[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 78 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2961-H2963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1699, COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT
OF 2001
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 155 and ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page H2962]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 155
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1699) to authorize appropriations for the
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be
considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose
of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by
the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. House Resolutions 130, 147, 149, and 150 are laid
on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules did meet and granted a modified
open rule for the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. The rule provides
for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure. The rule also provides that the bill shall be open
to amendment at any point. The rule makes in order only those
amendments printed in the Congressional Record and pro forma amendments
for the purpose of debate. The rule provides that each amendment
printed in the Congressional Record may be offered only by the Member
who caused it to be printed or his designee, and that each amendment
shall be considered as read. The rule provides one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that House Resolutions 130,
147, 149, and 150 are laid on the table.
In a way, this is a sad moment because our friend Mr. Moakley always
handled this rule in the past. But he is no longer with us. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) will be managing this rule for the
minority. He is the new ranking minority member, and I know he will do
a fine job in his new position.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 155 is a fair and open rule for a
noncontroversial bill. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) worked very hard to craft a clean,
straightforward bill so that the Coast Guard can quickly get the tools
it needs to protect lives and property at sea.
This is the way legislation should be done. I urge my colleagues to
support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentlewoman for her kind remarks.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 155 is a modified open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001.
While Democratic members of the Committee on Rules question the need to
require preprinting of amendments, we will not object to this rule
since it otherwise allows for the consideration of any germane
amendments.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1699 authorizes $5.4 billion for Coast Guard
programs and operations in fiscal year 2002, which is, according to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, about $300 million
short of its needs for operating expenses for the coming fiscal year.
Considering the important maritime safety, marine environmental
protection, and law enforcement operations performed by the Coast
Guard, this deficiency should be remedied either in this bill or in the
appropriations which will follow in the coming weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I also want to acknowledge his leadership now as ranking member.
It is obviously for me particularly being a Member from Massachusetts
with a heavy heart that our dear friend and colleague Joe Moakley is
not in his customary seat.
Many of the issues that come before us in this Chamber are close
calls. Not this one. The United States Coast Guard is so underfunded
that its fleets are aging, its gas tanks are near empty, its supply of
spare parts are low, its communications equipment is outdated, and its
personnel is overworked. Why? Because for years now, the Coast Guard
has been assigned mission after new mission, from search and rescue to
ice breaking, from drug interdiction to environmental enforcement,
without anything resembling commensurate funding increases. Some years
we have been able to patch things over with supplemental
appropriations. We have got our fingers crossed right now for a
supplemental to address a deficit exceeding $100 million.
In the meantime, the Coast Guard has become one of the oldest fleets
in the world. I believe it ranks 39 out of 40. Its ability to respond
to marine distress calls is dangerously stretched.
{time} 1030
It is true, literally true, that it is now a matter of life and death
and it is no secret. Testimony at hearing after hearing has documented
how personnel fatigue from double shifts struggle with old
communications equipment to dispatch extended air and sea assets. From
hurricanes and refugee migrations, SOS calls and oil spills, the wear
and tear accumulates, placing at risk Coast Guard personnel and the
lifesaving mission they are mandated to fulfill.
Now so far the Coast Guard has bootstrapped itself into beating the
odds and getting the job, all of its many jobs, done; in fact, with the
highest marks of any Federal agency in terms of efficiency and
management. But there is a breaking point. There will come a time when
the American people will get from the Coast Guard not what they want,
but what they are paying for. Put it another way, it is time for us to
decide precisely what we want the Coast Guard to do and then to pay for
it.
This bill is a good start. President Bush set a constructive tone
with a budget that proposed a $545 million increase over last year's
funding level. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), who really
does deserve the gratitude of all of those who benefit from our oceans
and waterways, today has brought to this floor legislation with an
additional $250 million for an overall authorization of $5.35 billion.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
As I mentioned, studies have repeatedly lauded the Coast Guard for
its institutional efficiency, for its morale and commitment to duty,
but these reviews always seem to conclude with a mournful refrain about
what might be possible if only the commandant had the tools he really
needs to work with.
