Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 42 (Wednesday, March 17, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 17, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1370-H1382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Pursuant to House Resolution 113
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 820.

{time} 1337

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 820) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is the 11th bill which the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure has brought to the floor thus far in
this new session. Indeed, the other 10 bills passed overwhelmingly. I
believe that this legislation, the Coast Guard authorization, deserves
the same kind of overwhelming support.
We are taking action today to authorize funding for one of the most
important programs in the United States Government. This Act authorizes
approximately $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2000 and $4.8 billion in
fiscal year 2001 in expenditures for the Coast Guard operations. It
provides funds for the Coast Guard at the levels requested by the
President with additional amounts provided for drug interdiction
operations.
Last year, the Coast Guard received about $250 million in emergency
supplemental funds to boost drug interdiction resources in the
Caribbean. I can report to the House that I personally have gone out on
missions with the Coast Guard and have seen firsthand the outstanding
job they do.
This legislation maintains the level of drug interdiction provided
for fiscal year 1999 with additional amounts consistent with the
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. This bill also contains
additional funds for fishing vessel safety and to modernize the
national distress and response system. The bill authorizes $128 million
in fiscal 2001 to construct a replacement icebreaking vessel for the
Great Lakes.
I certainly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I would like to close by sharing with my colleagues examples of what
our Coast Guard accomplishes every day. In any given day, on the
average, our United States Coast Guard saves 14 lives. It conducts 180
search and rescue missions. It keeps $7 million worth of illegal drugs
out of our country. It responds to 32 oil spills or hazardous chemical
releases. It stops hundreds of illegal aliens from entering our
country.
So in a year, that is over 4,000 lives saved, over 65,000 rescue
missions, $2.6 billion in illegal drugs stopped from entering America's
streets, over 11,000 environmental cleanups or responses to pollution,
and the stopping of tens of thousands of illegal aliens entering our
country.
Indeed, in addition to this, it also is involved in conducting local
boat safety courses, port inspections, support of U.S. military and
humanitarian missions, and more, all with the stewardship of the
resources that should make the taxpayers of America very proud of their
investment in the world's finest Coast Guard.
So I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
legislation. It is worthy of their vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is very important legislation for this body. As
the chairman of the full committee has pointed out, it is supported
strongly in a bipartisan manner. That is because almost all of the
Members of this Congress and certainly the Members of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure share a common concern in the Coast
Guard's activities and giving them adequate resources to fulfill the
burdens that we put on them.
The chairman has already gone on at some length, but I think it
should be restated just so people remember, the Coast Guard does
everything from local boating safety courses to search and rescue. If
one is in trouble out on the water, they are the ones who respond.
Sometimes in very hazardous situations, sometimes to loss of life to
members of the Coast Guard, they are attempting to save mariners in
distress.
They safeguard our borders by watching for smugglers and people
attempting both to enter the country illegally or to enter drugs and
other substances illegally into our country. They are our first line of
protection for our coastal resources and the environment.
That leads me to some comments that are very close to home for me.
The Coast Guard has been involved now for more than a month in the
wreck of the New Carrisa which went aground in stormy weather outside
the largest port in my district, very close to the mouth of the harbor.
The Coast Guard is still working on its own internal investigation
and summary of the events that led up to this tragedy. I think there
will be much to be learned from that critical review, perhaps some
further changes in authority for the Coast Guard, changes of law
regarding insurance of these freighters and other ships.
Today a freighter carries as much oil, these larger freighters, as
did a small tanker 20, 25 years ago. They often carry more fuel than
they need to accomplish their mission, as did this ship in this case,
for ballast.
So the potential for oil spill no longer just extends to tankers and
tanker safety, but now the potential for catastrophic oil spills
extends to large freighters. Yet, they do not have the same insurance
requirements that we put on tankers, nor do they have the same hull
safety requirements we put on tankers; and those are critical issues
that we will need to look at in the future to safeguard our precious
coastal resources here in the United States.

{time} 1345

I am very pleased that this bill, with unanimous vote in the
committee, and hopefully a similar vote here on the floor of the House,
includes some modest initial amendments for changes in the law that I
have proposed as I became educated as to what happens when a foreign
ship is headed towards the United States. And in this case, had these
provisions of law which are in this bill today by my amendment been in
effect, we might not have had the New Carrisa tragedy on the coast of
Oregon; we might not have despoiled our precious coastal waters.

[[Page H1371]]

The Coast Guard, under this bill, will now be notified 24 hours in
advance before a ship crosses into our 12-mile territorial limit. The
Coast Guard will have the authority to hold a ship at that 12-mile
limit if they have questions about the safety of the ship, the
competence of its crew, or other extraordinary circumstances are
intervening that could jeopardize safety.
In this case, the New Carrisa was on a list the Coast Guard keeps
called the ``Watch List''. The ``Watch List'' is composed of ships that
are known to the Coast Guard to have problems or to be registered in
countries that are known to abide or to basically not fully enforce,
rigorously enforce, international maritime rules. Panama, in this case.
Liberia and other countries are also in question.
This ship was on the ``Watch List'', and it would have been boarded
once it reached the harbor. Unfortunately, it never reached the harbor
because it went aground, I believe due to the misconduct of the
captain, and it caused an ongoing and unfolding tragedy on the Oregon
coast. This could happen anywhere in the United States of America.
Under my legislation, the Coast Guard would be able to hold a ship on
the ``Watch List'', ask them a number of questions about the condition
of the vessel, the crew, etcetera, out at 12 miles. And if the Coast
Guard was concerned about their capabilities or conduct or their
navigational capabilities, they could require a pilot be put on board.
They could require other actions be followed by that ship once it has
entered into our territorial waters.
In this case they may have well have told the ship to hold off out 12
miles, where it was safer, because there was a huge storm brewing and
the pilot could not get out to them.
These are tools that the Coast Guard, I believe, will be able to
prudently employ and, hopefully, avoid this happening again in Oregon
or anywhere else in the United States. There may well be other measures
we need to take, and next week, when we hold a hearing to review the
oil spill liability legislation on the 10-year anniversary of the Exxon
Valdez tragedy, I believe we will see a path to other changes in law
that are necessary.
Beyond that, the money in this bill is a good amount of money.
Personally, if I had license, I would give the Coast Guard more money
to conduct their mission. I believe that, in fact, they are operating
in a very frugal manner, particularly compared to the other uniformed
services, and they are spending our taxpayer dollars wisely and in a
way that most all Americans are grateful on a daily basis.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest), be permitted to manage our time on this side of the
aisle while I must absent myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my full support for this
legislation and the amendments that will be proposed here in the next
few minutes.
I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee for his
support of this legislation, the full ranking member for his support of
this legislation, and also the support of the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his work
over the last several months on this legislation. We have worked very
well together and I look forward to the rest of the session.
Mr. Chairman, I will not specifically go into all of the funding
details, because that will be in the statement I will submit for the
Record, but what I would like to do for the Members of the House, those
of whom are listening, is to go through the kind of things that this
limited force does for the United States.
Number one, it is the U.S. Coast Guard that is directly responsible
for the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and all of its provisions around this
country. Since the Oil Pollution Act went into effect, and since the
Coast Guard has been monitoring this issue and enforcing this statute,
oil spills in the world have dropped by 60 percent. It is through much
of the effort of the U.S. Coast Guard in this area that is responsible
for that drop.
I have visited Prince William Sound, the sight of the Exxon Valdez
spill, and the infrastructure put in place mainly because of the Coast
Guard activities is phenomenal.
Fifty percent of the cargo transported across our oceans is
considered hazardous, and it is the Coast Guard that deals primarily
with that particular issue.
It is the Coast Guard, which leads the U.S. delegation to the
International Maritime Organization that deals with 153 countries
around the world, that ensures that not only our coastal waters, and
not only our coastal waters out 200 miles of our coastlines but the
international regime of the IMO of these 153 countries, that enhances
the quality of our international waters.
It is the Coast Guard that is directly responsible for patrolling the
North Atlantic in something called ``The Ice Patrol'', so that not only
the U.S. ships traveling in the North Atlantic can be safe from
icebergs but the international community can be safe from icebergs.
The coastal fisheries, out 200 miles off our coasts, not only off the
Florida coast or the California coast but the Oregon and Washington
coast, in the frigid waters of the north Pacific, 200 miles of the
Alaskan coast, 200 miles off our coast, we monitor the coastal
fisheries. And the U.S. Coast Guard ensures that U.S. law is enforced
out that far, and they do a great job.
Interdiction of drugs on the high seas. Just imagine the coastal
waters of the United States; the Pacific coast, the Atlantic coast, the
Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean. We have the technology, we have the
resources to interdict almost all the drugs if the Coast Guard is given
those resources. Within 5 to 7 years, I am convinced that we can
interdict up to 85 percent of those drugs if the Coast Guard is given
the right resources.
We talked about safety at life at sea. Not only is the Coast Guard
responsible for safety at life at sea for U.S. fishermen, but they also
do a good job in the international arena. On every river, looking at
the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes, our estuaries, the Coast Guard
is responsible for safety at life at sea.
Who inspects vessels, domestic and foreign? It is the Coast Guard.
Who inspects these cargo ships, these container ships, these oil
tankers, the bulk carriers, the small vessels? It is the U.S. Coast
Guard. Who interdicts illegal immigrants being carried through to this
country on the high seas? It is the U.S. Coast Guard. Who cuts ice in
the Great Lakes; who cuts ice in the estuaries, like the Chesapeake
Bay, around this country? It is the Coast Guard. Who cuts the ice
leading to McMurdo Station in the Antarctic? It is the U.S. Coast
Guard. Who cuts the ice in the Arctic Ocean? It is the U.S. Coast
Guard.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the U.S. Coast
Guard does all of this with a force smaller than the New York City
police force.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not only to support this
legislation, but to think about the silent service that does a
magnificent job, and all they ask for from this body is that we know
something about the magnificent job that they and that we vote for this
legislation.
H.R. 820 was developed in a bipartisan manner, and deserves the
support of all the Members.
The primary purpose of H.R. 820, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
1999, is to authorize expenditures for the U.S. Coast Guard for fiscal
years 2000 and 2001.
Section 101 of the bill authorizes approximately $4.6 billion in the
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2000, and $4.8 billion in fiscal year 2001.
The amounts authorized for fiscal year 2000 include funding for Coast
Guard programs at the levels requested by the President, with certain
increases. The funding increases over the levels requested by the
President are primarily for drug interdiction and commercial fishing
and recreational vessel safety.
Specifically, H.R. 820 contains an additional $380 million for drug
interdiction, consistent with the provisions of the Western Hemisphere
Drug Elimination Act which was enacted by Congress last year. H.R. 820
authorizes an

