Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service, dedication and professionalism of Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Stephanie Morrison, who has served as the Coast Guard's Deputy Liaison to the House of Representatives from August 2009 through June 2012. The consummate professional, LCDR Morrison exemplified the Coast Guard's motto ``Semper Paratus'' or Always Ready, as she coordinated staff and Member briefings, worked with Committee staff and Coast Guard leadership to prepare for critical operations, acquisitions, and policy hearings, and helped respond to hundreds of constituent issues from around the country. She was an integral part of the Coast Guard's Congressional Affairs team that supported my Subcommittee's efforts in the passage of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, and has continued to be an invaluable resource as we move forward to support the Coast Guard's vital recapitalization and modernization efforts during the 112th Congress. In addition to her numerous duties and responsibilities here in Washington, D.C., LCDR Morrison also deployed to the Gulf Coast in the Spring of 2010 during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response, where she assisted numerous congressional staff and Members of Congress with detailed briefings and site visits, which were vital to Congress' ability to execute its oversight responsibilities during this tragic event.

As the Ranking Member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, I am honored to represent the fine women and men of the United States Coast Guard not only from my District, but everyone who has accepted the challenge and endured the sacrifice necessary to serve. The men and women who serve as Congressional Liaisons take on a particularly difficult challenge; one which can easily be overlooked but is nonetheless as important to the success of the Coast Guard as the cutter and aircraft crews who protect our waterways every day. I would like to thank LCDR Morrison for her dedication and service in this challenging position. She has been a tremendous help to me and my staff, and I wish her well as she transitions to her new assignment as the Chief of Waterways Management at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule because we are set to adjourn this week without finishing our critical work on transportation.

We need a long-term surface transportation bill that puts Americans back to work. Mr. Speaker, this House only builds roads in order to find cans to kick down those roads. We cannot have a ``big league'' economy with ``little league'' infrastructure in this country. We need a long-term investment to repair our roads, bridges, and highways, and to maintain our transit systems.

Leaders of our country have always recognized this fact. Three years after Lewis and Clark left for the West, President Jefferson secured funding for the Cumberland Road. If Jefferson recognized the importance that transportation can have in linking this country, uniting the States in a shared economy and trade, surely we can show that same recognition today by staying here to ensure that the work of job creation is done. The question before us is whether this body recognizes that transportation projects create jobs and set the stage for economic growth.

A bipartisan bill passed out of the Senate. It was forged out of compromise. It is a bipartisan solution. It means immediate job creation. It means jobs for private sector contractors, laborers, and engineers.

A conference committee is meeting right now to bring us a long-term authorization to create real jobs. We should not adjourn without a long-term, robust, and bipartisan investment in transportation and jobs.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can finish this work.

Mr. Chair, last year I introduced H.R. 2972, the Creating American Jobs Through Foreign Capital Act. This legislation seeks to permanently reauthorize the EB 5 program. The EB 5 program allows qualified foreign investors who create or save at least 10 full-time American jobs by making major investments in U.S. businesses to seek U.S. visas. The program, first established in 1990, has been continued as a short-term pilot program.

Last year the program created or saved more than 25,000 American jobs and generated $1.25 billion in investment, according to the Association to Invest In the USA. For example, in the Second Congressional District in Washington state, this program has created least 800 jobs in Whatcom County alone. The EB 5 program is one of more than 20 immigrant investor programs around the world that are competing for capital investment. In the Asia-Pacific region, programs like EB 5 exist in Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Canada. As the United States more strongly embraces our role as an Asia-Pacific nation and looks to create jobs through exports to the region, we are competing with these countries, and many more around the world, for these investment dollars.

I am pleased that the Senate has included a two-year reauthorization of this program in Section 554 of its Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The Senate report highlighted that since its inception of this program in 1990 through 2011, USCIS estimates that a minimum of 43,280 jobs have been created and more than $2,200,000,000 has been invested through the EB 5 program. Our economy cannot afford to do without these investments or these jobs.

I want to thank Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price for working with me on this issue. And, even though this reauthorization is not included in the House bill, I would like to thank the Subcommittee as a whole for understanding the importance of this language and this reauthorization and I urge you to preserve the Senate reauthorization during conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the passage of my bill, H.R. 1740, and to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure.

I want to thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop of the subcommittee, as well as Ranking Members Markey and Grijalva, for their help in getting this bill to the floor.

