtain employment because of beyond 7 years, 15 years, 20 years, and have that person not be eligible to be employed.

The gentleman has heard this argument before. I believe he was on the Committee on Homeland Security meeting when I presented that, and it was adopted, and it passed on this floor. In fact, it is in the bill. It has not become law because, as the gentleman knows, we have not gone to conference with the Senate.

So I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, but I ask two things from him: if he would consider not offering the amendment, withdrawing it, or not asking for a vote on it, and we will not have a vote on it, or we will, in turn, take care of this in conference, because he and I are going to be on the conference. I know what he is trying to do, but I do not want someone to be punished because they are really good citizens today.

Mr. Chairman, that is what I expect to do. And, again, I think we can work this out. I am just so concerned that, yes, those that have or did have a potential to sabotage and sedition, et cetera, they should not be employed.

Mr. Chairman, other than that, I do not want to have the inability to have someone hired, because they can do the job. So we can work it out.

The gentleman has my word on it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is well established under current law that foreign workers may work on U.S. flag vessels on international voyages to conduct various non-watchstanding functions. These personnel are not considered seamen. This amendment will confirm the legality of this practice.

Also, the amendment clarifies that personnel must possess a transportation security card, when required under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment approves established National Marine Fisheries Service policy regarding the process for approving community development plans in small Alaska communities. The amendment does not in any way change the manner in which these fishery resources are distributed to, or the total amount of fish allocated to, eligible communities. This is a good amendment. It is asked for and the agency itself suggested that we do offer it, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment assures that if a new quota becomes available in certain Alaska fisheries, a portion of it will be distributed to a vessel which currently has no qualifying catch history. This amendment corrects an inequity without taking quota from existing vessels. If no new quota is made available through the normal management process, then the additional vessel does not receive any quota.

Mr. Chairman, as hard as it is for me, I am going to support the gentleman's amendment, but my concern when I look at it is we have got to make sure that this does not come out of the Coast Guard's budget. It either comes out of Homeland Security or some other arena, and that is what we can work out in this bill when we put it in. Because I do not want the Coast Guard's budget to take money and go into it when they raise that alert state.

So I think the gentleman has got a good idea, and I am more than willing to work with him and see if we can solve it. I agree with the gentleman. Because when they put us on a higher alert, even though it might not even be in the arena of a port, it is a national higher alert, and it is a huge cost, and they have to carry that burden.

As long as we get the money from some other source than the Coast Guard, I am highly in support of it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

First, let me suggest that the statement they are going to bulldoze down thousands and thousands of homes because of Katrina that were not blown down is not true. The EPA gave us a briefing. The gentleman should have sat in on it. If he did not know, they found little toxicity in the water. There was nothing there that was being harmful. There could be mildew, but it is not from the toxicity in the water. I do not like to use the statement. Overexaggeration is not good for debate.

Secondly, may I suggest it is the Coast Guard being required to do another mission, taking from the Coast Guard's real mission and requiring them to do something that should be done with EPA or Homeland Security but not the Coast Guard?

I can tell the gentleman, he serves on the Committee on Homeland Security, I serve on that committee, and I can tell everybody on that committee and this committee, you are not going to whittle away at the Coast Guard having to do things that did not have to do with the mission to begin with. That is not going to happen on my watch.

The idea that the Coast Guard will be required to find an alternative fuel or alternative toxic chemical in place of another, that is the EPA's job, not the Coast Guard.

I do not know why the gentleman does not offer it to the energy bill or to the homeland security bill or some other bill. But why muddy the waters of the Coast Guard and require them again to have another mission? They have enough missions on their plate right now.

I do believe this is a mischievous amendment. I believe that most of it could actually be done in the communities in which they live. I believe that the port cities can make those decisions themselves. Why should the Coast Guard have to do this, taking money away from the mission they should be doing, that search and rescue, saving our seamen, attending to our fishing pirates, doing the things they are charged to do?