[[Page H1372]]

additional $142 million in operating expenses for fiscal year 2000 and
$148 million in operating expenses for fiscal year 2001. These funds
will allow the Coast Guard to operate 15 additional Coastal Patrol
Boats, a regional law enforcement training center in Puerto Rico,
several maritime patrol aircraft, and six medium endurance cutters. The
bill further allows the Coast Guard to construct 15 coastal patrol
boats for $81 million and to begin construction of six medium endurance
cutters for $100 million in fiscal year 2000. These new assets will
allow the Coast Guard to execute its role under the Western Hemisphere
Drug Elimination Act.
I have supported increases in the Coast Guard's drug interdiction
spending because I am convinced that the level of Coast Guard drug
interdiction has fallen well below what is necessary to fight the War
on Drugs effectively. The $46 million increase in drug interdiction
resources requested by the President for fiscal year 2000 is not
adequate to respond to the alarming level of teenage drug use in this
country.
The bill also contains additional funds for voluntary fishing vessel
safety personnel, and $100 million to accelerate the national distress
and response system modernization project. Also, H.R. 820 authorizes
$128 million in fiscal year 2001 to acquire a replacement icebreaking
vessel for the Great Lakes.
Section 102 of H.R. 820 authorizes an increase of Coast Guard
military personnel to 40,000 by the end of fiscal year 2000, and 44,000
by the end of fiscal year 2001, to allow the Coast Guard to
aggressively fight the War on Drugs in the Caribbean.
Finally, there are a few noncontroversial provisions in the bill,
including a provision to require vessel operators to give notice to the
Coast Guard 24 hours before they enter U.S. territorial waters. I thank
the ranking member Mr. DeFazio from Oregon for that addition:
At the appropriate time, I will offer a managers amendment which adds
several noncontroversial provisions to H.R. 820.
I urge the Members to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentleman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the attention of the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) a matter that concerns the city
of Garden Grove and the United States Coast Guard. An oil spill has
been detected in the Bolsa Chica wetlands, and the city, unfortunately,
has been erroneously identified as the responsible party.
The discharge was caused solely by another party, who discharged
waste oil product from his truck into the city's catch basin. This
party's waste oil passed through the catch basin and into the public
storm drain. The circumstances of this case remain ambiguous.
The city of Garden Grove cannot accept an open-ended obligation to
pay future claims in an unknown and potentially enormous amount. The
city's revenues are limited, as the gentleman knows, and it is
difficult to expand that tax base. No reasonable public policy is
served by having the taxpayers of the city of Garden Grove pay for the
cleanup and the spill of a third party.
The office of the Orange County district attorney is continuing a
criminal investigation into the third party and we hope that we will
have results soon with respect to that.
I urge the gentleman from Minnesota to recommend to the Coast Guard
that it closely monitor the situation and to pursue the true
responsible party for the reimbursement of the costs and damages.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SANCHEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. We are certainly aware of the Garden Grove problem. The
discharge of waste oil product is particularly deleterious to the Bolsa
Chica wetlands, a very sensitive environmental area. I had experience
with this type of thing in my own Congressional District near Duluth,
the Arrowhead Refinery site. It has taken us years to fix up and to fix
responsibility on the third parties for that cleanup.
We are particularly sensitive to the gentlewoman's appeal and to her
concern. We adhere on this side vigorously to the principle of the
responsible party pays: ``You make the mess; you clean it up.''
We will work with the gentlewoman and the Coast Guard to reach a
reasonable conclusion that suits the gentlewoman's constituents, and
will continue to work closely with her and the Coast Guard to monitor
this situation.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
and appreciate his remarks.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 820, the
Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 1999.
What is of special interest and concern to me, and a great pleasure,
is that at long last, for 25 years of my service in the Congress, we
are approaching the date when we can see on the Great Lakes a
replacement for the Coast Guard icebreaker Mackinaw, now older than
most Members of this body.
The Mackinaw was built during the 1940s. It is now 55 years of age.
It has done valiant service keeping the shipping lanes on the Great
Lakes open during the late fall and early spring season to move goods
to market. But the Mackinaw, battered by five and a half decades of
breaking ice, is badly in need of replacement.
This legislation provides a $3 million authorization for design
competition for a replacement vessel. Not just a study, as we have done
in the past and nothing has come of it, but design competition for a
replacement vessel for the icebreaker Mackinaw; and $128 million
authorization for the construction of that replacement vessel.