I have the honor of representing one of the most scenic parts of the country, Washington's Second District. The Second District is home to the North Cascades and to the beautiful San Juan Islands. It's also home to some of the best fishing in the country, both commercially and recreationally. Salmon and groundfish stocks are beginning to recover all over the Northwest. Part of the reason is that we've begun to protect places that are important for fish habitat. When we protect these places, we protect the jobs that come from the fishing industry. This preservation is a catalyst to introducing the legislation before us.

Illabot Creek travels from the Glacier Park Wilderness Area to the upper Skagit River, falling about 7,000 feet during its journey. The water of Illabot provides the optimal conditions for wild Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout--all species listed as threatened. This legislation will designate 14.3 miles of the Illabot Creek as wild

and scenic, protecting these species while ensuring that hunting and fishing and other recreational activities continue. Protecting this area has the support of local hunters, farmers, environmentalists, anglers, the local government, and the State government, which are all in my district.

I want to thank Senator Murray for introducing the bill's companion over in the Senate. I hope that that body will take up the bill as well.

I appreciate the support of Minority Whip Hoyer, of the chairmen, and of the ranking members for bringing this legislation to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage and to protect this important body of water.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Duncan Amendment to prevent appropriations from being used to implement the Convention on the Law of the Sea. As Ranking Member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee and as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know the importance of this treaty for both the Coast Guard and the Navy. Signing the Convention would allow both military services to prevent potential conflicts at sea with other nations. It would also lock in critical navigational rights that will ensure the timeliness and operational readiness of the services. This is a bipartisan issue, and I regret this amendment attempts to make it a partisan one.

Both the Navy and Coast Guard are enthusiastic and supportive of the potential that the Convention on the Law of the Sea holds. In fact, earlier this month Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Robert Papp gave a speech in which he said the Convention would ``better enable the Coast Guard to protect Americans from the sea, protect Americans from threats delivered by sea, and protect the sea itself.''

This amendment is the wrong policy given the many benefits that we stand to gain by joining the Convention. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment offered by Representative Johnson of Georgia that would include a finding that states the deployment of tactical weapons to South Korea would destabilize the Western Pacific region and would not be in the national security interests of the United States.

Due to increased provocative actions taken by North Korea, I feel there is a thought that the placement of tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula would act as a deterrent

against North Korea's continued desire to build nuclear weapons. I disagree.

Our military's extended nuclear deterrent capabilities are already sufficient to deal with the North Korean threat. The Kim Jung-un regime is aware that with our advanced submarine launch capabilities, our sophisticated stealth bombers, and our ICBM missiles, the United States military has the ability to cause devastating harm to North Korea.

Instead of acting as a deterrent to North Korea, placing tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula will only embolden the Kim Jung-un regime to develop their nuclear capabilities faster, increasing the risk of development or testing mistakes that could harm innocent North Koreans in the process.

Placing tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula without the support of the South Korean, Japanese, or Chinese governments could severely hamper the progress made during the six-party talks. The United States should not unilaterally decide to take a destabilizing action in this region of the world without close consultation with our allies in the region.

For these reasons I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment.

I claim time in opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The amendment puts constraints that would recklessly weaken our national security by preventing nuclear reductions that the U.S. and Russia have already agreed to. The provision would de facto prevent any reduction in the number of nuclear delivery vehicles because Russia is already below the New START limits and does not need to make further reductions to comply with the treaty. Thus, it would essentially require Russia to build up its arsenal to allow the U.S. to implement its New START obligations. In other words, it would fully stop the implementation of the mutually agreed upon treaty in its tracks. This is highly destabilizing.

It would also risk terminating the treaty if the U.S. cannot comply with its obligations. Even during the Cold War, the U.S. negotiated with Russia to limit the number of nuclear weapons. Without New START, the U.S. would lose all verification rights, thereby losing insight into Russia's nuclear arsenal. These limitations would require the U.S. to maintain the current numbers of nuclear delivery vehicles and placing artificial limits on our arsenal and make reductions subject to Russian actions, in effect, outsourcing national security to Russia.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to consider these facts when they consider voting on this amendment. I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I would just ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We would ask our colleagues here in the House to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in 2006, I, along with Senator Cantwell, made sure that the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, or IMBRA, was enacted as part of the last reauthorization of VAWA. It put regulations in place to protect foreign women brought here through the mail-order bride industry to keep them from falling prey to serial abusers.