I am not going to add another responsibility to this Coast Guard. I had hoped the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. He has made his other statements. He can put this on another piece of legislation. He can argue, but this is a bill we have put together bipartisanwise. It is a bill agreed to by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and it is a bill that should be left intact.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, try 22 years of being in the minority. That is longer than the gentleman has been in the minority.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I do hope the gentleman will withdraw the amendment for numerous reasons.

I have to acknowledge one thing. He has been allowed to offer this amendment because I asked for an open rule. I did ask for an open rule because I knew the gentleman and some other people wanted an opportunity to use the platform to bring up this type of subject, and I respect that. I just suggest respectfully that this is not the bill to do this on, and I really request the gentleman to think about withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to limit voting time to 5 minutes, if ordered, on final passage.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for rising on this matter. I am perplexed as to why this transfer has not yet occurred and concerned that it has not yet occurred.

I have been told that the Department of Homeland Security needs to delegate the land transfer authority to the Coast Guard in order to complete and carry out this provision. I will work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) to see that the transfer of this land to the City of Pacific Grove occurs in a timely manner.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), I offer amendment No. 11, and I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to offer the amendment at this point in the reading.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and on behalf of the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.

Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and thank them for working so closely with us on this amendment.

One of the key provisions of this amendment is it authorizes an additional $60 million for the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2005 for funds spent on responding to Hurricane Katrina which are not being reimbursed. Failure to reimburse the Service for the work it has done in New Orleans means that other Coast Guard missions will suffer.

The amendment also temporarily extends existing mariner documents and vessel certificates for mariners and vessels whose paperwork was held in New Orleans and establishes a temporary center for the processing of new mariner documents. Because of the effects of the hurricane on the Coast Guard facilities and the need for new mariners to aid in reconstruction efforts, these temporary actions are necessary to ensure the smoothest possible return to normal operations of the important maritime industry in the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

Another important provision in this amendment is the Delaware River Protection Act, legislation that I introduced with a number of my colleagues to guard against another oil spill like the one that we suffered last November in the Delaware River. The bill unanimously passed the House in June, but, unfortunately, the other body has yet to act.

The Delaware River Protection Act would require persons to notify the Coast Guard in the event that an object is released into U.S. waters that could cause an obstruction to navigation. The Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers have found three very large objects in the area of the Delaware where the Athos I ran aground last November. Had the notification requirement been in place at the time any of these objects had been released into the water, the Coast Guard could have marked the location of these objects and had them removed.

This provision will improve maritime safety and will protect the environment and the economies of our local communities by preventing similar collisions in the future.

The Delaware River Protection Act also directs the President to adjust liability limits for vessel owners to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index since 1990 and establishes a research program to develop and test technologies to detect and remove submerged oil from U.S. waterways. This amendment will enhance the Federal Government's oil spill prevention and response capabilities.

I would like to thank in particular the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), and a host of others, along with our chairman and the ranking member for working to include this. I urge everyone to support this amendment.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr.

LoBiondo

Mr. Chairman, we are very happy to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would significantly add to the Coast Guard's mission responsibilities by requiring the service to regulate the construction and expansion of liquefied natural gas facilities. Coast Guardsmen and -women do not have the expertise and background to inspect building plans as they would be required to do under this amendment.

In addition, this amendment would in many ways duplicate the efforts already undertaken by the States and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to regulate these facilities. With the current situation, I question the addition of significant shore-side responsibilities to the Coast Guard's wide scope of missions. We have heard about what they have been expected to do, we have heard their missions have been expanded by some 27 items, that their personnel is not there, that their funding is not there; and I reiterate that they do not have the expertise and background to inspect these building plans and do the job that is required under this amendment.

I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as modified, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman withdrawing his amendment and asking for a colloquy?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, still with the understanding that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is going to withdraw the amendment, I commend the gentleman from Washington for his strong concern about the increased costs to local ports involved in complying with the Maritime Transportation Safety Act.

These same concerns were on the minds of the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure when we first passed the Act in 2002. We had extensive discussions about it, and at that time we authorized a port security grant in the Act.