{time} 1400

For those who are not familiar with the Great Lakes, this is home to
20 percent of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth. It is the
locus of one out of every five industrial jobs in America. The Great
Lakes states generate 45 percent of the Nation's agriculture and
produce over a third of the Nation's exports. And to move those
commodities, to move the 58 million tons of iron ore that moved from
northern Minnesota, northern Michigan to the lower lake steel mills,
the 23 million tons of stone that are used in the Nation's highway
construction project, and 20 million tons of coal each year that move
from upper lake to lower lake to fuel with low sulphur western coal,
the demands of power plants in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio with clean
coal and the energy they need to keep their industry going, we have to
keep those shipping lanes open in the late fall and the early spring to
ensure the lowest cost delivery of these goods.
Water borne transportation is the lowest energy consuming means of
transportation in our country and anywhere in the world and the Great
Lakes waterways are critical to the needs of upper and lower lakes. And
it is not just the ports on the Great Lakes that benefit from this, nor
the industries, but the farmers of western Minnesota, of North and
South Dakota, of Montana, of Iowa, where the grain comes into the Port
of Duluth. Grain farmers from Canada, it comes down from Thunder Bay
into Lake Michigan and onto lower lake port and ultimately exported to
the seven seas of the world.
This Great Lakes waterway system is the great energy source for the
national economy and for agriculture that reaches way west of the
Mississippi and stretches far east of the Mississippi. The Mackinaw
replacement project, a multipurpose vessel, will benefit the entire
national economy. And I am delighted and I really appreciate the work
of our chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest), who has been very understanding of our need on the Great
Lakes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman,
who has been supportive of this initiative, and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has been very helpful on this initiative. And
for all my Great Lakes colleagues who for years have joined together
and supported, at last we can say the end is in sight, replacement for
the Mackinaw is coming.
But this bill goes further. It provides the support for what I
consider to be America's greatest return on investment entity, the U.S.
Coast Guard. We get more for our dollar investment in the Coast Guard
than out of any of the services, perhaps any other entity except maybe
the Corps of Engineers. The return on investment in the Coast Guard is
extraordinary.
Whether in safety in the inland waterways of the coastal regions or
in

[[Page H1373]]

protection against drug runners, the interdiction role that the Coast
Guard plays is extraordinary. The men and women who wear that special
color blue deserve our total support, and this bill provides it.
The $44 million authorization in this bill to continue the design and
development process for the Deepwater project is critical. This is an
initiative to replace all of the Coast Guard's vessels and aircraft
that operate more than 50 miles out from the U.S. coastline along the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts. This Deepwater initiative is really
critical to keep the Coast Guard competitive, to keep it in line with
all the additional responsibilities we in the Congress have saddled
upon the Coast Guard, and to keep the United States vigilant in
maintaining the integrity of our coastline.
I will not go into all the many other initiatives, the fisheries
enforcement, migrant interdiction, drug interdiction along our coast
that the Coast Guard carries out. We really salute the men and women
with the special blue of the U.S. Coast Guard and do so in a very
practical and realistic way in this legislation.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing this legislation
to the House floor.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest) for yielding time.
First of all, I want to support the comments of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) regarding the Mackinaw and a number of the
other issues he raised. The Mackinaw indeed is a worthy ship, but it is
also an old ship and will not be able to operate much longer. And the
Great Lakes depend mightily upon the efforts of that ship, particularly
in the colder months.
I would also point out in relation to the comments from the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the Great Lakes are really misnamed.
They should be called the ``great seas'' because in fact they are seas.
And that is why the Coast Guard plays such an important role in these
bodies of water. It is very important to recognize their magnitude. And
not only are they 20 percent of the world's fresh water supply, they
are 95 percent of the United States' surface fresh water, and that is a
very important factor in our country's future.
I also thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, for working with a number of us in resolving a major
problem on Lake Michigan, an important component again of the Great
Lakes. The administration, in submitting their budget proposal this
year, eliminated helicopter service for the Coast Guard in the middle
section of Lake Michigan.
Now, recognize that Michigan has more boats per capita, in fact more
boats total, than any other State of the Union. Furthermore, recognize
that Michigan has more lake shore mileage than any State of the Union
except Alaska. A tremendous amount of boating activity on Lake
Michigan. And the administration is proposing to remove the Coast Guard
helicopter station at Muskegon, Michigan.
I appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee. That includes both
minority and majority. We have been able to work this out and come up
with a proposal within this that will maintain the Coast Guard station
at Muskegon. That is extremely important. And not only that, but to
look very carefully or perhaps reestablish the helicopter Coast Guard
station in the Chicago area, which was shut down some years ago. Both
are very important in terms of achieving what is one of the key
missions of the Coast Guard, as outlined by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest), and that is ensuring the life and safety of
individuals at sea, whether on the oceans or on the Great Lakes.
Finally, let me register a concern about the general overall
direction of the Coast Guard funding. The Coast Guard, as we just said,
is responsible for the life and safety of individuals at sea. But yet
the funding relative to other activities of the Coast Guard has
steadily diminished, and the reason is very simple. The drug problem of
this Nation and the drug interdiction responsibilities of the Coast
Guard continues to drain resources away from the search and rescue
operations of the United States Coast Guard.
And even though the drug interdiction is a very important part of
their responsibility and very important to this Nation, all of us must
recognize that we cannot continue to give more responsibility to the
Coast Guard in this area, we cannot continue to require more drug
interdiction from them and not give them the money to do that, because
by doing that we are pulling men away from their search-and-rescue
activities.
So if indeed we want to have the Coast Guard pursue their drug
interdiction activities, fine, then good, but let's recognize that we
have to provide the funding and not cut and chip away at the life and
safety operation of the Coast Guard at the same time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would not only support the Coast Guard reauthorization and
associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) as to the importance of the Coast Guard not just on the Great
Lakes but throughout this great Nation, but I want to bring to the
attention an amendment that we are going to have a little bit later
here, the Upton amendment, which I believe the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) is going to accept and be even part of his amendment.
Anyway, I have had the pleasure of working with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), my colleague and friend, on this amendment.
I would like to maybe take a moment here and highlight the importance
and need for the Upton amendment which would help to bring to light the
current problem with the Federal Government's assistance for
transferring lighthouses.
We have probably more lighthouses on the Great Lakes than anywhere
else in this Nation. It helps to tell the story of our maritime
history. They stand as a testament to the thousands of mariners who
lived and died on these Great Lakes and to those who dedicated their
lives to guiding them home safely. The modern technology is replacing
the use of the lighthouses for navigational purposes. But there are
many groups out there dedicated to preserving these monuments for
posterity and history.
Unfortunately, once the Federal Government decides it no longer needs
a lighthouse, there is no guarantee that the historical groups that
have worked for years to maintain these structures will be able to
acquire them, even though the group may have spent thousands of dollars
and hours restoring the lighthouses and maintaining the property. They
are not given that go-ahead to take the transfer from the Coast Guard
as to the physical assets.
While we cannot change the system under this current bill, what the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is trying to do through his
amendment and our support we are now considering, this amendment will
help highlight the problem and, at the very least, ask the Coast Guard
to provide us some advice and technical assistance for the
organizations that want to preserve our maritime heritage.
I hope this will further the dialogue to change the way in which the
Federal Government transfers the lighthouses, and I urge my colleagues
to look carefully at the Upton amendment and to adopt that amendment.
And in final, I hope H.R. 820, the Coast Guard authorization bill, is
transferred and approved by this House and we have a strong vote on it
to show our support for the United States Coast Guard.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with,
basically, the comments on both sides of the aisle.
I want to tell my colleagues, the things about drugs, the things
about illegals, California pays a big price for all of the above. And I
would tell the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the greatest
thing that we do

[[Page H1374]]

not have to deal with in San Diego is the ice cutters. They have to do
that in Michigan. But I support his issue there.
The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I will probably never
vote for each other more than a handful of times, but this happens to
be one of those times that we do. And I do think also that one of the
things the Coast Guard does there is actually a requirement under OPA
90, where we have dual hull tankers. I hope some day we can enforce
that so we do not have things like the Valdez.
And even our offshore oil, I put a requirement that the President
supported that limited our offshore oil drilling off California because
of the pollution not only in our wetland but our beaches. And we see
every day these tankers going up and down from foreign countries that
are leaking oil and coming on our beaches, and I worked with the
gentleman to stop that.
Last year we honored two policemen that died here in defending our
Capitol. But we do not hear much about just 96 miles from here right
off Point Lookout we lost a Coast Guard cutter, a rescue ship, and
people gave their lives in service to that, too. So I think that it is
a little unsung part of security that we have in this country but we
should not forget, especially them, and it is a reason that most of us
on both sides of the aisle support this.
Another area in which they helped, we had a bipartisan vote. There is
a Chinese shipping company that wanted to take over Long Beach. I am
happy to tell my colleagues that the CIA has come out and said that,
yes, there is a national security threat over Long Beach if they would
take complete control. It is the Coast Guard that found that they were
dealing chemical and biological and nuclear triggers.
So I rise in strong support and I thank the Members on both sides of
the aisle for this legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

