To suspend temporarily the duty on nightlights of plastic.

I thank the ranking member for yielding. I also thank both the ranking member and the chairman for their work on this important bill.

I have some concerns about the bill, but I'm going to focus my remarks on title VII, which deals with commercial vessel discharge reform and deals, more specifically, with ballast water discharge and the concern about nonindigenous invasive species. These nonindigenous species cost taxpayers and businesses hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

In the Great Lakes alone, approximately $500 million is spent every year in dealing with invasive species that clog municipal water systems and that damage infrastructure, such as electric power plants, levees, and aqueducts. In California, over $7 million was spent to eradicate the Mediterranean green seaweed from two small embayments in southern California, and $12 million had to be spent in San Francisco Bay to control the Atlantic cordgrass. Most of these invasive species arrive in our waters via the ballast water of commercial vehicles.

Unfortunately, in my view--and, I believe, in the view of a great many of my colleagues--the bill before us does not do enough to protect our communities and businesses from the avoidable costs of dealing with invasive species.

This week the State of California sent Members of Congress a letter saying that title VII of the underlying bill ``will set a Federal ballast water discharge standard that does not provide a significant improvement over existing management strategies and would eliminate the ability of States to regulate vessel discharges in their own waters.'' I would like to enter into the Record the letter from the California State Lands Commission to which I am referring.

In my home State of New York we've been working with Michigan and other States to develop standards that are achievable with the technology that is available today but that would still protect sensitive State waters more than would today's underlying bill. Unfortunately, this bill does not incorporate these science-based suggestions nor the jurisdictional concerns of the States.

I also want to enter into the Record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the Environmental Council of the States which urges that the States be able to maintain a role in making determinations with respect to their water quality.

While I think that most parties--and I'm one of them--agree that a uniform national standard is necessary to protect our water resources, one of my largest concerns is that this bill completely erases any role for States to protect waters within their jurisdictions. So, as the gentleman from West Virginia said, I will be offering an amendment later today that will allow States to petition the Federal Government under a set of criteria that protects international and domestic commerce to identify and protect highly sensitive water resources within a State's existing jurisdiction.

My amendment does not add or change any technological requirements in the bill. This is an issue of extreme importance for the industry, understandably so, and for that reason my amendment simply does not affect in any way the technological requirements. It also does not give States carte blanche to prevent ships from releasing ballast water, which is another important issue for the industry. There is ample precedent for the amendment that I am offering and for the policy that my amendment would embody.

In 1996 the then-Republican-controlled Congress amended the Clean Water Act, requiring the Department of Defense to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate ballast water from military vessels through the Uniform National Discharge Standards program. Through this program, the Republican Congress acknowledged a deep respect for the rights of States, including a residual authority for States to establish ``no discharge zones,'' which is similar to what my amendment would establish.

Another precedent is that section 312 of the Clean Water Act, which is the closest analogy to ballast water discharges from commercial vessels, establishes uniform standards for discharges of marine sanitation devices. Section 312 specifically reserves a role for States to create ``no discharge zones'' for important State waters, provided that these zones will not adversely impact vessels from operating within the States. In the past, ballast water legislation has included a role for the States, and industry was on board with those provisions.

There's an irony to what we're doing here today, and that is, during this Congress, much of the debate has centered on how States should be allowed to take the lead on managing different programs within their jurisdiction, be they educational programs or environmental protection programs or eliminating regulations and so on; and yet, in this instance, we are saying the exact opposite. We are saying that the Federal Government knows best how to protect local waters, and States are not given any say in protecting their waters.

Just a few months ago, this Congress passed H.R. 2018, the Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, which eliminates any Federal role in setting baseline water quality standards, giving full discretion for the setting of those standards to the States. Title VII of today's bill says that States should have no say in what happens in their waters whatsoever, the exact opposite of what this Congress passed with pretty broad support several months ago.

We also have heard a great deal from our friends in the Tea Party about the 10th Amendment and how rights need to be reserved to the States under that amendment. Well, I would contend that the ability to protect waters of the State and to set standards for waters of the State would fall within at least the spirit of the 10th Amendment, and I would hope that my colleagues would agree with that.

So I just want to say that I believe my amendment, as the gentleman from West Virginia referred to it, is a surgical attempt to fix what I believe is a significant problem for States.

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

California State

Lands Commission,

Sacramento, CA, November 2, 2011.

Rep. John Mica,

Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Washingtion, DC.

Rep. Nick Rahall,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Washington, DC.

Rep. David Dreier,

Chairman, House Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.

Rep. Louise Slaughter,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: The staff of the California State

Lands Commission (Commission) is writing to express our

concern with bill H.R. 2840, the Commercial Vessel Discharges

Reform Act of 2011. We have recently learned that this bill

may be considered as an amendment to the U.S. Coast Guard

Reauthorization bill. Staff has strong concerns that

provisions of the H.R. 2840 would cripple California's

ongoing efforts to prevent the release of nonindigenous

species to state waters, and urge that members consider these

concerns before addressing this bill.

In addition to the ecological and human health impacts that

nonindigenous species have had, they can also represent a

significant and ongoing economic burden once established in a

new region. For example, the European zebra mussel attaches

to hard surfaces so thickly in the Great Lakes and Lake Mead

(AZ), that they clog municipal water systems and electric

generating plants, costing over a billion dollars a year to

control. In 2008, the mussel arrived in California. Should it

spread to areas such as Lake Tahoe or the California

Aqueduct, the resultant economic impact could be significant.