Pushing this legislation forward 6 years ago was important to me because a young woman named Anastasia King, a so-called mail-order bride, was found dead. She had been strangled to death by her husband and buried in a shallow grave in 2000 in a wooded area in my district. Her husband had a domestic violence protection order issued against him from a previous wife. Indle King killed Anastasia because he wanted to get a new bride and didn't want to pay for a divorce.

The VAWA bill being considered in the House today does not go far enough to strengthen those same protections that we established in 2006. It leaves out important amendments to IMBRA that passed in the bipartisan Senate bill, like putting penalties in place to keep a man like Indle King from simply lying about his violent history so as to lure another woman here to be abused and then discarded.

We must use this reauthorization process to strengthen protections against abusers, not strengthen abusers' upper hand. We must use this reauthorization process to reaffirm that VAWA's protections are for all victims, including tribal women and LGBT individuals.

Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to highlight the Defense Business Panel's work over the past 6 months and discuss our proposals for a series of procurement, contracting, and export control reforms that seek to help small and medium-sized businesses access the nearly $400 billion-a-year defense market.

Burdensome regulations and arcane auditing requirements are driving many companies to quit the defense market and are deterring new suppliers from entering the market. I am pleased that many of the bipartisan recommendations from the Defense Business Panel's report, ``Challenges to Doing Business with the Department of Defense,'' have made it into this year's National Defense Authorization Act and have received overwhelming support by the HASC committee members.

To ensure the Pentagon uses small businesses more, the FY13 NDAA requires the Department of Defense to award 25 percent of the total value of all prime contracts each year to small businesses. The panel heard from many companies around the Nation about how to modernize our export control regime. Tomorrow we may be debating an amendment that would grant the administration authority to remove commercial satellites and components from the Munitions List to the Commerce Control List. I would strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

The panel focused on the steps that can be taken to commercialize innovative products that originate from small businesses. This year's NDAA will restore 1 percent funding for expenses for the commercialization and readiness program and will require program offices to import SBIR Phase 2 programs into programs of record, when appropriate.

We accomplished much to help small businesses over the panel's 6 months of work, but we've only scratched the surface. More can be done to help small businesses contract with the DOD, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement these changes.

Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who is the chairman of this panel, for his leadership, and the chairman of the full committee and ranking member, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Smith, for appointing the panel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2072, the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act.

The Export-Import Bank creates jobs, reduces our trade deficit, and helps to lower our national debt. It's a tool that our manufacturers-- both large and small--use to expand their sales to customers around the world so they can keep creating jobs here at home.

In Washington State's Second Congressional District, the Ex-Im Bank has helped finance the sale of more than $22 billion in exports from 13 companies, including, importantly, seven small businesses.

Last week, I sat down with three businesses in my district that have used the bank. The CEO of one of these companies told me the bank has been indispensable in allowing their business to grow and support 25 full-time employees.

I was very pleased to introduce a bipartisan bill earlier this year with Congressman Manzullo to reauthorize and expand the Ex-Im Bank and am very happy that Whip Hoyer and Leader Cantor were able to work out this sensible, bipartisan agreement that is largely in line with the bill I introduced, H.R. 4302.

I call on my colleagues to pass this bill so we can keep America open for business.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2072, the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act.

The Export-Import Bank creates jobs.

It reduces our trade deficit.

And helps to lower our national debt.

It is a tool that our manufacturers, both large and small, use to expand their sales to customers around the world so they can keep creating jobs here at home.

In Washington's 2nd Congressional District, the Ex-Im Bank has helped finance the sale of more than $22 billion in exports from 13 companies, including 7 small businesses.

Last week I sat down with three businesses in Whatcom County that have used the Bank.

They told me the Bank is a critical tool, without which they would not be able to sell overseas.

The CEO of one of those companies, Western Chemical in Ferndale, Wash., which makes fish health products, told me the Bank has been, quote, ``indispensable in allowing our business to grow to $2M in annual Washington State exports this year and $5 million next year and supports 25 full-time employees.''

The Bank also supports our much larger exporters.

Hundreds of the women and men who make the Boeing 767, 777, and new 787 aircraft in Everett, Wash., recently wrote me urging Congress to reauthorize the Bank because their jobs and our local economy rely on it.