{time} 1415

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, it has pretty well been said. The U.S. Coast Guard has
made America a better place to live for 208 years. As members of this
country's oldest continuous seagoing service, the men and women of the
Coast Guard continue to do what they have always done, save lives and
protect property at sea; ensure a safe, efficient maritime
transportation system; protect and preserve our precious marine
resources and environment; enforce laws and treaties in the maritime
region; and defend our national security.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has already indicated
that the Coast Guard, numbers-wise, is smaller than the New York City
Police Department. Yet our Coast Guard carries out their vital missions
in this country's ports and waterways, along its 47,000 miles of
coastline, lakes and rivers, on international waters or in any maritime
region as required to support national security.
When I was a member of the Coast Guard, Mr. Chairman, we used to
affectionately refer to the Navy as the Big Outfit. Conversely, they
would refer to us as the Little Outfit, the Shallow Water Navy, the
Knee-Deep Navy, the Hooligans Navy. They did it with tongues in cheek
but they did it affectionately. There was good rapport between the two
seagoing services.
This essential and fiercely proud service continues its 24-hour-a-
day, 7-day-a-week vigilance against a host of transnational dangers,
including pollution, illegal migration, international drug trafficking
and terrorism.
My friend from Minnesota mentioned the Mackinaw. The Mackinaw was
synonymous with Great Lakes icebreaking, I guess, for four or five
decades. He is right, the time has come to replace it. I am happy to
see that that is going to happen.
I talked with a Coast Guardsman not too long ago who was the
recipient of the Coast Guard gold lifesaving medal. I think he had
rescued either four or five people in this particular rescue effort. In
so doing, he suffered a permanent injury, and he is disabled. As I was
talking to him about his heroic rescue, he was very unassuming about
it. ``No big deal,'' he said, ``this is what I'm supposed to do.''
Well, it was a big deal to those whom he pulled out of the drink. I can
assure you it was a big deal to them. Even though he is now disabled,
he said, ``I did what I'm supposed to do. I went to the aid of those
who were in distress.'' That is what the Coast Guard men and women have
been doing for years, 208, to be exact.
I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to say to my friend from Pennsylvania
that the full committee and the subcommittee has done yeoman work in
getting this bill to the floor. It is a good bill.
Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard's motto rings just as true today as it
did in 1970, semper paratus, always ready.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 820.
In representing the Port of Houston in my district, the U.S. Coast
Guard has the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety and
security of the vessels not only in my district but in the ports and
waterways around the country.
Also, in recent years the Coast Guard has been charged with the task
of engaging in drug interdiction activities. In fact, just in late
January, the Coast Guard intercepted and seized a Panamanian vessel 125
miles off the coast of Jamaica. The vessel was then escorted back to
the Port of Houston and upon searching the vessel nearly five tons of
cocaine with an estimated street value of $375 million was discovered.
This was one of the largest drug seizures in both Texas and our
Nation's history.
In this year's Coast Guard authorization, there is a 10 percent
increase in the funds for discretionary activities. I am glad to see
that. Hopefully this bill will pass very easily. That will mean
approximately $400 million is earmarked for drug interdiction
activities. That increase in funds will fully implement the Western
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, enable the Coast Guard to operate an
additional fifteen patrol boats, eight cutters and seven marine vessels
to stop drugs before they enter our country.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and also in support of
the Coast Guard's effort not only for the safety of our harbors and
waterways but also for the drug interdiction activities.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 820--
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999. This much-needed bill
authorizes $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2000 and $3.2 billion in fiscal
year 2001 for Coast Guard operating expenses to carry out numerous
missions.
Included in this authorization is funding for the Coast Guard to
Participate in search and rescue missions. The Coast Guard spends about
11.6 percent of its operating expenses on search and rescue missions.
This is a critical function of the Coast Guard and one that saves the
lives and property of many who find themselves in peril on the open
seas--particularly the perilous seas off the coast of South Florida.
Recently, the Coast Guard launched a search and rescue mission off of
the coast of South Florida in search of Haitian immigrants whose vessel
capsized as they were trying to reach the United States. Unfortunately,
although three Haitian immigrants were rescued from the Atlantic Ocean
between the Bahamas and Florida, perhaps as many as 40 more Haitian
immigrants were lost, despite the Coast Guard's best efforts.
Over the years, the Coast Guard has rescued hundreds of Haitians,
Cubans, and others seeking freedom and a better life in the United
States. Unfortunately, many die trying to secure their dream of
freedom. The Coast Guard serves critical role in helping to save human
lives in the straits of Florida. The diverse ethnic communities in
Miami are most grateful for the Coast Guard's search and rescue
efforts.
Search and Rescue is one of the Coast Guard's oldest missions. For
over 200 years, the Coast Guard has responded to distress calls at sea.
Minimizing the loss of life, injury, property damage, or loss by
rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime
environment has always been a Coast Guard priority. Coast Guard search
and rescue response involves multimission stations, cutters, aircraft
and boats linked by communications networks.
The Coast Guard is the Maritime search and rescue coordinator and is
recognized worldwide as a leader in the field of search and rescue.
Each hour a U.S. Coast Guard

[[Page H1375]]

