Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008

Madam. Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 42: Passage of H. Res. 475. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

January 22, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 43: Table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair for H. Res. 476. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 44: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. No. 52. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 45: Motion to suspend the rules and Agreed to H.R. 390. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 46: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 29. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

February 8, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 87: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, and amendment to include language which encourages the Assistant Administrator to utilize Land Grant Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions and other minority serving institutions among other resources to undertake research for programs covered by the bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 88: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, an amendment to add a new paragraph to section 3, Biofuel Infrastructure and Additives Research and Development, to include issues with respect to where in the fuel supply chain additives optimally should be added to fuels. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 89: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, an amendment to add a new paragraph to section 3 which includes issues with respect to certification by a nationally recognized testing laboratory of components for fuel dispensing devices that specifically reference compatibility with alcohol blended and biofuels that contain greater than 15 percent alcohol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 90: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, an amendment to add a new section 7 entitled Additional Funding. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 91:

the Motion to Recommit with Instructions of H.R. 547. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 92: Passage of H.R. 547. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

February 28, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 111: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Con. Res. 52. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

March 12, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 136: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended on H.R. 85. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 137: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 136. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 138: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 89. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 187: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as amended on H.R. 802. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 188: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended on H.R. 137. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 189: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended on H.R. 580. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

May 14, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 342: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass on H.R. 1124. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 343: Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 223. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 344: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree (H. Res. 385). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

May 16, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 358: Call in Committee Quorum. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 359: Motion that the Committee Rise (H.R. 1585). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

June 11, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 448: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass on H.R. 2356. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 449: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on S. 676. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 450: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 418. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

July 23, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 687: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 404, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 688: Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 553. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 689: Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 519. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 690: On ordering the previous question on H. Res. 558. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

August 1, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 781: Motion to adjourn. Had I been present. I would have voted ``no.''

september 4, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 847: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 694, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 848: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3020, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 849: Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2669. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

september 17, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 867: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3246, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 868: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1657, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 869: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3527. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

october 1, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 924: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 185. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 925: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 926: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3325. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

october 15, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 961: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 738. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 962: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2089. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 963: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 20, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

October 17, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 980: Passage of H.R. 2095. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

october 29, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1010: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3224, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1011: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 573, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1012: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 747. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

November 5, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1034: Closing Portions of the Conference on H.R. 3222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1035: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 513, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1036: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 744. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

november 7, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1058: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Con. Res. 236, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

november 13, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1082: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3315. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1083: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1593, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1084: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3403, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1085: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3461, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

november 14, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1095: Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

december 6, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1141: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2085. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support today of the Senate amendment to H.R. 802, the Maritime Prevention Pollution Act of 2008. I want to give credit and pay tribute to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings of Maryland, for their diligence in working this bill and working the will of the committee and today the will of the House. I join Mr. Oberstar in expressing my regret that the other body has not acted in as prompt a fashion, and therefore we may be too late with this legislation. Hopefully that isn't the case.

This type of legislation is exactly what our committee should be about. Those of us, as the current occupant of the chair who hails from the Great Lakes region, as does the chairman of the full committee, know the great work that has gone into the restoration of the Great Lakes over many, many years. I am reminded as I listened to the chairman talk about the action or inaction of the other body that Johnny Carson, before the restoration of Lake Erie in particular was in full swing, used to joke that Lake Erie was a place where fish went to die. I think it is appropriate to say that at this moment in time, the Senate, regardless of who is in charge, is a place where bills go to die.

This bill will implement international requirements to reduce air emissions from ships for purposes of U.S. law and will establish more stringent standards for the emissions of airborne pollutants from ships as well as the sulfur content of fuel oil used in United States waters.

As Members may remember, the House first passed this bill in March of 2007, again thanks to the splendid leadership of Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings, with a broad bipartisan majority. Since that time, the bill has languished in the other body, to the point where we may well be prevented from voting on proposed amendments to the underlying convention at the next meeting of the International Maritime Organization. As a result, our abilities to push for strengthened measures have been significantly weakened.

Nonetheless, this is important legislation. I am pleased we will be sending it to the President as a first step to improve environmental conditions in our ports and along our coasts. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I know that it will come as a surprise to the Speaker that I spend just a couple of minutes talking about energy today, and I want to talk about it in the context of our committee.