Between 2000 and 2006, over $7 million was spent to eradicate

the Mediterranean green seaweed from two small embayments in

southern California. At the end of 2010, over $12 million had

been spent in San Francisco Bay to control the Atlantic

cordgrass. If left uncontrolled, the buildup of cordgrass can

have a substantial impact on shoreline land values.

Since 1999, when California passed the Ballast Water for

Control of Nonindigenous Species Act (Chapter 849, Statutes

of 1999; Public Resources Code Sec. Sec. 71200, et seq.), it

has been and remains a national and world leader in the

development of effective science-based management strategies

for preventing species introductions through vessel vectors.

The Commission's Marine Invasive Species Program (MISP)

pursues aggressive strategies to limit the introduction and

spread of nonindigenous species (NIS) via vessels, including

establishing strict performance standards for the discharge

of ballast water in 2007.

The Commission's staff works cooperatively with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States

Coast Guard (USCG), and other states in order to advance a

strong, enforceable, funded, national effort that pushes

technology development and the science of invasive species

management forward, while ensuring that the state's existing,

world-leading program be allowed to continue. Additionally,

Commission staff has long worked closely with scientific,

government, nonprofit and shipping industry representatives

through technical advisory groups during the development of

its requirements. This is to ensure a well-rounded, diverse

array of perspectives are taken into account during the

evolution of initiatives to prevent species introductions to

the state.

We appreciate the House's attention to the challenge of NIS

introductions in U.S. waters as a result of vessel

discharges, but as drafted, H.R. 2840 will set a federal

ballast water discharge standard that does not provide a

significant improvement over existing management strategies

and would eliminate the ability of states to regulate vessel

discharges in their own waters.

Staff specifically object to the provisions in the bill

that:

Would set the International Maritime Organization (IMO)

ballast discharge standard as the U.S. federal standard.

There is clear scientific evidence that the IMO ballast

water discharge standard is not a significant improvement

over ballast water exchange (the current management

practice). Studies have shown that some vessels could meet

the IMO standards by simply conducting ballast water

exchange, and some could meet it without conducting exchange

at all. Therefore, adoption of the IMO standard does little

to advance the protection of U.S. waters from NIS

introductions.

Preempts states from adopting ballast water discharge

standards, including standards that are more stringent than

those established in H.R. 2840.

A central tenant of the Clean Water Act is that States have

the ability to set water quality standards above and beyond

those set by the Federal government in order to ensure proper

environmental protection of state waters. H.R. 2840, as

currently drafted, removes ballast water discharges from

Clean Water Act jurisdiction and will cripple state efforts

to prevent species introductions from vessel discharges. San

Francisco Bay is the most highly invaded estuary in North

America, and perhaps the world, and invasive species cost the

state millions of dollars each year to control. In addition,

recent research shows that California serves as a first entry

point ``hotspot'' of invasion on the west coast, and NIS

subsequently spread north to Oregon up to Alaska. Thus,

California must retain the ability to implement stringent,

protective ballast water discharge standards in order to

protect its own waters as well as the waters of the rest of

the western North America.

Preempts states from adopting any standards or management

practices related to any discharge incidental to the normal

operation of commercial vessels.

H.R. 2840 not only preempts states from developing ballast

water discharge standards, but also preempts states' ability

to address any of the 26 discharges included in the Vessel

General Permit. The California State Lands Commission is a

world leader in the development of strategies to combat

species introductions due to vessel biofouling (i.e. the

attachment or association of organisms to the underwater

surfaces of vessels). There are currently no federal programs

in place to manage this important vector of species

introductions. Should H.R. 2840 pass as currently drafted,

California would be hobbled in its efforts to prevent

biofouling introductions within its waters.

Due to the aforementioned Commission staff concerns, please

oppose the legislation in its present form. Thank you for

consideration of these comments. If you have any questions,

please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 574-1800.

Sincerely,

Curtis L. Fossum,

Executive Officer.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment amends title VII of the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to recognize the importance of both Federal and State efforts to protect the waters of individual States by retaining a limited, surgical role for States to provide additional operational limitations to protect important State resource waters from the introduction of invasive species and other pollutants.

In concept, I agree with Chairman LoBiondo that we should enact a stringent uniform national standard for ballast water treatment technologies for commercial vessels. It makes sense to set a high standard that is technologically achievable and reduces the likelihood of introducing invasive species into our native waters.

My amendment does not add or change any technological requirements in the bill. Let me say that again. My amendment does not add or change any technological requirements in the bill. This is an issue of extreme importance to industry for understandable reasons. Nor does it give States carte blanche to prevent ships from releasing ballast water. It simply provides for the ability of States to petition the Federal Government, under a set of criteria that protects international and domestic commerce, to identify and protect highly sensitive water resources within a State's existing jurisdiction.

My amendment is not without precedent. In 1996, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to require the Department of Defense to work with the EPA to regulate ballast water from military vessels through the Uniform National Discharge Standards program. In providing for these uniform national standards, the then-Republican-led Congress acknowledged a deep respect for the rights of States, including a residual authority for States to establish ``no discharge zones'' similar to those that would be allowed under my amendment if it were to pass.