aircraft is aloft costs about $3,700--and several maybe used in a
single search. It is critical that the Coast Guard has the resources it
needs to maintain its search and rescue efforts. I urge my colleagues
to support this bill.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 820, the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999. As a member of the Congressional
Coast Guard Caucus, I am proud of the U.S. Coast Guard and all the hard
work that each and every member selflessly gives each day to our
nation. The United States Coast Guard is this nation's oldest and its
premier maritime agency. The history of the Service is historic and
multifaceted. It is the amalgamation of five Federal agencies--the
Revenue Cutter Service, the Lighthouse Service, the Steamboat
Inspection Service, the Bureau of Navigation, and the Lifesaving
Service, which were originally independent agencies with overlapping
authorities. They sometimes received new names, and they were all
finally united under the umbrella of the Coast Guard. The multiple
missions and responsibilities of the modern Service are directly tied
to this diverse heritage and the magnificent achievements of all of
these agencies.
The Coast Guard, through its previous agencies, is the oldest
continuous seagoing service and has fought in almost every war since
the Constitution became the law of the land in 1789. The Coast Guard
has traditionally performed two roles in wartime. The first has been to
augment the Navy with men and cutters. The second has been to undertake
special missions, for which peacetime experiences have prepared the
Service with unique skills. Today the Coast Guard is engaged on many
open sea patrols in the war on drugs throughout the vast oceans and
seas of the world.
The Coast Guard has helped to protect the environment for 150 years.
In 1822 the Congress created a timber reserve for the Navy and
authorized the President to use whatever forces necessary to prevent
the cutting of live-oak on public lands. The shallow-draft cutters were
well-suited to this service and were used extensively. Today, the
current framework for the Coast Guard's Marine Environmental Protection
program is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.
In 1973, the Coast Guard created a National Strike Force to combat
oil spills. There are three teams, a Pacific unit based near San
Francisco, a Gulf team at Mobile, AL, and an Atlantic Strike Team
stationed in Elizabeth City, NC. Since the creation of the force, the
teams have been deployed worldwide to hundreds of potential and actual
spill sites, bringing with them a vast array of sophisticated
equipment.
The 200-mile zone created by the Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1976 quadrupled the offshore fishing area controlled by the
United States. The Coast Guard has the responsibility of enforcing this
law.
The Coast Guard additionally has the major responsibility for
conducting and coordinating Search and Rescue operations and licensing
and regulating safety and commercial boating rules. This enormous task
is performed day in and day out by the dedicated men and women of the
Coast Guard.
As you may be able to tell, the Coast Guard performs a complex but
necessary array of missions that effect the very life blood of this
nation in the areas of national defense, commerce, the environment, and
lifesaving.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to particularly highlight one essential
mission that the Coast Guard is performing right now in America's
westernmost frontier, my home district on the island of Guam. During
the past year, Guam has experienced a significant influx of Chinese
illegal immigrants. Chinese crime syndicates organize boatloads of
indigent Chinese citizens to illegally enter the United States for an
exorbitant fee of $8,000-$10,000 per person. After undergoing an
arduous journey under fetid, unsanitary conditions, the Chinese reach
Guam dehydrated, hungry, disease-ridden and sometimes beaten. Upon
arrival, the smuggled Chinese become indentured servants as they
attempt to pay their passage to America.
Guam's geographic proximity and asylum acceptance regulations make it
a prime target for Chinese crime syndicates. According to the INS about
700 illegal Chinese immigrants traveled to Guam last year. Since the
beginning of this year alone, 157 have been apprehended by the Coast
Guard, INS and local Guam officials. Since the INS does not have enough
money to detain the Chinese illegal immigrants on Guam, they proposed
to release them to the general populace without assistance.
Fortunately, the Government of Guam has offered its already strained
resources to detain the illegal aliens until they are ready to be
adjudicated.
Mr. Chairman, Chinese crime syndicates have exploited Immigration and
Nationality (INA) asylum regulations. Because Guam, through INA
directives, has to accept asylum applications, Guam becomes a cheap and
attractive location for shipment of smuggled Chinese.
The Marianas section of the Coast Guard, stationed out in Guam has
been tasked to interdict, when possible, these wretched Chinese vessels
that are transporting these illegals. The local command, which is
currently undermanned and over extended, is doing the impossible under
such circumstances.
In the Armed Services Committee, where I am proud to serve, we have
as of late been discussing the high level of OPSTEMPO and PERSTEMPO to
describe the state of overextension of manpower and the drain on
resources within our military. In the case of these dedicated men and
women of the Coast Guard on Guam, they are no exception to these
discussions.
I recently had the pleasure of meeting with the Commandant of the
Coast Guard, Admiral James M. Loy and I expressed to him the sentiments
of the people of Guam as well as praised him for his leadership and
dedication to this service. Along with my fellow Coast Guard Caucus
Members, I promised to continue to support the fine work of our Coast
Guard. I would additionally ask that Congress and Commandant Loy
seriously look to find some additional resources for our beleaguered
Coast Guard on Guam in order to more effectively contend with the
growing onslaught of illegal Chinese immigrants and relieve the high
level of OPSTEMPO faced by these Coastguardsmen and women. We are all
very proud of the work that Captain Scott Glover, the CO of the
Marianas Section, is performing on Guam as well as that of the entire
Marianas Section of the U.S. Coast Guard for their compassion when
dealing with these desperate Chinese and for their generosity in the
performance of their duty. Si Yu'os Ma'ase.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. I appreciate the work that the Chairmen of the full
Committee and the Subcommittee and their staff have done in addressing
safety needs in southern Lake Michigan. For many years, I have been
working with the U.S. Coast Guard in addressing the concerns of my
constituents and other residents through the reestablishment and
operation of a seasonal air rescue facility in the southern lake area.
As many of you may be aware, the boat traffic, both commercial and
recreational, in this area is the most congested in all of the lake. An
air rescue facility in this area would greatly increase confidence of
boaters and recreational users and the chance for survival in the
extremely cold and dangerous waters of Lake Michigan.
I am anticipating the completion of a report by the Coast Guard in
the very near future to determine the best location for an additional
facility in this area. In discussions with the Coast Guard, it appears
that the regional airport in Waukegan, Illinois may be the ideal
location as it is located very near the lake's shoreline thereby
enabling a short response time and has additional hangars that could be
leased to significantly reduce the cost of this rescue facility. In
addition, the Waukegan Regional Airport offers a control tower,
instrument landing system and twenty-four hour operation. However, I am
very concerned with the cost estimate that the Coast Guard provided for
this additional facility. The justification for this estimate includes
some expenses that I believe can be reduced once we identify the
location of the site, and I look forward to working with the Coast
Guard on this.
This legislation is an important step in providing safety and
confidence to the boaters in southern Lake Michigan, and I look forward
to its implementation and the establishment of this rescue facility.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the
Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. The Act provides the United States
Coast Guard with authorization for the funding they need to accomplish
the important missions that the Congress and the Nation have asked them
to accomplish.
As a member with more than 120 miles of Lake Michigan coastline in my
district, I fully understand the Coast Guard's mission and appreciate
the fine level of search-and-rescue services that the Coast Guard
provides to the boating and beach-going public in West Michigan.
I rise especially today to discuss the way that this authorization
bill impacts the operation of the Coast Guard Muskegon Air Facility.
The Coast Guard has operated this air facility on a seasonal basis from
April 1 to October 1 each summer since 1997. Prior to 1997, the Coast
Guard had operated an air facility or air station to cover southern
Lake Michigan out of the Chicago area since 1959.
The bill before us today addresses the concerns of the Michigan and
Illinois delegations regarding Coast Guard search and rescue air
coverage on Lake Michigan. The bill provides that the Coast Guard shall
continue to operate the Muskegon Air Facility and shall establish a
Chicago area facility for operation through the end of FY 2001. In
addition, the bill provides for a study of total search-and-rescue
response on Lake Michigan and the establishment of a plan for the
coordination of search-and-rescue response in the Chicago area.

[[Page H1376]]

I hope that the Coast Guard will aggressively move to take the
actions necessary to operate both the Muskegon and Chicago air
facilities in FY 2000. I also hope that the Coast Guard will, in the
interim, provide a high level of search-and-rescue air coverage for
southern Lake Michigan by operating the Muskegon Air Facility on a
seven-day, 24-hour-per-day basis during the summer of 1999.
Finally, I want to thank Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Chairman Shuster and the other subcommittee chairmen for their
assistance in resolving the Lake Michigan Air Facility issue. I would
also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, for his
assistance on this issue and for helping to maintain the high level of
boating safety enjoyed by those boating on Lake Michigan.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to
express my appreciation on the members of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and its Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee, for the good work they have done in
putting together this year's Coast Guard Reauthorization measure (H.R.
820).
As reported, this bill not only makes it easier to conduct the all-
important war against drugs, which is so important to this nation's
future, but it will also promote public safety in a way that is very
important to a great many people in the Upper Midwest. In particular, I
am referring to all those folks who fly over, or take to, the waters of
southwestern Lake Michigan and the lakes and rivers north and/or west
of Chicago.
Mr. Chairman, over 6 million people reside in the counties of
northwestern Indiana, northeastern Illinois, and southeastern Wisconsin
that border on Lake Michigan. Not only do many of them own a boat or
enjoy going out on someone else's, but countless residents of, or
visitors to, the region take advantage of the dinner voyages and
sightseeing cruises that depart from Chicago's justly famous lakefront.
On top of that, literally, hundreds of thousands of people fly in and
out of O'Hare Airport and a number of other airports that dot the
landscape from Gary, IN, to Milwaukee, WI. In short, there are people
on or over southwestern Lake Michigan and nearby waters all the time--
people who would be at risk in the event of a boating accident or an
airplane crash.
Thankfully, over 40 years have passed since a major commercial
airliner crashed into Lake Michigan. However, that is no guarantee
against such an accident occurring in the future. Moreover, smaller
planes have fallen into, or collided over, the Lake since then and
there have been a number of instances where boats have capsized and/or
sunk, not just in Lake Michigan, but in the Chain o' Lakes region north
of Chicago. In fact, 26 people were killed in those sorts of accidents
from October 1, 1995 to October 1, 1996, a figure which helps explain
why so many citizens in the Chicago area were so concerned when the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) helicopter rescue unit stationed at the old
Glenview Naval Air Station was transferred across the Lake to Muskegon,
Michigan several years back.
Not to belabor the point, but those citizens had good reason to be
concerned. Not only was that USCG helicopter better equipped and its
crew better prepared to deal with accidents well offshore than local
rescue boats and helicopters, but the unit was 15 to 30 precious
minutes further removed from the northeastern Illinois shoreline than
had been the case previously. Also, the fact that the unit could spend
more time in the air searching for accident victims if it were closer
to the Chicagoland area argued strongly for either moving it in that
direction or bringing in a new USCG helicopter rescue unit to serve the
region.
Having joined a number of my colleagues from both Illinois and
Indiana in making that pro-safety argument, I am both pleased and
relieved to see that the authors of this legislation have recognized
its merits and have endorsed the latter course of action. According to
the provisions of Section 204 of H.R. 820, a new USCG helicopter search
and rescue (SAR) unit is to be situated on the southwest shore of Lake
Michigan, where it is to remain until at least September 30, 2001. In
the interim, a thorough study will be conducted to determine what SAR
equipment will be needed in the region after the year 2001 and a
comprehensive plan will be developed for the provision of the SAR
services that are deemed necessary. As for the existing unit, it will
continue to be based in Muskegon until at least September 30, 2001,
thereby assuring the boating and aviation populations on both sides of
Lake Michigan that timely USCG air SAR services will be more readily
available than they have been heretofore.
Mr. Chairman, while this approach is not quite as definitive as I
would have preferred, it has two major advantages that should commend
themselves to my colleagues. First, by authorizing additional air SAR
resources for the heavily populated (by boats as well as people)
Chicago area, it addresses a very significant public safety concern.
Second, by leaving the existing unit in Muskegon, MI, it means that
people in that area will not face a reduction in their USCG SAR
coverage similar to the one faced by Chicagoland residents several
years ago. To my way of thinking, each of these advantages would be
sufficient to justify enactment of Section 204 of H.R. 820. Together,
they and the drug interdiction features of H.R. 820 make a compelling
case for the entire measure.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 820.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 820