I think the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, can probably cite the statistic, but every year I have been here, and this is my 14th year in the United States Congress, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I think under both Republican and Democratic leadership, has distinguished itself in the bipartisan and efficient way in which we craft our legislation and actually get something done, when the other body is willing and when the chief executive is willing to sign it.

I thought I heard before our July 4th recess Mr. Oberstar talk about the many numbers of bills that we have actually moved through the House, through the Senate, that have been signed into law, and it far exceeds a lot of the work that some of the other more contentious committees in this body, by their nature, no criticism intended, can compile, and I think it is in direct correlation to and as a direct result of the respect that we have for each other on both sides of the aisle on that committee, and now the stern but fair leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

That brings me to a frustration that I found and encountered over the Fourth of July recess. I was talking to Mr. Oberstar. I didn't quite have the adulation poured upon me at parades that he had in his district in Minnesota. There were some people that thought that $4.10 was a little bit much to be paying at the pump.

But the message that I got pretty loud and clear is that they want us to resolve it. When you pull into the gas station, there isn't a Republican pump and there isn't a Democratic pump and there isn't an independent pump, there is just gas that costs a lot of money today, and someone making $8 an hour in Ohio for a $320 per week gross paycheck is struggling, with $60, $70 filling up the tank to go to and from work.

There are a lot of opinions, and I will get into those in just a second, but I was reminded for the 12 years we were in the majority I happened to be supportive of something known as Davis-Bacon, which is the Federal prevailing wage law, and our committee is responsible for producing the Water Resources Development Act.

We were stymied for years in getting necessary water infrastructure projects out to our communities because of the sort of Davis-Bacon problem, and that is the then majority leader believed that if it came to a vote on an amendment, at that time by one of our colleagues who is not with us anymore, Mrs. Kelly of New York, that that issue would prevail, and much to the dismay of Members in the then majority party, who happened to be a majority of the majority but were a minority of the House, if that vote were permitted to have taken place. That was a frustrating thing, and, sadly, I think we find ourselves there again on this energy question.

There are Members in this House who advocate additional exploration and drilling in the United States, both on and offshore, in the West, in Alaska, off the east coast and the west coast. There are some who say no. There are some who advocate a replenishment and an increased investment in renewable, wind and solar. The gentleman from Minnesota is an expert on photovoltaic electricity, and certainly he has passed legislation that would be supportive of increased research and development of that type of energy generation.

There are those who believe like the French we should add nuclear power back into our portfolio. France, I believe, generates about 80 percent of its power through nuclear power. We haven't had a nuclear power program in this country for a number of years. There are those in this House that object to that and don't think that that is a good idea as well.

But the point is that I think that at $4, $4.10, $4.11, we have reached the price point where the American public, who has to get up and buy food, send their kids to school, pay their bills, pay their taxes and fill up their gas tanks, don't really want to hear why we disagree and what we can't agree on.

I think that they are looking for a solution. And there are a lot of people in both parties who are bellicose on this issue, and I don't intend to do that. But I think I would say that the time to have this national debate is now. We need to determine what direction the country is going to go in. And like most issues, the Democrats aren't 100 percent correct, the Republicans aren't 100 percent correct. But we are expected to be the leaders of the Nation and we are expected to come up with solutions.

So I would hope, not in the spirit of the old Water Resources Development Act where we were not permitted to have the House work its will, that the current leadership of the House would let the Members of the House work their will on what the energy policy of this country should be to give some relief to our citizens.

And since I am in a commending mood, Mr. Speaker, I would nominate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to be the designee of Speaker Pelosi to head up this effort and use the same bipartisan manner he uses on all other issues to get us out of this mess.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that I nominated the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) as sort of the energy czar of the United States Congress is exactly the reasons that he indicated. If you look at the legislation that has effectively dealt in part with the difficulties we find ourselves in, the gentleman's transit legislation certainly gets people into mass transit and out of their automobiles and saves fuel.

The gentleman's Amtrak legislation is historic, and in the short run a robust Amtrak means good things for America in terms of jobs and moving people to and from work. I think I saw something on the news where they were tracking what has happened to people's behaviors since the price of gas has gone up, and I believe Amtrak has seen a 13 percent ridership increase since gas has increased, a testament to Amtrak, and also a testament to the gentleman's bill that made sure that Amtrak isn't operating hand to mouth as we move through this process.

