Great Lakes Invasive Species Control Act

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

It was truly delightful to hear the discourse of the gentleman from Massachusetts, perspicacious, omniscient. It is rare that tediological inquiries occur in this body. And for that reason, it is rare to hear such felicitous language used in discourse on the floor, especially important on this aftermath, the day

after the 444th celebration of the birth of Shakespeare. I thank the gentleman for his distinguished presentation.

Madam Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for those thoughtful remarks.

I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished Chair of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I share those concerns.

Lockheed Martin, which has the contractor responsibility for issuance of TWIC cards, has reported that fingerprint rejection rate due to poor print quality has been in the range of 2 percent. If you happen to be one of those 2 percent, then you really have a problem. And so that requires those who are rejected to keep coming back to an enrollment center. And the amendment would alleviate mariners from having to make several trips.

I remember myself, when I was working my way through college, I was working at a concrete block factory. I eventually wore out gloves and I said I can't afford any more gloves, so I just moved the concrete blocks with my hands until eventually I had such thick calluses I had no fingerprint whatever, no markings on any of my fingers. It took months afterwards, back in college, to shed those calluses. So I can imagine workers on the docks and all having similar problems. And I think this relief for mariners will be very, very beneficial.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.

I want to start by thanking the Chair and the Parliamentarian for clarification of a rule of the House that somehow escaped my understanding, and it was interesting to have that explanation. I apologize to the gentleman from Ohio if we had some missteps even to the advantage of the committee.

Of course, I support the amendment, as I said at the outset. It's a study and report amendment to provide a critical assessment of how much the Coast Guard has done to establish standards for State and local law enforcement units that perform maritime patrols and the extent to which law enforcement can meet those standards. I think it's useful to have that information.

Madam Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman. I think we got away with one for a while.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Certainly it's our intention to protect the resources of the Coast Guard. We will work to assure that when a bill emerges from conference that there will be sufficient change, that we will not elevate one mission above any other critical Coast Guard mission.

And as further clarification, it was simply a request from NTSB that at least for 1 year we transfer adequate funds to start off. So the legislation limits that transfer of dollars to 1 year, and we will work to assure the strengthening of that language to make sure that that's only for 1 year. And then in the meantime, as I said in an earlier discussion on this matter, we will go to the Appropriations Committee, I hope in a bipartisan effort, to ask them to provide sufficient additional funding for the Coast Guard to continue to carry out its missions.

Again I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is certainly not our intent to elevate marine safety. Marine safety is one of several functions of the Coast Guard. But as I said in earlier debates, when Mr. Young, then chairman of the committee, and I were at the White House at the earliest stages of creating the Department of Homeland Security, we raised this issue at the White House and said, You're not making clear enough distinction between the homeland security role of the Coast Guard and the other functions, search and rescue, marine safety, aid in navigation, and so on. So we're now providing that clear delineation, assuring there are adequate resources, providing additional personnel to the Coast Guard, the first really substantial increase in Coast Guard personnel since I came to Congress in 1975. And I'm really insistent on this, that we do not elevate above that but that we clearly delineate the marine safety function of the Coast Guard.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for offering this amendment. It does indeed correct a technical mistake and oversight in drafting the bill. There should have been a cross-reference as we inserted one provision in the bill so that the interlake transfer of ballast water would have been covered. Unfortunately, it was an oversight that the legislative counsel did not catch in time, and our committee staff found it after the manager's amendment had been already presented. So through the vigilance of the gentleman from Illinois and his concern for interlake transfer, we certainly accept this provision.

I am very happy to report that not only did we deal with invasive species in the WRDA bill, but also in this Coast Guard bill. It is the first time we have enforcement language on invasive species and interlake transfer. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) said earlier today, this is a bad day for invasive species. This is another bad moment for invasive species.

I also want to mention that either next week or the following week I have a meeting, the subject of which I have already discussed with Mr. LaTourette, with one of our major interlake shipping companies and other entities to put in place this shipping season a control pilot program for ballast water for lakers. The lakers present a more complicated challenge on ballast water exchange because they have four or five times as many ballast chambers as do the salties coming into the Great Lakes, and dealing with the volume of water and the number of ballast chambers and the treatment technology, it becomes much more complicated for interlake shipping.