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 201. Vessel NOT A SHOT.
Sec. 202. Costs of clean-up of Cape May lighthouse.
Sec. 203. Clarification of Coast Guard authority to control vessels in
territorial waters of the United States.
Sec. 204. Coast Guard search and rescue for Lake Michigan.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Funds are authorized to be appropriated for necessary
expenses of the Coast Guard, as follows:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, $3,084,400,000, of which--
(i) $25,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990;
(ii) not less than $663,000,000 shall be available for
expenses related to drug interdiction; and
(iii) $5,500,000 shall be available for the commercial
fishing vessel safety program; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, $3,207,800,000, of which--
(i) $25,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990;
(ii) not less than $689,500,000 shall be available for
expenses related to drug interdiction; and
(iii) $5,500,000 shall be available for the commercial
fishing vessel safety program.
(2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, $691,300,000, of which--
(i) $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990;
(ii) not less than $280,300,000 shall be available for
expenses related to drug interdiction;
(iii) $100,000,000 shall be available for modernization of
the national distress response system; and
(iv) $3,000,000 shall be available for completion of the
design of a replacement vessel for the Coast Guard icebreaker
MACKINAW; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, $792,000,000, of which--
(i) $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990;
(ii) not less than $233,000,000 shall be available for
expenses related to drug interdiction;
(iii) $110,000,000 shall be available for modernization of
the national distress response system; and
(iv) $128,000,000 shall be available for construction or
acquisition of a replacement vessel for the Coast Guard
icebreaker MACKINAW.
(3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of
technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating
to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in
support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine
safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws
and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and
defense readiness--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, $21,700,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, $23,000,000,

to remain available until expended, of which $3,500,000 shall
be derived each fiscal year from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund to carry out

[[Page H1377]]

the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990.
(4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for
medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, $730,000,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, $785,000,000.
(5) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States constituting obstructions to
navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs
associated with the Bridge Alteration Program--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, $11,000,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, $11,000,000,

to remain available until expended.
(6) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast
Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated
with operations and maintenance)--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, $19,500,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, $21,000,000,
to remain available until expended.

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND
TRAINING.

(a) Active Duty Strength.--The Coast Guard is authorized an
end-of-year strength for active duty personnel of--
(1) 40,000 as of September 30, 2000; and
(2) 44,000 as of September 30, 2001.
(b) Military Training Student Loads.--The Coast Guard is
authorized average military training student loads as
follows:
(1) For recruit and special training--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, 1,500 student years; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, 1,500 student years.
(2) For flight training--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, 100 student years; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, 100 student years.
(3) For professional training in military and civilian
institutions--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, 300 student years; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, 300 student years.
(4) For officer acquisition--
(A) for fiscal year 2000, 1,000 student years; and
(B) for fiscal year 2001, 1,000 student years.
TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 201. VESSEL NOT A SHOT.

Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920
(46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886
(46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United
States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel NOT A SHOT
(United States official number 911064).

SEC. 202. COSTS OF CLEAN-UP OF CAPE MAY LIGHTHOUSE.

Of amounts authorized by this Act for fiscal year 2000 for
environmental compliance and restoration of Coast Guard
facilities, $99,000 shall be available to reimburse the owner
of the former Coast Guard lighthouse facility at Cape May,
New Jersey, for costs incurred for clean-up of lead
contaminated soil at that facility.

SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION OF COAST GUARD AUTHORITY TO CONTROL
VESSELS IN TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES.

The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 15. ENTRY OF VESSELS INTO TERRITORIAL SEA; DIRECTION
OF VESSELS BY COAST GUARD.

``(a) Notification of Coast Guard.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, a commercial vessel entering the
territorial sea of the United States shall notify the
Secretary not later than 24 hours before that entry and
provide the following information:
``(1) The name of the vessel.
``(2) The port or place of destination in the United
States.
``(3) The time of entry into the territorial sea.
``(4) Any information requested by the Secretary to
demonstrate compliance with applicable international
agreements to which the United States is a party.
``(5) If the vessel is carrying dangerous cargo, a
description of that cargo.
``(6) A description of any hazardous conditions on the
vessel.
``(7) Any other information requested by the Secretary.
``(b) Denial of Entry.--The Secretary may deny entry of a
vessel into the territorial sea of the United States if--
``(1) the Secretary has not received notification for the
vessel in accordance with subsection (a); or
``(2) the vessel is not in compliance with any other
applicable law relating to marine safety, security, or
environmental protection.
``(c) Direction of Vessel.--The Secretary may direct the
operation of any vessel in the navigable waters of the United
States as necessary during hazardous circumstances, including
the absence of a pilot required by State or Federal law,
weather, casualty, vessel traffic, or the poor condition of
the vessel.''.

SEC. 204. COAST GUARD SEARCH AND RESCUE FOR LAKE MICHIGAN.

(a) In General.--
(1) Requirements.--Notwithstanding any other law, the
Secretary of Transportation--
(A) shall continue to operate and maintain the seasonal
Coast Guard air search and rescue facility located in
Muskegon, Michigan, until at least September 30, 2001; and
(B) shall establish a new seasonal Coast Guard air search
and rescue facility for Southern Lake Michigan to serve the
Chicago metropolitan area and the surrounding environment,
and operate that facility until at least September 30, 2001.

In establishing the facility under subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall study Illinois sites in the Chicago
metropolitan area, including Waukegan, Illinois.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to the
other amounts authorized by this Act, there are authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation--
(A) for operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard air
search and rescue facility in Muskegon, Michigan--
(i) $3,252,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
(ii) $3,252,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(B) for acquisition, construction, and improvement of
facilities and equipment for the Coast Guard air search and
rescue facility for Southern Lake Michigan established under
paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) $8,100,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
(ii) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
(C) for operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard air
search and rescue facility for Southern Lake Michigan
established under paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) $5,505,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
(ii) $4,060,000 for fiscal year 2001.
(3) Limitation on closing or downsizing other facilities.--
The Secretary of Transportation may not close or downsize any
Coast Guard facility for the purpose of accommodating the
capability required pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2).
(b) Study of Search and Rescue Capabilities for Lake
Michigan.--Not later that 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
study, determine, and report to the Congress the overall
aircraft and vessel search and rescue capability for Lake
Michigan, including--
(1) the capability of all Federal, State, and local
government and nongovernment entities that perform search and
rescue functions for Lake Michigan; and
(2) the adequacy of that overall capability.
(c) Plan for Search and Rescue Response for Chicago,
Illinois.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
prepare, submit to the Congress, and begin implementing a
comprehensive plan for aircraft and vessel search and rescue
response for Lake Michigan in the vicinity of Chicago,
Illinois.
(d) Use of Helicopters for Drug Interdiction.--During the
portion of each year when the seasonal facilities required
under subsection (a)(1) are not in operation, the Secretary
of Transportation shall use helicopters assigned to those
facilities for drug interdiction.

The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Are there any amendments to the bill?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
At the end of the bill add the following:

SEC. . VESSEL COASTAL VENTURE.

Section 1120(g) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-324; 110 Stat. 3978) is amended by
inserting ``COASTAL VENTURE (United States official number
971086),'' after ``vessels''.

