Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, for over 60 years we have required U.S. citizens to be in control of operation of our airlines. Make no mistake, the DOT's proposed rule will absolutely reverse this critical policy, allowing operation of our airlines to be controlled by competing and potentially unfriendly foreign interests will undermine our homeland security and result in a loss of U.S. jobs.

Mr. Chairman, no critical U.S. infrastructure should ever be under foreign control. Did we not learn anything from the Dubai ports debacle? Doesn't anyone remember the outrage that you shared over Dubai? This is just as big an outrage. The DOT is using executive fiat to implement a very dangerous and absolutely wrong policy. This amendment will ensure Congress determines what is in the best interest of this country, not the bureaucrats of DOT. Remember the explanation we got from the administration on the Dubai ports, that everyone had thoroughly examined it. And then we found out that it hadn't been thoroughly examined. Critical infrastructure must remain in U.S. operational control.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5449. I would like to thank Congressman LaTourette for his dogged determination in pursuing this issue. Also I thank Congresswoman Kelly and Congressman Costello for their help on this very important issue, and also Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner.

H.R. 5449 is a fair way of resolving the contract dispute between the controllers and the FAA. It simply brings both parties back to the table to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

I share the concerns regarding the budget shortfall at the FAA and the need to free up funds to modernize our air traffic control system. But I do not think that forcing both parties back to the table to agree to a contract will undermine those goals in any way, shape, or form.

When the talks between the parties reached an impasse, the controllers were offering $1.4 billion in cost savings. Let me repeat that: they were offering $1.4 billion in cost savings. I believe that if the parties were to return to the table, consensus would be reached in a very short period of time.

Congress should encourage both parties to continue to negotiate and not allow the FAA to unilaterally impose their last offer. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this good piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to thank Mr. King, Mr. Lungren, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Thompson, all of those involved in helping to make this happen. I think it is a very good step in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman, it makes several additions to our Nation's maritime security program that enhances the law that we passed a couple of years ago. I am very pleased that the bill in the manager's amendment includes several provisions that I and Representative Pascrell from New Jersey worked on that will help enhance maritime security.

These provisions will amend the law to require American citizens to be in charge of security at each of our ports, require the Coast Guard to reexamine each port terminal security plan when the facility undergoes a change in ownership, and require the periodic reevaluation of security at foreign ports. This will also establish deadlines for the implementation of important maritime security programs that we included in the original bill, including the Transportation Worker Identification Credential program, which the Department has been woefully behind on.

It enhances identification credentials for foreign mariners calling on U.S. ports and also a long-range vessel tracking system to improve our awareness of activities.

These programs will dramatically enhance our ability to protect our ports, will help the Department, and help the Coast Guard. I want to again thank all of the Members responsible.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, again, I would like to thank Chairman King for being so open to so many ideas and Congressman Lungren also, to again thank Mr. Oberstar for all of his help and Mr. Young of Alaska for the hard work in putting this together.

These are serious issues that we are making great progress on, and there is not a Member in this House that would not like to guarantee the American public that we can completely assure everyone that everything is totally 100 percent safe. It is an impossibility to do that.

We are moving forward. This is an extremely good bill. We should move forward with it, and I am asking every Member to please support it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi and assure him that we strongly support the acceleration of the Deepwater Program, but we are very concerned with the way this provision is written. As written, the language would require any new ships, aircraft and communications equipment procured under the Deepwater Program to be used to support the Coast Guard's homeland security mission only.

As my colleagues know, the Coast Guard is a multimission service. Their assets need to be multimission. If, in fact, there is a national emergency that is unrelated to homeland security, they need to be able to use their assets for that.

I assure my colleagues that when the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure meets to mark up the 2007 Coast Guard authorization bill in a few weeks that I will be offering an amendment, as I have each year since I have been subcommittee chair, to significantly increase the funding for Deepwater.

This critical program needs to be accelerated. Current Coast Guard assets are rapidly aging and failing, as has been noted, under intense operation tempos. The Coast Guard is forced to sink more and more funding into obsolete legacy assets. We need to increase funding and get these critically needed new and more capable assets into the hands of our men and women in the Coast Guard as soon as possible, but this provision would tie their hands behind their back.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to accelerate Deepwater as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure moves forward with the 2007 authorization bill, and I look forward to support from all of my colleagues to see Deepwater accelerated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Dr. Anne Harlan on her long and distinguished service to her community and country, and congratulate her on her upcoming retirement as director of the Federal Aviation Administration's William J. Hughes Technical Center in Pomona,

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time, and I thank him for engaging in a colloquy to clarify the intent of this bill regarding our Nation's seaports.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you if it is the sentiment of the chairman that this bill does not intend to duplicate or supersede existing policies and strategies that have been developed specifically for the maritime domain as part of the Strategy for Maritime Security or the National Maritime Transportation Security Plan, because these strategies provide a comprehensive framework to enhance maritime domain awareness including activities that may affect or threaten our maritime border security.

