[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4559-H4562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1361, COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 139 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H.R. 139
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1361) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1996 for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with section 302(f), section 308(a), or
section 401(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman 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. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of
a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered by title rather than by section. The
first two sections and each title of the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. Points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to
comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI or section 302(f) or
section 401(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are
waived. 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 committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all
[[Page H4560]] time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this wide open
rule for the fiscal year 1996 authorization of our smallest--but hugely
important--national armed services, the Coast Guard. I am delighted
that our Rules Committee, by unanimous voice vote, agreed to bring this
important bill to the House floor under an open rule, allowing all
Members the chance to offer amendments under the standing rules of this
House. I wish to commend Chairman Shuster, Chairman Coble, and ranking
members Mineta and Traficant of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for their efforts in bringing us H.R. 1361.
{time} 1445
Mr. Speaker, as Members know, this year marks the first time the
Coast Guard authorization has been moved through the Transportation
Committee and, by all accounts, the transition has gone smoothly. This
rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, to be equally divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. It makes in order the committee's amendment
in the nature of a substitute as the original bill for the purpose of
amendment and provides that the substitute shall be considered as read
by title. Members should be aware that this rule does provide four
specific waivers, including three technical budget act waivers related
to section 205 of the bill, and a waiver of the rule that prohibits
appropriations within legislative bills, related to section 201 of the
bill. This waiver should not cause Members any heartache, since it is
necessary to allow the shifting of funds from pre-existing accounts in
order to pay for damages to homes of Coast Guard personnel caused by
hurricane Andrew. I think that is eminently fair and makes great good
common sense and I do not think it is particularly precedent-setting,
Let us hope not.
The budget act waivers are necessary because of a provision in the
bill that allows Coast Guard officers who were twice passed over for
promotion, and have 18 years of service, to continue in active duty
until they have served 20 years and are eligible for retirement.
Technically this provides new entitlement authority, although
subcommittee Chairman Coble assured the Rules Committee that this is
not in any way a budget buster. In fact, the total cost of this
provision has been estimated to at less than $500,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Rules Chairman Solomon and the committee of
jurisdiction for ensuring that Members have a detailed explanation of
the waivers needed for this bill. I think it is most important that all
committees take seriously the standing rules of the House and come to
the Rules Committee well prepared to discuss any specific rules
violations in their bills--whether technical or substantive. This to me
is great progress in the 104th Congress. I think it makes pretty clear
what the issues are and what is being protected and what is not and
what the justifications may be.
Finally, this rule provides the minority with its traditional right
to a motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Coast Guard may be small in size but it is
mighty in missions. It is something of a jack of all trades--its
responsibilities cover a broad expanse of activity, from drug
interdiction and border control to search and rescue. At any given time
the Coast Guard might be called upon to support military deployments--
as in the Persian Gulf--or respond to disasters--as in the midwestern
floods of 1993. Especially in coastal areas--but also across this
land--Americans depend on the reliability and efficiency of the Coast
Guard. Because of its reputation for excellence and its unfailing
willingness to tackle new missions, the Coast Guard has repeatedly been
asked to shoulder more duties. In response to the Haiti crisis in the
past 2 years, the Coast Guard was asked to become a floating picket
line to deter desperate Haitians from taking to the seas in unsafe
boats. Coast Guard personnel became directly involved in rescue
operations and the very difficult process of repatriation in that
Haitian affair as we know. While the exodus from Haiti has ebbed
momentarily, just last week, the administration announced a change in
its policy toward Cuban refugees that once again places the Coast Guard
on the front lines of enforcement upon the high seas, to turn back
Cuban rafters and enforce a more orderly process of immigration. That
is no small order for them to undertake that. But despite its ever
expanding list of missions, the Coast Guard has not been given
corresponding resources to ensure that its traditional
responsibilities do not suffer. In the last Congress, this House
adopted language reaffirming our commitment to providing additional
resources to the Coast Guard if new missions are added to its plate.
That is just common sense. If we ask them to do more, we are going to
give them the money to pay for it.
