where both spouses work, one grandchildren. host: my apologies, we have to wrap. we talked about how this contributes to the economic stability of households. we have about 10, 20 seconds. income distraction of married and unmarried households. guest: this goes to an earlier caller. this chart merely says that households with higher incomes tend to contain married couples. households on the lower side of the income tend to be -- host: look at the difference. guest: these are dramatic differences. this is a property of marriage choices and stability of marriages as a function of income. host: thank you so much for being with us this morning. an interesting set of calls from our viewers who demonstrate the census department's -- census bureau's numbers about the changing american households and the special fogeious on what's

been -- focus on what's been happening. dr. robert groves heads up the census bureau. thank you for being here. guest: great to be here. host: and now today's session of the house of representatives. conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. compassionate and merciful god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as this house comes together at the end of the week, bless the work of its members. give them strength, fortitude and patience. fill their hearts with charity, their minds with understanding, their wills with courage to do the right thing for all of america. the work that they have is difficult work. may they rise together to accomplish what is best for our great nation and indeed for all the world for you have blessed

us with many riches and the great history of building a government by the people, of the people and for the people. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and demrory. amen. -- and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from georgia, mr. barrett -- barrow. mr. barrow: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask

permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, today i'd like to extend my sincere appreciation to neal patelle, a committed staff member in the second congressional district of south carolina. after a little more than a year, neal is departing the office to join congressman boustany's staff and serve as his communications director to further the republican plan to create jobs. a native of south carolina, he's a graduate of charleston school of law. i have worked with his parents in the motel industry for over 30 years, and i know they are proud of their son's achievements. neal has been a tremendous asset for the people of the second congressional district. from his early days as an intern to now communications director, neal has represented our office with enthusiasm and professionalism. it is with sincere gratitude that i would like to thank neal for his dedication. in conclusion, god bless our

troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. barrow: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to highlight this week's passage of s. 894, the veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 2011. during this difficult time it's more important than ever that we keep our promises to our veterans. this provides a cost-of-living adjustment to the disability pay of our wounded veterans. this well-earned increase will go a long way to help make ends meet. this could not have been done at a more appropriate time as we are one week away from veterans day. i am happy to see that my colleagues worked in a bipartisan fashion to pass this legislation. i would like to thank them for passing the act and i encourage my colleagues to continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion to keep the promises our country made to veterans when they first signed up. with that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to request permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> ladies and gentlemen of the house, i rise today as we approach veterans day to honor cosh rale joshua "j.b." kerns. corporal kerns served in the united states marine corps in the third pla tone and one day in -- platoon and one day in afghanistan he unfortunately was hit with an i.e.d. explosion. this brave young man lost both legs and one arm. one of the volunteers who worked with him as he recovered, burt kaswell, working with wounded warriors, wrote a poem on his behalf, which i'll read into the record. it's entitled "what i learned." and yet you are only 21 but from you, joshua, i have

learned, so much more than under the sun, and as long as we have such sons like you and such families too then our nation will stand. mr. griffith: yes, that old red, white and blue and there is so much more to learn from you. thank you and all the soldiers who serve our nation. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as we approach the impending veterans day next week, i think it's important that we pause for a moment as a country and reflect on the contributions that these veterans have done. ms. hochul: veterans who served us from the last century and those waiting to come home with opened arms for christmas. but importantly we must give them jobs when they come home.

i support sections of the president's jobs bill to hire our veterans and wounded veterans. this is so important because the last thing i want to see in this country is to give thanks to these people on one day and then to find them under a bridge because they're homeless and couldn't get a job. these people deserve better than that, mr. speaker, and i call on my members of congress in a bipartisan way to support incentives to give our veterans what they need when they come home, a warm welcome and the dignity of a job. with that i yield, mr. speaker. thank you, sir. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. johnson: thank you. well, i too, rise to celebrate and remember our courageous men and women in uniformed who have served the united states armed forces. next friday our nation as a whole will observe veterans day, a day which should serve as a reminder to every american that our armed forces, both

past and present, are made up of individuals with great courage, character and honor. as a 29-year air force veteran and prisoner of war for nearly seven years i know firsthand that freedom is not free. we owe a debt of gratitude for all who have worn the uniform and their families. i urge all americans to use this veterans day as an opportunity to personally thank a veteran. it's because of their sacrifices that we remain the land of the free and the home of the brave. i think an inscription on the wall says it all, freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die that the protected will never know. i salute our veterans. god bless america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. walz: to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. bipartisanship is not dead. there are policies grounded in common sense that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle can agree upon. i'm proud to be part of a group of lawmakers, democrat and republican, who are fighting to complete the louis and clark water system. this infrastructure project alone will bring drinking water to the united states the size of connecticut. it will sustain hundreds of jobs and create an estimated 10,000 jobs in the long run. the funds for this project were promised during the clinton presidency, the bush presidency and the obama presidency. locals not only paid their share, they paid in advance and yet today the earth movers, the forklifts and the dump trucks sit idle and no water runs. we need to push this project forward. with only 14 legislative days left in our congressional calendar, the time is now to work together, create jobs in a commonsense approach, bring

louis and clark to a reality. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to honor one of the members of the greatest generation, mr. paul eason. mr. paul came home after world war ii and became a success in his community by any measure of the word, manufacturing leader, three terms on our city council, chairman of the park and recreation commission, citizen of the year. mr. nunnelee: but his most significant contribution was giving his time and energy as scoutmaster for three generations of boys in tube low, mississippi. -- pupe low, mississippi. he -- tupelo, mississippi. he was the scout leader for troop 12 for nine years. when he began his scouts thought it would be interesting to go for a year without missing a monthly campout.

and troop 12 recently completed its 729th consecutive monthly campout. not missing a month since harry truman was president. they thought they were learning how to tie knots and pitch tents. mr. paul was teaching them the meaning of the scout oath, "on my honor i will do my best, to do my duty to god and my country." america needs more young men that understands the meaning of duty, excellence and honor. as a father of two of troop 12's eagle scouts, mr. paul, i want to say thank you for the contribution you plead to your community, your state and to your nation and on this your 90th birthday, may god bless you and may god place the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, on earth the seven billionth

person has worn. this rapid growth is strange water and food supplies, reducing access to health care and education and even greated instability and violence. most importantly, this growth is denying women in nations like yemen and afghanistan who still average more than five children their basic human right to decide if, when and how many children to have. 215 million women around the world say they want access to contraception but can't get it. we can fulfill that need and save lives, improve lives and save tax dollars while we do it. according to one institute, meeting this unmet need for family and planning could save the lives of 251,000 women and 1.7 million newborns, improve rates of education and health and save a net total of $1.5 billion. america can lead the world in

family planning as it once did but we have to increase aid in international family planning. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to express my strong support and gratitude to america's heroes, our veterans. mr. johnson: while our service members and veterans deserve our gratitude and thanks every day, veterans day, which we will celebrate next friday, serves as an important reminder of the sacrifices that our brave men and women in uniform do every day to defend our freedoms. as a veteran myself, i am also aware of the extraordinary sacrifices that families at home endure while their loved ones are deployed. i'd like to extend my thanks to those families for their patience and support which play an integral role in the support of our troops serving abroad.

i am committed to ensuring that our nation's veterans, their families and survivors receive the care, benefits and services they've earned. once again, i'd like to offer my sincere gratitude to our nation's veterans and their families and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise this morning to address the pervasive and life-threatening challenges posed by domestic violence. mr. himes: mr. speaker, as many as one in four women over the course of her lifetime will experience domestic violence. this is a crime that knows no geographical boundaries, a crime that knows no class boundaries and a crime which does not come to the family from without but comes from within and transcends generations as children are scared and then replicate the behavior that unfortunately

they saw in their families. mr. speaker, around the united states and certainly around connecticut we have the ywca of greenwich, the domestic violence crisis centers in stanford and norwalk doing wonderful work, providing safety for these victims of crime. we should support one of those. as fathers, as brothers, as community leaders, as members of congress, we should stand up and say, we will put an end to this terribly destructive force. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> >> mr. speaker, by direction of the rules committee i call up house resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 86. house resolution 455. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare

the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2838, to authorize appropriations for the coast guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. section 2, a, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on transportation and infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an

amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print dated october 28, 2011. that amendment in the nature 6 a sushestute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. b, no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution. c, each amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for

division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. d, all points of order against amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived. section 3, it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on transportation and infrastructure or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this resolution shall be considered as read, shall be debateable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure or their designees. shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. the original proponent of an

amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the congressional record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. section 4, at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the maple leaf question -- previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 5, it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of november 4, 2011 for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules relating to a measure addressing the applicability of the coast wide trade laws.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. webster: during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. million webster: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. house resolution 455 provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 2838, the coast guard and maritime transportation act of 2011. the rule makes 18 amendments submitted to the rules committee in order for debate here in the house of representatives. 10 of those 18 amendments are made in order by democrat

sponsored amendments, seven are republican sponsored, and one is a bipartisan amendment. five information gathering subcommittee hearings were held prior to this bill being reported out of the committee. further this legislation passed out of the transportation and infrastructure committee with bipartisan support by a voice vote. the coast guard is comprised of nearly 100,000 military personnel, reservists, civilians, and auxiliary volunteers. it is one of the five branches of our armed services, that constitutes our armed forces. the coast guard or its predecessors have defended this nation in every war since 1790. charged primarily with enforcing laws of the united states in, upped, and over the high seas and waters under american jurisdiction, the coast guard is asked to serve many functions simultaneously. this is important -- this is known personally to my own state, florida which has the

largest coast guard line of any of the 48 contiguous states. from drug interdiction to port security to border enforcement, coast guard's reach is wide and its mission critical. this bipartisan legislation authorizes appropriations for fiscal year -- through fiscal year 2015. for the coast guard to carry out its many responsibilities. it's also authorized appropriations for the federal maritime commission, including grants for certain short distance shipping activities. finally, the bill makes some changes to current law affecting marine safety, transportation, and authorities of the coast guard. the rule also allows for the consideration of h.r. 2840, the commercial vessel discharges reform act. balancelies water and subsidies charge are essential to the safe operation, stability of our sea faring vessels. this bill will simply set a sigel uniform nationwide standard for balance list --

ballist water discharge. currently the coast guard and e.p.a. have developed separate regulations under two different laws to govern that discharge. the e.p.a.'s regulations are particularly burdensome as they allow each state to impose different requirements to top off the -- on top of the federal regulations. the result? 29 different conflicting standards. a uniform national standard as set by this legislation will assure the free flow of ships in and out of the united states ports while protecting both the jobs dependent upon their efficient operation and u.s. waters. it should be stressed that the standard is met -- meant to protect the commerce and the environment. it conforms with the standards set by the international maritime organization and the e.p.a.'s science advisory board. they have found that the standards set in the bill is the

best currently achievable standard. should a higher standard become available -- achievable due to technological improvements, this legislation allows states to petition for an improved nationwide standard. further, the bill allows for a view of the performance standard no later than january 1, 2016, and a new review can be ordered upon petition of the states after that. so once again, mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. the transportation infrastructure committee has worked to provide us with a very good bipartisan bill which provides for the ongoing needs of the coast guard and the important missions that they carry out on a daily basis. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. -- the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, the republican majority's placed the house in a terrible bind this morning. they have taken a worthy bill to authorize the coast guard which enjoys broad bipartisan support and tied it together with an unwise, unrelated, misguided bill that will severely limit the ability of states to fight the harmful invasive species that are destroying local ecosystems and disrupting local economies. in the majority's pledge to america, leaders of the house promised we will advance major legislation one issue at a time. and this pledge is broken yet again today by this bill we are debating. ship born ballist discharge has introduced approximately 180 nonindigenous, invasive species to the great lakes which comprise 20% of the fresh water on this planet, and as long as i have been privileged to serve in congress, members on both sides of the aisle have vigorously protected. in fact, during the debate on

nafta, we discovered along with our canadian friends that the great lakes water was to be sold along with any other trade agreements to other parts of the country that had shortages of water. we all banded together and had that part removed. we do have an obligation to save 20% of the planet's fresh water, which is becoming more and more scarce every day. nationally more than 4,500 invasive species have been introduced. in total they costs billions of dollars on an annual basis. $5 billion alone has been spent to try to deal with the european zebra mussel which we have made varied inroads again. it was introduced in the great lakes and can be found by the thousands throughout the lakes. they attach to the hard surfaces so thickly that they clog the water systems and electric generation plants costing over $1 billion a year to control.