As the chairman knows, the Coast Guard has been identified as the lead Federal agency with responsibilities over maritime domain awareness. The Coast Guard's efforts to enhance awareness of activities in the maritime domain, in addition to the services role as the lead law enforcement agency in the maritime environment, enhance the Nation's capabilities to maintain security along our maritime borders. The Coast Guard carries out missions every day to interdict illegal immigrants, drugs, and suspect cargo and crew before each reaches the United States.

I ask the chairman if it is his intent to continue this House's support of the Coast Guard's efforts to maintain heightened border security and that this act would not hinder these critical Coast Guard missions.

I thank the chairman for clarifying these very critically important issues regarding our maritime homeland security and the Coast Guard.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4508) to commend the outstanding efforts in response to Hurricane Katrina by members and employees of the Coast Guard, to provide temporary relief to certain persons affected by such hurricane with respect to certain laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill to address the concerns of Coast Guardsmen and the merchant mariner community that

were affected by the recent hurricanes along the gulf coast. Most of the provisions that are being offered in this bill are nearly identical to the language that was included in H.R. 889, the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, that is currently in conference with the Senate. The conferees have made a great deal of progress towards reconciling the language in both bills. However, some issues remain unresolved. As a result, we are moving these temporary extensions today.

This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to temporarily extend the validity of Merchant Mariner Document licenses and vessel certificates of inspection for mariners and vessel owners in the region that was affected by Hurricane Katrina. This extension will allow merchant mariners to continue working in the gulf region and will also allow the Coast Guard to continue its efforts to recover documents that were held at the Regional Examination Center in New Orleans.

This bill also includes a provision to preserve up to 90 days of accumulated leave that would have been lost at the end of this year for Coast Guardsmen who were assigned to operations in response to Hurricane Katrina.

Lastly, the bill commends the men and women of the Coast Guard for their heroic and extraordinary service in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita this year.

We all watched with admiration at the skill of the Coast Guard helicopter and boat crews who rescued over 33,000 Americans. And while there were a lot of questions and still remain a lot of questions about the Federal response and that whole situation surrounding the gulf coast storms, the Coast Guard is a shining bright light of what dedication and extraordinary service to their country these young men and women have provided in response to a national disaster and emergency, the likes of which we have hardly ever seen before. We thank them for their selfless service and celebrate their bravery and outstanding efforts.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Coast Guard and the maritime community by supporting this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

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

I will close briefly and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for joining me, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their strong support. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

This is a great example of how we can recognize a problem, put our shoulders to the same wheel, and move forward with an issue.

I will just use the opportunity, in addition to urging my colleagues to support this legislation, to remind them that over the year we have continued to give the Coast Guard many more missions, but not any more resources. Katrina and Rita were a great example of the dedication and the training and the patriotism of our men and women in the Coast Guard, and it should be a great example for all of us as to why we must continue to focus on getting these men and women the key resources they need for additional personnel, for men and for assets.

There is not a mission that we could give the Coast Guard that they could not do unless we deny them the ability through the resources to be able to do that.

We have made some great strides this year. The Coast Guard continues to do an outstanding job in relation to their domestic priorities, but especially for their number one mission now, which is homeland security and maritime antiterrorism.

So, Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my colleagues and urge everyone to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4508.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Minnesota's motion to instruct.

As the gentleman knows, this provision was originally included in H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act, which I introduced and which passed with unanimous support in the House. I thank Chairman Young, and Ranking Member Oberstar for including the provisions of that bill as part of H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005.

I thank the co-sponsors of the original legislation for their assistance in crafting this provision: Mr. Saxton, Mr. Castle, Mr. Andrews and Ms. Schwartz, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct and the underlying bill as we move to conference with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``Energy Price Discipline Act of 2005.'' This timely and important piece of legislation will ensure that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the tools to investigate and strongly prosecute price gouging across the nation by those refining, selling, or shipping crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, or petroleum distillates.

Today, Americans are paying more than ever before for the fuel they need to run their cars and heat their homes. Even before the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, consumers were paying almost a dollar more than they were a year ago for a gallon of gas. And in the days following this disaster, average gas price rose an additional 45 cents per gallon--with reported prices of nearly $6.00 at some stations in the affected areas.