Today, I am pleased that the committee has agreed to include that
language in its amendment, so we will have that again this year. On a
more parochial note, Mr. Speaker, under this open rule all of our
colleagues will have the opportunity to assist our local communities
and private citizens who are involved in seeking to navigate the
confusing bureaucracy of the Jones Act. In my district, we have one
city and four private citizens who find themselves wound up in redtape
as they seek to use vessels for legitimate municipal or commercial
purposes. H.R. 1361 already includes a provision that covers one of the
southwest Florida victims of the Jones Act redtape in my case, and I am
pleased that the committee amendment will include waivers to address
the other three cases I know about, and perhaps the bulk of my
colleagues' concerns as well will be included in that amendment. If
not, if there is still more to be done in this area, this open rule
allows Members the chance to bring their amendments forward. I hope all
Members will support this open rule, and this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of May 5, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\............... 46 44 23 74
Modified Closed\3\.................. 49 47 8 26
Closed\4\........................... 9 9 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 31 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
[[Page H4561]]
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of May 5, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/10/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/1/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... ...................
H. Res. 108 (3/6/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95)
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1159........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps.. 95)
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95)
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/16/
95). Act of 1995. 95)
H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95)
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95)
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act voice vote (4/6/
95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
Relief Act of 1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion A: 253-172 (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) O................... H.R. 655............ Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/2/
1995. 95)
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) O................... H.R. 1361........... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous
question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Republican colleagues for the rule
they are recommending today. So far this year, the rules they have
recommended have been 70 percent closed. This is in spite of their
promises to open the process in the House.
However, since the rule before us today is an open rule, I must
commend the Republican majority.
As my colleague described, this rule provides for the consideration
of a relatively noncontroversial Coast Guard authorization.
It authorizes $3.7 billion for the Coast Guard--exactly the amount
requested by the administration and only slightly more than last year's
authorization.
The 37,000 members of the Coast Guard provide this Nation with
invaluable maritime service for everything from search and rescue to
drug interdiction and this $3.7 billion will support their good work.
I would like to commend Chairman Shuster and ranking member Mineta
for putting together a truly bipartisan bill which should pass the
House with little opposition.
I urge my colleagues to support this rare open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 4 minutes
to my colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen].
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce the Clinton
administration's decision to use this great American institution, the
U.S. Coast Guard, to serve the purposes of a tyrant.
We in south Florida are very knowledgeable about the Coast Guard
because of the wonderful work they perform during periods of natural
disasters such as during Hurricane Andrew where they played a crucial
role in the rescue operations.
Those of us who are residents of south Florida also know the Coast
Guard as a humanitarian institution because, for years, the Coast Guard
has rescued freedom-seeking Cubans from the waters of the Florida
Straits while on their journey to freedom.
This humanitarian aspect of the Coast Guard, for which all of America
should be proud, was surprisingly reversed last week when the Clinton
administration announced the United Stated will now repatriate freedom-
seeking Cubans back to the island prison they risked their lives to
escape.
The President has now made the Coast Guard an extension of the Cuban
authorities, in order to keep the Cuban people under the Castro
repression.
Just this afternoon, the first victims of the President's latest
flipflop were turned over to the bloody henchmen of Castro.
Mr. Speaker, this change of policy is an embarrassment to the
longstanding record of the United States as the beacon of hope and
freedom for the oppressed of the world.
With one swift and misguided decision, the Clinton administration has
successfully allied itself with the bloodiest tyrant the Americas has
ever known, and has crushed the aspirations of freedom for millions of
Cubans.
The administration has once again proven that it does not comprehend
how to deal with Cuba.
Instead of attacking the root of the problem, Fidel Castro, the
President continues to treat Cuba as an immigration problem, not as
legitimate foreign policy matter.
Most disturbing is that the President is using the Coast Guard to
help maintain Cubans under the oppressive hand of Castro.
This accord, Mr. Speaker, was reached in secret negotiations led by
Assistant Secretary of State, Peter Tarnoff.
Not even the head of the Cuban Affairs desk of the U.S. Department of
State knew about these dealings, nor the Assistant Secretary for
Interamerican Affairs at State.
Moreover, Congress was never consulted on the matter and the
administration has been stalling on details about the talks.
Many questions still remain unanswered such as what concessions were
given to Castro, and whether it is just a simple coincidence that, just
few days before the new policy announcement, the administration
publicly declared its opposition to the Helms-Burton bill.
The administration must come forth with answers to these and other
questions which are critical to untangling the purpose of this new
policy.
Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard has been an exemplary institution of
this country for decades.
We should not allow the administration to use it as a tool to aid a
totalitarian tyrant.