We are going to address that this summer. We are going to put in place a pilot program and explore all of the treatment methodologies and equipment and chemicals and how to treat those chemicals before they are again discharged back into the waters of the Great Lakes. And the viral hemorrhagic septicemia issue is chief among those. I think science still doesn't know how to address it. But it and other such assaults upon this one-fifth of all the fresh water upon the face of the Earth is vital. We make an assault upon it in this legislation, and we are determined to follow it through.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Again, it is not just the Great Lakes, it's the saltwater ports as well. Our colleagues on the west coast for many years, I remember in the seventies and eighties, were saying, what are you worried about invasive species for? Then curious creatures began to appear in the waters of the ports on the west coast from ballast water discharged in those ports from vessels leaving the Pacific Rim, from Japan to Korea to the South China Sea. So this is a unified effort here.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and the gentlewoman for offering the amendment and her deep concern, which we share on the committee, for those maritime workers.

Madam Chairman, 230,000 applied and 64,000 have actually received their cards. There is a bottleneck at TSA principally in printing out those cards, and the amendment just provides a margin of safety and a time to accomplish the objective.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I do not oppose it.

The amendment is very limited in nature, very specific, to deal with the transfer of property that will not take place until the Coast Guard has relocated the station at facilities that are yet to be built. It will also not take place until environmental cleanup has occurred on the existing site. And that is important. The commandant has determined that retention of property is not required to carry out any other Coast Guard mission. So protection for the Coast Guard, protection for the City and the cleanup provisions, and it is a very beneficial amendment.

I want to address another matter, the concern of the gentleman from Michigan about the transfer of excess property to the Christian Cornerstone Academy, a land transfer that is supported by the Coast Guard, by the Academy, and the community of Sheboygan. We had already filed the manager's amendment at the time that this issue came to the attention of the gentleman from Michigan, and it was not possible to include that in the manager's amendment nor in the amendments considered by the Rules Committee.

But I do want to assure the gentleman that we will work to accomplish the purposes of this land transfer as we get into conference with the other body. Or, should such language be included by the other body in their version of the Coast Guard, which is now working its way to the floor of the other body, that we should expect to meet in conference and recognize the special needs in this matter. The Coast Guard executed a 10-year, no cost lease for the construction of the Cornerstone Christian Academy in Sheboygan. The lease has been renegotiated to fair market value. The Coast Guard has deemed 6 acres of the property as excess, if I have described the matter rightly.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

I yield to the Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.

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

I share the gentleman's concern for adequate icebreaking capability on the Great Lakes. We have the new icebreaker Mackinaw. The Coast Guard has smaller harbor icebreakers. But they simply are not sufficient to keep channels open. This past shipping season, the Coast Guard failed to send the Mackinaw upstream, up lake, to keep channels open for shipping of iron ore to lower lake steel mills.

I assure the gentleman, I will work diligently with the Coast Guard to keep their attention focused on our needs for icebreaking capability on the Great Lakes. On the Chesapeake Bay, I said to the chairman of the subcommittee, you don't have that problem. It doesn't freeze over.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I enormously respect the distinguished and amiable gentleman from Ohio, the weight-lifting champ of the House gym. When he walks on the floor, the weights quiver and shake in awe of his appearance.

He has been an advocate for the Delta Queen even back to last fall when I was in the Bethesda Naval Hospital for an operation to correct a long-standing injury to my neck. He sent a sheet cake with the Delta Queen emblazoned upon it to remind me of his diligence and of his enthusiasm for the Delta Queen. I could only eat one slice of it, but I assured him that the staff at the hospital, who had no idea what the Delta Queen was all about, appreciated this sheet cake from the very distinguished and caring gentleman from the State of Ohio.

But labor has nothing to do with this issue. I haven't heard from a single person in any labor union about this matter.

The Delta Queen was built in 1926 and carried 174 passengers, 88 state rooms. It has extensive wood superstructure. It has extensive wood interior and furniture, and for those reasons, the Coast Guard will not certify this vessel. Opposition is clear. The combustible construction of the vessel presents an unacceptable fire risk that cannot be mitigated by the addition of fire-suppression measures, says the Coast Guard.

As such, the Coast Guard's position remains unchanged. The Delta Queen should be prohibited from operating with overnight passengers.