Section 312 of the Clean Water Act, which is probably the closest analogy to the issue of ballast water discharges from commercial vessels, establishes uniform standards for discharges of marine sanitation devices. Section 312 specifically reserves a role for States to create ``no discharge zones'' for important State waters, provided that those zones will not adversely impact vessels from operating within the States.

The issue really boils down to this:

If you believe that States have a role to play, however limited, in determining if some of their State waters deserve additional protections while maintaining a uniform national standard, then you should vote for the Bishop amendment. If, on the other hand, you believe that States should have absolutely no say whatsoever in protecting particularly sensitive waters within their jurisdictions, then you should oppose the Bishop amendment. Given what we've done thus far in this Congress, I would hope that Members would continue to assert that States have a role.

Earlier this year, we passed H.R. 2018, the Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. This bill would eliminate any Federal role in setting baseline water quality standards, giving full discretion to the States. The bill that is before us flips that precisely. It would provide no role for the States and give 100 percent of the role to the Federal Government.

I would ask that the House continue to recognize the role of States in setting standards for water quality in waters that they control, so I would urge the adoption of my amendment.

Before I close, I do, though, want to thank Chairman LoBiondo. We worked very hard over the last several weeks in trying to come to a resolution of this matter. We were unable to get there, but it was not for lack of trying. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts to bring this matter to a bipartisan resolution. I'm sorry we couldn't get there, but as I say, it was not for lack of trying.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Respectfully, I believe that my colleague and friend from New Jersey has mischaracterized pieces of the amendment.

Let me be clear. I quote:

The amendment would not allow States to require the installation of ballast water treatment technology that differs from that required by the standards specified under subsection (c)--in other words, what the underlying bill provides--and they could not impose standards until they had applied to the administrator and the Secretary, and they would have to determine that the waters of the State required greater environmental protection.

So this would be a State request to the EPA.

Finally, the administrator and the Secretary, by the language of this amendment, could not approve a State operational requirement if that requirement, A, would have an unreasonable impact on the use of traditional shipping lanes or, B, would prohibit the discharge of ballast waters in all waters of the State.

This is a very narrowly crafted effort to provide at least some role for the States, subject to the approval of the Federal Government.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my friend from Ohio for yielding.

I want to be clear. What the gentleman from Ohio is describing is the current state of affairs. The underlying bill would change the current state of affairs. And the amendment that I'm seeking to the underlying bill would render the New York State standards moot because it would accept the technological standards imposed in the underlying bill. So the New York standards, as ambitious as they are, would go away.

What this would simply say is that New York and other States that are interested--such as California, such as Michigan--could establish certain operational requirements subject to the approval of the EPA that would allow for the protection of certain waters in the State.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 2838, ``Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011.'' This legislation authorizes funding for the Coast Guard through fiscal year 2014, and authorizes service strength of 47,000 active duty personnel.

In 1787, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper Number 12 laid the foundation for the modern Coast Guard when he noted that ``[a] few armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports, might at a small expense, be made useful sentinels of our laws.''

As a senior Member on the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I understand the importance of protecting our maritime borders. In our post-9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our nation.

I believe protecting our country by air, land, and sea to be critical to our national security interests. The security mission of the Coast Guard is beneficial to our maritime interests, and consequently, our national security.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the role of many agencies, including the Coast Guard, began to focus on Homeland Security. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 allocated a number of security missions to the Coast Guard, the first being the protection of ports, waterways and coastal security. There are more than 350 major ports in the United States, including 23 in Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District. The Port of Houston is one of the busiest in the nation. More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard.

As a Representative from Texas, a border state, I am extremely concerned with curtailing

the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for maritime drug interdiction. Houston is classified by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, and in a 2009 report, the ONDCP expressed concern that ``the sheer volume of maritime traffic and foreign cargo that passes through the port offers another avenue for drug smuggling.'' The Coast Guard coordinates closely with other federal, state, and local agencies and countries within the region to disrupt and deter the flow of illegal drugs into Houston and other ports, decreasing the supply of illicit substances being transported all over the country.

The Coast Guard protects the interests of American citizens and American commerce abroad. Last year, 73.2 million tons of exports left the Port of Houston to be sold to countries around the world. These exports represented $70.8 billion dollars, and countless American jobs. The international counter-piracy efforts of the Coast Guard focus on preventing attacks of piracy that threaten American commercial vessels and cargo. The Coast Guard also performs vital counter-terrorism measures in ports abroad to ensure the safety of Americans across the globe.

In Houston, the Coast Guard routinely conducts integrated operations with the city, county, state and Federal Law Enforcement partners. The joint agency Houston Area Maritime Operations Center is a prime example of the type of coordination directed in the Maritime Operations Coordination Plan recently signed by the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The Port of Houston is one of the world's busiest ports and the Coast Guard bears the ultimate responsibility for its smooth operation. In terms of maritime traffic and cargo, the Port of Houston ranks first in the United States for number of ship arrivals and second in total cargo tonnage. Houston handles over 50 percent of all containerized cargo arriving at Gulf of Mexico ports.