I urge my colleagues to raise their voices against this distortion of
the Coast Guard's mission.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I
rise in
[[Page H4562]] support of this bill and in support of the new chairman
of this subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]. I
do not believe there is anybody better prepared in the Congress to head
the mission of this Congress in deliberating these matters, save for
maybe the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], his vast knowledge
of working with the committee over the years.
However, I have one concern with the bill. I am going to vote for
this bill regardless if the amendment I propose passes or not, but the
Coast Guard, Congress, has been known for safety. There is a provision
in this bill that allows for the closing of 23 small boat stations.
The bill gives an opportunity for the Coast Guard to work out all
kinds of safety parameters here, to ensure that there will be adequate
safety, et cetera, et cetera, but the truth of the matter is,
``Scarlett, quite frankly, I don't buy it.''
We have had testimony offered to us that the last time some of these
small boat stations were closed, there was an accompanying loss of
life. The Coast Guard has one mission. That is safety.
What the Traficant amendment is dealing with financially, Congress,
is $3 million; $3 million could be taken out of transportation, taken
out of some expense account. Under the Traficant amendment, it says
they could transfer everything out of these small boat stations but
they must leave one pair of eyes of a Coast Guard full-time official,
one pair of hands, one pair of eyes.
Let me caution Congress: With all of these beautiful ideas of these
weekend warriors, be careful, Congress. There are an awful lot of other
good amendments, after the Traficant amendment is considered, that will
put some extenuating circumstances and criteria that speak to safety.
The truth of the matter is there is only one amendment today that
will stop these closings. Every one of those other amendments will get
a quick-over, fancy report and they will close those small boat
stations.
The Traficant amendment says those small boat stations will not be
closed. They could transfer everything they want out of there, but they
must leave one full-time personnel to coordinate those local efforts.
Congress, that is good sense. We are here to set policy. We have
given the executive branch so much authority in so many areas, we are
now not even getting votes on major issues, including bailouts of
Mexico.
I am recommending to the Congress that the policy of the Congress be
the Coast Guard is an excellent, excellent American service. Its No. 1
mission is safety. We will retain it and keep its mission as safety.
When you get a chance, consider that in any regard.
I will support this bill under any circumstances. It is a good bill.
I commend the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]
for his outstanding effort.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to commend the Committee on
Rules, as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, for supporting an open rule on this Coast
Guard authorization bill.
I did want to say, though, that I totally, 100 percent agree with the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the ranking member, that his
amendment, the Traficant amendment, if you will, is the only amendment
that will assure that the 23 small boat unit stations are not closed.
I remember because when I was first elected to Congress back in 1988,
they had recently, the Coast Guard had recently proposed closing a
number of stations, Coast Guard stations around the country, including
the one that I represent at the Shark River Inlet. The effects of those
closures at the time were widespread.
I think many Members know that over the years, the Coast Guard
committee and this Congress have added more and more responsibilities
to the Coast Guard, whether it be to enforce against drug trafficking,
to enforce our environmental laws, to enforce our fishing laws. More
and more work every year goes to the Coast Guard, and at the same time
we have been providing some additional funds for the Coast Guard.
{time} 1500
But to suggest, as this small boat unit closure plan does, that all
of a sudden now there are this minute 23 stations around the country
that are no longer needed at a time when the amount of incidents,
search and rescue incidents as well as all of the other jurisdiction
the Coast Guard now has, and that traffic increases every year, to
suggest this is the time to make these kinds of closures I think makes
no sense.
In addition, although I understand there are amendments out there and
the rule provides for an open rule where all of these amendments can be
heard, all of the other amendments, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant] said, will basically allow the Coast Guard to close these 23
stations and others and look for some sort of alternative, either the
State or locality or auxiliary, to step in and perform those functions
also, let me assure my colleagues in the State of New Jersey it is not
possible through our State of New Jersey through our marine police or
Coast Guard auxiliary or local fire departments or whatever to step in
and take over the responsibilities that the Coast Guard has at these
various stations. That is why it is very important we pass the
Traficant amendment today.
I appreciate the fact we have an open rule, and I also appreciate the
fact that the chairman, Mr. Coble, has tried very hard to do what he
can to cooperate with those of us who are concerned about these
closures. But I sincerely believe the only way we can make sure that
the closures do not occur is by passing the Traficant amendment.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no other Members in the Chamber
requesting time at this point, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, I yield
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________