Since May 28, 1936, the United States has required that passenger vessels be constructed essentially of fire retardant material. In the interest of maritime safety, the Coast Guard, continuing their quote, has consistently opposed legislation to prolong the service of the Delta Queen. A vessel constructed of wood operating in the overnight passenger trade presents an unacceptable fire risk to its passengers and crew.

It goes on at great length.

The Delta Queen can operate in daytime but not at night.

In the operation of the trade on the Mississippi River, the worst disaster in history occurred, fire onboard a paddle wheeler. Yes, in the 19th century, but 1,700 people died 100 yards from shore.

On March 22 of this year, of this year, the Delta Queen had a fire in the generating room requiring the use of their fixed C02 extinguishing system. Fortunately, no one was injured. The generator shorted, caused flames to shoot out the generator end.

Earlier this month, the Queen of the West, this April, a similar paddle wheel operated by the very same company that owns and operates the Delta Queen had a fire in the engine room, required evacuation of 177 passengers and crew. Three crew members were treated for smoke inhalation.

Last year, in May, the Empress of the North, another excursion vessel operated by the same company owning the Delta Queen, ran aground in southeast Alaska, evacuating over 200 passengers and crew; fourth grounding of that vessel in less than 4 years.

Now I can understand those who live along the Mississippi River, which starts nearly in my district all the way down to the Gulf, but friends, we would never stand for limiting safety on a 747 aircraft. And over a decade ago, a foreign airline was trying to remove over-

wing exits from a 747. Congressman Bill Clinger, Pennsylvania's ranking Republican on the Committee on Aviation with me, we stopped them from doing that. We stopped the FAA from allowing that risk to safety. We should stop this risk to safety here. Fire at night is terrifying. Oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, as I indicated in the general debate, this is an exercise in unity as relates to the safety and security of the Nation and, of course, the reauthorization and the emphasis of the specialness of the Coast Guard. I am delighted to come from the fourth largest city in the Nation and to have a very large port that benefits from the outstanding service of the U.S. Coast Guard.

I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for not only his eloquence, but his long-standing history and knowledge of what we needed to do in this Congress, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings, and as well the distinguished, as they all are distinguished, ranking member of the full committee, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, working on this along with my full committee chair, Mr. Thompson. I serve as the Subcommittee Chair on Transportation, Security, and Infrastructure Protection. We have had a number of opportunities to work together. So we are filled with tasks, and those tasks must be addressed.

I rise in support of the legislation. My amendment is a simple but important addition to this vital legislation, which I believe can be supported by every Member of the House.

My amendment calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare an assessment of the enrollment site for the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, TWIC, which we have heard so much about. These cards are issued under section 70105 of Title 46 USC within 30 days of the enactment of this act.

The assessment should at a minimum examine the feasibility of keeping those enrollment sites open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, in order to better handle the large number of applicants for such cards, the feasibility of keeping those enrollment sites open after September 25, 2008, and the quality of customer service, including the periods of time individuals are kept on hold on the telephone, appointments are kept, and processing times for applications. We are here to help.

In our committee, we have heard over and over again, everyone is trying to meet the deadline. DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, has a deadline. We believe as Members of Congress they should have a deadline to secure America, but we must make sure that the deadline is realistic in light of the resources and the tools that they have to comply.

Madam Chairman, I continue to receive firsthand accounts from my constituents in and around the Nation that deal with the question of transportation workers and operators who are frustrated because of sometimes the unsatisfactory performance of TWIC enrollment sites.

I have spoken with a multitude of people from throughout the country who have shared with me the great difficulty they experience due to administrative obstacles obtaining their TWIC cards. These obstacles include the lack of enrollment sites or the difficulty in getting to the enrollment sites, making appointments at enrollment sites which are not kept, long processing lines for applications, and staying on hold for hours on the telephone. While we have made securing our Nation a priority, we must ensure we do so in the most productive way.

Let me just briefly say what we have seen from the State of Texas and around the Nation. For example, a marine worker at the Houston Port enrolled on December 13, 2007, at the Houston center. To this date, he does not have a card. He remained on hold for 4 hours and 10 minutes and was finally told by the operator that he would have to return to Houston to be fingerprinted again after April. Incidentally, a representative of the Higman Marine Services asked the same question about the employee. That person was told that they should not return until June.