Additionally, more than 50 percent of the gasoline used in the United States is refined in this area. With more than 100 petrochemical waterfront facilities, Houston is the second largest such complex in the world. Major corporations such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Saudi ARAMCO, Stolt Nielson, Odfjell USA Inc., Sea River and Kirby Marine have national or international headquarters in Houston.

These operations typically involve the Harris County Sheriffs Office and local city Police Department marine divisions as well as CBP, ICE, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and other Federal partners. Efforts are underway with The Coast Guards processes with neighboring sectors to align and streamline their operations across all jurisdictional boundaries. They need funding to continue to serve our country.

The Coast Guard relies on their port partners to act as both their eyes and ears on the water. With an average of 350 daily tow movements in the Houston Ship Channel and more than 100 waterfront facilities with a vigilant security presence, marine industry stakeholders are well positioned to recognize when things are out of the ordinary and serve as a valuable resource by diligently reporting breaches of security and suspicious activity. We also receive reports on fraudulent use of the Transportation Worker Identification Card, and work closely with our local enforcement and legal agencies such as the Harris County District Attorney to ensure these cases are prosecuted.

In recognition of the significance of Houston's shipping activity, the State of Texas formally established the Houston Ship Channel Security District (HSCSD) in 2010. The HSCSD represents a unique public-private partnership formed to improve security and safety for facilities, employees and communities surrounding the Houston Ship Channel. The Coast Guard played an instrumental role in the formation of the HSCSD, and continues to work closely with the HSCSD to ensure alignment of priorities and unity of effort. As Sector Commander, I am a member of the HSCSD Advisory Council and Sector Port Security specialists attend HSCSD board meetings. The district provides oversight of comprehensive and cost-effective security solutions, leveraging more than $30 million in Federal Port Security grants along with $4 million in annual member assessments to install technology and security infrastructure and provide funds for specific security projects, maintenance and operational services.

The Port of Houston accommodates a large number of tankers carrying crude oil, refined products and chemical cargoes. With approximately 9,600 deep draft ship arrivals each year, the Coast Guard maintains a very extensive Port State Control program in the Houston-Galveston area. The Port State Control program ensures the safe carriage of hazardous materials in bulk. Because over 90 percent of cargo bound for the United States is carried by foreign-flagged ships, this national program prevents operation of substandard foreign ships in U.S. waters.

The Sector also makes excellent use of its robust Vessel Traffic Service (VTS). The VTS's primary role is facilitating safe vessel transits in the waterways and ports along the Houston Ship Channel. The VTS cameras, Automatic Identification System (AIS) feeds, remote radar observation capability, and radio communications also provide an additional layer of security. In addition to the VTS resources in the Houston Ship Channel, Sector Houston-Galveston has access to feeds from three AIS receivers mounted on offshore oil platforms, which provide heightened awareness of activities in the maritime domain.

With a homeland security mission of this magnitude, it is essential that the Coast Guard be fully funded. This bill will authorize $8.49 billion in 2012, $8.6 billion in 2013, and $8.7 billion in 2014. It is certainly the duty of this Congress and the Administration to ensure the brave men and women who serve in the Coast Guard have the resources necessary to perform the wide range of duties assigned to them.

This measure contains a private-sector mandate as defined in Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA). The bill would require operators to locate a standby vessel within 3 nautical miles of offshore oil and gas facilities when certain activities are being performed and within 12 nautical miles of facilities at all other times. The cost of that mandate would depend on several factors. The bill would allow operators to share one standby vessel among multiple facilities and to use standby vessels for other purposes. For operators that can use those measures, the cost of the mandate would tend to be lower. At the same time, the bill would authorize the Coast Guard to require standby vessels to be located closer than 3 or 12 nautical miles to offshore facilities if necessary to address delays caused by weather or other conditions. Reducing the minimum distance from facilities would increase the number of vessels necessary for compliance and increase the cost of the mandate for some operators. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandate would probably exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($142 million in 2011, adjusted annually for inflation).

However, I do have some reservations about some of the provisions in this legislation. At the request of President Obama's Administration, Congress has appropriated funding to reactivate the USGC Polar Star, a heavy icebreaking vessel. The ship is to be reactivated by December 2012 for 7 to 10 years of service. The Polar Star is deployed to assist researchers throughout the Polar Regions, and is essential to United States icebreaking capabilities. Ice breaking vessels create pathways through which supply ships can travel, facilitating important research. In its current form, the bill decommissions the Polar Star within 3 years, creating a gap in the nation's icebreaking abilities.

As a senior Member on the Homeland Security Committee, I have a deep commitment to creating a stronger and more secure America. I have worked with my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to pass legislation that ensures that our nation is receiving the security that our citizens deserve. As the potential threats and vulnerabilities along our coast line may always exist, we rely upon Coast Guard and their active involvement with hundreds of partners who are directly involved with or impacted by the maritime industry in the Houston- Galveston area of responsibility. This sector is committed to deterring incidents before they happen and is well-prepared to respond to them should they occur. The Coast Guard is vital to the protection of our national security.

Both sides of the aisle have a strong respect for the Coast Guard as well as for the men and women who work on manned stations off of our shores. I understand that Representative Mica has agreed to honor the purpose of an amendment offered by Representative Olson that would have required the Commandant of the Coast Guard, in consultation with appropriate representatives of industry, to conduct a feasibility study to determine the capability, cost, and benefits of requiring the owner or operator of a manned facility, installation, unit, or vessel to locate a standby vessel nearby. I would have supported this amendment because although a properly designed and equipped standby vessel in the immediate vicinity of manned outer continental shelf facilities may, in some cases, improve safety on the outer continental shelf.