Unfortunately, as the gentleman has pointed out, it seems that the Department is not following the intent of the law, and that is a problem, and that is a mistake we would like to correct.

We pledge, myself and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), to work with the gentleman and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) to continue as we move along with this bill to ensure that the port security grant program follows the criteria that we set out in the Maritime Transportation Safety Act. We will be very pleased to work with the gentleman on that.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my colleagues' support for this amendment which would authorize critical resources for our drug interdiction efforts which directly impact the U.S. Coast Guard.

I first want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman LoBiondo) for his leadership and efforts in providing much-needed support to the Coast Guard.

Recently, more than ever, the Coast Guard has demonstrated its unique multimission role as the world's premier maritime service. The recent devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina along our gulf coast has been well documented, and our sympathies are extended to those who have lost so much.

However, out of the destruction and despair come many positive stories, and one of the best stories to emerge from this disaster has been the heroic work of our Coast Guard.

Hurricane Katrina ravaged Coast Guard stations in Gulfport and Pascagoula, Mississippi; and looters wrecked part of its New Orleans base. But that did not stop the Coast Guard from sending out rescue helicopters,

cutters, and small boats on dangerous and exhausting missions to save lives and clear waterways after the hurricane ravaged the gulf coast since August 29.

To date, the Coast Guard has coordinated the search and rescue efforts that resulted in over 33,000 lives saved and evacuated to date. Coast Guard helicopters and boat crews from around the country responded and have heroically risked their lives in some of the most challenging and dangerous circumstances of recent times.

As a military, multimission maritime service, the Coast Guard performs a unique blend of humanitarian, law enforcement, regulatory, and military missions and responsibilities providing maritime security, maritime safety, protection of natural resources, and national defense services.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources and a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am very aware of the critical role performed by the Coast Guard in drug interdiction and homeland security.

In fiscal year 2004, the Coast Guard seized a record 240,519 pounds of cocaine worth approximately $7.3 billion. To date, in fiscal year 2005, the Coast Guard has seized over 290,000 pounds of cocaine worth an estimated $8.8 billion.

As Hurricane Katrina has made abundantly clear, our country needs a strong and robust Coast Guard, and Congress needs to ensure that we are putting the right tools and equipment in the very capable hands of Coast Guard men and women so that they may continue to deliver the robust maritime safety and security America expects and deserves.

The Coast Guard's Deepwater recapitalization project plays an absolutely critical role in building a more ready and capable 21st century Coast Guard equal to the challenges we face today and anticipate tomorrow.

It is vitally important to our national drug control strategy and our national security, as well as protecting our Nation's citizens from natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, that the Deepwater project be accelerated and that there be more Coast Guard ships and aircraft to respond to the many critical missions of the Coast Guard.

I offer this amendment to improve upon these drug seizure totals by authorizing the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to acquire a refueling vessel for the benefit of U.S. and allied drug interdiction agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy, operating in the eastern Pacific region. According to testimony provided by the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and other agencies, drug traffickers have increasingly pushed their routes into that area farther and farther west.

We have three Coast Guard vehicles that operate there. One is usually trying to come in, one is going back, and only one is out in this huge zone running up with all of the cocaine and heroin coming in from Colombia because we do not have a refueling vessel there.

U.S. vessels have no capability of refueling in that area and, thus, cannot operate for any significant length of time. The drug traffickers, by contrast, have developed their own sophisticated refueling system and can now simply bypass our interdiction forces. Today, we face an almost unique situation in drug interdiction history: we now have more intelligence about drug trafficking than we have assets to act on it, meaning we know it is coming, we know where it is, but we cannot get it; meaning that we have to watch helplessly while some shipments of poisonous narcotics are brought into the U.S.

The Coast Guard's motto, ``Semper Paratus,'' meaning always ready, has been earned through the courage and actions of the members of the Coast Guard. I am happy to say that this amendment will help ensure that future Coast Guard members can live up to that motto.

Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman LoBiondo) for his leadership in support of the Coast Guard, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.