These inconsistencies in service and information are not helping us get our TWIC cards to those individuals, hard-working Americans who need to have a job and a TWIC card to work.

Furthermore, another transportation worker went to the Beaumont center about 3 weeks ago to pick up his TWIC after being notified it was ready. He traveled from a place in Texas. He was told that the card was accidentally shipped to Houston and he could drive 85 miles to pick it up. He presently does not have a card, and therefore he is not able to move forward. The list of incidents go on.

My amendment calls for the Secretary to assess within a month of the enactment these TWIC enrollment sites to determine the feasibility of having them open at times when transportation workers can come and improve the quality of processing procedures. Furthermore, my amendment calls on the Secretary to develop timelines and benchmarks on their assessment. Finally, it calls for them to implement any changes necessary, including keeping it open 24 hours a day, keeping it open 7 days a week, but really at the assessment of the Department of Homeland Security.

Workers are trying to do what they are supposed to do. We have to do what we have to do. I believe this amendment will help do it better, and I believe it is part of the security fabric,

and I hope that we will pass this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for affording me this opportunity to address the Members of the House of Representatives and explain my amendment to H.R. 2830, the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007.'' My amendment is a simple but important addition to this important legislation, which I believe can be supported by every Member of this House.

My amendment calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare an assessment of the enrollment sites for Transportation Worker Identification Credential, TWIC, cards issued under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code, within 30 days of the enactment of this Act. This assessment should, at a minimum, examine: the feasibility of keeping those enrollment sites open 24 hours per day, and 7 days per week, in order to better handle the large number of applicants for such cards; the feasibility of keeping those enrollment sites open after September 25, 2008; and the quality of customer service, including the periods of time individuals are kept on hold on the telephone, whether appointments are kept, and processing times for applications.

Madam Chairman, I continue to receive firsthand accounts from my constituents in Houston and from other transportation workers and operators around the country regarding their frustrations and the unsatisfactory performance of TWIC enrollment sites. I have spoken with a multitude of people from throughout the country who have shared with me the great difficulties they experienced due to administrative obstacles in obtaining their TWIC cards. These obstacles include the difficulty of going to enrollment sites, making appointments at enrollment sites which are not kept, long processing times for applications, and staying on hold for hours on the telephone. While we have made securing our Nation a priority, we must ensure that we do so in the most effective and efficient way possible.

I would like to reiterate only few of the obstacles that workers have faced in my State of Texas as well in my district of Houston. For example, a marine worker enrolled at the Houston Port enrolled on December 13, 2007. To this date, he still does not yet have a TWIC card. He remained on hold for 4 hours and 10 minutes and was finally told by the operator that he would have to return to Houston to be fingerprinted again after APR. Incidentally, a representative of Higman Marine Services, Inc., asked the same question about their employee, and she was told that he should not return until June. This blatant inconsistency in service and information is simply unacceptable. Furthermore, another transportation worker went to the Beaumont center about 3 weeks ago to pick up his TWIC after being notified it was ready. He traveled from Hemphill, TX (117 miles) and was told that the card was accidentally shipped to Houston and he could drive there (85 miles) to pick it up. He presently does not have his card. The list of incidences in which workers have to continually overcome structural impediments is too long for me to name. It is from my concern for these workers that I have introduced my amendment.

That is why my amendment calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to assess, within a month of this Act's enactment, these TWIC enrollment sites to determine the feasibility of having them open at times where transportation workers can come and to improve the quality of their processing procedures. Furthermore, my amendment calls on the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop timelines and benchmarks for implementing the findings of the assessment as the Secretary deems necessary. By identifying the areas in which enrollment sites for homeland security cards are ineffective and inefficient and creating a timeline through which to implement necessary changes and benchmarks to ensure their progress and accountability, we will make this nation a safer place--accessible to labor and operators alike.

In short, Madam Chairman, my amendment can be summed up as follows: for those who have confidence in how these TWIC enrollment sites are administering this program, my amendment offers vindication. For those who are skeptical and have seen firsthand the problems apparent at these enrollment sites, my amendment will provide the information necessary to rectify the causes for their frustrations and a way forward to ensure that the results of this assessment are actually implemented.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to thank all of you, and I believe that this is the right step. The action item is that they should implement the process of their study to make it work for our various mariners so that they can be part of the security of America. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding. We are also prepared to accept this amendment. We think it's a good amendment.