If fully funded, H.R. 1669 would mean the Coast Guard could cover
more of the costs of salary, health care and housing, of technological
retrofits to improve fisheries enforcement and drug traffic
surveillance, of deferred maintenance repairs to get its aircraft off
the ground and its ships to sea.
When I first arrived in this body 4 years ago, I joined with my
colleagues the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to form the Congressional Coast
Guard Caucus. As former Coast Guardsmen, we sought to focus attention
on the courageous service of the men and women who risk life and limb
every day to enforce the law of the high seas and to save lives.
[[Page H2963]]
Day in, day out they do their job. Well, now it is time for us to do
ours. I support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I support the
bill, and I was very saddened and it is saddening here today to realize
that one of the great Members of Congress, Mr. Moakley, is not here,
who normally handles this bill. He was a friend of mine, and he was not
afraid to be a friend of mine as some other Democrats were. He treated
all Democrats fairly, and I think that is a legacy that speaks for
itself. An old saying relative to Coach Vince Lombardi at Green Bay is
that why did everybody love him? All his players said, everybody loved
Coach Lombardi because he treated us all alike; like dogs at times but
all alike. And Joe Moakley treated us all alike, the big chairman with
all the power and just the little representatives with an idea.
I have an amendment for this bill. I am going to support this bill
whether it passes or not. I understand there has been a deal made that
there is going to be no amendments, everybody is going to withdraw
theirs. Well, I have news. I am not going to withdraw mine. My area
used to be the third leading steel producing region of the world, and
now I have my last steel mill in Chapter XI, with CSC being ready to be
dismantled.
Now my amendment can be beat. It can be said that part of it is
already law. They do not really follow that law anyway. I want it
established, firmly ingrained into this bill, the following: Any new
vessel constructed for the Coast Guard with amounts made available
under this act shall be constructed in the United States of America,
built by Americans, number one. Number two, shall not be constructed
using any steel other than steel that is made in the United States of
America by American workers. Number three, that this bill shall be
monitored and held in compliance with the Buy American Act that is
waived more than women sailors.
I understand there are some difficulties, and I want the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure Members who are here to listen. There
are small components which would make it difficult to trace the origin
of the steel. I do not care about that. Handle that in conference. I am
talking about the major bulk of steel that goes into construction. And
by God, if we cannot do that, what do we say it for? I am utterly
disappointed that the Democrat administration would not even look at
unfair steel dumping and now President Bush, a Republican, has taken
the task on of looking at illegal dumping of steel in America. Now
Democrats, wise up.
I expect groceries on the shelf. I want my amendment included in this
bill. It can be tailored in conference but, by God, if there is any new
vessel to be built, it should be built by American workers with
American steel in American ports.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) for giving me the consideration to offer my little idea
as a Democrat.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in
support of the fiscal year 2002 Coast Guard reauthorization bill. I
commend the work of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the Coast Guard Caucus in bringing this bill to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard has five training facilities across the
country that prepares its members to perform their jobs so ably, and I
am proud to represent the only Coast Guard training facility on the
West Coast, the Two Rock Training Facility in Petaluma, California.
Several years ago, my constituents and I fought hard to keep Two Rock
Coast Guard Training Facility open. The Coast Guard's most modern,
spacious and environmentally clean training facility survived, and we
were delighted.
This decision to keep Two Rock open ensured the Coast Guard that the
Coast Guard continues nationwide the technological, environmental and
global economic challenges of the 21st century. I am pleased that
today's bill will give Two Rock and the Coast Guard the financial tools
they need to meet their challenges.
The Coast Guard does a top notch job of enforcing maritime law and
safeguarding the lives and property of Mariners throughout the coastal
waters of the United States and its possessions, and its territories.
Through this bill's provisions, the Coast Guard will continue its
program, operations, including search and rescue, marine environmental
protection, defense readiness and drug interdiction. I urge my
colleagues to support this rule and support this bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________