Similarly, the gentleman's vision for intercity rail in this country is again something where we lag far behind our friends in Asia and Europe, and he has for the first time, at least since I have been here, put real money, $350 million a year for 5 years, into the notion of high-speed intercity rail connections principally in the Midwest of the United States. But all of us recognize that that piece at least is some years away in terms of it being a viable alternative and impacting the cost of gasoline.

So, again, I would make the suggestion that there are good ideas on both sides of this aisle. There are many gifted Members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats. We should have a national debate. And, for the sake of the people that I represent and others represent, we should get something done and we should get them some relief today.

But, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to Mr. Rayfield and we were trying to remember whether it was General William Tecumseh Sherman who said: If asked, I will not run. If nominated, I will not serve. If elected, I will not serve.

I think that is what the gentleman from Minnesota said to my suggestion and I hope he in fact reconsiders that, because of all of the people in this body, he commands tremendous respect

on both sides of the aisle. He has demonstrated again and again not only as the ranking member in previous Congresses of our committee but now as the chairman that he can put together the best ideas of both sides, and not only move forward ideas that he firmly believes in but find consensus and actually get bills done and signed into law. So I hope the gentleman, unlike my fellow Ohioan, General Sherman, reconsiders.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 802) to amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from ships to implement MARPOL Annex VI.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 802.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I smile because it's a delight to call the gentleman Mr. Speaker.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 802, as amended, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I introduced this legislation at the outset of the 110th Congress to provide the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency with the legal authority they need to implement Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

The House passed H.R. 802 on March 26, 2007, by a vote of 359-48. Notwithstanding that overwhelming vote of approval, the bill languished in the place we affectionately call the other body

for more than a year. But recently they have passed, with minor changes, that legislation. With House passage today, the bill can go to the President for consideration and for his signature.

Global warming is a critical issue, not just for the United States, but for every Nation, for every person on the planet. The international maritime community has recognized their contribution to global warming and to ocean pollution and have developed an international convention to address air pollutants from diesel ships.

For many years, the International Maritime Organization of the United Nations has been developing international standards to prevent pollution from ships that traverse the oceans. Those standards are now embodied in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973. The U.S. has implemented these environmental laws by enacting and amending the legislation known as the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, and when I served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, much of whose jurisdiction has now been absorbed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we worked on early versions of those amendments and environmental laws to implement and amend the APPS.

Annex VI of the Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships limits the discharge of nitrogen oxides from large marine diesel engines; it governs the sulfur content of marine diesel fuel; prohibits the emission of ozone-depleting substances; it regulates the emission of volatile organic compounds in the transfer of cargoes between tankers and terminals. It sets standards for shipboard incinerators and fuel oil quality; and it establishes requirements for platforms and drill rigs at sea.

The Senate ratified this treaty by unanimous consent in April, 2006. But it doesn't go into effect until we enact implementing legislation. The bill we consider today will implement Annex VI of the convention. It will provide the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency the authority necessary to develop U.S. standards and to enforce those standards on the thousands of U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. waters.

Recognizing the challenge that the world faces in combating worldwide climate change and global warming, we have to take every measure possible to contain and then reduce rising temperatures on this planet, and particularly the oceans that are deep reservoirs of oxygen but also reservoirs of carbon and of the acid that we are pouring into the atmosphere. And that combination of absorbing heat, acid, and carbon is having deleterious effects on the Nation's world coral reefs. There was a very enlightening program on this devastation of the coral reefs on the Science Channel just the other evening.

It is something that I witnessed myself when I lived in Haiti and did snorkeling and exploring of the coral reefs. This was in the 1950s. You could see the dead reefs on the one side, and the vibrant, growing coral reefs and the abundance of life on those coral reefs, filtering out deleterious elements in the ocean water. But on the other side, the dead reef and a testament to the effects of pollution in our waters. And that was 50 years ago.

So the Senate amendments do not affect the application of MARPOL VI to the thousands of vessels that enter our ports. Their amendment clarifies that the United States can enforce MARPOL VI on vessels that are registered in countries which are not party to the convention when those vessels are in our 200 mile economic zone if the Coast Guard is on board of the vessel to enforce other annexes to the convention and to the extent that this enforcement does not violate international law.

In addition, the Senate amendment clarifies that an individual, a person, may bring a civil action if the Administrator of EPA has failed to perform any act or duty not discretionary under the act, and that is similar to civil action that may be brought under other provisions of law on application of other annexes to the convention.