Although I was very taken by the gentleman from Massachusetts' prose, I would indicate we did have a pretty extensive hearing in the Coast Guard Subcommittee on this particular bridge and this waterway up in Fall River. I'm never caught short about the imagination of the Massachusetts delegation.

Just to be clear, the FERC approval of that site was based upon one bridge. After the delegation applied for the construction of a new bridge and there was a proposal to demolish the old bridge 100 yards from the new bridge, the Massachusetts delegation has fallen in love with this old bridge. As a result, it is not a navigable waterway. That was the basis for the Coast Guard's decision in this matter. I congratulate Mr. Markey for not only his good amendment but also the Massachusetts delegation in general for their ingenious work.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition although I will not oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, we're prepared to accept this amendment, although I must say we have concerns about the overall effect

the language will have on the requirements under the Transportation Worker Identification Credential program and port security levels in general.

As we all know, and the committee has received voluminous testimony, TWIC readers will not be available for some time. However, in my opinion, we should not relax identification requirements once the readers are in place in our Nation's ports. The evidence at the committee is that we're not dealing with an unknown universe of individuals, we're dealing with a universe anywhere from 750,000 to 1.5 million people who will eventually come and require a TWIC card.

I look forward to working with Representative Zoe Lofgren and commend her on behalf of this 85-year-old gentleman, and others, for bringing this matter to our attention. I look forward to working with Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings and Representative Zoe Lofgren in the conference to perhaps tweak the TWIC language and make sure that we're not saying that, in fact, the alternative identification measures are biometric, and they're not saying that we're going to use someone's driver's license as a substitute for those procedures.

I look forward to the conference, and would be happy to yield to the chairman for his observations on the amendment.

I would ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee if he has any observations.

I thank the chairman and reserve the balance of my time.

I would indicate to the gentlelady that if you're prepared to close, I will yield back when you're done.

Then I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to be clear as we move forward, Madam Chairman. This has happened a couple of times. And I am not questioning the ruling of the Chair, but a couple of times, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Oberstar, has risen to claim time in opposition without being opposed to the amendment and has claimed the right to close, and I just want to make sure we're all squared away.

No. You're doing a great job and making great rulings. I just want to be clear as we move forward, because we have about six more amendments. It is my understanding that the chairman closed because he was defending the position of the committee, which I'm doing. If that's not the ruling of the Chair, I'm happy to live with the ruling of the excellent Chair, but I just want to make sure we're squared away.

But in the meantime, I'm yielding back my time.

I thank the chairman very much for yielding.

Madam Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and are pleased to accept it. I want to congratulate Mr. Bishop, a valued member of the committee and the subcommittee.

This will require the Coast Guard to report on the use and qualification of State and local officials used in a security capacities at LNG facilities.

I would just remark parenthetically that I assume that the chairman was able to close because he is much more revered in the institution than I am, and I accept that and I also agree with that assessment.

Madam Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not opposed and would continue to yield to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time for a minute, it is my understanding that the gentleman from Georgia is going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment, and I want to express my appreciation because the amendment, from my perspective, is problematic. We do concur in the concerns that have been expressed in the colloquy between the chairman and Mr. Broun, and I want to congratulate Dr. Broun as another new Member of the House who has really stepped up to the plate and brought important issues before this body.

I would tell the gentleman that we did have some pretty illuminating hearings on the Administrative Law Judge, and the current Acting Chairman and I both served as prosecuting attorneys, she was also a judge, and I would tell you that my experience, and I think she would echo this, is that people can accept when they come into a forum if they lose, as long as they believe that they have lost fairly. The testimony that we received was that there are a number of people that don't have that feeling going in. It was our hope by making this small adjustment that even when they are ruled against, they will say, I got my day in court.

That was the objective. I do appreciate the gentleman's concern. I promise him that we will continue to work on it as it goes to conference.