In the event of a major casualty to an offshore installation, the immediate presence of a properly designed and equipped standby vessel, manned by a specially trained crew, might in some cases increase the chances of survival of the installation's crew members. We must not, however, forget the fact that historically the main cause of rig and platform abandonment has been due to severe weather. Unless these standby vessels are designed to

withstand those severe conditions, requiring them to remain on scene could place the vessels and their crews in jeopardy. In addition, it is severely risky to board a standby vessel in severe weather conditions. For these reasons I would support a feasibility study to determine the effectiveness of using standby vessels for manned stations.

In addition, I support the amendment offered by Representative Thompson that would add a new section to the end of Title II in the bill to open admissions to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to eligible candidates nominated by Congress.

Specifically, the amendment would require the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure that, beginning in academic year 2014, half of the incoming class is composed of eligible candidates nominated by the Vice President or, if there is no Vice President, by the President pro tempore of the Senate; Senators; Representatives; and Delegates to the House of Representatives. This will help to ensure that the Coast Guard has an even more diverse pool of candidate from across the United States.

The Coast Guard has a proud legacy and their role in our national strategy is vital to keep our homeland secure. The safety and security of our nations and its citizens must be our highest priority, despite difficult economic circumstances. We need to make sure the Coast Guard is fully funded, and have the resources they need.

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

The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency responsible for a broad range of activities including mariner licensing, emergency oil spill response, vessel inspections, and search and rescue operations. These and many other activities of the Coast Guard are indispensable and ensure that our coasts and ocean resources are protected; that our oceans, the Great Lakes, and inland waterways remain safe and efficient; and that our maritime industries continue to be vibrant sources of jobs and economic opportunity for the American people.

I want to thank Chairman LoBiondo for his leadership in developing this legislation, H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011, to reauthorize the activities of the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2014.

Although I have reservations that the authorized funding levels in this bill are not sufficient to meet the many well-documented needs of the Coast Guard, at least this bill provides for roughly level funding for the next 3 years. We have had this discussion in committee for the last several months about the Coast Guard, Mr. Chairman, people wanting the Coast Guard to do more with less. The greatest concern that we have is that as we look at funding for the Coast Guard, we're beginning to ask them to do less with less. And that is going to cause future problems for our Coast Guard.

In general, Mr. Chairman, the legislation includes several noncontroversial provisions, especially title II, which addresses issues of disparity in policy and authority between the Coast Guard and other armed services. I want to commend the chairman for his commitment to address this issue.

There are some provisions in this bill, however, which remain problematic, none more so than the provision that would sequentially decommission the Coast Guard's two heavy icebreakers. The administration has expressed its strong opposition to this provision in its statement of administration policy.

At some point, we need to constructively engage the Coast Guard in developing a sound, balanced path forward that realigns our expectations with a level of performance that we can reasonably expect the Coast Guard to deliver, especially for its icebreakers and its polar operations.

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

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, November 3, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy

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

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

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

2838 because it includes a provision that would require the

Coast Guard to decommission the icebreaker USCGC POLAR STAR.

The administration has requeted, and Congress has

appropriated, funds to reactivate the USCGC POLAR STAR by

December 2012 and extend that vessel's service life for seven

to 10 years. This effort will stabilize the United States'

existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking capability

requirements are finalized. By directing the Commandant to

decommission the USCGC POLAR STAR within three years, the

bill would effectively reduce the

vessel's service life to two years and create a significant

gap in the Nation's icebreaking capacity. The Administration

supports Title II (Coast Guard and Servicemember Parity),

which would promote parity between the Coast Guard and the

other branches of the armed forces. The Administration looks

forward to working with the Congress to improve H.R. 2838 as

the bill moves through the legislative process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I first would like to inquire how much time is remaining.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

We have no more speakers on the general debate, so I will take a few minutes here to conclude on our side for general debate, and I appreciate the opportunity to close on general debate.

The points that were made earlier, I do want to reemphasize a few points. One is a concern we have about the decommissioning process and the decommissioning of the two icebreakers that are in the U.S. Coast Guard fleet. The administration has a statement of administration policy, which you've allowed to be entered into the Record. I think a follow-up to that point would be that we certainly would want to hear from the administration sooner rather than later about a plan for what some would call an organic capability of our icebreaker fleet. That is a U.S. Coast Guard-owned and -operated icebreaker fleet, rather than being left with the potential and real possibility of having to lease icebreakers from other countries to do the work that otherwise we would be doing. That continues to be a major concern.

We have heard, as well, concerns about the ballast water title and are expecting amendments and further debate on that as the afternoon progresses.

Certainly we are going to have an en bloc amendment, and we will have time to discuss those. I just want to underscore one of those from Mr. McIntyre and the role that the marine transportation system plays, or the MTS as we call it, which consists of waterways and ports and intermodal land-side connections that allow our various modes of transportation to move people and goods to and from and on the water.