The delay by the Senate, I regret, may have near term unfortunate consequences for the United States in the IMO negotiations that will take place this coming October to reduce emissions from ships. Under the terms of the convention, only parties to the convention may vote on those reduction measures, and a nation is not party to the convention until 90 days after its instruments of ratification have been deposited with the IMO. The Senate delay means we may not meet that deadline and the U.S. may not be able to vote to improve increased standards, even though delegates representing the United States chaired the working group that met over many sessions to negotiate these new, more rigorous standards.

So, given the importance of completing action on this legislation, I asked our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, to schedule this bill as quickly as possible immediately upon the House's return to session today. I thank the majority leader for his consideration, and I am hopeful we get the bill to the President's desk without delay.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank our chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings, who has devoted a great deal of energy to the work of the subcommittee and to this particular issue in developing this legislation, and to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member of our committee, for his cooperation and support in moving the bill last year and expediting today's action considering the bill, and to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), ever the thoughtful, considerate, legal expert of the committee. I am grateful for his contribution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the Chair of the Coast Guard and Maritime

Affairs Subcommittee, my good friend, the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I thank the gentleman for that promotion, I think. But I most sincerely thank him for his comments on the work of our committee and for his partnership in shaping that success story that we have enjoyed and in partnership with Mr. Mica as well. It is representative of the historical tradition of the committee to work in a bipartisan spirit. Perhaps it is so because of the nature of our committee jurisdiction, as the gentleman has suggested in his comments.

Indeed, as of the recess for Fourth of July, we had passed the 110th bill on that Thursday of the 110th Congress, the 110th bill from our committee, 64 of which have become public law or concurrent resolutions or House resolutions that were self-implementing; and that last measure, the 110th, was indeed to address the energy issue, to provide funding for transit and flexibility for transit authorities. And another bill that we passed by 311-104 was for the future of Amtrak, a bill that is now in House-Senate conference, and which I am confident we will bring to the House floor before the August recess to give Amtrak a new breath of life, incorporating some very significant Republican concepts and contributions that I think are important for the future of Amtrak. We did not operate in the committee on the principle of a majority of the majority, but rather on the principle of the best ideas that we could marshal and muster together and shape legislation that is beneficial for the future.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

And I thank the gentleman again for his ever thoughtful remarks, Mr. Speaker. If handed such a challenge, I would undertake it with vigor and with resolute purpose. But it hasn't been handed to me, although I appreciate the gentleman's offer.

I think our committee has been able very successfully to attack these issues of short-term as well as long-term importance to the Nation, and we intend to continue pursuing the best interests of the country in the legislation we move from this committee, and to incorporate the good ideas from all members of the committee regardless of their political stature or standing.

I recall so well during T-21, the shaping of the surface transportation legislation, Mr. Shuster, then the chairman, and I traveled the country to major points of congestion throughout America to advocate for more robust investment in surface transportation. And at one point, I believe it was in Atlanta at a news conference, the last question was, well, Mr. Oberstar, why are you traveling and participating in this news conference, you a Democrat, with Mr. Shuster, a Republican? And I said: Because I have never seen a Democratic bridge or a Republican road; but if we work together, we can build all-American roads and all-American bridges.

The reporter then turned to Chairman Shuster and said: Why are you travelling with Mr. Oberstar? And he said, Because Jim Oberstar and I are joined at the hip.

And I think if we could carry that spirit with vigor and honesty and with resoluteness of purpose, we can accomplish great things for this country and for this Congress. And I for that reason enjoy the participation of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and in the current context Mr. Cummings of Maryland, because there is a real sense of doing what is good for America and putting the country first and not our own personal agendas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I especially want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Affairs for his leadership, absorbing so quickly in such a short period of time the complexities under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I also would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his partnership and working so diligently to bring this important legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this is an international issue. In fact, just moments ago, just before arriving to the floor, I had a meeting with a representative of the transportation ministry of the European Union. He is the deputy in charge of the Transport Ministry of the European Union, and we were discussing the MARPOL legislation and the need for international participation and cooperation on these issues.

In fact, the European Transport Ministry has established a new section dealing with maritime pollution issues which go beyond that of the subject of this legislation to include pollution at sea from accidents to maritime vessels, the first most serious of which was the Torrey Canyon disaster in the English Channel in 1967, which alerted all of the maritime sector to the need for double-hulled vessels, to the need for international standards on shipping.

