[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 78 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2965-H2975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 155 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. 1699.
{time} 1120
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. 1699) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal
year 2002, with Mr. Miller of Florida 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 New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2001. Before I discuss this bill, however, I would
like to thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), for his time, energy, enthusiasm,
and guidance in working out this authorization bill, which sometimes
had its moments.
Also, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), who once again has helped us with crafting a bill on which
we have strong bipartisan support, and thank the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), and their staffers for their help
and cooperation on this legislation. H.R. 1699 was developed in a
bipartisan manner and deserves the support of all Members of this body.
The primary purpose of H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 2001, is to authorize expenditures for the United States Coast Guard
for the fiscal year 2002.
Section 2 of the bill authorizes approximately $5.4 billion for Coast
Guard programs and operations for the fiscal year 2002. The bill funds
the Coast Guard at the levels requested by the President, with an
additional $300 million in Coast Guard operating expenses. The amounts
authorized by this bill will allow the Coast Guard to address chronic
budget shortfalls.
Many of the Coast Guard's most urgent needs are similar to those
experienced by the Department of Defense, including spare parts
shortages and personnel training deficits. H.R. 1699 addresses those
needs, and also increases the amounts available for Coast Guard drug
interdiction, something very important for our country.
H.R. 1699 provides $338 million for the Coast Guard's essential
deepwater asset modernization program. To date, the Coast Guard has
spent $117 million to develop a plan for replacing or modernizing
existing deepwater assets. I strongly believe that the Integrated
Deepwater System is the most economical and effective way for the Coast
Guard to provide future generations of Americans with lifesaving
services.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the men and
women of the United States Coast Guard for the exceptional services
that they provide to our Nation. From the new recruits at the Coast
Guard Training Center in Cape May, where I was proud to keynote their
53rd Anniversary celebration last week, to the men and women of the
Coast Guard Air Station in Atlantic City and the LORAN Support Unit in
Lower Township, I have been impressed by their devotion to duty and
their constant readiness to stand watch over our shores. Their efforts
are representative of their fellow shipmates all over our Nation.
All Americans benefit from a strong Coast Guard that is equipped to
stop drug smugglers, support the country's defense, and respond to
national emergencies. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard, like other
military services, suffers from readiness problems related to deferred
maintenance, aging equipment, and personnel training and retention. We
must act to correct these problems and put the Coast Guard on sound
financial footing to be ready to respond to increasing demands on Coast
Guard resources, especially the need to increase drug interdiction
operations.
Mr. Chairman, Coast Guard operations must be made whole next year,
ending the destructive cycle of funding shortfalls and end-of-the-year
supplemental funding bills, which are only bandaid approaches. The
funding provided in this bill will accomplish this
[[Page H2966]]
goal. In order for the Coast Guard to continue to live up to its motto,
Semper Paratus, always ready, Congress today needs to stand up for the
Coast Guard. With today's vote, we will do just that. I urge all
Members to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1599. This is a
bipartisan bill. I thank the ranking member, the chairman of the
Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the
ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Brown), for her support, and those people directly involved.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are taking action today to
authorize the funding for these important programs. H.R. 1699, the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001, authorizes the fiscal year 2002
Coast Guard budget at the level requested by the President, with an
additional $300 million, as the gentleman has mentioned.
I, being from Alaska, and my Alaskan constituents have had a love
affair with the Coast Guard for as long as we have been a Territory and
a State. The first Federal officer that was stationed in Alaska was a
Coast Guard employee, a captain.
{time} 1130
They are dedicated people. They are committed and they are
courageous, especially in search and rescue of our fishing fleet, which
is the most dangerous fishing fleet in the world because of the climate
conditions.
Just this year, there has been numerous rescue attempts successfully
done by the Coast Guard using equipment that is outdated and not
properly, very frankly, funded for the fuel that needs to do the
mission. They have done so.
This bill does the authorization that we believe will not only fund
them adequately, but will increase their deep water capability.
Many of the ships that are used by the Coast Guard in Alaska and
other areas of the United States are 50 years old and older. The living
conditions of those ships is deplorable, and this Congress has been
neglectful. Our President has recognized it, and this Congress has
recognized it for the leadership of the chairman. We are now
authorizing the funding as it should be.
I have a little comment to make for those that may question the
amounts of money. This is long overdue. We hope to have supplemental
money in the supplemental appropriation bill for the backlog of $92
million that the Coast Guard was shorted last year.
We have some people in OMB and other areas that have decided to make
this an issue, and I will tell them and I will tell my colleagues on
this floor, we are going to prevail to make sure our Coast Guard is
adequately funded. This bill does that.