states know all too well the dangerous threat of invasive species and our taking action. but today's bill destroys the work by taking away the right of the states to have control. we must allow states who have an equal voice in protecting their ecosystems and economies if we are truly to solve the threat of invasive species in our waters. despite the unique challenges facing each state, the majority's demanding all states follow one set of federal requirements. this approach is completely different from the one taken by the congressional republicans when we were debating regulation that is would affect mountaintop mining corporation that is could take off the top of the mountain and throw it down in the valley oftentimes clogging up the water supply. the republican party passed h.r. 2018 which gave power to states to decide whether or not they should follow the guidelines set forth by the e.p.a. to regulate pollution from mountaintop mining. but when it comes to ballist

water, sadly we think it's the federal government not the states must have the final say. this is -- inconsistency and war against the e.p.a. is causing great consternation in the country. the only consistent logic in the approach is that in both instances they are advocating the interests of respective tries, not the interest of the american people. i urge my colleagues to oppose today's rule and the underlying bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes of my time to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. coble: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding. mr. speaker, pardon my modesty but as the only member of the united states congress who is also a coast guardsman, i can speak with some credibility regarding the coast guard. it is my belief that the american taxpayer has more bang

for his buck from the united states coast guard probably than from any other federal agency. it continues to do more with less be it the search and rescue program that is endless, be it the drug interdiction that it appears to be endless as well, be it the aids to navigation program on which the coast guard continues to stay on top of the play, be it the ice patrols in the arctic, antarctic, great lakes, and others the coast guard standards always ready. and i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding to me. i thank you for the comments surrounding this dialogue. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the bill authorizing the coast guard during this time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i yield two minutes to my time to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. lobiondo: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in very strong support of the rule which provides for consideration of h.r. 2838, the coast guard maritime transportation act of 2011. the bill will re-authorize the activities of the coast guard through the fiscal year 2014. it includes critical provision that is will give the coast guard its service members and dependents greater parity, something that is extremely important, with their counterparts in the department of defense. it includes language which will reform and improve coast guard administration and very importantly will save taxpayer dollars without impacting the services critical missions. the. it will foster job growth

throughout the maritime sector. the bill also establishes a uniformed national standard for the discharge of ballist water that is based on the most recent effective technology that is currently available. the standard also must be updated on a regular basis aztec nothing improves. under the current law, coast guard and e.p.a. regulate ballist water. while every state and tribe is allowed to add their own requirements to these regulations and as a result ships engaged in interstate and international commerce must comply with two federal standards and 29 different state and tribal standards for water ballist release. many of which are contradictory and technologically unachievable. it's an impossible regulatory nightmare that threatens jobs and the economy.

mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter of support signed by 28 organizations representing the u.s. flag industry, our ports, farmers, steel manufacturers, the largest maritime unions in the country and others, and i urge all members to support the bill, the rule and the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i will continue to reserve and may i inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. ms. slaughter: as am i so i will close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, as we defeat -- if we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment made by mr. kissell of north carolina which would prohibit the coast guard were procuring items classified aztecs tiles and apparel that are not grown, reprocessed, reused or produced in the united states.

republicans block this germane amendment last night in the rules committee. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment -- text of the amendment in the record along with torle materiel immediately prior to the -- extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: and mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can help american workers and i urge a no vote on the rule. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: mr. speaker, this rule provides for ample and open debate, allowing our colleagues from across the aisle the opportunity to offer this -- their legislative proposals to this bill. this bill provide us for a single uniformed nationwide standard for how commercial vessels discharge ballist water, a standard that protects american jobs by encouraging the efficient flow of goods in and out of our ports while also protecting our unique water

bodies. more importantly, the bill provides the servicemen and servicewomen of the coast guard to fund their critical missions, keeping our border secure, preventing drugs from infiltrating our communities and safeguarding our nation. service men and women in the coast guard deserve our gratitude and support, including the coast guard veterans such as garrett bess, a member of my own staff here in united states. partisanship has no place in providing the resources necessary for those brave men and women in uniform to do what they do bess, keep us safe. therefore, i ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and passage of the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> the u.s. house gaveling out momentarily. they are taking up the coast guard authorization bill that includes 17 amendments. that will wrap up legislation in their workweek today. the house will be out next week for their district work period.

the house and senate are meeting today, the joint economic committee, like eastern today to talk about the unemployment number, the figure for october came out today. hiring slowed in october as the labor department reports the economy adding 80,000 jobs last month. that is the fewest in four months. the unemployment rate dipping to october.

>> house came in briefly at 9:00 this morning to take up the rules for the coast guard authorization bill. they have gaveled out briefly as well, subject to the chair, if we expect them back in shortly to resume debate. the bill today, the reauthorization of the coastguard, 17 amendments will be considered today. also today on the c-span networks we are covering some road to the white house coverage later on today? coming up this evening at 8:00. that will be a c-span2. the ronald reagan dinner from des moines, iowa, live coverage at 8:00 on c-span 2.

>> the u.s. house is in recess. we expect them back shortly to begin debate on the coast guard authorization bill. 17 amendment will be considered. the house also today will take up a bill dealing with the america's cup race. all that is ahead here on c-

span. the unemployment number for october came out today from the labor department, saying the economy added a 8000 jobs last month. the unemployment rate dropped to 9%. the house republican leaders spoke about the legislation the republicans have passed which they called the forgotten 15 and called on the senate to pass their jobs bill. this is just under 10 minutes. >> today's jobs report underscored the need for immediate action on the more than 15 bipartisan house-past jobs bills that are gathering dust in the democratic- controlled senate. there's no reason for senate democrats to delay action on these bills any longer. the house has been working all year on our plan for america's

job creators. it is time for the senate to do their work. all of the stalled bills had bipartisan support. some of them were even supported by the obama administration. i urge the president to call on senate democrats to bring these common-sense bill to a vote in the senate. as long as these bills are stalled in the senate it is unacceptable for the white house to be anything less than 100% engaged in the legislative process. >> the jobs numbers are out today. once again, we see that the unemployment figures in this country are still too high. unemployment at 9% is unacceptable. that is why we are here today again trying to tell harry reid, please join us and bring these measures do the floor for an up- or-down vote. if they don't pass, fine. >> what are the democrats afraid of in the senate as far as our

jobs agenda? the bills that we have on our jobs agenda are real concerns and the address real issues that small business people are facing. i was recently in my district in richmond and i helped an event at a biotech car. the kinds of issues we raised their are the issues these bills confront. -- a biotech park. we passed four bills in the house having to do with access to financing to small businesses. that is what small businesses want, more access to capital. what small businesses want in this country is less red tape from washington so they can go about continuing to invest and create jobs. please, harry reid, allow these bills an up-or-down vote in the senate so that people can see that washington is actually working for their interest and to create jobs. >> as an individual than took a risk at age 20 to start his

first company, i built it in my garage. i to investment i had in the market, and decorous, credit card and even refinance a car that i had. i think today whether i could do that, i could not. if you want what is transpiring on the floor, this continues to grow. unfortunately, the backside of the card is growing because the senate is not active. as the leader just said, we added four mill it -- four more bills that could help small- business get capital to create new jobs. bipartisan bills. yesterday on the floor the two that we passed had more than 400 votes in support. i don't know what harry reid needs to allow it to come to the floor. but the american people cannot wait. small business cannot wait. the jobs report shows one more time america is frustrated with what is happening in the senate.

>> unfortunately, in the obama economy, we have just seen our 28 month where unemployment has been 9% or higher. in the obama economy, won in seven -- one in seven continuing food stamps. a study was released this week from the world bank about doing business. america has dropped from third in 2007 to 13th in ease of starting a business. in the obama economy the federal reserve just announced a downgrade to their economic outlook for growth and for unemployment. we cannot wait. this is not about the president's personality or about politics. it is about his policies.

his policies do not work. house republicans have a plan for america's job creators. unfortunately, all of these bills continue stacking up in the democratic-controlled senate. a lot of our bills have to do with easing regulatory burdens on small business. it is not just me saying this. every day we hear from our constituents. last week i heard from don in garland, texas, talking about president's health care plan. he said "we are giving up this part of our business due to federal regulations." this is one example of how excessive government regulation is stifling business. only one person here will lose his job, but in a small company that is a largely off.

the bottom line in my opinion, the federal government is regulating small business out of business." mr. president, senator harry reid, we cannot wait. work with us together on our plan for america's job creators. >> we continue to hear about the 14 million americans out of work. just to put that in perspective, if we started the line in my state of washington it would extend all the way to maine. in addition there are 9 million americans working part-time who would like to have a full-time top or have completed dropped out of the work force. while the president is out campaigning, the house has been busy legislative. we have been working on are forgotten 15 as well as other bills that would help get our economy going. one of our top priorities has been produced the regulatory burden on businesses.

america has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. in addition, the average small business owners will spend double that amount in complying with regulations as we will on the taxes -- as he will on the taxes. this jobs report shows we can do better and must do better and we must do it together. >> you talk about -- >> good thing i have a conference to run here in 10 minutes. >> yesterday you guys could not reach the $1.2 billion in deficit cuts. should mr. john boehner be nervous? >> is right here, you can ask him. i was at a meeting with senator murray. we continue to negotiate. when we have something to announce, you may not be the first people to hear it, but i

am sure you will -- i have not changed my position from the first day. i approach this with high hopes and i continue to have high hopes and tempered expectations. >> you talk about the need to find common ground and mentioned that the debate on the debt ceiling this summer led to a decline in consumer confidence. the house's busy schedule for the rest of this year as well. is there not a risk that the failures in congress will cause additional problems for consumer confidence? >> we have to continue to work with our democratic colleagues and try to find common ground that will help our economy and get the american people back to work. when you look at our plan and and almost 20 bills we have passed that would help job creation in america, almost all of those passed with bipartisan support. many of them were backed by the obama administration. it is time to continue to work together, find common ground,

and do what the american people expect. >> your side says why don't you pass the bill that we passed in the senate? not get things passed over their? is your reason better than the way they want to do things in the senate? >> the house acted in a bipartisan fashion 20 times now. all we are asking for is some cooperation with the other side of the capital. >> these bills have been filibustered. >> have you looked at the bipartisan vote yesterday in the house? over 400 votes for these two bills that will not small businesses have access to capital. our founders gave us this

giant body in the middle of our government called on congress. 535 people. it's hard for everybody to get along. but i will say this, on the house side we have worked together, democrats and republicans, to try to do the right thing every day and we will continue to do that. >> house republican leaders from within the hour talking about their jobs bills and also about the jobs figure that was announced today. the unemployment number t for number to 9%. the economy added 80,000 jobs. the joint economic committee will meet in about 10 minutes. you can follow that lives. we will have it on c-span 2. on c-span, waiting for the most to resume deliberations on the coast guard reauthorization bill. 18 amendments to be considered. there's an article this morning that white house opposition to language in the bill decommissioning a heavy dew

icebreakerr could polarize the bill. >> government officials from the treasury, irs, and justice departments are on capitol hill today in another hearing recovery, looking at tax fraud and identity theft. house oversight and government reform subcommittee on government organization is examining its irs efforts to prevent fraud and work with law enforcement to protect taxpayers while the house remains out. we will show you some of this hearing this morning while they remain out. >> if you would like to begin, mr. george? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for the invitation to testify on the issue of identity theft and tax refund or rather tax fraud. there are two primary types of identity theft that relates to tax administration. an individual using another person's name and/or social security number to file a

fraudulent tax returns to generate tax refund, which i will refer to as a tax fraud identity theft. the second involves using, another person's identity for example the names and social security number or boats to obtain employment, which will -- which i will refer to as implement related identity theft. in 2008 there was a recommendation that the irs to implement a strategy to address both of these types of identity theft. the number of tax-related identity theft incidents since then has grown significantly. although the irs and knowledge is that it does not know the exact number of open or closed identity of cases, as of august 31 of this year the irs incident tracking reports indicated that the number of taxpayers affected by identity theft as more than doubled since 2008 to 580 pack -- five under 8000 taxpayers alone this year. -- 580,000 taxpayers.

