[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 77 (Monday, June 19, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1038-E1039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 19, 2000

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, where I come from, generations of 
otherwise well-adjusted people have suffered the ill effects of the 
well-known ``Curse of the Bambino.'' Since the Red Sox traded Babe 
Ruth, life has never quite been the same, although I am one of those 
with deep, quite faith that the Curse of the Bambino officially expires 
as we enter the new millennium.
  But I would like to discuss with you a different kind of curse. Call 
it the ``Curse of the Can-Do''. This curse afflicts the United States 
Coast Guard, and its long, proud tradition of never turning down a call 
for help. Of never shirking new responsibility. Even when the gas tank 
is literally on empty.
  It's too late for the Red Sox to get Babe Ruth back. But we still 
have an opportunity to ensure the readiness of the Coast Guard to 
discharge its lifesaving mission. I take the House floor tonight to 
thank my colleagues who in the last few days have helped lead us in 
that direction--but also to warn that we're still sailing into a very 
stiff wind.
  Last month, this House took historic steps to shore up Coast Guard 
resources to save lives, prevent pollution, fight drugs, help the 
economy, respond to natural disasters, and enhance national security. 
It's up to us to see these efforts through.
  The FY2000 Transportation Department appropriations bill passed 
recently by the full House would reverse more than a decade of chronic 
underfunding that has made it nearly impossible for the Coast Guard to 
do the work the Congress has assigned it. For the first time in recent 
memory, there is now genuine hope that we can adequately safeguard the 
lives and livelihoods of those who live and work on or near the water.
  From the small harbors of New England to the ice floes of Alaska; 
from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast to the banks of the Mississippi; 
I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey of the Appropriations 
Committee, and Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Sabo of the 
Transportation Subcommittee.
  Their leadership has underscored the stark fact that the demands on 
the Coast Guard has vastly outpaced its resources. That there is no 
longer margin for error. And that the consequences of any such error is 
literally a life-and-death matter.
  Despite the fact that there are no more Coast Guard personnel today 
than there were in 1967, it is indisputable that--day in and day out--
no public agency works harder. Or smarter.
  During the 1990s, the Coast Guard reduced its workforce by nearly 10 
percent--and operated within a budget that rose by only one percent in 
actual dollars. Over this period, it also has responded to a half-
million SOS calls, an average of 65,000 each year--and in the process, 
has saved 50,000 lives. Every year, the Coast Guard performs 40,000 
inspections of U.S. and foreign merchant vessels; ensures the safe 
passage of a million commercial vessels through our ports and 
waterways; responds to 13,000 reports of water pollution; inspects a 
thousand offshore drilling platforms, conducts 12,000 fisheries 
enforcement boardings, and prevents 100,000 pounds of cocaine from 
reaching America's shores.
  Two centuries of experience have taught us to rely on the 
professionalism, judgment, compassion, commitment and courage of the 
U.S. Coast Guard. From hurricanes to airplace crashes, from drug 
smugglers to foreign factory trawlers, the Coast Guard is always on 
call--just as it has been for 200 years.
  We have learned to trust the Coast Guard with all we hold dear--our 
property, our natural resources and our lives. In Washington, a long 
way from the winds and the whitecaps, it has been tempting to task the 
Coast Guard with new and burdensome missions. Far too tempting.
  Historically, the Coast Guard has discharged whatever duties it was 
assigned. As a Service originally created in 1790 to regulate maritime 
duties, its responsibilities have--appropriately--grown with the 
changing needs and technology of the times.
  As co-chair of the House Coast Guard Caucus, along with 
Representatives Howard Coble and Gene Taylor, I have had grave doubts 
for a long time.
  Most recently, much has been made of the demands on the Coast Guard 
for work in the area of illegal drug interdiction. As a former 
prosecutor, I'm all for fighting the drug war and have fully supported 
calling upon the Coast Guard to step up its interdiction efforts--but 
not at the expense of its core mission, the saving of human life.
  We can't just wish away the costs, and I'm not ready to start 
treating search-and-rescue like a luxury we can do without--any more 
than you can move cops off the beat, then complain about street crime.
  We have stretched the Cost Guard so thin for so long that it can 
barely be expected to fulfill its credo, Semper Paratus--``always 
prepared''. And there are scores of new missions in the wings.
  This year, the Coast Guard was the only federal agency to earn an 
``A'' from the independent Government Performance Project for operating 
with unusual efficiency and effectiveness. That assessment placed the 
Coast Guard at the very top of 20 Executive Branch agencies because its 
``top-notch planning and performance budgeting overcame short staffing 
and fraying equipment.''
  It all came down, they concluded, to that Curse of Can-Do. ``The 
Coast Guard,'' they said, ``is a CAN-DO organization whose `CAN' is 
dwindling while its `DO' is growing''
  This can't continue. Not when the average age of its deepwater 
cutters is 27 years old, making this force the second oldest major 
naval fleet on the globe. Not when fixed-wing aircraft deployments have 
more than doubled, and helicopter deployments are up more than 25 
percent--without any increase in the number of aircraft, pilots or 
crews.
  Not when duty officers suffer chronic fatigue because staffing 
constraints permit only four hours of sleep at night. Not when the 
Commandant testifies before Congress that there's not enough fuel to 
power his boats and planes.
  And not when Coast Guard radio communications units are 30 years old, 
like the one described in a recent news account that began this way:

       If you dial 911, say the word `fire' and run outside, a 
     fire engine will show up at your driveway. If you pick up the 
     handset on your VHF-FM radio, say the work `Mayday' and jump 
     overboard, you could very well drown or die of hypothermia.

  Study after study has documented these hazards. A recent Interagency 
Task Force concluded that ``block obsolescence . . . presents a threat 
that [the Coast Guard] could soon be overwhelmed by a mismatch between 
its missions and the quantity and quality of the assets to carry them 
out.''
  A 1997 General Accounting Office review was even more blunt. It 
projected $90 million annual reductions in operating expenses just to 
bridge the gap. GAO was alarmed by ``the sheer size of the gap and the 
dwindling number of available efficiency-related options.''
  Where I'm from, a marine distress call is an urgent plea for 
emergency law enforcement and rescue personnel. When oil spills 
jeopardize economic as well as environmental resources; when frozen 
rivers trap heating oil barges; when the well-being of both fish and 
fishermen are threatened; when offshore danger strikes, we know were to 
turn.

[[Page E1039]]

  That's why when the ink dried on the House DOT appropriation, there 
was reason for new and genuine hope. Like having Pedro Martinez in the 
starting rotation, it felt like this really could be the year.
  The DOT bill approved recently for next year increases Coast Guard 
accounts by nearly $600 million, a 15 percent boost. It also includes 
$125 million to help modernize aging airplanes, helicopters and motor 
lifeboats--and upgrade, rather than abandon, Coast Guard stations and 
the communities they serve.
  Years from now, the 395 House colleagues who voted for the DOT bill 
can look back and take satisfaction from the knowledge that they helped 
saved a life, a coastal community, an international alliance--or maybe 
even a marine species or two.
  But that old curse still hovers over the Coast Guard. Just this week, 
the Senate Subcommittee came in $200 million lower.
  The timing could not be worse. The Senate action followed two rounds 
of Coast Guard cutbacks for the current fiscal year, reducing cutter 
days and flight hours by 10 percent.
  Why? Because the Coast Guard responded to natural disasters, but the 
Congress failed to pass emergency supplemental funding. And because a 
variety of overdue personnel benefits, for everything from housing to 
health care, were mandated by the 2000 Defense Authorization--but with 
no money to pay for them.
  There's more. The good news is a new effort, through the pending 
Military Construction bill, to restore $800 million in supplemental 
funding. But since only a third of that is designated as ``emergency 
expenses,'' the baseline for future Coast Guard budgets, next year and 
beyond, would be seriously compromised.
  So I express gratitude for the progress made in this chamber thus 
far. But also to raise a warning flag about the two challenges 
immediately ahead.
  Specifically, I urge my colleagues to hold firm in conference on the 
House-approved allocation in the Transportation Appropriation bill. And 
then to recede to Senate conferees regarding the $800 million in the 
MilCon measure.
  That's what it will take for the Coast Guard to do the job we have 
assigned it to do. To contain oil spills. To catch smugglers. And, most 
important of all, to save lives.

                          ____________________