We have moved beyond the water pollution issue, ocean pollution issue, which continues to be a matter of great concern, to that of air pollution, which is the subject of this legislation, the discharge of nitrogen oxides from maritime diesel engines, the sulfur content of diesel fuel, ozone-depleting substances, volatile organic compounds and standards for shipboard incinerators, fuel oil quality, platforms for drill rigs at sea. All of these are the subject of this legislation and of the International Maritime Pollution Convention.

At the beginning of next week, our committee will travel to Brussels to meet with members of the European Transport Ministry and members of the European Parliament Transport Committee to discuss this issue and other issues including emissions from aircraft at altitude, which are the subject of the ongoing discussions in the international community on emissions trading and steps that the international community together can take to reduce impact on factors that are accelerating global climate change.

This legislation, in other words, is not just a relatively noncontroversial matter that we attempted to accomplish in the last Congress; but for various reasons, we were not able to do so with the other body. But this is one step in a global issue of international concern that brings the United States and its maritime partners into cooperation on matters that involve air quality at sea.

I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his diligent work, and Mr. LaTourette and Ranking Member Mica for their participation and working with us to bring this legislation to the floor. I hope that the other body will cooperate promptly and move this bill to the President.

We have incorporated recommendations by the administration in this legislation to accommodate their interests.

Mr. Speaker, although it has been discussed previously before I reached the Chamber, I just want to be sure to emphasize the important change to allow EPA to enforce the standards in addition to the Coast Guard. These are changes requested by the administration. The Coast Guard acknowledging that EPA has far more experience than does the Coast Guard on air quality emission standards.

It is important for EPA to develop standards jointly with the Coast Guard because, on the Coast Guard side, they have more knowledge and understanding and expertise in vessel safety issues that have to be incorporated into any air quality emission standards that may be promulgated.

I want to emphasize this role of EPA, an important step forward, and I am very pleased the administration was emphatic in asking for an EPA role, and Coast Guard similarly has been very insistent on including EPA in this process. I think this will, overall, strengthen the result of the legislation that we are considering today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support H.R. 802, the ``Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007''. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, and I introduced this legislation in February to provide the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') with the legal authority they need to implement Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

Global climate change is a critical issue, not only for the United States, but for every man, woman, and child that live on this planet called Earth. The international maritime community has recognized this problem and developed an international convention to help address air pollutants from diesel ships.

For many years, the International Maritime Organization, an organization of the United Nations, has been developing international standards to prevent pollution from ships that ply the world's oceans. The international convention is called the International Convention

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. The United States has implemented these environmental laws by enacting and amending the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (``APPS'').

On May 19, 2005, Annex VI of that Convention came into force internationally. Annex VI limits the discharge of nitrogen oxides from large marine diesel engines, governs the sulfur content of marine diesel fuel, prohibits the emission of ozone-depleting substances, regulates the emission of volatile organic compounds during the transfer of cargoes between tankers and terminals, sets standards for shipboard incinerators and fuel oil quality, and establishes requirements for platforms and drilling rigs at sea. In April 2006, the Senate ratified this treaty by unanimous consent.

H.R. 802 is the necessary implementing legislation for Annex VI of that Convention. This legislation will give the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency the authority they need to develop the U.S. standards and to enforce these requirements on the thousands of U.S.- and foreign-flag vessels that enter the United States each year from overseas.

Everyone here recognizes the challenge that the world faces in combating global climate change. We must pursue all avenues in the effort to turn around the rising temperatures on this planet. I am pleased that the International Maritime Organization stepped up to the plate and developed amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships to regulate air pollution from ships.

Last year, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 5811, the MARPOL Annex VI Implementation Act of 2006, favorably to the House. This bill was subsequently added to H.R. 5681, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2006, and passed the House on October 28, 2006.

H.R. 802 is very similar to H.R. 5811, but includes changes to allow the EPA to enforce the standards, in addition to the Coast Guard. These changes were requested by the Administration. The Coast Guard acknowledges that the EPA has far more experience than they do on air quality emission standards. However, it is important for the EPA to develop the standards jointly with Coast Guard because of the Coast Guard's expertise over vessel safety issues.