I would be happy to yield once again to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We are not opposed to this amendment. We are willing to accept the amendment, which requires the Coast Guard to develop mission needs down on the Rio Grande. I want to congratulate Mr. Cuellar and Mr. McCaul, who looks remarkably like Mr. Fortenberry, for bringing this amendment before the House. We accept it.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, we wholeheartedly support this amendment and congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for his catch and for his unwavering diligence and vigilance on Great Lakes water quality issues. Those of us that have the pleasure to represent districts that are near or abut the Great Lakes know the damage that has been done by invasive species, both plants, animals and pathogens. The gentleman's amendment improves upon our bill.

As I said before during general debate, I am so proud of this committee's work on this ballast water exchange program. It really is a shining example of how Members of both parties can come together and do the right thing and the noble thing, and that, of course, all begins at the top with Chairman Oberstar's leadership.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her thoughtful amendment. We are willing to accept her amendment, which will require the Department of Homeland Security to assess measures that may encourage maritime workers to accelerate application rates for the TWIC card. We all know a deadline is looming.

The only observation I would make so that no one is under a misapprehension, nobody has been prevented from working yet, because the TWIC requirements don't go into effect until September. But we support the gentlewoman's amendment. We think it is a thoughtful amendment.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the full committee for his thoughts.

I am happy to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for his observations.

It is my understanding that the gentlelady's time has expired. I learned the hard way today that I don't have the right to close. But I would be happy to yield the balance of our time to the sponsor of the legislation, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

We are also willing to accept the gentleman from Michigan's amendment, which authorizes the conveyance of property and the light station to Marquette, Michigan. This provision follows the standard language that has been used by the committee in other light station conveyances in previous years.

I would just note, I know the chairman of the full committee represents very hearty folk. When he came to Akron and said that it was 41 below, I think, at International Falls, I also know the gentleman from Michigan, having gone to school in Michigan representing the UP, represents very hearty folk. And so I hope we not only give them what he wants in Marquette, but Sheboygan as well, because they deserve it because it is really cold.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order by the rule.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am offering this amendment because I am concerned about the intent and the function of title X and title XI. I would like to seek some clarification from the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), if he would join me in a discussion.

Mr. Oberstar, with respect to title X, I'm concerned that if we transfer 80 percent of the funding for the Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge functions to the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard will not be able to manage the appeals process of any of the truck, rail, and port workers who might be denied the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, card. My concern is that we will create a bottleneck in the appeals process, effectively slowing TWIC appeals and preventing American workers from gainful employment while appeals are adjudicated.

Can you assure us that when this bill emerges from conference that you will make sure that the Coast Guard retains sufficient resources to address the expected TWIC appeal workload resulting from the million workers that are applying?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I thank you for that assurance. It's certainly a huge issue, as far as I'm concerned, as we deal with Homeland Security and TWIC cards. So I greatly appreciate the chairman's assurance of that, and I'm looking forward to that bipartisan effort. We, unfortunately, don't have enough bipartisanship and bipartisan effort here; so I thank the chairman for that.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, with respect to title XI, I'm concerned that the current language might give the appearance of elevating the Coast Guard's marine safety mission above its other critical missions, such as search and rescue, national defense, and port security.

Can you confirm for me, Mr. Chairman, that it is not your intent to elevate this one mission above other missions that are critical for the Coast Guard?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Certainly that's important.

And reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his assurances, and I appreciate his willingness to engage in this dialogue to clarify the intent of these two titles and his commitment to work with me in conference to ensure that the Coast Guard has the authorities and resources it needs to secure our homeland.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Will the gentleman yield?

My concern was that the GAO is going to investigate any improprieties within the current Administrative Law Judge System, and that GAO report hasn't been completed. This just seems premature. That is what drew my concern, and I appreciate the chairman's assurances.

With that, I have got one more statement.

Madam Chairman, I submit for the Record two letters, a statement from the Commandant of the Coast Guard, as well as the letter from TSA stating their concern on these titles.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast

Guard,

Washington, DC, April 23, 2008.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oberstar: On April 18, the Committee filed

with the Rules Committee an amendment in the nature of a

substitute to H.R. 2830, that would be retitled the ``Coast

Guard Authorization Act of 2008.'' During numerous meetings

and staff-level discussions over several months, we have

described how a number of provisions that appear in this

amendment would compromise organizational efficiency and

operational effectiveness, diminish my command and control,

and ultimately reduce the Coast Guard's effectiveness in

carrying out its safety, security, and stewardship missions.