And, as the days get shorter and the air gets colder, more and more people are worrying about how they are going to be able to heat their homes this winter. According to figures released last week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, households heating their homes with natural gas can expect to spend about 48 percent more, or an additional $350, on fuel this winter. Those with heating oil can expect a 32 percent increase, or on average about $378 more.

But as Americans look deeper into their wallets to put gas in their cars to get to work or to heat their homes, both oil companies and U.S. refineries are on track for record profits. I believe that consumers across the country should have the right to know that the prices they are struggling to pay are legitimate and that no one is profiting unjustly at their expense.

For this reason, I am introducing the ``Energy Price Discipline Act of 2005.'' This bill will give the FTC broad discretion to investigate and, if necessary, strongly prosecute whoever--whether it is a gas station owner, a petroleum company, or a refiner--is guilty of manipulating the price of crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, or petroleum distillates.

The ``Energy Price Discipline Act of 2005'' recognizes that in today's global economy consumers in states far removed from a tragedy like Hurricane Katrina may see the results of it in their energy prices--often for legitimate

reasons, but sadly also as a result of price gouging. In my home State of New Jersey, residents voiced concerns over fair and honest treatment when purchasing gasoline for weeks before a federal emergency declaration was declared and state price gouging statutes were triggered.

For these reasons, the bill does not require a federal emergency declaration to be issued before the FTC could begin an investigation. Instead, the bill sets out specific factors for the FTC to use to determine whether the commodity is being sold at an unjust or unreasonable price. If the FTC makes the determination that price gouging exists, the bill ensures that the violator, whether an individual or a corporation, is subject to strong civil and criminal penalties.

Americans in every corner of the country are today being faced with unprecedented energy costs. We owe it to our constituents to ensure that no one is profiting unjustly at their expense. I urge my colleagues to speak for them and to support the ``Energy Price Discipline Act of 2005.''

Mr. Speaker, my vote on rollcall No. 510 was not recorded. I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 510.

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

I want to thank Chairman Young for his attention and leadership on this issue. I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). I think this is one committee and one area where we are probably a role model for the rest of the Congress to look at in terms of the way we have come together in a bipartisan way to recognize the needs and form a consensus and conclusion.

Chairman Young outlined some of the basics of the bill, the $8.7 billion that we are authorizing. He talked a little bit about Operation Deepwater, and I want to sort of reemphasize a little of that. We are asking for $1.6 billion for the Deepwater System, which will result in the complete recapitalization of the Coast Guard. If there were ever a time and a need for it, it is now.

While we have not talked about homeland security that much in the wake of Katrina, the Coast Guard's primary mission has been that of maritime anti-terrorism and homeland security. They are not able to conduct that mission with assets that are failing on a more regular basis, and every day Coast Guardsmen must deal with the reality and the possibility of asset failures that put the safety of the personnel and the success of their missions in jeopardy.

This is an opportunity for us, in an authorization bill, to clearly state how important we think it is for the Coast Guard to have the right assets to go along with the extraordinary training and dedication they are bringing to the mission. This is a very good step forward, and I would urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LoBiondo

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005.'' This important piece of legislation will ensure that patients across America will continue to have access to the rehabilitative care they need, and that experts in this community are organized to advise and make recommendations to Congress and the appropriate federal agencies based on the realities and challenges facing the rehabilitative field today and in the future.

Rehabilitation hospitals provide essential care to patients recovering from conditions such as stroke, hip replacement, and cardio- pulmonary disease. They treat patients young and old, temporarily and permanently disabled. They allow their patients not only the chance to recover quicker, but to resume active and high quality lifestyles.

Unfortunately, with each passing month fewer and fewer Americans will have access to the unique care and services that rehab hospitals provide. A Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) policy, commonly known as the ``75% Rule'', is being enforced in such a way that many patients, often regardless of their unique and pressing needs, are being turned away from facilities that could otherwise provide them with the best available care.

The ``75% Rule'' requires a rehab facility to ensure that a percentage of its patients are receiving treatment for one or more conditions as specified by Medicare. When the current rule went into effect in July of 2004, 50% of a rehab facility's admissions were required to fall within the list of conditions, on July 1st this percentage rose to 60%, and will continue to rise until it returns to 75% in 2007. According to a Government Accountability Office report, many rehab facilities will not be able to meet this 75% threshold required at full implementation of the rule.