During Committee consideration of the bill, the Committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute that clarifies that MARPOL Annex VI will only apply to vessels in the United State's 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone when the Executive Branch determines that MARPOL Annex VI is customary international law. In addition, the amendment clarified that MARPOL Annex VI will not apply to public vessels owned by the U.S. Government until the head of the agency that operates the vessels agrees with the EPA Administrator that MARPOL VI should apply to that agency's vessels.

The amendment in the nature of a substitute that the House considers today further clarifies that the application of MARPOL VI to the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and territorial sea takes effect when it becomes customary international law; requires EPA to consult with a State when establishing an emission area; and requires the regulations regarding reception facilities to be jointly prescribed by EPA and the Coast Guard.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank our new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings, for his help in developing this bill.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 802) to amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from ships to implement MARPOL Annex VI, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, I am pleased that the first piece of maritime legislation to be brought to the floor by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is a bill that will enable us to combat pollution emitted by ships.

The Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007, H.R. 802, would institute the legal changes needed to bring the United States into compliance with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the MARPOL Convention Annex VI.

MARPOL Annex VI limits the emissions from ships of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide, which are ozone-depleting substances. The Annex VI treaty was ratified by the Senate in April 2006 and came into force internationally in May of 2006.

According to the United States Department of Transportation, ocean- going ships transport 80 percent by weight of all goods and services moved into and out of the United States. The volume of trade through U.S. ports is only expected to increase.

In fact, the United States Maritime Administration estimates that the total volume of trade handled by United States ports will double in the next 15 years. Unfortunately, the ships on which we rely to carry the trade that keeps our economy growing release excessive amounts of pollution.

In fact, according to a very disturbing study released just last week by the International Council on Clean Transportation, the sulfur oxide emissions from ocean-going ships may exceed the total amount of such emissions produced by cars, trucks and buses in the world. Further, the International Maritime Organization, also known as IMO, estimates that as much as 80 percent of all ship emissions may be released within 250 miles of shore.

That means that much of the pollution emitted by ships is affecting the residents of port communities such as my hometown of Baltimore. The emissions of sulfur oxide from ships are also high because the bunker fuel used in ships may contain as much as 3 percent sulfur content by weight, or an astounding 28,000 parts per million of sulfur.

By comparison, the new ultralow sulfur diesel fuel that is mandated for use in trucks in most of the United States is not allowed to contain more than 15 parts per million of sulfur. Given the nature of shipping, it is not possible for any single nation to unilaterally regulate emissions produced by ships.

Instead, regulations applied to ocean-going vessels are usually developed through negotiations conducted by IMO, a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for developing multinational conventions regulating international shipping.

The member states of IMO developed the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships treaty, known as MARPOL, which was adopted in 1973. This groundbreaking convention has already successfully limited all pollution and pollution from ships' garbage and sewage. The most recent annex to MARPOL convention, Annex VI, sets limits on emissions from ships of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide. This annex also establishes specific limits on the sulfur content of fuel oil used in ships.

The measure before us today, H.R. 802, is a bipartisan measure that would bring United States law into compliance with the requirements of MARPOL Annex VI. The substitute amendment clarifies that the MARPOL Annex VI amendments apply only to vessels in the United States' exclusive economic zone once Annex VI becomes customary maritime law.

The amendment also requires the EPA to consult with a State when establishing an emission area and requires that regulations regarding reception facilities be jointly prescribed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Coast Guard. Through our participation in Annex VI, the United States will contribute to a global effort to control a large source of ozone-depleting emissions that has been virtually unregulated to this point.

Mr. Speaker, our natural resources are our most precious gifts, and we are merely the stewards of these resources, responsible for preserving them for generations yet unborn.

When you go into Sea World and Disney World, one of the things the signs that are written there say, ``We do not inherit our environment from our parents; we borrow it from our children.''

I applaud Chairman Oberstar for his outstanding leadership on this issue and for his commitment to implementing measures that will help us combat the release of emissions from mobile sources that are contributing to global warming.

I also thank our ranking member, the very distinguished gentleman, Congressman Mica, and the ranking member of our subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Congressman LaTourette, for their leadership in helping us to get this very, very important bill to the floor of the House so that we can send it on to the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, such time as he may consume.

The gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and certainly Ranking Member Mica. But I also thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette, for your cooperation in moving this bill along.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Oberstar.

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

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