irs processes are not adequate to communicate identity theft procedures to taxpayers produce results in an increased burden for these victims recordedwe have analyzed recent identity that thees and funfound ira's process for a victim's is land. takes ass not complex many as 18 months to resolve. standard irs processes and organizational structure in your timely and effective case resolution. high telephone call demand, limited resources, and a growing idp of inventory make it difficult for customer service to prioritize idea of cases. were asistants who majority of those cases also worked the toll free telephone number responding to a taxpayer inquiries.

identity theft cases are not always even though an untimely resolution could result in significant taxpayer burden as well as improper payment. identity theft case processing is highly decentralized and coordination among the irs functions is limited. procedures pertaining to identity theft are not arranged for efficient access. they are inconsistent and are scattered throughout the internal revenue manual. the different systems used by various functions prevent accurate tracking and reporting of identity theft workloads and their effect on tax administration. there's no mechanism or system in place to track cases or time spent working cases. total time spent on the case can vary significantly and sometimes cases can stay open for months with low or no activity as they must work to other cases. in fiscal year 2011 the irs began issuing identity personal identification numbers referred to as pins to taxpayers.

the identified as victims of identity theft. it will indicate the taxpayer provided the irs with information that validates their identity and that the irs is satisfied the taxpayer if it is a valid holder of the social security number. the irs currently provides the identity protection pin only to a taxpayer is been a in a victim of identity theft that has affected the processing of their federal tax return. it's not available to those who claim to have been a victim of but who have not had problems filing their tax return. customers are offered the option of providing additional protections on their account and the irs should consider adopting such practices. providing protection if only after the taxpayer has been victimized did not serve the american taxpayer will. a substantial number of unscrupulous taxpayer submit fraudulent tax reforms to the irs for the sole purpose of receiving a tax refund.

from january through september this year the irs reported 1.6 million tax returns received with more than $12 billion claimed in fraudulent tax refunds. they prevent the issuance of $11.5 billion of that money. tax-related identity theft is a growing concern despite irs efforts to address this serious problem. it is critical for the irs to deter and detect identity cavort occurs. the irs needs a better process to identify and respond whenever identity theft fraud occurs. steps,dertaken impor additional controls could minimize or prevent future incidents is. thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. >> thank you, mr. george. >> chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the department of justice efforts to combat tax refund fraud rising from

identity theft. the department greatly appreciate the commitment [no audio] >> is the microphone on? >> to highlight the serious crimes of identity theft and tax fraud. the department recognizes the critical need to address this ever-growing problem of identity theft, combating computers that, including identity theft, is one of the department's top priorities set forth in the current strategic plan. as attorney general has said, our core mission is to pursue justice for criminal acts. that pursuit includes justice for victims of crime. in criminal matters involving identity theft and federal tax crimes, the irs investigate these matters and refers them to the department. thereafter, the tax division

supervisors and directly prosecutes some of these matters. the tax division prosecutors more closely with the assistant u.s. attorneys across the country to develop and prosecute these tax refund crimes. as part of that process, prosecutors also ensure that victim's rights are respected. these cases are prosecuted by the tax division prosecutors and assistant u.s. attorneys. that is either separately or jointly. this close working galatia chips enabled the department to share knowledge and leverage our resources in order to combat refund fraud across the country. while each prosecution may only involve a single defendant or small group of defendants, in the majority of cases the number of incidents and victim's is significantly greater. regardless of the number of victims or the amount of the refund involved, the department evaluates the merits of each

case to determine whether the crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubts. there are cases in various stages in which the department is investigating and prosecuting perpetrators of identity theft and tax fraud, as described in my testimony, written testimony, there are statutory restrictions, on my ability to comment on the specific facts of these cases, however i can assure the subcommittee staff that the department continues to vigorously prosecute these cases to the fullest extent of the law. while prevention and early detection are always the first and best line of defense, the department recognizes that the prosecution is also a critical tool when it comes to combating identity theft and textron. -- and tax fraud. the irs is committed to continuing to look for new and innovative ways to detect and stop identity theft. the department is also committed

to stopping identity theft. our mission to pursue justice can only be attained if victims receive justice as well. while the department will never be able to fully eradicated crimes such as identity that and tax fraud, our assistance, dedication, and success in prosecuted cases sends a clear message to those who would engage in such conduct that they will be found accountable for their actions. thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to appear this morning. happy to take any questions. >> thanks for your testimony. commissioner. >> good morning. chairman, ranking member, mr. nugent, i appreciate the opportunity to speak today. over the past few years the irs has seen a significant increase in identity theft. the harm that it expects is a problem we are taking very seriously. at the start, but we say the irs is confronted with the same

challenges as every major financial institution in preventing and detecting identity theft. we cannot stop all identity theft however we are better than we were and we will get better still. we have to balance the need to make payments in a timely manner with the need to ensure that claims are proper and taxpayer rights our technical. let me describe our current efforts in fraud prevention and then victim assistance. up-front protection of fraud, in 2011 the irs to date has predicted $1.3 billion in refunds from being erroneously sent to identity thieves. 2012, the following is in place. despite a very tight budget we are adding staff in this area. do for 2012 is up front screening filters that will improve our ability to spot false returns before refund is issue appeared this includes a series offor turns caught in the screens, the procedures are in

place. before any refund will correspond with the center. we are issuing special identity numbers that expedite filing numbers to those taxpayers whose identity has been stolen. there are new procedures to allow mass return the list taxpayer information that law enforcement officials believe may have been stolen. we have improved collaboration with software developers and others to determine how we can better partner to prevent theft. the investigative work done by our criminal investigative division continues, and we will increase resources available and work with law enforcement in our areas. we're taking a number of actions to help victims. we are implementing the procedures and adding staff to resolve cases faster and

minimize disruption to tax payers. newly formed special units will do this work. the pins i spoke about will assist victims and filing future returns. next week we begin the process of issuing more than 250,000 such pins. we have updated training for representatives and develop training for all other public- facing employees. outreach to the public will continue as well. that we conclude. our work is critical. we see identity theft as affecting the way people view our agency annika as eroding people's views further opportunity -- obligation to pay taxes. when must improve treatment of victims. i cannot tell you we will be this problem in one year, but our work in 2012 is a solid start and not the end of our efforts. i will be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, commissioner miller. i yield myself five minutes to

begin questioning, and i think each of you for your testimony as we work jointly to try to address this growing problem -- a problem and better protect american taxpayers and prevent american citizens from being victim list. i want to start with how we are assisting victims'. we have spoke about this issue prior to this hearing. we recognize we are talking about criminal acts here and the victims of crime. i would be interested in your response both here today and in the written testimony of the inspector general when they look at a typical way that a victim of identity theft with an irs has been handled, where they first learned that, in february, report it, and work their way to the inspector general referencing what they see based on their finding of

typical cases, where the law- abiding citizen, when they file their citizens -- their return in february they find that somebody has already filed their returns, that they worked through february, april, july, the rest of the year, and january as a typical response to that person's case, until it is resolved. the standard procedure as i understand it is when one of these cases comes to life in february or march it is put into what is called a delicate case filing system and set aside until the earliest, apple april 15, when the filing deadline hits. that is not giving priority to the victims. your response of how you assess the inspector general's review and what we are doing to change

that, because that is not an acceptable level of response. >> i agree. let me break this up into three pieces. weto mr. russell's report, have not seen his actual report yet. the first we saw it was wednesday night, so it is hard to exactly judge and deal with it point by point. i will say not our understanding and we do not think it is correct that the typical case, as used in his written testimony, the best case, is 18 months. we do not think that is right and will go back and take a look. i am also going to say and i'm quite sure it is happening -- i know it has happened. >> when you take a look if he could submit to the committee for the record what you find is a typical average response from the time that person says i have been that victim and their case

is resolved? >> i will be more than happy to do that. the second piece is this a priority. it is a tough answer. the answer is when it happens early in the year that is when the same people who are doing this work are doing photo market is -- is it a priority? yes, but the question is are we going to do phone work or cases? we need to do a better job going forward doing both. that is a resource issue for us, to be blunt. i think probably in 2011 we did more phone and less paper. i believe, for 2012, with resources made available, we will do more paper. it there will still be resource shortages. we need process returns, we need to deposit checks, we need to answer the phones, and our phone level of service is not something that is something to wave a flag about either at this

point. we are down to seven out of 10 people getting through. next year -- this year, rather, it is likely to go down. we have a tough choices to make up front, but we are going to do better this year. we have made more resources available to work both of these things. the final piece -- and that really is the final piece. the final piece we are going to get better with this. we're putting in place units, specialized units, in account management, in a submission process and, in other places where identity theft presents itself in order to work these cases quicker, to work with folks that understand the process better, and they will be trent, and we will do a better job this year. >> you reference the training you are doing, which is necessary, it also is an organizational challenge, because you identify what the inspector general identified is you have individuals on front

lines of the phones also been the ones charged with assisting victims'. to meet the needs of the phone calls, you are in essence setting the assistance aside. the duke of the function, so it is treated just as they did a case -- that duplicates the function, so it is treated as as not a priority. when it comes to the victim of a crime, that should be a crime. i do not think we are adequately doing that. you understand the importance of that, and i commend you for your perch, but it is an organizational structural issue that you need to have a victim's assistance unit that is not worrying their obligations here, but focused these are law abiding citizens are trying -- who are trying to comply with a

complex task. we bear the blame in congress for that. they get victimized and we need to do a better job of assisting them. a quick fall and then i will yield to the ranking member. -- a quick follow-up. if you assume we are close to the inspector general's findings, identified in february, the following january it is resolved, there are also statements they found that even when the victim of the crime has been given notice that your case is resolved, you are good, that it is anywhere from four more weeks until the refund is actually provided. what is the delay there? you have gone through 10, 11 months, they get a letter saying we understand we have got this straight out, but they still -- in a statement it says release of tax refunds can take up to 12

weeks the post. that is pretty outrageous. it still takes us up to three months. i do not know if that is an issue you have looked at, but we need to. >> i can come back with more information on that, but my in my understanding, it will take two weeks because we worked in cycles. it might take, depending on when it occurs, for weeks. never it should take 12 weeks. i need to take a look at what they are looking at to work through that. >> in your response there, i would emphasize again, we need to prioritize the system to the victims, and not put them in a normal cycle, we are going to issue checks in two weeks, four weeks, six weeks. these guys have waited 11 months after being victimized. i hope you look at how we prioritize this. know they have already waited

long enough to simply get what they are owed by us. i appreciate you taking those concerns back and i understand that you do not expect have the answer today, but that we are on the same page as far as trying to do right by victims. with that, i yield to the ranking member for the purpose of his questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me begin with you. how many attorneys currently work on tax fraud issues in the department of justice across the united states? >> congressman, i cannot respond to the number across the country, and i can get back uconn with -- get back to you with more detailed information. but i can respond to your questions. within that tax revision, we have 100 or more prosecutors

solely devoted to tax fraud. most of those positions are filled by a line attorneys who have two roles. one is to ensure the investigation that the internal revenue service has conducted and submitted the us is adequate for a successful prosecution, and the second role is to prosecute those cases across the country. we do that ourselves. we do that cooperatively with the u.s. attorney's offices, as co-counsel with and, and a great bulk of the cases are handled by the 94 u.s. attorneys' offices staff across the country. each year, there is a certain number of cases for the to us by the irs, and we try to cross them as quickly as we can. i hope that answers your questions, sir. >> you answered my question, but

what i am really thinking about is is it not time for you to a partnership with local law enforcement don't you think we should do more of that? >> in response to your question -- >> i am aware of that section. >> we have joint task forces with local and state law- enforcement, working with task forces in the various u.s. attorneys'office . state and local officials are deputized hundred u.s. marshals program and work in a cooperative spirit. is usually in a grand jury setting. >> do you have any information on the conviction rate in terms of the actual conviction rate? >> in terms of all cases across the country that our tax related, historically -- and i have been with the department

since 1973 -- it has always been higher than 90%, tripoli 95%, 96% conviction rate for the charges. >> if you think if we partner more with law enforcement that the number would go down? do you think that what are and if a partner with mobil laurel enforcement? with the number could down or what it remained the same? >> i could not venture. i am sure local and state law enforcement are effected prosecutors. the problem perhaps, congressman, is that in partnering we have to be prosecuting federal crimes, and in that sense my interview is no. i think every u.s. attorney lawrence the assistance of those people who are deputized to work income federal task forces. >> let me go to you, mr. miller.