In an effort to comply with the 75% Rule over the past year, thousands of patients across the country have been turned away from the care they desperately need. Rehab hospitals have been forced to tell patients recovering from cancer and strokes to look elsewhere for care, and have been forced instead to leave beds empty and reduce their staffs so that they can continue to provide care to the patients they are still able to treat. And with each coming year the situation will only get more dire.

The ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005'' will help ease this problem by allowing hospitals additional time to figure out how to ensure they are in compliance with CMS's rules, while still providing the unique care and services they are able to provide to the patients most in need. It will also create a National Advisory Council on Medical Rehabilitation to ensure that future policies created by Federal agencies and Congress reflect the realities and challenges facing the field of rehabilitative care without denying needed care to patients.

The American Hospital Association, American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association, Federation of American Hospitals and numerous other associations and advocacy groups join me in supporting the ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005.'' Their members are seeing first hand the devastating effect the ``75% Rule'' is having on those in need of rehab care today and the enormous impact further implementation of this Rule will have.

Each and every day, patients across America are being denied the rehab care they need and deserve and which could be available to them. I urge you to speak for them and to support the ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make my colleagues aware of the failure of this bill to provide funding for a critically important economic development program. The Round II Empowerment Zone initiative provides Federal assistance to support the comprehensive revitalization of designated communities across the country. It is a 10-year program that targets Federal grants to distressed communities for social services and community redevelopment and provides tax and regulatory relief to attract and retain businesses.

In my district, the Cumberland County Empowerment Zone is a successful collaborative revitalization effort among the communities of Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Port Norris. Cumberland has committed nearly 100 percent of the $25 million that has been made available by HUD so far. Over 1,400 jobs have been created to date and over 166 housing units have been renovated, rehabilitated, constructed or purchased in EZ neighborhoods. Cumberland County has funded over 120 initiatives through the EZ program and has established a $4 million loan pool available to be reinvested back into the targeted communities. These projects are estimated to leverage a total of over $238 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing. Put plainly, the Cumberland EZ has leveraged nearly $12 in private investment for every $1 of public funding, a remarkable achievement that demonstrates the success and promise of the Zone.

While I am very proud of the accomplishments of the Cumberland EZ, I recognize the reluctance of the subcommittee to provide funding for the program. As the subcommittee has noted before, the IG, and HUD itself, have found too many of the other Zones have had problems spending grant funds, accounting for expenditures and spending funds consistent with their strategic plans. I further recognize the reluctance of the subcommittee to continue to provide funds for the program when the Senate has sought to eliminate this program for the past 2 years.

While I main tremendously disappointed this bill fails to fund the Round II Empowerment Zone program, I will reluctantly vote for it. I do so with the hope that the Senate will find funding for this program, and that if that should happen, I will have the opportunity to work the subcommittee to restore funding for this critical program.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1412) to amend the Ports and Waterways Safety Act to require notification of the Coast Guard regarding obstructions to navigation, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1412.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act, makes several amendments to current law to enhance the Coast Guard's and the Federal Government's capability to prevent and respond to future oil spills in U.S. waters.

On November 26 of 2004, the ATHOS I struck a submerged object and released more than 260,000 gallons of heavy crude oil into the Delaware River. I commend the excellent work of the Coast Guard, in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, to minimize the impact of the spill. However, this incident has brought several issues to light that are needed to enhance our capabilities to prevent and to respond to future oil spills.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1412 would require persons to notify the Coast Guard in the event that an object is released into U.S. waters that could cause the obstruction to navigation or, in the case of the ATHOS I, rip open the bottom of a ship. Mr. Speaker, let me give an example of why this provision is necessary. Under current regulations, an individual must report the creation of an obstruction only when the obstruction is caused by a sunken vessel. In other words, you must notify the Coast Guard when a vessel, whether a dinghy or a cruise ship, is sunk in a navigable waterway, but you need not report the loss of a large object such as a 7-foot anchor which, in this case, ripped the hull of the ATHOS I.

The notification requirement included in this bill will provide the Coast Guard with the information necessary to mark the location of potential obstructions on nautical charts until those obstructions can be removed. This provision will improve maritime safety and will protect the environment and economies of our local communities by further preventing similar mishaps in the future.

H.R. 1412 also directs the President to adjust liability limits for vessel owners to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index since 1990 and establishes a research program to develop and test technologies to detect and remove submerged oil from our waterways.

This bill will provide the Federal Government with authorities that will

enhance our capabilities to prevent and respond to future oil spills in U.S. waters. I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), for their help, participation, and cosponsoring this bill.

I urge the House to support H.R. 1412.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and I thank him again for his participation and help.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) and again thank her for her participation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.