The MTS is vitally important to our economy. It's vitally important to waterborne cargo and the associated activities which contribute more than $649 billion annually to the U.S. gross domestic product, sustaining more than 13 million jobs. Section 401 of this underlying bill would codify the committee on the marine transportation system, a Federal interdepartmental committee chaired by the Secretary of Transportation.

And I think it is just important to underscore further about this MTS, the marine transportation system, and the role that the Coast Guard plays in maintaining that. It can be somewhat invisible to folks if they're not on the water a lot, but the role that the U.S. Coast Guard plays in maintaining that marine transportation system that therefore underlies the economic growth potential that we have from a well-balanced and well-developed marine transportation system is important and is one of the underlying reasons why we even have a Coast Guard authorization bill each year to support the great work of the U.S. Coast Guard.

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

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

I rise in support of Mr. LoBiondo's manager's amendment and appreciate its consideration en bloc with other amendments.

In general, the amendment provides helpful technical and clarifying changes to the underlying committee print which will improve the bill. In particular, the provision that grants the Coast Guard discretionary authority to extend the duration of medal certificates is important because it will help ensure that mariners are not left on the dock simply because of administrative backlogs within the Coast Guard preventing the timely issuance of new certificates.

Also I support the inclusion of the amended version of Chairman LoBiondo's piracy legislation, H.R. 2039, the Piracy Suppression Act of 2011, and expect that it will help to strengthen our efforts abroad to address the growing threat piracy poses to maritime commerce.

In regards to additional amendments in the en bloc, Mr. Shuler's Amendment No. 2 is an important one and encourages all federal agencies certainly to enter into contracts and buy products produced in the U.S., creating jobs for Americans, and the Coast Guard should be no exception.

With regards to Mr. Cummings' amendment, I am certainly supportive of that. It mirrors H.R. 3202. Waivers granted by the Maritime Administration this past summer to allow foreign-flagged vessels to transport oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to other areas in U.S. territorial waters raised legitimate concerns that the administrative waiver process lacked transparency and accountability. This amendment would establish new notice and justification requirements for waivers of our Coast Guard's laws and would help to ensure that our merchant fleet is not unnecessarily disadvantaged in the future.

With regards to Mr. Murphy's amendment, the gentleman from Connecticut, I can think of no reason why it would not be appropriate for the Coast Guard, when it is soliciting for competitive proposals, to also seek optional job impact statements from these companies bidding on the contract. This will allow the contract officer to assess not only cost comparisons, but also job creation comparisons when making an award and would serve the interests of both the Federal Government and the offerer. This would appear to me to be a good way at little or not cost to better leverage the job-creating potential of contracts awarded by the Coast Guard. And certainly I want to thank the chairman for including Mr. Murphy's amendment into the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chair, certainly there are a few other amendments that folks can speak to at the time that they wish, but we have no objection to the en bloc, and we encourage its support and its passage.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I support Mr. Cummings' amendment striking the provision in the underlying bill that would eliminate the requirement for the Coast Guard to establish ombudsmen in Coast Guard districts around the country.

In committee, Mr. Cummings offered and subsequently withdrew his amendment in the hope that some compromise could be reached. Because the program is little more than a year old, I suggest that it might be premature for Congress to repeal this new program. But I certainly do want to recognize the work that Mr. Cummings and Mr. LoBiondo did to try to find some accommodation.

But I do encourage people to support this amendment to allow the ombudsman program to continue so that we might be better able to get a fair evaluation of the program in the future.

Mr. Chair, I support Mr. Thompson's amendment to insert a congressional nomination process for admission to the United States Coast Guard.

This provision, which was included in Coast Guard legislation that passed the House during the 111th Congress, would establish the same process to allow Members of Congress the opportunity to nominate individuals for entrance into the Coast Guard Academy.

I realize that the Coast Guard does not support the Congress imposing a nomination process on the agency, but if it does result in a more diverse workforce within the Coast Guard, we will all be better for it, including the Coast Guard, too.

Congressional Nominations at the Coast Guard Academy

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

The following list is of States and Territories where no

applicants were accepted for the incoming Coast Guard Academy

Class of 2015--Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi,

Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont,

American Samoa, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands.

Prepared by the House Committee on Homeland Security,

Democratic Staff, November 4, 2011.

I claim the time in opposition.

I yield my time to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, is there any time left on this side?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank the chairman and our ranking member for the great work that they have done not only this time but over the years.

As a member of the subcommittee, I have had an opportunity to--and earlier in previous sessions as chairman of the subcommittee--I've had an opportunity to visit many Coast Guard facilities. I am so amazed by what I see when I see so many young people who give their lives, their blood, sweat and tears to save other people and to make sure that our waterways are kept safe, and to make sure that our coasts are guarded. I call them the thin blue line at sea.

I do support this legislation because I think it is very important. There are some concerns I have, but I do want to commend the chairman. I understand that we have a manager's amendment that adds a modified version of H.R. 2839, the Piracy Suppression Act, as a title to this bill, and I think that is very, very important. The piracy provisions include those that require the Department of Transportation to establish a training program for U.S. mariners on the use of force against pirates and require a report from DOD within 180 days on actions taken to protect foreign-flag vessels from acts of piracy on the high seas. I will definitely support that because I think it is very, very important.