We have expressed these and other concerns in Department of

Homeland Security views letters concerning earlier bill

language. The amendment also contains provisions neither

previously shared nor discussed with the Coast Guard.

One provision requiring that the Coast Guard provide

security around liquefied natural gas terminals and tankers

is contrary to the existing assistance framework, at odds

with accepted risk management practices, and would divert

finite Coast Guard assets from other high-priority missions.

I recommend a broader discussion of security measures for all

extremely hazardous cargoes. In the Statement of

Administration Policy on H.R. 2830, the Administration has

stated that, if the bill is presented to the President with

this provision, his senior advisors would recommend that he

veto the bill.

Among the others is one that, while similar to the

Administration's proposal, fails to authorize the President

to appoint officers to positions of importance and

responsibility to accommodate organizational change in the

future (Admirals and Vice Admirals). Others, primarily

involving our important marine safety mission, would

statutorily fix the designation and duties of other senior

Coast Guard officials and officials at all levels of command,

and prescribe inflexible personnel qualification

requirements. Still other provisions would diminish the Coast

Guard's capacity to adjudicate merchant mariner licensing

matters efficiently and effectively and support other vital

security adjudications of the Department of Homeland Security

(Appeals to National Transportation Safety Board). Still more

provisions would prescribe contracting and acquisition

practices for the Deepwater program, thereby increasing the

cost of, and adding delay to, the Deepwater acquisition

process, as well as circumventing the review and approval

authority of Coast Guard technical authorities (Coast Guard

Integrated Deepwater Program).

Among the new provisions is one that dramatically alters

admission procedures for the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. While

I have discussed Academy admissions several times with

Chairman Cummings and we agree that our process should yield

successful cadets and reflect our diverse society, the

proposed Congressional nomination process deserves full

discussion and deliberate consideration. Other new provisions

that affect how we execute our missions deserve similar

scrutiny. Conversely, the bill omits the Administration

proposal for much needed enhanced authority to prosecute

those who would smuggle undocumented aliens into the United

States by sea (Maritime Alien Smuggling Law Enforcement Act)

and the Administration's proposal to protect seafarers who

participate in investigations and adjudication of

environmental crimes or who have been abandoned in the United

States (Protection of and fair treatment of seafarers).

Over the last year in the course of hearings, personal

meetings with you, and regional forums with industry, as well

as in my public statements, I have assured you and the public

that we share a common objective: a robust marine safety

program suited to meet the evolving demands of industry and

the marine public. I am already taking aggressive steps to

right the balance between our marine safety mission and our

other vital responsibilities, and improve the effectiveness,

consistency, and responsiveness of our marine safety program,

consistent with the framework I presented to you last

September. Legislation such as the provisions I describe

above was unnecessary to start this process. As I have stated

on several occasions, I am the Commandant and am accountable

to you to produce the changes needed to improve program

performance.

Including these provisions and others in an Authorization

Act that would otherwise be welcome compels me to strongly

oppose the bill.

Sincerely,

T.W. Allen,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.

Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Madam Chairman, I rise in full support of this amendment. It is another one of those makes-sense amendments that strengthens the legislation.

We have a situation here where currently, under an existing memorandum of understanding between FERC and the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard already provides the results of its waterway suitability reports to FERC. This amendment would simply codify that practice. The amendment would then require FERC to inform the Secretary of the actions the commission has taken regarding the proposed terminal's application.

It simply makes sense. We've got to have the Coast Guard and FERC working together. Of course the Coast Guard determines suitability of the waterway leading into the location where the LNG is going to be, and then of course FERC takes a look at other things. So the combination of them working together is so very, very, very important, and so we wholeheartedly support the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I support this amendment, also.

Under section 7-105 of title 46, United States Code, the Department of Homeland Security is required to issue a biometric credential to individuals who are authorized to have unescorted access to secure areas, vessels and facilities. And some people are unable to accomplish that. I was just talking to my aid, who said that she went to see the rollout and they didn't pick up her fingerprints, which was a bad day for them. And so I think we have to address this.