he indicated he think you would be able to do a whole lot better. are you getting at the citadel resources -- are you getting additional resources? >> we have had to carve out another 400 or so people to make a dent, which is doubling the footprint that we had in this area for identity theft. >> i am concerned when you take from somewhere else that's something else happens, and that is my concern. it seems to me that we need to take a serious look and evaluate, the be listened to the testimony from representative nugent, that maybe we need to increase the amount of investigators to be able to -- >> we will leave this now. the house is coming back momentarily for a couple of votes on the coast guard

reauthorization bill. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2838, to authorize appropriations for the coast guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes any time for electronic vote on the question of adoption. this is a question on ordering the previous question. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote thes are 234. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. snow. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the

national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238. the nays are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote theys are 244. --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the ayes are 245. the nays are 1 6. the majority voting in the affirmative, the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as co-sponsor of h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which a vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20, any record

vote on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3321. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3321, a bill to facilitate the host in the united states of the 34th america's cup by authorizing certain eligible vessels to participate in activities related to the competition, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo, and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 3321. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. h.r. 3321 provides a limited waiver of domestic calf taj laws

for vessels participating in america cup and related races but also provides for several other vessels and clarifies vessels -- the speaker pro tempore: remove conversations from the floor. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i support the legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, rise in support of this legislation. mr. speaker, i unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. million larsen: i ask for as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. larsen: i rise in support of the legislation which would provide a narrow waiver from the laws so the vessels competing for 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 a 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 my request to waive the laws for the maritime education vessel, the luna, has been included in this bill as well as the coast guard bill, and support passage of this legislation. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey.

mr. lobiondo: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. meehan: i rise in support of h.r. 3321. while it may be identified as the america's cup act, and it has been clearly articulated by my good friend across the aisle, the reasons behind it, i want to drive home as well the fact that there are some additional issues that will be served by the passage of this bill. . what it relates to is a genuine opportunity today for people from both sides of the aisle to support the creation of genuine, blue collar jobs, immediately. what this bill will do is allow for a simple process to take place. in my own district of southeastern pennsylvania, which is adjacent to the delaware river, we have the

opportunity to reflag three vessels. what that means is three vessels that were built here in the united states, but because of their service, went outside the continental united states for a period of time and must now come back into the united states. in order to do that, they have to be able to comply with the jones act, with a simple vote today we will be able to put those three vessels back into service here in the continental united states. but the significance of this, most importantly, mr. speaker, in my backyard, is the fact that what they will do is create the tint for the creation of new jobs that will relate to the utilization of the gas that is being developed in this country, transportation of that, 25 good blue collar jobs in my district which will sustain themselves and close to 300 to 400 jobs which are

construction jobs, in which people will be put to work as soon as possible building the extension of a pipeline that will go out into western pennsylvania. this is an opportunity for people from both sides of the aisle to put hard working blue collar workers back to work almost immediately by helping us cure what is a simple, technical issue. i strongly support the passage of this important bill because it will help put people back to work. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. >> thank you, mr. speaker, we continue to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i'm prepared to yield back if mr. larsen is. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, with

no further speakers, just in conclusion, let me just say that america's cup is the oldest sailing competition, competitive sailing competition. the u.s. has held the cup over 134 years before losing to us a trail yarks we are proud to have reclaimed the cup and look forward to defending it in 2013. with that, mr. speaker, and with the passage of the america's cup act of 2011, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: on to victory for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h r. 3321. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 -- 2/3 pg in the affirmative -- mr. lobiondo: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.

a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 387. the nays are 1. the nays are 2. the present are 1. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

pursuant to house resolution 455 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2838. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2838 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for the coast guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, and the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, each will control 30 minutes.

mr. mica: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo, is mr. mica's designee. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i yield myself such time as i may consume. h.r. 2838 will re-authorize the coast guard activities through fiscal year 2014 at levels which are consistent with the house passed budget resolution. this bill includes critical provision that is will give the coast guard its service members, and dependents greater parity with their counterparts in the department of defense, something that is critical and important for these patriotic americans. ensuring parity among the armed services has been a top priority of the committee for some time and i'm proud to say this bill makes significant steps and progress towards aligning the coast guard authorities with those granted by d.o.d. in addition to parity issue, the bill contains the title intended to reform and improve coast guard administration. the coast guard does an outstanding job for our nation. however the current budget environment it is important for the coast guard to review the

services authorities and to find ways to improve operations while reducing cost. i believe this bill will do just that. the bill also amends shipping laws to improve safety and foster job growth throughout the maritime sector and re-authorizes activities of the federal maritime commission through 2015. included in the bill is the text of h.r. 2840, the commercial vessel discharge reform act, which will improve current regulation of balance list water and other -- balancelies water and other discharges incidental to the operation of the vessel. mr. speaker, this provision is simple. currently the coast guard and the e.p.a. are making rules that have authority to enforce balancelies water. there are currently 29 states and tribes that have their own rules. it is a regulatory nightmare to be able to do business in. we need one standard operation that reaches the highest level of technology that is available to us. this also allows for us to

improve technology, we are talking about jobs, and we certainly are hearing an awful lot about that these days, this is an opportunity for us to be able to ensure that maritime jobs will be able to continue to grow. . the current system is impossible and threatens our international maritime trade. this legislation eliminate this is regulatory nightmare and establishes a single, uniform national standard. the e.p.a., the coast fwar, the national academy of sipeses, the e.p.a. science advisory board, the u.s. flag industry, every national maritime labor union, manufacturers, farmers, energy producers, and our largest and most strategic international trading partners all endorse our approach to this legislation. it's a common sense way to be able to move forward and helps us accomplish our goals in the long run. so i would urge all my

colleagues to support the legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: the coast guard is a multimission agency responsible for a broad range of jobs, including emergency response and search and rescue operations. these and many other activities of the coast forward are indispensable and ensure that our oceans are protected, that our inland waterways remain safe and efficient and that our maritime industries continue to be a vibrant source of jobs for the american people. i want to thank chairman lobiondo for his work in developing this legislation,

the coast guard and maritime act of 2011, to re-authorize the activities of the coast guard for fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2014. although i have reservations that the authorized funding bills 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 three years. we have had this discussion in committee for the last several months about the coast forward, mr. speaker, 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. that is going to cause future problems for our coast guard. in general, mr. speaker, the legislation includes several noncontroversial provisions, especially title 2 which addresses issues of disparity

and policy and other armed services and i want to commend the chairman for his commitment to address this issue. there are some provisions which remain problematic, none more so than the provision that would sequentially decommission the two heavy icebreakers. the administration has expressed its strong opposition to this in a statement of administration policy and i would like to enter that into the record. at some point we need to constructively engage the coast guard in developing a sound, balanced path forward that reassigns our expectations with a level of performance we can reasonably expect the coast guard to deliver, especially for its ice breakers and polar operations. but that -- with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from new jersey. >> i yield mr. gibbs such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. gibbs: i rise in support of h.r. 2838 and in particular title seven of the bill, the commercial vesselsties charge reforming at. ballast water, while a necessity to maintain the -- large vessels has always been recognized as one of the ways invasive aquatic nuisance species are transported globally and into waters where they did not live before. numerous species have been introduced to u.s. waters through ballast dischar. the most well known is a mollusk in the great lakes which has caused millions of dollars after damage. previous -- the management of ballast quater is governed differently by the coast guard, the environmental protection agency and an assortment of state and territorial

regulations. as a result, vessels are required to meet several different standards for the management of ballast water, some of which are not technologically achieveable or verifiable. complying with this patchwork of regulations is unacceptable. commercial shippers are the heart of our interstate and foreign commerce. interstate and foreign commerce involving navigation is in the heart of the federal jurisdiction clause. if we subject vessels visitting parts in morn one state to different requirements in each state they visit they will be forced to either violate state laws or cease making port calls in those states with requirements that are inconsistent with the technology that the vessel has installed in response to an earlier enacted regulation from another state. vessels involved in interstate and foreign commerce are mobile and cannot be expected to comply with potentially scores of inconsistent state requirements they navigate from

one jurisdiction to the next. these inconsistent state requirements will impose serious economic burdens on interstate and foreign commerce. there simply is no reason to interfere with interstate and foreign commerce in such ways, particularly in a more sensible, uniform and environmentally protected approach is available under this bill. title seven of h r. 2838 aims to address the need for standards to reduce the risk of is introducing invasive species through discharge of ballast water and the need for vessels that navigate from one jurisdiction to another to have a uniform set of requirements to comply with. the bill establishes a common sense approach which will protect the environment, grow maritime jobs and promote the flow of maritime commerce. i urge passage of h.r. 2838 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. sar --

mr. larsen: i yield such time as he may consume to mr. rahall. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: i thank the secret for yielding me time. in recognition of the tradition of the committee on transportation and infrastructure to annually move bills to re-authorize the coast guard i am inclined to support this effort if it will improve the condition and ready thovepbs coast guard. my home state of west virginia may not be a coastal state but our many stake holders who use our inland waterways, such as shippers, tug and barge operators and recreational boaters appreciate the services provided by the coast guard, the garden -- guardians of the sea. for example, the coast guard national maritime cent for the martinsburg, west virginia, handles the processing and apraufl of all mariner cre den frbles for nearly a quarter million mariners.

in addition, in huntington, they conduct inspections and security along the highway river. these an other vital services provided by the coast guard directly support our maritime commerce which is critical to future economic health of our country. yet despite widespread acknowledgment of its importance, the coast guard has rarely received sufficient resources to accomplish its many complex missions. i am disappointed that the authorized funding levels in this legislation again fall short of the service's needs. just this week, we learned during the coast forward and maritime transportation subcommittee's hearing concerning the deep water horizon disaster that the coast guard's marine environmental response capabilities have dwindled due to a lack of funding. we cannot expect men and women of the coast forward to put their lives at risk to save the

lives of others if they are forced to operate from inadequate facilities and utilize equipment that is long since past its expected lifetime. if we expect our ports and waterways to remain safe and secure, and if we ant our maritime economy to be vibrant and growing, adequate investment in the coast guard is not an option but a requirement. i also wish to express my concern about the ballast water provisions, a separate title, in fact a wholly separate bill stitched into this legislation but not seamlessly and not without consequence. numerous state and local economies have had to deal with the immense cost associated with the invasion of plants and animals that hitch a ride into our country through dumped ballast water. coastal states are spending millions each year to control invading pee cease and each year, more and more invaders threaten to become established in our waters.