SEC. . VESSEL PRIDE OF MANY.

SEC. . PROHIBITION OF NEW MARITIME USER FEES.

Section 2110(k) of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by striking the last sentence.

SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING OIL SPILL RESPONSE
ACTIONS.

It is the sense of the Congress that to ensure that
liability concerns regarding response actions to remove a
discharge of oil or a hazardous substance, or to mitigate or
prevent the threat of such a discharge, do not deter an
expeditious or effective response, the President should
promulgate guidelines as soon as possible under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 and other applicable Federal laws
clarifying that a person who is not a responsible party (as
that term is used in that Act) and who takes any response
action consistent with the National Contingency Plan
(including the applicable fish and wildlife response plan) or
as otherwise directed by the President to prevent or mitigate
the environmental effects of such a discharge or a threat of
such a discharge should not be held liable for the violation
of fish

[[Page H1378]]

and wildlife laws unless the person is grossly negligent or
engages in a willful misconduct.

Mr. GILCHREST (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined this amendment, and we
are prepared to accept it on our side.
Mr. DeFAZIO. We would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.
We have no problem.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for agreeing to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Pickett

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pickett:
At the end of the bill add the following:

SEC. . VESSEL NORFOLK.

Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920
(46 App. U.S.C. 883) and section 12106 of title 46, United
States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a
certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement for
the vessel NORFOLK (United States official number 1077852)
before January 1, 2001, if--
(1) before that date the vessel undergoes a major
conversion (as defined in section 2101 of title 46, United
States Code) in a shipyard located in the United States; and
(2) the cost of the major conversion is more than three
times the amount the owner of the vessel paid to purchase the
vessel.

Mr. PICKETT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined this amendment and we are
prepared to accept it on our side.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Likewise on our side, Mr. Chairman. We have no
reservations.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide Jones Act
status to a vessel that is U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-flagged,
but which is not eligible for the coastwise trade of the United States
because at one time it was flagged foreign.
Simply stated, my amendment would provide a Jones Act waiver for the
tug ``Norfolk'' before January 1, 2001 only if before that date the
vessel undergoes a major conversion in a shipyard located in the United
States and the cost of this major conversion is more than three times
the amount the owner of the vessel paid to purchase the vessel. I
emphasize again that the vessel is U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-
flagged.
I offer the amendment on behalf of Bay Gulf Trading Company, a
locally owned Virginia corporation with its headquarters and principal
place of business in Norfolk, Virginia. Jerry McDonald, a former U.S.
Navy captain, is the chairman of the company. Bay Gulf is wholly owned
by U.S. citizens. It is a small business that owns and operates 8 tugs
and 10 tanker barges, and employs about 75 persons.
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 provides that a U.S. vessel once sold
foreign or placed under foreign registry cannot engage in U.S.
coastwise trade. Only by special legislation can such a vessel built in
the United States, flagged foreign, and reflagged in the United States
be documented by the coast guard with a coastwise trade endorsement.
The Norfolk--built in 1975 at Mangone Shipyard, Houston, Texas--
subsequently it was Norwegian flagged and American Bureau of Shipping
classed until 1994. During the early 1990's it was sold and reflagged
in Italy. In late 1995, the vessel experienced an extensive fire off
the coast of Italy. Much of the interior spaces above the main deck
were gutted. It was sold ``as is'' to a company in Ontario, and was
towed from Italy to Canada. Repairs were never completed.
Bay Gulf acquired the vessel in December 1998. The tug was the only
American built large tug available anywhere in North America. Bay Gulf
proposes to use the tug for anchor handling, coastal/ocean towing, and
salvage duties. The necessary repair work--estimated cost of $3
million--will be done in the Norfolk area by Norfolk shipyards and
contractors. The work is estimated to cost $3 million, which is more
than three times the amount the owner of the vessel paid for the
purchase of the tug.
Mr. Chairman, existing U.S. law--the Wrecked Vessels Act of 1994--
permits the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of
documentation with a coastwise endorsement for any foreign-built vessel
wrecked on the coasts of the United States when purchased by a citizen
of the United States and thereupon repaired in a shipyard in the United
States if the repairs are equal to three times the appraised salved
value of the vessel. My amendment applies this standard in the case of
the Norfolk, which is a U.S.-built vessel. So, I would argue that this
amendment is eminently fair.
There is clearly no surplus of large anchor handling vessels in the
U.S. coastwise trade. Based upon the best information that I can
obtain, only one U.S. flagged, coastwise certified 8000 horsepower tug
is available on the market, and it is not an anchor handling tug.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. . DRUG INTERDICTION.

(a) Vessel Shore Facilities.--In addition to amounts
otherwise authorized by this Act, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation $20,000,000
for fiscal year 2000 for the acquisition, construction,
rebuilding, and improvement of shore facilities for Coast
Guard vessels used for drug interdiction operations.
(b) Acquisition of Coastal Patrol Craft.--If the
Department of Defense does not offer, by not later than
September 30, 1999, seven PC-170 coastal patrol craft for the
use of the Coast Guard pursuant to section 812(c) of the
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act (title VIII of
division C of Public Law 105-277), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation, in addition
to amounts otherwise authorized by this Act, up to
$210,000,000 for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the
acquisition of up to six PC-170 coastal patrol craft, or the
most recent upgrade of the PC-170 coastal patrol craft, for
use by the Coast Guard.
Mr. LoBIONDO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It
allows the Coast Guard to purchase six PC-170 coastal patrol boats,
adding funding to the Coast Guard budget already approved by the full
committee.
Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard's ability to effect drug interdiction
is tied to this amendment. The Coast Guard with this amendment will
bring six fast, highly maneuverable vessels to the front lines of the
drug war in roughly 1 year's time. With the intensity that we hear of
drugs coming into this country, Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity
for my colleagues to be able to do something about it. We all want to
talk, every Member of Congress, about how tough we are on drugs. We all
talk about how the Coast Guard is the front line of drug interdiction.
We all talk about how important it is to give them the resources. Mr.
Chairman, this is an opportunity to give the Coast Guard the resources
they need.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio) and I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell) and all the members of the committee for their help with this
particular amendment. I urge full support of the amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished vice
chairman of the subcommittee, we have examined this and we strongly
support this amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we support
the amendment. We do not want to see the

[[Page H1379]]

Coast Guard trying to perform this difficult and dangerous mission with
equipment that is not suitable. This is the right equipment for this
mission. We are supportive of the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, for far too long we have fought the war
on drugs as if it were a short-term conflict. It is not. It is a long-
haul conflict. We must make a 20-year commitment to drug interdiction
operations. This amendment will help us do that. We support the
amendment on this side.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) for his support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 113, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. LoBiondo) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Upton

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Upton: at the end of the bill add
the following:

SEC. . GREAT LAKES LIGHTHOUSES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Great Lakes are home to more than 400 lighthouses.
120 of these maritime landmarks are in the State of Michigan,
more than in any other State.
(2) Lighthouses are an important part of Great Lakes
culture and stand as a testament to the importance of
shipping in the region's political, economic, and social
history.
(3) Advances in navigation technology have made many Great
Lakes lighthouses obsolete. In Michigan alone, approximately
70 lighthouses will be designated as surplus property of the
Federal Government and will be transferred to the General
Services Administration for disposal.
(4) Unfortunately, the Federal property disposal process is
confusing, complicated, and not well-suited to disposal of
historic lighthouses or to facilitate transfers to nonprofit
organizations. This is especially troubling because, in many
cases, local nonprofit historical organizations have
dedicated tremendous resources to preserving and maintaining
Great Lakes lighthouses.
(5) If Great Lakes lighthouses disappear, the public will
be unaware of an important chapter in Great Lakes history.
(6) The National Trust for Historic Preservation has placed
Michigan lighthouses on their list of Most Endangered
Historic Places.
(b) Assistance for Great Lakes Lighthouse Preservation
Efforts.--The Secretary of Transportation, acting through the
Coast Guard, shall--
(1) continue to offer advice and technical assistance to
organizations in the Great Lakes region that are dedicated to
lighthouse stewardship; and
(2) promptly release information regarding the timing of
designations of Coast Guard lighthouses on the Great Lakes as
surplus property, to enable those organizations to mobilize
and be prepared to take appropriate action with respect to
the disposal of those properties by the Federal Government.