We've seen, and I know the chairman has spent a lot of time on this, what has happened with regard to these pirates. They feel they can just board our ships and hold our folks hostage, and we cannot allow that to happen. I want to applaud the chairman and the ranking member for bringing that about.

I'm going to have an amendment a little bit later on which addresses an issue which is important to me, and that is the ombudsman. I've said many times that we put this in the last authorization because a lot of the folks at the ports and a lot of our mariners were complaining. They were saying that the Coast Guard would come and want to make changes and say their way or the highway. One of the things that we wanted to do so commerce could freely flow, we wanted to have somebody come along and actually sit down and reason so that things could be worked out in a way that would be less onerous to the mariner community.

I'm hoping that amendment does pass because our Republican friends have constantly said that they want to do away with regulations that might impede the flow of commerce, and I think that my amendment is a step in that direction. I know that the Coast Guard may not like it, but I think an ombudsman would bring about a fair balance so that we can achieve the things that we need to achieve.

With that, again I applaud the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I appreciate the work of Chairman LoBiondo and Chairman Mica and, of course, our ranking member, Mr. Larsen, and the ranking member, Mr. Rahall. I appreciate the effort that they put into this Coast Guard reauthorization.

I also appreciate the close working relationship I have with the chairman, Mr. LoBiondo. During my tenure as chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, he served as my ranking member, and now that he is chair, I appreciate the commitment to diligent oversight that characterizes his leadership of the subcommittee.

I wish we had been able to reach an agreement on the issue at hand, but as that has not been possible, I'm offering this amendment to strike section 301(a) of the bill. Section 301(a) would eliminate provisions included in the Coast Guard authorization of 2010 that I authored to establish an ombudsman in each Coast Guard district. The district ombudsmen are intended to serve as liaisons between the Coast Guard and ports, terminal operators, ship owners, and labor representatives. The ombudsmen will enable these stakeholders to seek further review of disputes regarding the application of the Coast Guard regulations.

Let me be clear that the provisions creating the ombudsman specifically provide that ``the district ombudsman shall not provide assistance with respect to a dispute unless it involves the impact of Coast Guard requirements on port business and the flow of commerce.''

The provisions further clarify that in providing such assistance, the district ombudsman shall give priority to complaints brought by petitioners who believe they will suffer a significant hardship as a result of implementing the Coast Guard requirement.

I authored the provisions creating the ombudsman at the request of the port community, which approached me seeking another mechanism to engage with the Coast Guard to ensure that the application of regulations achieves critical safety and security objectives while having the least possible impact on commerce.

Many Members of Congress, and particularly those on the other side of the aisle, profess that limiting the power of government and ensuring that businesses are not burdened by inappropriate regulations are among their top priorities. Given these priorities and given the need to ensure that regulations do not threaten commerce or jobs, I am frankly quite deeply surprised that the majority would seek to eliminate a provision that specifically provides businesses with an avenue through which they can seek changes in regulatory decisions in an effort to improve their businesses.

Let me also be clear that I understand that the Coast Guard has not yet appointed any ombudsman--and I know that the service would probably prefer never to appoint an ombudsman because they would prefer that their regulatory decisions not be challenged. That said, rather than eliminating the requirement that the Coast Guard appoint an ombudsman, I believe that this authority should be implemented quickly to give businesses the opportunity to improve the application of Coast Guard regulations.

Finally, let me also explain that this provision does not require any new personnel to be hired. The statutory language is clear, and staff have reconfirmed with the Coast Guard that the position of ombudsman could be a collateral duty that a qualified staff member performs in addition to their other duties. This is not my ideal arrangement, but I raise this point so that it is clear that the implementation of this provision does not require the Coast Guard to hire new staff members.

I urge all Members who are concerned about the impact that undue regulatory burdens may have on commerce to join me in supporting this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi. Thank you for your leadership and thank you for your kind words.

I'm truly amazed by what the Coast Guard is able to accomplish, particularly given the limits of its budget. But I remain the Coast Guard's biggest supporter.

During my tenure as chairman, I also had the opportunity to be the service's most constructive critic. Among the many areas where I pushed the Coast Guard to set and achieve higher goals was the area of diversity. Data presented to the subcommittee showed that minorities comprised approximately 12 percent of the class of 2012 and just 16 percent of the class of 2013.

By comparison, approximately 35 percent of the Naval Academy's class of 2013 is comprised of minorities. And the tremendous gains in diversity achieved by the United States Naval Academy suggested that the Coast Guard Academy's outreach had been too limited. And as a result, many students across the country from a wide variety of communities and backgrounds simply were not made aware either of the education that they could receive for free at the Coast Guard Academy or the unique service opportunities available in the Coast Guard.

I'm very proud to say that the Coast Guard has begun making that effort, and they are now beginning to realize the promise that our Nation's diversity represents. As a result of what I know has been a tremendous effort, 34 percent of the Coast Guard's Academy's class of 2015 is comprised of minority students, nearly triple the percentage of minorities in the class of 2012.

I believe that implementing a nominations process at the Coast Guard Academy, something that I proposed along with Mr. Thompson during our consideration of previous Coast Guard authorizations, will help continue and advance the achievements of the Coast Guard.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise with great affection for my friends from New York, both Mr. Bishop and Ms. Slaughter; but I have to set the table on what this is about.