for these reasons, i support the provisions that call for the adoption of a stringent national standard for ballast water treatment technologies. these advances would help prevent the introduction and spread of these invador -- invadors and ensure the flow of these commodities through water borne transportation. unfortunately, tacked within the appealing treatment technologies provisions of this added title lies a poison pill that this house would be foolish to swallow. all this year, this congress has been advocating an enhanced role for the states in protecting economies and environment. the mantra has been, back off the states, remove the heavy hand of the federal government, and allow the states the space to oversee their own programs. but now, tucked into the folds of this bill, is a complete about-face. rather than respecting state powers and allowing them

freedom to in limited circumstances set higher standards to protect their own waters and their own residents this bill imposes a down from on high, a one size fits all approach. i find it ironic that on an issue in which states have taken a leading role in the absence of federal action, legislation would prohibit states from having any role in protecting their local resources. so i say to my colleagues, we have a choice, to support the benefits provided by this bill without also swallowing the bitter anti-state's rights pill. an amendment offered by our colleague, mr. bishop, would protect the states. the bishop amendment represents a surgical fix that enables the states to nominate no discharge zones to protect important state waters. contrary to some claims, the amendment would not allow a state to shut down vital shipping zones or exempt all its waters from ballast

discharges. the amendment specifically addresses these concerns, preventing a state from taking such ags. it provides for limited exemptions, just like those of -- available to states in section 312 of the clean water act for sanitary discharges, an exemption that has been used only 26 times. the bishop amendment would restore the historic balance between the states and the federal government intended by the clean water act. if the members of this body believe that states' rights must be protected from federal overreach, this bill begs the question -- are you with the states or against our states? i support the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. i urge its adoption as a critical fix to an otherwise worthy bill. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting to make that critical fix and pass this legislation. i yield the rest of my time to

the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i'd like to take a moment and reiterate our thanks to the men and women of the coast guard, unsung heroes who are underrecognized and underappreciated, who put their lives on the line every day. they're a critical component of our armeder is virks they conduct critical interventions to as well as the homeland security component and we want to make sure we recognize and appreciate their efforts on an everyday basis. i'd also like to once again thank mr. larsen for his cooperation overall on the committee especially with this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has re-- is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: i yield as much time as he may consume to mr. bishop of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i thank the ranking member for yielding and i thank

the ranking member and charm for their work on this important bill. i have some concerns about the bill but i'm going to focus my remarks on title 7 which deals with commercial vessel discharge reform and deals more specifically with ballast water discharge and the concern about nonindigenous invasive species. these nonindigenous invasive species cost taxpayers and businesses hundreds of millions of dollars every year. in the great lakes alone, approximately $500 million is spent every year dealing with invasive species that clog municipal water systems and damage infrastructures such as electric power plants, levies -- levees and aqueducts. . $12 million had to be spent in san francisco bay to control the atlantaic chord grass.

most of these invasive species arrive in our waters via the balancelies water of commercial vehicles. unfortunately in my view, and i believe 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 cost of dealing with invasive species. this week the state of california sent members of congress a letter saying that title 7 of the underlying bill, i'm quoting now, will not set -- pardon me will set a federal bat le 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, close quote. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter from the california state lands commission to which i'm referring. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. mr. bishop: thank you. in my home state of new york we have 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 today's underlying bill would. unfortunately this bill does not incorporate these science based suggestions nor the jurisdictional concerns of the states and i also want to enter into the record, mr. speaker, a letter from the environmental council of states which urges that the states be able to maintain a role in making determinations with respect to their water quality. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. mr. bishop: thank you. while i think most parties, and i'm one of them, agree 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 jurisdiction. so as mr. rahall said, i will be offering on 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 to the industry, understandably so, and for that reason my amendment you simply does not affect in any way the technological requirements. it also does not give states carte blanche to prevent ships from releasing balancelies water. another important issue for the industry. there is ample precedent for the amendment that i am offering and 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 balancelies water for military

vessels -- balancelies -- ballist watt -- ballast water. they acknowledged a deep respect for the rights of states including a residual authority for states to establish no discharge zones, similar to what my amendment would establish. another precedent, section 312 of the clean water act which is the closest analogy to ballast water discharges, 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 no adversely impact vessels from operating within the state. in the past, ballast water legislation has included a role for the states and industry was onboard with those provisions. there is an irony to what we are 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. yet in this instance we are saying the opposite. we are saying that the federal government knows best how to protect local waters and states are not giving -- 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 7 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 have 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. i just want to say that i believe my amendment as mr. rahall referred to it is a surgical attempt to fix what i believe is a significant problem for states. mr. lobiondo and i worked very hard at trying to come up with a sweet spot where we could agree. we were unable to get there. it was not for lack of trying and i'm grateful to mr. lobiondo for his willingness to work with me on this. but later we will be offering this amendment and i hope my colleagues will support. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i want to thank mr. bishop for dialoguing and for articulating his point. we have tried very hard to reach an accommodation. we are going to continue to reach an accommodation. and i guess this is what this process is all about. we have a difference of opinion about the impact of mr. bishop's amendment and a couple of these other amendments. we are looking at trying to find a way to make sure we have the uniform standards. i pledge we'll continue to work to try to do that. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: may i inquire how much time both sides have? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two

minutes. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i, too, am very concerned about the serious threat that the invasive species pose to nonnative waters. as the ranking member of the natural resources water and power subcommittee, we have held various hearings on the effects of the invasive quoga mussel and zebra. understand how they are looking at the r&d to be able to see how we can eradicate this invasive species. it was introduced into the west from the ballast water of vessels coming in from the great lakes. this muscle is a dime size muscle that clogs water infrastructure, the glue is so potent that nothing can take it off, including -- it's in the pipelines. costing water agencies hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to clean out to allow for the water flow. the metropolitan water district of southern california spent $25

million on fighting the mussels since 2007. they scrape out the major pipelines to be spent on this instead of projects needing the funds. i have seen firsthand the damage that it has done to the dams and water supply plants in southern california. this invasive species will continue to have a devastating impact on the water supply of the west and we must address this fact that discharges of ballast water carrying invasive species can and has caused irreversible harm to the water. we must allow our state regulatory agency the ability to protect against invasive species. and i will continue to enforce the bill if it includes a -- oppose the bill. i hope the chairman and ranking member can come to some agreement that will help our states. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey continues to reserve.

mr. roib: -- force mr. lobiondo: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. carnahan. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mr. carnahan: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to represent a district in the st. louis, missouri, region near the confluence of the mighty mississippi and missouri rivers. an area where inland waterway commerce is vital to our economic well-being as well as to recreation, security, and safety. in a normal year on the inland waterway system between 500 and 700 million tons of bulk commodities with the current approximate value of nearly $125 billion are moved an average of roughly 500 miles to produce in excess of 300 million ton miles of freight transportation. when given a choice, heavy bulk shippers often choose barge transportation on our waterways.

it is estimated that barge shippers and their customers save more than $7 billion annually by utilizing inland waterways. as lawmakers, especially during these difficult economic times, we must do everything in our power to facilitate trade and economic activity. that's why this coast guard and maritime transportation re-authorization act is so critical to get it right. but we also see in this bill as prior speakers have mentioned a patchwork of ballast water regulations that have hampered our inland water ways trade and imposed unnecessary cost on business. i applaud the efforts to create a national minimum standard to protect our environment while creating certainty and stability for the industry. but i do support representative bishop's amendment that strikes the right balance. it allows states' rights and

unique interests to be protected with no -- within no discharge zones. i hope that eventually we can work out a compromise. i applaud the efforts of both sides in trying to reach that in the hope -- and i hope that effort will continue. i hope this bill can find broad support that addresses the needs of the goods movement industry while still protecting our environment. i think we can and need to do both. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this important work. again urge my colleagues to get the right balance to be sure we are taking care of the men and women that serve us in the coast guard to be sure they continue to serve us in the entire country. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to now recognize for three minutes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mcintyre. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcintyre: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of my amendment in the coast guard and maritime transportation act of 2011 which we are working together to consider as part of the en bloc amendment. this important and timely amendment calls on the committee on transportation systems to coordinate with local businesses to promote an efficient marine transportation system. as many of us know, the marine transportation system is essential to the american economy. it supports millions of american jobs, facilitates trade, moves people and goods, and provides the safe, secure, cost-effective, and energy efficient transportation system. it's a win-win-win. yet if there are not adequate maintenance resources in place, our m.t.s. will continue to age and a result will be a decrepe pit waterfront. badly neglected locks and dams

and. our local businesses all on the frontlines of commerce every day. and they know where the savings and efficiencies are that could be improved. we must work with our local businesses who know business best. if government's going to be involved in improving the business environment, it only makes sense that government talks to the businesses that we are trying to help. in my coastal district of north carolina, marine transportation and commerce is the lifeblood of the cape fear region and understanding the importance of marine torgs and waterway infrastructure i sought the imput of local business leaders to develop the seventh congressional district coastal gact to outline key priorities for our areas, coastal infrastructure, in way which we can get the public and private sector and government agencies to work together. so this amendment that i have put forth builds on a proven model used to develop our coastal compact and one we believe that business leaders across this country would like to have a say and involvement and firsthand knowledge to be

involved with our marine transportation system. this is an example for us in congress, an example we must follow to improve not only our marine transportation system but also to create jobs and to sustain an environment in which american business can flourish. therefore i urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can bridge a better partnership with our local businesses to improve the maritime transportation system and put our nation back on a path of economic vitality. with that i yield the remainder of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank my good friend for the time and i rise in strong support of the coast guard re-authorization bill being considered on the floor today. i have the unique pleasure of representing over 265 miles of

pristine coastline ranging from miami beach all the way down to key west. in fact, two of the largest coast guard sectors in the united states, sector miami, commanded by captain christopher scrabba, around sector key west, congressmanned by captain patrick cuatro, are in my district, ensuring that the brave men and women of the coast guard have the tools they need to effectively patrol our coast is of utmost concern to me and all the residents in my congressional district. this is a fiscally responsible re-authorization of the u.s. coast guard. it will include practical reforms to ensure greater efficiency in replacing aging assets and improve utilization of all its resources. this is particularly important in my district as our two sectors have been working day and night to stop drugs from

being smuggled into our country. these drug smugglers are becoming more sophisticated, more brazen in their efforts to bring illicit drugs to our shores. just last month alone, mr. chairman, the u.s. coast guard seized and then unloaded over 2,300 pounds of marijuana and nearly 900 pounds of cocaine in sector key west. without providing upgrades to our aging assets, it will become more and more difficult to keep pace with the drug smugglers as their technology attempts to surpass ours. that's why i rise in strong support of the coast guard re-authorization bill and i thank dr. frank for giving me the time. thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. can i inquire how much time we have left on our side in the chair: the gentleman has eight minutes remaining. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield

teleminutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes? three minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much. i want to thank the chair for his -- and our ranking member for the great work you have done, not only this time but over the years. and i agree that our -- as a member of the subcommittee, i've had an opportunity to earlier in previous sessions as chairman of the subcommittee, i've had an opportunity to visit many coast guard facilities and i am never so much amazed at what i see, when i see so many young people who give their lives, their blood, sweat, and tears, to save over people and 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. my -- i do support this legislation because i think it's very important. there are some concerns i have and -- but i do want to commend the chairman. i understand that we have a management -- a marg's amendment that -- a manager's amendment that adds a modified version of 2839, the piracy suppression act, as a title to this bill. i think that's 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 d.o.d. within 180 days on actions take ton protect foreign flag vessels from action on the high

seas. i will definitely support that because i think it's very, very important. we have seen and i know the chairman has spent a lot of time on this, what has happened with regard to these pirates. they feel like 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 ranking member for bringing that about. i'm going to have an amendment a little later on which addresses an issue which is important to me and that is the ombudsman. i have said many times that we have put this in the last authorization because a lot of the folks at the ports and a lot of our mariners were campaigning. they were saying the coast guard would come and want to make changes and say their way or the highway. one of the things we wanted to

do is so that commerce could freely flow, we wanted to have somebody to come along and sit down and reason so that things could be worked out in a way that would be less onerous to the -- may i have one more minute? mr. larsen: i yield one more minute to the gentleman from maryland. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: less onerous to the mariners community. i'm hoping that amendment disease pass because i think our republican friends have constantly said they want to do away with regulations that may impede the flow of commerce and i think that my amendment is a step in that direction. i know the coast guard may not like it but i think it -- an ombudsman would bring about a fair plans to achieve the things we need to achief. with that, i applaud the chairman and ranking member for bringing this bill forward and with that, i yield back.