The Ex-Im Bank has been so successful in recent years in boosting our exports that its lending authority needs to be expanded to keep up with our growing manufacturers.

I was proud to introduce a bipartisan bill earlier this year with Congressman Manzullo to reauthorize and expand the Ex-Im Bank.

I am pleased that Whip Hoyer and Leader Cantor were able to work out this sensible, bipartisan agreement that is largely in line with the bill I introduced, H.R. 4302.

I know some of the critics of this bill will call this corporate welfare and say it is government manipulating in the market.

The fact of the matter is every other major economy has a similar export-promotion program, and if we were to let the Ex-Im Bank expire, it would only help foreign companies at the expense of American exports and American jobs.

Not only that, but the Ex-Im Bank is an investment that pays dividends back to the U.S. taxpayer, helping to reduce our deficit by $1.9 billion in the last five years alone.

Thousands of workers in my district and around the country depend on the Ex-Im Bank for their jobs.

I thank Whip Hoyer and Leader Cantor for their work on this bill, as well as Congressman Manzullo for his work with me on this issue.

I call on my colleagues to pass this bill so we can keep America open for business.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following materials in support of H.R. 2072, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act, as amended.

Support American Jobs: Pass H.R. 2072 the Export-Import Reauthorization

Act

Dear Colleague: Tomorrow the House will take up H.R. 2072,

the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012, the long

term bipartisan reauthorization agreement announced last

week. By passing H.R. 2072, Congress will give U.S. business

the tools they need to compete in the global market place and

create jobs for workers here in the United States.

H.R. 2072 reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) for

three years, giving U.S. businesses the certainty they need,

and incrementally increases the exposure limit to $140

billion by fiscal year 2014 in response to the growing demand

for Ex-Im financing. The bill includes a number of provisions

that will make Ex-Im more effective and accountable. These

provisions include funding for technology upgrades and

requirements that the Bank submit a business plan to justify

the increased exposure, and periodic monitoring and reporting

to Congress on the Bank's default rate.

The legislation is widely supported by Labor and business

groups--such as International Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers, NAM, Chamber of Commerce and Business

Roundtable. These groups understand the critical role the

Bank plays in supporting American workers by providing credit

where it's prohibitively expensive or by neutralizing

official foreign credit competition.

Just last year, the Bank provided $32 billion in financing

to thousands of companies,

which supported nearly 290,000 American jobs. Over 80 percent

of those transactions directly supported small businesses.

You can see for yourself the work the Bank has done in your

district, by visiting their website http://www.exim.gov/ congmap/#/us.

It is important to note that the work of the Bank is done

at no cost to the taxpayer, as they are self-sustaining: the

Bank covers all of its operating expenses and loan loss

reserves through the fees it charges users of the Bank. In

fact, the Bank returns money to the Treasury, and since 2008

they have returned almost $2 billion.

I urge you to support this job creating legislation, which

gives American companies the tools they need to grow and

create local jobs in communities across the country, while

making money for American taxpayers.

Sincerely,

Carolyn McCarthy,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Kiwanis Club of Bellingham on its 90th anniversary.

The members of the Kiwanis Club of Bellingham are continuing in the club's long service to Whatcom County by supporting the community's children.

Kiwanis have long served children around the world by raising money, collecting food and clothes, and by working with children one-on-one. In Bellingham, Kiwanis support local children in dozens of ways that have a true and meaningful impact in our community.

You can find Kiwanis working with students in classrooms across the county, raising money to help kids get computers and sports equipment, and working to beautify the community.

The Kiwanis' work to support kids diagnosed with cancer is especially inspiring. As a father of two sons, I know how important community support is to developing happy and healthy kids.

The Kiwanis' work helps families today and will pay dividends to our community for many generations to come. Their service projects strengthen the community one kid at a time by giving children healthy food and opportunities to succeed in school and sports. Bellingham and Whatcom County are better today for the 90 years of great service the Kiwanis have given.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating the Kiwanis Club of Bellingham on its 90th anniversary and in recognizing their significant service to children and families in Whatcom County.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 2845, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011.

Pipelines have a critical place in our Nation's infrastructure. The national pipeline network of over 2.5 million miles efficiently delivers gasoline, natural gas, oil, and other essential energy products across the country each day. Pipelines play a vital role in our daily lives. Cooking and cleaning, the daily commute, air travel, and the heating of homes and businesses are all made possible by the readily available fuels delivered through pipelines daily. However, because of the volatile nature of the products they deliver, incidents involving gas and hazardous liquid pipeline can and have had serious consequences.