The Coast Guard has been promulgating a Federal standard in line with the international maritime standard for the discharge of ballast water. And despite what people say--they say a new invasive species comes into the lakes every 28 days. That's true; but they don't come in in the ballast water of ships because industry, governments--both American and Canadian--and the States have worked hard to make sure that that does not occur.

But in the face of that, an organization called the New York Department of Environmental Conservation proposed regulations, as Mr. Bucshon said, that when fully implemented would be a thousand times more stringent than the IMO standards. And what that effectively means is--and when you talk to these folks they say, Well, that's the great mother of invention. If we put these standards out there, the great mother of invention, they're going to invent something. But sadly for New York, their vendor--the one that they were counting on for this technology--said they are not even willing to have it be tested by a third party for verification that it works. So this amendment and those proposals would basically shut down waterborne commerce in the United States of America.

I will yield to you in just a second.

But here's the skinny: New York's regulations are more obnoxious because they cover just passage. You don't have to take a drop of ballast water in if you're in New York waters, and you don't have to discharge a drop. Just the mere fact of sailing through New York waters--which you have to do in the Great Lakes--would cause these regulations to come into effect.

Now, I had to go to the extraordinary length of offering an amendment in the Interior appropriations bill that said if New York continues on this crazy course, that they get no money out of the Interior appropriations bill. Now, that wasn't designed to cheat our friends in New York out of funds. That was designed to get their attention. We have their attention. We have to work together to solve this in a bipartisan way. This amendment and the next amendment are not going to do that.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I really had something pithy to say, but we will continue this later.

I thank the Chair.

Again, I rise with great affection for both Mr. Dingell and Ms. Slaughter, who are wonderful colleagues and friends in this House.

But this amendment is the Bishop amendment on steroids. So this amendment, unlike the Bishop amendment, would go back and remove the requirement that's in the bill, and New York would be free to go about its business and shut down waterborne commerce in the Great Lakes.

Now, the sad thing for the State of New York--and I know the people in New York think that they are pretty important and they run the whole place, but they don't. And, sadly, we have five Great Lakes that flow through and touch a number of States, Ohio being included in that. And just a couple of observations.

You know, this isn't a bunch of people that don't like the Great Lakes versus a bunch of environmentalists that want to protect it. The very first piece of legislation I had signed into law by President Clinton--and it's tough to get a bill signed into law by a President of the other party--was the reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act, coauthored by John Glenn in the United States Senate.

I know invasive species. But I am going to tell you, because of the work of John Glenn and because of the work of a lot of good people, since 1995, I challenge anybody offering this amendment to come up with one invasive species that has gotten into the Great Lakes--and this notion that it's 28 days--yes, they come in on boats; they come in in people's boots; they come in swimming from other places. The biggest threat that we've got is the Asian carp. It's not coming in ballast water. It's swimming up the Mississippi, and we have got to fight with the President about whether or not we have an electronic barrier that keeps these awful fish out of the Great Lakes.

Now, the longshoremen don't like what New York is doing. Labor is not onboard with what Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Dingell are attempting to do. A July 2011 evaluation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency--so fresh off the charts--determined that the technology does not exist, does not exist. Even if a ship owner had a gazillion dollars and wanted to buy something off the shelf, it doesn't exist to meet the water quality level stipulated by New York.

For this reason, the maritime industry, together with labor, believes that these regulations are unworkable and if left unchanged will cause economic harm when they come into effect, resulting in complete cessation of commercial maritime commerce in New York waters.

Now, at a time when everybody around the country is screaming about jobs, what are we going to do? All the longshoremen, you don't have to work anymore. The guys that drive the boats, you don't need to work anymore. The folks that unload the boats, no, you don't need to work anymore. Why? Because one State out of the eight States that border the Great Lakes has decided to come up with something not passed by their legislature, passed by this New York environmental council. It's crazy.

We, again, in a good bipartisan way need to work together to fix this problem. Let's find the right way to keep the zebra mussel and the round goby and the sea lamprey and the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. But to allow New York to go down this path with the passage of this amendment is destructive to jobs in the Great Lakes, and I hope that the amendment is defeated.

Again, I have nothing but affection for Mr. Dingell and Ms. Slaughter.

I thank the gentleman. It's mutual. And Louise likes me too.

But listen, here's the deal: There's not going to be anybody recreating on Great Lakes, fishing, and all the wonderful things we get to do on Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and Lake Huron, because nobody's going to be working. And so without jobs, people are not going to have the opportunity to enjoy the splendor of 28 percent of the world's freshwater.

Again, sadly, people in New York have decided they want to come up with a standard that nobody can meet. Now, in 2013 when fully implemented, what does that mean? That means a boat comes down the St. Lawrence Seaway and travels into New York, and if you can't meet their standard, 1,000 times more stringent than the international standard, guess what? You can't sail. The people can't sail on the ship. The people can't put goods on the ship.

Now again, despite my affection for the authors of this amendment, I've talked to the longshoremen. I've talked to the Canadians. I've talked to the people on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and they say that the problem with invasive species today in the Great Lakes isn't ballast water, it's the Asian carp swimming up the Mississippi River, and it's things brought in from other sources. It's not ballast water. It's not ballast water because Republicans and Democrats, since the beginning of my time here, 18 years, have worked together to get this right. This is wrong, and I urge it to be defeated.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.