the chair: does the gentleman from new jersey continue to reserve in mr. lobiondo: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, we have no more speakers on the general debate, i'll take a few minutes here to conclude on our side for general debate. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to close on general debate but the points that were made earlier, i do want to re-emphasize a few points, one is the concerns that we have about the decommissioning process and the decommissioning of the two ice breakers in the u.s. coast guard fleet. the administration has a statement of administration policy which you've allowed to be in the record, i think a followup to that point would be that we want to hear from the administration sooner rather than later about a plan for what some would call an organic

capability of our ice breaker fleet, that is a u.s. coast guard owned and operated ice breaker fleet rather than being left with potential and real possibility of having to lease ice breakers from other countries to do the work that otherwise we would be doing. that continues to be a major concern. we've heard as well concerns about the ballast water title and expecting amendments and further debate on that as the afternoon progresses. certainly, we're going to have an en bloc amendment and we'll have time to discuss those. i want to underscore one of those from mr. mcintyre and the role that the marine transportation system plays or the m.t.s. as they call it, as it consists of waterways an ports that allow our various modes of transportation to move people and goods to and from and on the water. the m.t.s. is vitally important

to our economy, it's vitally important to water borne cargo and the associated activities which contribute more than $644 billion annually to the u.s. gross domestic product, sustaining 13 million jobs and 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. i think it's important to underscore further about the m.t.s. and marine transportation system, 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 the u.s. coast guard plays in maintaining the marine transportation system that underlies the economic growth potential that we have if a well balanced and well developed marine transportation system is important and very -- and the underlying -- one of the underlying reasons we have a coast guard authorization bill to support the great work of the u.s. coast guard.

i encourage members to take a hard look at the bill, we have some amendments coming up that members will bring up and we'll have debate on those, as far as general debate goes, i'd like to take time to yield back the mans of my time and urge people to support this. chip the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i would again like to thank mr. larsen for his cooperation. i remind the members, i think this is on balance an excellent boish effort that moves the coast guard forward and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, it shall be in order to consider as original bill for the purpose of amendment an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print dated october 28, 2011. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered read. no amendment to the amendment

in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-267 and amendments en bloc describes in section 3 of house resolution 455. each amendment other an an -- other than an amendment en bloc may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the cheer of the committee on transportation and infrastructure to offer amendments in eno'clock not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc offered pursuant to section 3 shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 mips equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure or their

designees. the ormingal proponent of an amendment included in such amendment en bloc may insert a statement in the record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 112-267. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. lobiondo: i have an en bloc amendment at the desk, consisting of lobiondo, 31, rule one, mcintyre, 29, rule 11, cummings-landry, rule six, murphy of connecticut, brown of florida, number 20, rule 17, and ribble, number 2, rule 18. i support the amendment. i urbling everyone to do so. i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: amendments enblk con sents of amendments one, two, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 printed

in house report 112-267, offered by mr. lobiondo of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 455 the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo, and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i urge all members to support the en bloc amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of mr. lobiondo's manager's amendment and en bloc amendments. it provides helpful clerical and text changes. in particular the provision that deprants the coast guard discretionary authority to help ensure that mariners are not left on the dock because of administrative back logs within the coast guard preventing the timely issuance of new

certificates. i also support the amended version of the piracy sub hsu presentation act of 2011 and expect it will help 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 number two is an important one and encourages all federal agencies to enter into contracts and byproduct -- and buy products produced in the u.s., creating jobs fb measures an the coast guard should be no exception. in regards to mr. cummings amendment, certainly supportive of that. it mirrors -- mirrors h.r. 3202, waivers ganted this past summer to allow foreign vessels to transport oil from this strategic oil preserve, there were concerns it lacked transparency and accountability. this amendment would establish new notice and justification requirements for waivers of our

laws and would help ensure that our merchant fleet is not unnecessarily disadvantaged in the future. with regard's to mr. murphy's amendment, the gentleman from connecticut, i can think of no reason why it would not be present for the coast guard to 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 interest of the federal government and the offerer. . i certainly want to thank the chairman for including mr. murphy's amendment into the en bloc amendment. mr. speaker, certainly there are a few other amendments that folks can speak to at the time they wish, but we have no objection to the en bloc and we encourage its support and its passage. with that i reserve the balance

of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has reserved. the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i urge support of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-267. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. cummings: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-267 offered by mr. cummings of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 455, the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate the work of

chairman lobiondo and chairman mica and, of course, our ranking member, mr. larsen, the ranking member, mr. rahall. i appreciate the effort that they put into this coast guard re-authorization. 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 oversite that characterizes his -- oversight that characterizes his leadership of the subcommittee. i hope we were able to reach an agreement at the issue at hand, but has that has not been impossible, i am offering this amendment to strike section 301-a of the bill. it is included in the coast guard re-authorization of 2010 that i authored to establish an apple budsman in each coast --

ambudsman in each coast guard port. it has ship owners and labor representatives. the ombudsman will enable these stake holders to review disputes regarding coast guard regulations. let me be clear that it specifically provides, and i quote, 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 the implementing the coast guard requirement. i authored the provisions creating the ombudsman at the request of the port community which i approach -- 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 business 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'm 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 be also clear that the coast guard has not appointed an ombudsman. and they would prefer that their regulatory provisions not

be challenged. rather than eliminating the requirement that the coast guard appoint an ombudsman, i believe this authority should be implemented quickly to give businesses the opportunity to improve the application of the coast guard regulations. finally, let me also explain this provision does not, and i repeat, 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 -- 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 to -- who are concerned about the impact and undue regulatory burdens, and they have, on commerce to join me in supporting this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from maryland for his kind comments and it is correct, we've had an outstanding working relationship. we've been able to come together on many issues and share a lot of information that has helped us both come to a better conclusion. unfortunately, in even great relationships there is some disagreement. it's an honest disagreement on how we should proceed. i understand the gentleman's argument, but i believe that the provision is duplicative and costly. the implementation of this language, i think, will worsen the challenges for the coast guard at a time when they're facing very difficult money constraints, and we've heard the talk about how they don't have the resources to do what they need to do and we have to worry about their critical

commission -- their critical missions being able to be conducted. the coast guard does not support the adoption of this provision. they did not last year. and i once again want to thank mr. cummings for working so closely, but on this particular amendment, mr. cummings, unfortunately i have to oppose and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. larsen. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: i rise in support of mr. cummings' amendment. mr. cummings offered and withdrew in committee his amendment in the hope that some compromised would be reached because the program is a little more than a year old. , i suggest that congress not repeal this program but certainly do want to recognize that mr. cummings and mr. lobiondo did to try to find some accommodation.

i ask people to support this amendment to allow the ombudsman program to continue so we can get a fair evaluation of the program in the future and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. cummings: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-267. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-267 offered by mr. thompson of

mississippi. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 455, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment would allow members of congress to nominate qualified candidates for admission to the u.s. coast guard academy. located in new london, connecticut, the coast guard a cad my is one of the five prestigious u.s. service academies. the others are the military academy in west point, new york, the naval academy in annapolis, maryland, the air force academy in colorado springs, colorado, and the merchant marine academy in kings point, new york. these service academies provide four-year graduate educations on a tuition-free basis to help mold talented young people in the nation's future leaders. upon graduation, service academy cadets become

commissioned officers. under current law, members of congress are authorized to nominate candidates to all u.s. service academies except the u.s. coast guard academy. the coast guard academy uses an admission process similar to the process that's used at traditional civilian colleges and universities. on an average, the coast guard accepts almost 400 applicants each academic year. of those 400 applicants a disproportionate number hail from states that border the atlantic and pacific oceans. the rest of the country is largely underrepresented. my amendment seeks to foster greater geographic diversity in the coast guard academy applicant pool by allowing each member of congress to nominate up to three qualified candidates. similar language that i authored with the gentleman

from maryland, representative cummings, was accepted by voice vote during consideration of the 2012 coast guard authorization bill. i want to recognize representative cummings as a co-sponsor of my amendment and a true partner in this effort. under my amendment for academic year 2013 the coast guard would be required to allocate a quarter of the slots in the incoming class to qualified candidates submitted through the congressional nomination process. in subsequent academic years, half of those slots would be field through the congressional nomination process. my amendment does not require the coast guard to alter or lower its exception criteria. in the contrary, it selects the best candidates from the pool of member nominated candidates to fill half of the slots in incoming class, just as it will do in filling the remaining

slots in the other half of the class. additionally, my amendment does not require the coast guard to increase class sizes. that's a decision for the coast guard. at its essence, it seeks to ensure that the coast guard attract the best candidates from all over the country by increasing the applicant pool. each of us has experienced a disappointment of having a talented young person that we nominated to one of the four other service academies be rejected. we all understand it is a very competitive process and slots are scarce. i for one would welcome the opportunity to bring that person to the attention of the coast guard academy and help put him or her on a path toward accomplishing much for themselves, their families and the nation. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i appreciate mr. thompson -- what

mr. thompson is attempting to do here. i don't think this is workable. i remember congress would every four years get to nominate someone to the coast guard academy. i sent a number of qualified young people in that direction every year. and the coast guard strongly opposes this amendment, and i yield mr. courtney such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as i rise in opposition to this amendment, first of all, i just want to salute the amazing effort by representative cummings and representative thompson over the last four or five years to really i think profoundly change behavior at the academies admissions office in widen the scope for their search of students all across america. in the incoming class this year we have students who hail from 48 states, we have 31% female cadets starting this year and 21% minority. and as both of the gentlemen

who are proponents of this amendment knows, that is a stark contrast to what existed a short time ago. i think, again, it is partly due to their external pressure but also the fact the coast guard academy's leadership took the challenge and has really been i think actively recruiting all across the country to achieve what again i think is a goal that mr. thompson has well-spoken that we can draw from a widen pool rather than just a bicoastal parts of the united states of america. what i would just say is why i stand today in opposition is just that the incoming class is also a small class. it's 288 cadets. if you sort of just try and do the math in terms of a body of 435 members of the house, 100 in the senate and even with the 25% safeguard that will thompson added to this amendment, i think it would be a cumbersome add-on.

admiral stotes is the new superintendent at the academy, first female superintendent at the academy in history. i can attest with the fact having met with her on a number of occasions having started this past fall, she is focused like a laser beam in making sure that the great work that was started over the last two years or so is going to continue and members can be part of that. we can all, again, go out and talk to high schools, put it on our websites, have coast guard cadets act as interns in our office, do what we can to make sure that this amazing institution that, again, is just producing great leaders for the future of our country will draw, again, the great diversity of our nation, both agree graphically -- geographically and socially. it's just the mechanics that i would respectfully rise in opposition. as someone who represents the new london district will continue to work with the

proponents to make sure that the good progress that's been made over the last couple of years or so will continue and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: i recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, for such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. tompson, thank you for your leadership and kind words. i'm amaids what the coast guard is able to accomplish, particularly given the limits of its budget but i remain their biggest supporter. i also had the opportunity to be their most constructive critic. among the many areas where i pushed the coast guard was in diversity. data showed that minorities comprised 12% -- 20% of the -- 12% of the class of 2012 and 6% of the class of 2013. the tremendous gains in

diversity achieved by the united states naval academy suggested that the coast guard academy's outreach had been too limbed. as a result many students across the country from a wide variety of communities and backgrounds, were not made aware either of the education that they would 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% of the coast guard's academy's class of 2015 is comprised of 20 students. i believe implementing a nominations process at the coast guard academy, something i popozz -- proposed along with mr. thompson -- thompson, during our previous

considerations, would heep achieve this. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lobiondo: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. thompson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on amendment number six will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number five. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five offered by mr. palazzo of mississippi. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, and a member opposed will each

control five minutes. mr. palazzo: my amendment would strike section 303 of the bill which places harmful restrictions on the united states coast guard national security cutter. it's a much-needed and extremely cost effective ship for the coast guard and has actively proven its value through counterdrug and other missions while replacing an aging coast guard fleet. this is a ship the coast guard desperately needs and replaces the 370-foot endurance cutters, most of which are 40 to 50 years old. just recently, the commandant of the coast guard told the press, we can't get the rest of these out soon enough. on average, the coast guard's legacy high endurance cutters are able to achieve approximately 140 of their programmed 185 days under way a year. maintenance costs continue to escalate and further delay the transition to national security cutters while only -- will only exasperate challenges we

already face in meeting fleet readiness requirements this ship represents the center priest of the coast guard fleet. they enable the coast guard to meet a wide range of missions now. the national security have netted hundreds of millions of dollars in drug busts. in fact the street value of cocaine seized in the first two deployments alone exceeds the total cost of building a national security cutter. it is easy to see that this ship is an exceptional investment in our national security. as it currently stands, h.r. 2838 would prohibit the coast guard from moving forward on n.s.c. 6 and n.s.c. 7. the $70 million pending would allow to contract for long lead time materials and transition to a planned construction contract in 2013. this is the most cost effective method of procuring and building any ship, whether for the coast guard, navy, or marine corps. as you delay shipbuilding contracts, labor costs and material costs go up as a result of standard inflation.