On June 10, 1999, a pipeline explosion caused the release of about 237,000 gallons of gasoline into a creek that flowed through Whatcom Falls Park in Bellingham, Washington, in my district. The gasoline ignited and tragically took the lives of two 10-year-old boys and an 18-year-old young man. Eight additional inhalation injuries occurred in a single-family residence, and the city of Bellingham's water treatment plant was severely damaged. The wildlife in Whatcom Creek was completely destroyed.

This tragedy inspired the 2002 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act. This act increased fines for negligent pipeline operators, improved pipeline testing timelines, provided protection for whistleblowers, and allowed for the State oversight of pipeline safety. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the 2002 law by passing the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act. These acts of Congress have made pipeline safety laws stronger, the construction of new pipelines better, and our existing infrastructure safer. While significant progress has been made in improving the safety of our Nation's pipelines, we must remain vigilant.

In July 2010, a 30-inch pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy Partners ruptured and released 819,000 gallons of oil into the Talmadge Creek, located near Marshall, Michigan. The oil flowed into the Kalamazoo River, a tributary to Lake Michigan. Heavy rains caused the river to overtop existing dams and carried oil 30 miles downstream on the Kalamazoo River toward a Superfund site. Almost a year and a half later, Enbridge is still cleaning up this spill along the riverbanks.

Just a few months after the Enbridge spill, in September 2010, an intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company ruptured in a residential area in San Bruno, California. The released natural gas ignited, resulting in a fire that destroyed 38 homes and damaged 70 others. As well, tragically, eight people were killed, many were injured, and many more were evacuated.

The legislation that we are considering today addresses many concerns that were raised as a result of these and other incidents. For example, following the incident in Bellingham, Washington, National Transportation Safety Board investigators found, among other things, that Olympic Pipeline had no remote-operated shutoff valves on the line, which could have helped prevent the release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline. Following the Bellingham incident, the Department of Transportation ordered the pipeline company to install an automatic shutoff valve just downstream of the rupture location so that the volume of product released would be limited in the event of a future pipeline rupture in that area.

H.R. 2845 addresses the issue of shutoff valves. It requires all gas and liquid pipeline operators to install automatic, remote-controlled shutoff valves on new and replaced pipelines.

The bill also doubles civil penalties for pipeline safety violations from

$100,000 to $200,000 per violation and from $1 million to $2 million for maximum penalties.

It requires the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to evaluate and then issue regulations to expand integrity management beyond high-consequence areas, to establish performance standards for leak detection systems and require hazardous liquid pipeline operators to install leak protection systems that meet such performance standards.

It requires pipeline operators, in response to San Bruno, to report to DOT anytime their facilities exceed maximum allowable operating pressure and to conduct tests to confirm the material strength of previously untested gas transmission pipelines in high-consequence areas. And finally, it increases the level of pipeline safety inspectors at DOT by 10 and increases the amount of technical assistance grants that are awarded to local communities from $1 million to $1.5 million annually.

H.R. 2845 is a step in the right direction when it comes to pipeline safety. This bill is supported by industry, and it is supported by pipeline safety and community groups like the Pipeline Safety Trust.

I want to thank the chairman and all the committee members for working on this legislation. I want to thank Carl Weimer, who is the executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust in Bellingham, which formed after the 1999 pipeline explosion, as well for his continued commitment to these issues.

I strongly urge Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, just let me say a few words.

First off, I want to be sure I thank Ms. Brown of Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, as well as Mr. Rahall, the ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as my colleagues on the majority side of the aisle on the committee, and, of course, on the Energy and Commerce Committee for the work that we all did to make this bill happen.

This is the third version of the pipeline safety bill that I personally have worked on going back to 2001. Each time Congress has reauthorized the pipeline safety bill, we have done so by learning lessons from the previous 4 years, incorporating those lessons into the legislation and taking forward steps to make the use of pipelines and the transportation of liquid fuel and gas safer.

The third thing I just want to point out is that each year--2002, 2006 and 2011--each year of the passage of the pipeline safety bill, the bills have been bipartisan and garnered much support both in the House and in the Senate. We are likely to see that in the House, and I certainly urge the Senate to take this bill up this week and pass it with bipartisan support, as well.