Mr. UPTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to thank my kind colleagues the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the full
committee; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) who has been
very understanding as we have worked through this language; the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), always a friend of the Coast
Guard; and also my Great Lakes colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Stupak) in particular; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia)
and others that I conferred with before I offered this amendment this
afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in offering this amendment to protect Great
Lakes lighthouses. As I am sure the chairman is aware, lighthouses are
a very important part of Great Lakes culture and they stand as a
testament to the importance of shipping in the region's political,
economic and social history.
In Michigan alone, the U.S. Coast Guard plans to designate
approximately 70 of these structures as surplus Federal property and
turn them over to the GSA for disposal. Unfortunately, the standard
Federal property disposal process is very confusing, complicated, and
it does not facilitate transfers to nonprofits. This is especially
troubling because in many cases, a local, not-for-profit historical
organization has dedicated tremendous resources to preserving and
maintaining those lighthouses.
In the city of South Haven, Michigan, this very situation occurred
only last year. For years, the Coast Guard leased an historical
lighthouse keeper's dwelling to the Michigan Maritime Museum that was
going to be used as a curatorial center for maritime artifacts. The
property was taken away from the museum, turned over to the GSA for
disposal and after many months the GSA offered to sell the property
back to the museum for $300,000. My colleagues have to be aware that
they will be seeing this type of situation again and again as the Coast
Guard hands these properties to the GSA for disposal.
Fortunately, a group of Michigan historical preservation leaders have
formed a group known now today as the Michigan Lighthouse Project which
is dedicated to lighthouse preservation and maintenance. I am glad to
report that the Coast Guard has been working hand in hand with the
Michigan Lighthouse Project and I applaud their current cooperation and
encouragement for their continued involvement.
This amendment states that the Coast Guard shall continue to offer
advice and technical assistance to organizations in the Great Lakes
region which are dedicated to lighthouse stewardship. Specifically the
Coast Guard is urged to promptly release information related to the
timing of when a property is going to be excessed by the GSA. That is
needed so that organizations can mobilize and be prepared to take
action.
Mr. Chairman, I wish that this amendment might be able to go further,
but I know that we are going to have some discussions when this bill
goes to conference. It is my hope that this body will accept this
amendment so that not only the Coast Guard but GSA and other Federal
agencies will create a fairer and equitable Federal disposal process
that in fact recognizes the historic nature of lighthouses and their
wonderful contribution to Great Lakes history.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined this and we are pleased
to accept this amendment on our side.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment. Lighthouses are a matter of particular interest and
importance to this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The
very first public works authorized by the very first Congress was done
by the predecessor of our today Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure when that Rivers and Harbors Committee authorized the
Fort Henry Lighthouse in 1790. Lighthouses have been a critical part of
our navigation system in America not only for waterborne navigation but
also from the mid 1920s to the mid 1930s, the Lighthouse Service
provided the first navigational guide, aids to aviation navigation on
land for airborne transportation.

{time} 1430

It was the first nighttime guidance system provided by the lighthouse
service to aviation.
For those and for so many other reasons lighthouses have such a
fascination for the American public, a point of nostalgia. They are
national treasures. They are linked to our maritime heritage. They are
landmarks for travel and tourism, and where abandoned and replaced by
our modern aids to navigation, lighthouses serve a multitude of
purposes including benefits to local economy.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The time of the gentleman

[[Page H1380]]

from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Oberstar, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Upton was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, in my own congressional district the City
of Two Harbors lighthouse along the north shore of Lake Superior in the
Coast Guard Authorization Act last year was conveyed to the local Two
Harbors and Lake County Historical Society which will be responsible
for the upkeep of the facility while the Coast Guard maintains the
light itself, and soon we are going to have a major bicycling event
along the north shore from Duluth to another historic landmark, the
Split Rock Lighthouse when we, hopefully this summer, convene the Split
Rock century, arrived from Duluth to Split Rock and back.
Lighthouses serve many, many purposes. The gentleman's amendment will
give the Coast Guard the authority it needs to further the conveyance
of lighthouses to non-profit organizations that will have the
resources, and the will and the desire to preserve these national
treasures, and I compliment the gentleman from Michigan on this
amendment.
Mr. UPTON. Just to finish up my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman's support. I know that it has been there from the very onset,
and we worked in a very strong bipartisan basis to make sure this was
done, and as I live along the Great Lakes in St. Joseph, Michigan, and
I think about all the harbors all the way up to Mackinaw and Lake
Superior, these are needed, they are very precious, and this amendment,
I think, will really help to preserve those in the future.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Upton) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Upton was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. UPTON. But as I think about all these lighthouses in so many
different ports throughout the Great Lakes, Mr. Chairman, they are
something that needs to be preserved, and we think about, too, the
safety of all those boaters. Whether one sails across Lake Michigan at
night, or Lake Superior, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, they are important, and
they stand as a beacon for every community in terms of historical
significance, and I appreciate the gentleman's support and also that of
my Michigan colleagues that were instrumental in getting this amendment
adopted.
Mr. Chairman, again I appreciate the help of the full committee here
in helping me prepare the amendment and the time this afternoon.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6(f) of rule XVIII, the
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. LoBiondo), if ordered, will be a 5-minute vote.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SHUSTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding we are rolling
votes, and I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) wants
to move to strike the last word. Are we not rolling votes now?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair was not aware of additional
debate. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania may strike
the last word.
Mr. SHUSTER. Except the gentleman wants to move to strike the last
word I believe.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is recognized for 5 minutes prior to
conducting the recorded vote.
There was no objection.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I want to stand in support of this legislation particularly because
the managers saw fit to include a provision of mine which exempts the
vessel, The Pride Of Many, from Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act
of 1920. It is popularly referred to as the Jones Act. As my colleagues
know, the Jones Act prevents all foreign-built vessels from
participating in domestic, coastal and intercostal trade.
In 1975 the Youth Services Agency of Pennsylvania was established.
This is a not-for-profit agency, and it runs four alternative
community-based high schools for at-risk youth. The students who are
referred to the agency either by their home high school after having
established a pattern of negative behavior or by court order. The
mission of the agency is to expose at-risk youth to a variety of
activities and opportunities in an effort to help these students
overcome social and/or personal hindrances so that they can achieve
their full emotional, physical, intellectual and spiritual potential.
In an effort to provide the 500 students in this program with a sense
of accomplishment, self worth and the need for self-discipline, they
are being taught how to man a Canadian-manufactured tall ship similar
to the famous Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria which they christened The
Pride Of Many.
Additionally, the vessel will assist in the youths' involvement in
port-to-port community service activities. Not only will the nearby
communities benefit from their efforts, but it will also contribute to
the youths' realization of the importance of community.
In order to assure that the goals of the Youth Services Agency of
Pennsylvania are realized, The Pride Of Many needs to be allowed to
participate in commercial activities that will offset the expense of
the vessel.
Mr. Chairman, the Youth Service Agency of Pennsylvania has already
provided many tangible benefits for the local community and its
students, and I know that The Pride Of Many will help continue their
effort of good work. I ask all Members of the House join with me in
support of this legislation.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) on which a recorded vote was
ordered.
This will be a 15-minute vote and will be followed by a 5-minute
vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 428,
noes 0, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 53]

AYES--428

[[Page H1381]]

Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Hyde
Largent
Myrick
Pitts
Whitfield

{time} 1455

So, the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424,
noes 4, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 54]

AYES--424

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--4

Paul
Royce
Sanford
Sensenbrenner

NOT VOTING--5

Houghton
Largent
Myrick
Pitts
Whitfield

{time} 1507

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hefley, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that

[[Page H1382]]

Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 820) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the Coast
Guard, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 113, he
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote on the question
of passage of H.R. 975.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424,
noes 7, not voting 2, as follows:

[Roll No. 55]

AYES--424

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--7

Chenoweth
Doolittle
Paul
Pombo
Royce
Sanford
Sensenbrenner

NOT VOTING--2

Myrick
Pitts

{time} 1525

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________