as these costs go up, the cost to taxpayers goes up. simply put, by continuing to steady production of this ship, we are safing the taxpayers money and creating a better product for the coast guard. this ship is, dreamly important to our nation's industrial base which faces serious challenges in a time of tight budgets. national security cutters are responsible for 1,300 jobs in over 40 states throughout the industrial base. in a time of deep cuts, this means real american jobs. we can't afford for america to lose more in terms of economic and national security. the continued un-- the continued uninterrupted production could save taxpayers millions per ship and approximately 1,300 jobs across america. one of my greatest concerns remain the -- remains the purchase of long lead time materials to ensure we don't delay development in the future. i spoke with mr. lobiondo today

and i believe we can find a solution to this issue before or during the conference process. with the cooperation of the coast guard and my freppeds on the committee, i feel confident we can continue to deliver the best product to the coast guard at the pest price to the taxpayer. i am willing to withdraw my amendment. i yield the balance of my time to mr. lobiondo. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lobiondo: i want to thank the gentleman and assure him we have discussed and will continue to work toward a common goal we both share. mr. palazzo: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number six printed in house report 112-267. for what purpose does the squom from california seek recognition -- recognition? mrs. napolitano: i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six printed in house report 112-256, offered by ms. ns napolitano of california. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. napolitano: our bipartisan amendment gives united states flagged tuna vessels in the western pacific ocean the option of using guam in addition to american samoa as their annual required port of call in order to meet u.s. maritime regulations. this amendment would save u.s. tuna industry millions of dollars and thousands of man hours that are needlessly wasted by being forced by the u.s. maritime regulations to travel 2,600 miles out of their way to make port visits. the background is that in 2006, coast guard authorization act allowed u.s. flagged tuna vessels in the western pacific to use internationally licensed

officers. the international officer provision was created because maritime officers in the western pacific are primarily from western pacific nations. u.s. maritime unions were not opposed to the provision. in order to meet the requirements of that provision, the bill has required tuna vessels to make an annual port call in american samoa, some 2,000 miles away. in 2006, the tuna fleet in the region was very small, at 12 boats. american samoa had a market to prose -- to process fish for those votes. since 2006, the tuna fleet has grown to 38 vessels. mr. chairman, approximately 25 of those vessels supply fish to western pacific processors and then ship them -- the fish product to california to georgia, to illinois, to puerto rico for canning. these canneries provide thousands of u.s. jobs. these 25 vessels are still

required to travel over rks 600 miles to american samoa and waste seven days at sea this costs each boat more than half a million to make this unnecessary trip. the purpose of this amendment is to give these tuna boats the option of stopping in guam in order to meet the requirement of visitting a u.s. port once a yearful while receiving marine inspection by the largest coast guard sector station in the region. and of course guam is very close to the tuna fishing grounds. guam's coast guard infrastructure and personnel are excellently equipped to provide these tuna vessels with proper marine inspection on a timely basis. i urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment which will save our u.s. tuna industry millions of dollars. the u.s. house of representatives already -- is already on record supporting this provision. it was part of the coast guard authorization of 2009 that overwhelmingly passed this house. mr. chairman, i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady teem -- the gentlelady's time is reserved. the secret from washington. mr. larsen: i claim time in opposition and yield the time to mr. faleomavaega. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. faleomavaega: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my rashes. and i rise respectfully to in opposition to the gentlelady's proposed amendment. mr. speaker, perhaps unknown to many of my colleagues in the house, for more than 50 years my little district of american samoa has been the back bone of the u.s. tuna fishing and processing industries just like puerto rico or the u.s. virgin islands have been the back bone of the rum industry. today, the u.s. tuna processing industry includes three major brands of canned tuna,

bumblebee, chicken of the sea, and and star kist. -- and starkist. bumblebee was owned by a canadian company, then purchased by u.s. investors and now resold to a group from great britain. chick end of the sea continues and has always been a subsidiary company of the world's largest producer of canned tuna. starkist was part of heinz food then was sold to del monte out of san francisco and it was purchased by the don juan company out of south korea. all three of these major tuna processor companies have corporate officers -- offices in pittsburgh and in san diego. however, their meths of processing and canning of tuna are quite different, along with the man for the which our u.s. tuna fishing fleet has been

operating, given the tremendous change now taking place in the entire global tuna industry. i want to say that i have the utmost respect for my good friend, the gentlelady from california, and out of principle, i just want to respectfully say that there's some very unique features of the situation and why i respectfully oppose the amendment. 80% of the entire economy of my district depends on the tuna industry. and if something happens in terms of the balance between the processors and our fishing fleet, this is where the problem and complications have come about. to the extent that the south pacific tuna corporation which owns about 25 of the 30 or 40 vessels that make up the u.s. tuna fishing fleet, the problem here is that we've got a problem of outsourcing.

where two of these companies, chicken of the sea and bumblebee, do not process the whole fish. as far as tuna is concerned. 90% of the value of the tuna comes in gutting and processing. canning is only about 10%. what has happened is that chicken of the sea and bumblebee have chosen not to buy the whole fish, but to simply buy the loins of the fish that was cleaned in foreign countries where workers are paid only 60 cents an hour. as opposed to the only company that currently buys the whole fish, which is starkist, they buy the whole fish and it provides jobs for my district. . and because of the global economic recession that we have experienced and because of the terrible tsunami and earthquake that was subjected -- has subjected my people two years ago, one of the processing companies, chicken of the sea,

just took off after making billions of dollars worth of canned tuba in my little district, leaving the economy of my territory a disaster. what has happened is there is another added feature of this whole problem of the tuna industry. we have what is now pending the u.s. regional tuna fishing treaty with 16 other pacific island countries. part of the problem that came out of this treaty arrangement was because the tuna fishing fleet at the time felt that because tuna was a highly migratory fish they could fish despite what the zones are. well, they tried that in latin america and we had our vessels compensated. what happened is the tuna fishing fleet moving to the western pacific. one was confiscated by the

solomon islands and the whole thing went up in air. it was necessary that then secretary of state george schultz and mr. neglect reponte came -- negraponta came in and this was for and on behalf of the tuna fishing industry and this is what we did to make sure that there is a constant supply of tuna that can be brought in that can be processed whole fish by the two processing plants that we have in american samoa. this is no longer the case. i respectfully ask my colleagues, vote down this proposed amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to mr. bilbray. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. bilbray: thank you very much. i got to say quite frankly i appreciate the gentleman from american samoa and his

position. i mean, if i represented that island i would be wanting to defend the monopoly that was once housed in the western pacific today, but the fact is as a nation we have to look at not only the great economic impact of this monopoly of forcing boats to travel for thousands of miles to get back to one centralized location because of a political decision here in washington but we've also got to look at this fact that the lady from california has an amendment that will address not just the economic impact but what about the environmental? and i would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, consider the fact that we talk about greenhouse gas and emissions but as a law we are requiring the fishing boat to travel for six or seven days over thousands of miles because of our laws here. if we truly want to say we want to reduce emissions we should reduce the emissions by

supporting the lady's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. the gentleman from washington's time has expired. mrs. napolitano: mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentlelady has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mrs. napolitano: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to ms. bordallo. the chair: the gentlelady from guam is recognized. ms. bordallo: i rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from california, grace napolitano. while i am sympathetic too and recognize the concerns of my friend from american samoa i have received significant support from my constituents to include guam as an eligible port of call for annual safety inspections only. to the u.s. distant water tuna fleet. permitting the fleet to call on guam in addition to american samoa will create additional economic opportunities for my

constituents. the fleet can utilize guam's coast guard sector, our port, our ship repair facilities and service their helicopters. it is commonsense approach to enforce the safety inspection requirements for the u.s. flag vessels. i want to be very clear, mr. speaker, i want better assurance from the administration, stakeholders that this will not harm the tuna industry in american samoa. that industry is critically important to their economy and its competitive advantages must not be undermined. i am committed to working with my friend to ensure that the american samoa tuna industry remains strong. in fact, i am staunchly opposed to the distant water tuna fleet fishing in guam's waters. the fleet is in fact prohibited from fishing in guam's economic zone, and if it were to do so it would threaten the livelihoods of our own local fishermen. if this amendment passes i

would strongly urge the coast guard, national marine fishery service and all relevant agencies to aggressively enforce existing regulations and prevent any illegal opportunists harvests in guam's waters. again, i support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-267. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-267 offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: prupet to house resolution 455, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, and a member owe pose -- opposed,

will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: my amendment amends title 7 to recognize 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 for the introduction of invasive species and other pollutants. i agree in concept with chairman lobiondo that we should have a national standard for ballast water treatments. it is necessary to set a high standard that is technologically reasonable. 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 for industry for understandable reasons.

nor does it give states carte blanche to release ballast waters. it has the states to petition the federal government under a set of criteria that identifies 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 e.p.a. to regulate ballast water from military vessels through the uniformed national discharge standard program. in providing for these uniformed 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 ballast water discharged from vessels

establishes uniformed standards 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 state. 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 uniformed national standard, then you should vote for the bishop amendment. if on the other hand you believe that states should absolutely have no say whatsoever in protecting particularly sensitive waters within their jurisdiction, 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 the rule 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% of the role to the federal government. so i would ask that the committee -- pardon me -- that the house continue to recognize the role of states, that in setting standards for water quality in waters that they control, and so i would urge adoption of my amendment and before i close i do 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 members for their efforts to bring this matter to a bipartisan resolution.