Finally, let me just say to this body that I would urge this body to support this bill and to pass H.R. 2845. I want to thank Mr. Shuster for his cooperation in this effort as well.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

I reluctantly rise to object to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Puerto Rico, which would undermine the Jones Act.

The amendment would allow foreign-flagged, foreign-built, foreign- owned, and foreign-manned vessels over 100 gross tons to carry passengers within Puerto Rico. As such, this waiver would disadvantage U.S. maritime operators and U.S. seafarers who might otherwise provide such services. In its present form, we cannot support the amendment.

I commend the gentleman from Puerto Rico for his sincere efforts to expand maritime commerce in Puerto Rico, but I cannot support the amendment he has offered today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I do not oppose the amendment.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Young amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this final amendment prohibits the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from awarding contracts to felons convicted of contract fraud, waste and abuse.

It was just 1 month ago, Mr. Speaker, that a Federal magistrate judge indicted four individuals on an alleged bribery and kickback scheme regarding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' contracts that defrauded U.S. taxpayers of a minimum of $20 million; taxpayer dollars wasted on BMWs, Rolexes, flat-screen televisions, first-class airline tickets, investment properties across the globe, and the list goes on. In exchange for these kickbacks, the contractors were guaranteed millions in sole-sourced, open-ended contracts with a total award potential of more than $1.7 billion--that's billion with a ``B.'' They were sailing high on taxpayer dollars while other Americans were struggling to stay afloat.

When they were arrested, the coconspirators had their sights set on a $780 million Corps of Engineers' contract. Fortunately, they were apprehended before this very large contract was awarded.

Similarly, in August of this year, a Federal court grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia indicted four coconspirators of multiple alleged criminal charges, including conspiracy, theft of public money, wire fraud, illegal gratuities, false statements and money laundering in connection with a kickback scheme involving Coast Guard vessel repair contracts.

Mr. Speaker, this August 2011 kickback scheme is particularly striking because of the Coast Guard's spectacular contract failures in recent history under the Deepwater program. We all may recall that under Deepwater, the Coast Guard's most infamous failure was the effort to lengthen the Coast Guard's existing 110-foot patrol boats to 123 feet and install new, upgraded information technology equipment. After eight boats were delivered, the Coast Guard determined that the lengthened hulls cracked and were unsafe.

We simply cannot afford to allow one more dollar of our limited Federal resources--of the taxpayers' limited resources--to be wasted. We can help root out these crony kickbacks with this final and straightforward amendment. This is a plain and simple vote to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse.

When you hear about contractors who engage in the largest corruption scheme in modern history, like those in the Army Corps, it's clear they need to be put in the penalty box. This final amendment simply says that contractors who rip off taxpayers can't get more contracts. Specifically, it prohibits the Coast Guard and the Corps of Engineers from awarding a contract to a contractor convicted of fraud or a criminal offense related to obtaining a contract or subcontract with the Federal Government.

It also prohibits a contract for a contractor convicted of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property from participating.

This final amendment ensures that felons convicted of criminal offenses related to receiving government contracts and abusing the public trust will no longer stand to benefit from future Federal contracts for at least 10 years. This amendment will not kill the bill. It will simply immediately add this taxpayer safeguard, and then the House will vote on final passage of the bill right here and right now.

So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this final amendment, which will ensure that we bust waste, fraud, and abuse and throw those kickback cronies into the penalty box.

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

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

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

I too rise in support of this legislation, which would provide a narrow waiver from the coastwise laws for the vessels competing or supporting the upcoming America's Cup finals to be held in 2013.

The America's Cup, the world's premier international sailing competition, will be held in San Francisco Bay by virtue of the United States' successful challenge to reclaim the cup last year. This legislation is necessary to ensure that the competition can go forward in an expeditious manner for all competitors.

The legislation also includes several other vessel waivers that are included in H.R. 2828, which were cleared by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in September.

I appreciate as well that my request to waive the coastwise laws for the maritime education vessel, LUNA, has been included in this bill, as well as in the Coast Guard bill, and support passage of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

In conclusion, let me just say that the America's Cup is the oldest competitive sailing competition. The U.S. held the Cup for over 134 years before losing to Australia off of Newport, Rhode Island. We are very proud to have reclaimed the Cup and look forward to defending it in 2013.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of the America's Cup Act of 2011, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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?