We will work to ensure that this amendment would not alter the standards in which a TWIC is issued in any way; however, we need to provide options for individuals whose fingerprints, like my aid's, cannot be used to authenticate the cards.

I strongly support the amendment, and we will tweak the TWIC. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I fully support this amendment by Mr. Bishop, the Vice Chair of our subcommittee.

This amendment would require the Coast Guard to detail the extent to which State and local law enforcement entities are augmenting Coast Guard resources by conducting port security patrols and by aiding in the enforcement of Coast Guard-imposed security zones around vessels entering our ports.

While I have the utmost respect for State and local law enforcement, the subcommittee is concerned that such entities may be undertaking maritime patrols to augment the Coast Guard's resources without having previously had experience performing law enforcement functions on the water and without fully understanding what it takes to respond to the unique threats that

confront our Nation in the maritime environment.

The study required by Mr. Bishop's amendment would provide the critical assessment that is needed both of whether the Coast Guard has established adequate training, resource, and equipment standards for State and local law enforcement units performing maritime patrols and the extent to which law enforcement can meet these standards.

I fully support the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just wanted to say that we are very concerned, as you are, and please note that no TWIC applicants have requested an ALJ hearing as of April 13.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I want to join with Chairman Oberstar in strongly opposing this amendment. But we do plan to work with the gentleman on this.

Title X grants mariners a ``change of venue'' when they appeal the suspension and revocation of their professional credentials from an Administrative Law Judge system controlled by the very same Coast Guard that is seeking to take their credentials to a system located in a neutral agency, the National Transportation Safety Board.

I note that title X would move only Coast Guard suspension and revocation cases to NTSB. All other cases currently heard by the Coast Guard ALJ, including cases from TSA, would be unaffected by title X. I know that the concerns have been raised by the gentleman and that the changes proposed in title X would leave the Coast Guard ALJ program without the resources to handle the TSA, but we certainly question that. However, I note that the cases heard by the Coast Guard's ALJ for TSA and for other agencies, like NOAA, are heard on a cost reimbursement basis. Title X would continue to allow agencies to reimburse the Coast Guard ALJ for the costs associated with adjudication of those cases

Further, I'd note that since TSA was established, that agency has filed 504

civil penalty cases with the Coast Guard ALJ, 60 cases remain pending, a total of 230 cases did not proceed to an adjudication. Orders granting motions for a decision were issued in 156 cases, and dismissal orders were granted in four cases.

Finally, let me say this. No TWIC applicants have requested an ALJ hearing as of April 13, though there have been 230 enrollments, and they started enrolling back in October of 2007. Decisions and orders were issued in only 54 cases, which would be an average of about nine cases per year.

So, again, we have the same concerns, and I hope you understand why this even came about, because we have some very painful testimony from mariners about how they felt that the system was already set up against them before they got into the hearing room. And we had testimony from Administrative Law Judges who were concerned that an atmosphere of unfairness was being pushed upon them by those who may have been above them.

So I think that the ranking member and I and other members of our committee agreed that we needed to do something, and we thought this was the best vehicle. We have the same concerns that you have.

With that, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to thank the gentleman for the amendment. Without a doubt, it makes the bill better. I too am very proud of what we have

been able to accomplish with regard to ballast water. We have a duty to protect our environment, and this goes a long ways towards it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have convened two hearings, Madam Chairman, in the Coast Guard Subcommittee on the TWIC card. Our most recent hearing was held in January after the enrollment process had been underway for a few months.

During that hearing, we heard about some of the glitches that individuals attempting to enroll have encountered. Such glitches are unacceptable when workers must pay $132.50 and take time off from work to obtain a card that they are required to have to do their job and to provide for their families.

TWIC is an essential part of our post-security regime and is intended to ensure that those who pose a threat to our maritime infrastructure do not gain access to the secure areas of vessels or port facilities.

However, enrollment must be conducted as seamlessly as possible to cause the least burden to those workers. And I want to thank Ms. Jackson-Lee for her amendment. It helps to make our bill a better bill.

I heartily support the amendment of Mr. Stupak.

The amount of land being conveyed here under this amendment is only 5.5 acres, and I believe it is appropriate that once the Coast Guard leaves this site, the land and the lighthouse be made available to a local municipality that can preserve these resources and utilize them for the public purpose.