i'm sorry we couldn't get there. as i say, it was not for lack of trying. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i appreciate what mr. bishop is attempting to do and we did give it a mighty effort to try to reach an agreement. it's one of those situations where we just have a different point of view, and it is my opinion that this amendment would make the current situation even worse because it would allow states to completely prohibit the discharge of ballast water if they chose to regardless of what technology was installed on a vessel. so here's the situation -- you could have a vessel owner could install technology worth millions of dollars that would treat ballast water to one million times the standard in the bill and you could still

have a state come in and say, we're going to prohibit the vessel from discharging. it completely undermines the uniform standards that were attempting to accomplish. the amendment would also allow states to dictate how much ballast water could be discharged, the depth of the water where the discharge is permitted and even what hours of the day. i think and, again, my opinion is that this amendment would completely undermine our efforts to put in place a single uniformed national ballast water standard and that if this amendment were to go forward it would actually gut this portion of it. so i urge all members to oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: might i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. let me quickly and respectfully

i believe my friend from new jersey has mischaracterized pieces of the amendment. let me be clear. the amendment would not allow states to require the insulation -- i'm quoting from the amendment. would not allow states to require the insulation of ballast water treatment technology that is differs from 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 require greater environmental protection. so this would be a state request to the e.p.a., and 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 laws for the states subject to the approval of the federal government. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lobiondo: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to mr. bucshon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bucshon: i rise in opposition to this amendment. currently each state is able to create its own rules for ballast water discharge. the state of new york enacted rules that is 100 times nor stringent than international standards. the wisconsin department of natural resources determined that the technology does not exist to meet this standard. if allowed to go into effect, these regulations would cost indiana approximately 8,800

jobs while doing little to protect the great lakes on invasive species. governor daniels of indiana joined wisconsin governor and ohio governor opposing the new york's extreme new ballast requirements. i ask unanimous consent to submit that letter to the record. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. bucshon: so i urge all of my colleagues to save maritime jobs not only in indiana but across the great lakes and vote against these two amendments. thank you and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to mr. latourette. the chair: the gentleman is recognized from ohio. mr. latourette: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the chairman for recognition and 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 others about

ballast water. despite what people say, new invasive species comes into the lake every 28 days, that's true. but they don't come in the ships because industry, governments, both american and canadian, and the states have worked hard to make sure 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 1,000 more times stringent than the i.m.o. standards. what that effectively means is, when we talk to these folks, well, that's the great mother of invention. if we put these standards out there, the great mother of invention, they are going to invent something. sadly for new york, their vendor, the one they were counting on for this technology, said they are not even willing to have it be tested by a third party. so this amendment and those proposals would basically shut down water borne commerce in the united states of america. mr. bishop: would the gentleman yield? mr. latourette: i would be happy

to finish. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. latourette: 2 1/2 minutes. he yielded me such time as i may consume. i thought he had 2 1/2 minutes left. the chair: stand corrected. the gentleman may continue. mr. latourette: thank you so much. but here's the skinny, new york, their regulations are more obnoxious because they cover just passage. you don't have to take a dime of ballast water in or a drop. if you are in new york waters or 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 i tearor appropriations bill that said if new york continues on this crazy course, that they get no money out of the interior appropriations bill. that doesn't designed -- wasn't designed to cheat our friends in new york 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'm happy to yield. mr. bishop: i appreciate that. i want to be clear, what mr. latourette 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 e.p.a. that would allow for the protection of certain waters in the state. mr. latourette: now my time has expired? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. latourette: i really had something pithy to say.

the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. in the opinion of the chair the noes have t the amendment is not agreed to. mr. bishop: on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-267. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: mr. chairman, as the designee of mr. dingell of michigan i offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in house report number 112-267, offered by ms. slaughter of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 455, the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer an amendment with my distinguished colleague from michigan, mr.

dingell, which would remove a controversial measure that has been inserted into the underlying coast guard re-authorization. it forces states to adopt a weak standard. allowing states to respond to emerging invasive species and provides no incentive for future innovation and critical ballast water technology. each minute, 40,000 gallons of ballast water containing thousands of millions of foreign bacteria and plants and animals are discharged into u.s. waters. that's 21 billion gallons of ballast water annually. once introduced, invasive species, such as the asian carp, are difficult to control and often impossible to eradicate. having no natural predators, aquatic invasive species easily feed on the native fish and other wildlife, they foul

beaches, they disrupt the food chain, and contaminate our drinking water. and we spend more than $1 billion a year simply trying to get rid of zebra mussels which to date we'll have spent $5 billion trying to eradicate and have not come close. ballast water is a serious matter with far-reaching implications for this nation. we spend billions of taxpayer dollars every year to combat and contain invasive species brought into our water by foreign shipping vessels. many, and most all, around the great lakes, of our nation's communities rely on these bodies of water for recreation, to drink, as well as their livelihood. the great lakes which face significant challenges from invasive species contain 20% of the fresh water on the planet. and i think those of us on both

sides of the aisle who live adjacent to those lakes have always felt an obligation to try to protect that. and we must also remember that those are international waters and our canadian friends also have a say here. unfortunately the ballast water provisions in this measure protect the foreign shipping mag gnats rather than the great lakes and the people who live there. the dingell-slaughter amendment strikes title 7 from this measure which would remove the damaging language. this amendment will allow us to pass the important coast guard re-authorization while giving congress and opportunity to come in a responsible and reasonable agreement with respect to ballast water standards. i urge my colleagues to support the dingell-slaughter amendment. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. who seeks time in opposition? mr. lobiondo: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. lobiondo: i yield mr. latourette such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized.

mr. latourette: 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 water-borne commerce in the great lakes. the sad thing for the state of new york, and i know the people of new york think that they are pretty important and 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 inclusive of that, and just a couple of observations. 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, it's tough to get a bill signed into law by a president of the other party, was the re-authorization of the national invasive species act, co-authored by john glenn

in the united states senate. i know invasive species, i want to tell you because of the work that 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 it's 28 days -- yeah, they come in boats, people's boots, like swimming from other places. the biggest threat we got is the asian carp. it's not coming in ballast water it's swimming up the mississippi and we got to fight with the president whether or not we have an electronic barrier to have an electric fence. the longshoreman don't like what they are doing. so labor is not onboard with what they are attempting to do. in july of 2011, fresh off the charts, an evaluation by the united states environmental protection agency determined that the technology does not exist, does not exist, even if the ship owner had a bazillion

dollars and wanted to buy something off the shelf, it doesn't exist to meet the water qual levels stimulated by new york. for this reason the maritime industry together with labor believes that these regulations are unworkable and have left -- 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 longshoreman, you don't have to work anymore, the guys that drive the boats, you don't need to work anymore. folks that unload the boats? no, you don't need to work. why? because one state outth eight states that border the great lakes has decided to come up with something not passed by their slurkse passed by this new york environmental council. it's crazy. and 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 see lam pri and asian carp out of the

great lakes. but to allow new york to go out of -- down this path with the passage of this amendment is destructive to jobs in the great lakes and i hope it is defeated. i yield back to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. chair, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the dean of the house, co-sponsor of the amendment, mr. dingell. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. dingell: mr. chairman, this is a very important question. the great lakes are 20% of the world's fresh water supply. it is encaningered and the fish -- endangered and the fish and wildlife in the whole ecosystem are endangered by the constant entry of imported species that come in in the ballast water of ships entering the great lakes. what we are talking about here is protecting something of

enormous value that has been here since geological times and which has provided enormous opportunities for our people. food and all manner of things including recreation, transportation, fish, and wildlife. this process of trying to giffle a few bones to a bunch of importers who are bringing these things in from the black sea and other places in europe, is a shameful thing if permitted. the united states and the congress have not done the job we should have done to protect our great lakes. and already we have a large number of things, including some nasty diseases like viral hemorrhagic except at this seema . sort of the ebola virus of fish. this is something we have to protect. our great lakes against and other waters in the united states. foreign shippers are going to be

bringing in dirty ballast water discharging it into our great lakes. if the states want to spend the time protecting the states' water and the interest in the great lakes, other or bodies of water, which are threatened by these practices, want to do it, the congress should very well permit them to do it. because failure to do is going to jeopardize 20% of the world's fresh water. and more importantly a resource which is recreational, which is -- relates to fish and wildlife, and which provides us with opportunity for transportation, drinking water, and a whole array of other precious and important things. and if we don't adopt this amendment, we find we are taking care of a bunch of foreign ship owners instead of our people and the future of the united states. support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: how much time do

we have left? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has two minutes left. the gentlelady from new york has 30 seconds left. mr. lobiondo: i yield mr. latourette such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. latourette: i thank the chairman again. again i have nothing but affection for mr. dingell and ms. slaughter, but on this issue respectfully -- louise likes me, too. here's the deal. there's not going to be anybody recreating on the great lakes, fishing, and all the things we do on lake erie, lake michigan, lake superior, because nobody will be working. and so without jobs people are not going to have the opportunity to enjoy the splendor of 28% of the world's fresh water. again sadly people of new york, people of 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. again despite my affection for the authors of this amendment, i have talked to the longshoreman, i have talked to the canadians and 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 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 be defeated. i thank the chairman for yielding. . the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york has 130ekd remaining.

ms. slaughter: do you have further speakers? >> me. ms. slaughter: then let me close. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, we have to allow, as we always have, to have a voice in protecting the ecosystems and economy as long as we conform to the federal law, we have always been able in states to enhance them. but if we really want to truly solve the threat of invasive species in our waters, and i believe it's quite serious because both in my time at the state legislature and federal legislature that was pointed out to me. i want to ask my colleagues to support the dingell-slaughter amendment, and i am pleased to yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentlelady from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i strongly, strongly, strongly oppose this amendment. this current regulatory nightmare will shut down our shipping lanes. it is unworkable.

and i hope my colleagues will understand the consequences. i urge opposition to the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentlelady from new york will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-267.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i rise today, mr. speaker, in support of the huizenga-petri-benishek amendment. i'm sorry, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the title of the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 offered by mr. huizenga of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 455, the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the amendment and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. high stpwhrenga: i support the amendment along with chairman petri from wisconsin and congressman dan benishek of michigan. today, we're talking about a particular ship, the s.s.

badger, located in levinton, michigan. it travels between there and manitawac, wisconsin. it came into service in 1991 using all private dollars to make that happen. it's unique is recognized by the designation of the national register of historic places and by both the states of wisconsin and michigan. its propulsion system is a landmark. the badger is currently operating under special rules developed by the e.p.a. in 2008. these rules are set to expire at the end of 2012, and without certainty provided by this amendment, the badger could very easily frankly be forced off the great lakes at the end of 2012. with an annual economic impact of ruffle $235 million both in michigan and wisconsin keeping the badger operational is

absolutely vital to our communities. i urge all of our colleagues to joining me in recognizing the historic significance of the steam ships by supporting the huizenga-petri-benishek amendment. the chair: who seems time in opposition? -- seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: i recognize mr. tom petri from wisconsin. mr. petri: i rise in support of it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan wish to yield back? mr. huizenga: actually, mr. chair, i'd like to recognize my fellow colleague from michigan, representative dan benishek for some remarks. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. benishek: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate my fellow freshman colleague from michigan for his

amendment on this issue. i represent a district with more great lakes coastline than any other. shipping and ferries are part of the great lakes heritage. u.s.s. badger continues this tradition, transporting cars, trucks and equipment across lake michigan. this amendment does not make the badger exempt from e.p.a. regulations. the e.p.a. will continue to regulate discharge limits and other requirements. it simply keeps in place the current regulations that recognize the badger as the unique and historic vessel. keeping the badger operational means savings a million gallons of fuel a year for vehicles driving around the lake. passing this amendment is simple and common sense. it allows the national historic place to continue to function on the great lakes. i urge passage and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman.

at this time i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in the house report 112-267. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. olson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the chair: clerk. -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-267 offered by mr. olson of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 455, the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, and a member oppose, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. olson: mr. speaker, i

believe that issuing a mandate of this nature without proper studying if it will affect safety -- since deepwater horizon, multiple safeguards have been put in place to ensure worker safety. i simply believe that the coast guard should have an opportunity to assess a provision of this nature before we establish an arbitrary mandate that they'll have to comply with. this amendment does not, does not prevent us from implementing measures to ensure worker safety. it simply requires a six-month study first to allow the coast guard to analyze the safety benefits so we can provide the safest environment for our offshore drilling workers. the coast guard may determine that stand-by vessels should be

required. if so i will work to ensure that happens. i'm just asking that we review this issue thoroughly and clearly before we legislate. however, at this time i understand the need to withdraw my amendment and appreciate chairman mica's willingness to work with me to address my concerns as we work through the legislative process. i also appreciate the gentleman from louisiana, whose provision of the bill i sought to improve by my amendment. i'm grateful for his commitment to work on our differences. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman seek to withdraw his amendment? mr. olson: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-267 on which further proceedings were

postponed and in the following order -- amendment number 3 by mr. cummings of maryland, amendment number 4 by mr. thompson of mississippi, amendment number 6 by mrs. napolitano of california, amendment number 7 by mr. bishop of new york, amendment number 8 by ms. slaughter of new york. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-267 by the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-267 offered by mr. cummings of maryland. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen,, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 174. the nays are 227. with zero answering present. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-267. by the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-267 offered by mr. thompson of mississippi.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 182. the nays are 218. the amendment is not adopted. the chair reminds members that we are planning on having two-minute votes for the remainder of these. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-267 by the gentlewoman from california,, mrs. napolitano, on which further proceedings were postpone and on which the nayses prevailed by voice vote.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-267 offered by mrs. napolitano of california. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 363. the nays --