We have to recognize the importance of this ability of this unit is
really on the front lines all the time. I have great respect for my
Army, my Navy. I have great respect for my Marines, my Air Force. But
this unit of the Coast Guard is always on the front lines: drug
interdiction, oil spill responsibility, immigration, all the things
that they are charged with, we have not adequately done our job, and it
is up to us to do so.
Again, I want to thank those people that are directly involved in
this, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the
subcommittee, who has actually mentioned the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) and himself
have done the job that I believe is correct for this great agency which
serves every man, woman and child.
There is a tendency sometimes to believe that the Coast Guard only
serves those on the coast. That is why they call it the Coast Guard.
But the fact is it serves every person in the United States inland and
along the coast through drug interdiction, illegal immigration, oil
spill responsibility. The work that they do affects every man, woman
and child in the United States.
So I urge this Congress to, not only to pass this bill, but to pass
it overwhelmingly.
At this time, I would also like to compliment numerous people that
had amendments. There will be some dialogue between those people. We
have kept this a clean bill. There is nothing in here to slow it down
like happened last year. We have agreed and reached a compromise with
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). He will be offering an
amendment which we will accept. But it is the only amendment because it
pertains to Buy America. But the rest of the amendments, and some of
them were very well-warranted, we will talk about, we will discuss, and
then they will be withdrawn.
I will compliment the wisdom of those Members to keep this bill clean
so when it goes over to the Senate, they will not have the opportunity
to do what they tried to do last year and put a lot of garbage on the
bill that should have been passed.
So I want to congratulate those involved.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard
reauthorization Act of 2001. This legislation is vital to the future
operation of the United States Coast Guard. Most importantly, H.R. 1699
authorizes an additional $300 million above the President's request for
Coast Guard operations. This means more money for law enforcement, drug
interdiction, fishery enforcement and migrant interdiction. For the
past several years, the Coast Guard has been forced to either decrease
operation or transfer money from maintenance to operation.
Each day the men and women of the Coast Guard are putting their lives
on the line to save those in distress, stop migrants and immigration,
drugs, enforce maritime safety laws, and provide security to our
Nation's ports.
The time has come to provide the Coast Guard with the financial
resources it needs to successfully carry out its operations. The $300
million in additional funds for operations will help pay for the
backlog in maintenance for aircraft, allow the aircraft and cutters
that were to be mothballed to continue to operate, and enable all of
the Coast Guard's vessels and cutters to operate to their full
capacity.
In addition, H.R. 1699 authorized $338 million for the Coast Guard's
Deepwater Acquisition Project. The Coast Guard has been a wise guardian
of the people's money. They have managed to keep cutters operating that
was built in the 1940s. However, it is time to modernize the Coast
Guard aircraft and fleet of cutters. I am hopeful that the money
authorized will allow the Coast Guard to successfully award the
Deepwater contract early in fiscal year 2002.
The bill before us is a clean authorizing bill. It contains no
changes to Coast Guard policies or programs. We are hopeful that the
Senate will agree with us that it is in the Nation's interest to enact
a Coast Guard authorizing bill in time for the Committee on
Appropriations to provide the authorizing funds.
Mr. Chairman, failure to enact a bill authorizing appropriations to
the Coast Guard is a failure to fulfill our obligations to the American
people.
A vote for H.R. 1699 is a vote to provide an extra $300 million to
support Coast Guard operations. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of
my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2001.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time and congratulate her on managing on our side the first Coast
Guard bill of this session and look forward to her splendid work in the
future.
I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the professional
and thorough way that he has conducted the leadership of the
subcommittee on this matter.
I express also my appreciation for the splendid working relationship
with our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young). He is as vigorous an advocate for the Coast Guard as I,
virtually a cheerleader for this special color blue uniform that makes
such an enormous
[[Page H2967]]
contribution to our safety, the safety of our inland waterways, our
coastal waterways and of our Deepwater service.
This bill is simply a numbers bill, if I could put it that way. We
are trying to make up for failure of the past 2 years in the other body
to move a Coast Guard authorization bill. In these past 2 years, this
body and this committee has done its job. We have carried out our
responsibility to the Coast Guard by bringing to the floor and passing
an authorization bill that gives the Coast Guard the full authority to
do its work.
But when the bill got over to the other body, there were extraneous
issues such as death on the high seas that have nothing to do with the
mission of the Coast Guard that bogged the bill down, and we then did
not get to an authorization. Now I urge the other body to take this
bill and just without amendment, without extraneous matters, move the
bill on to the President.
We are authorizing $5.3 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year
2002. There is $300 million in here for the Coast Guard's operating
expenses and for their drug interdiction mission.
Because of the failure to enact a full authorization bill over the
past 2 years, the Coast Guard has had to reduce its operations because
they have had insufficient funds. This bill gives the Coast Guard the
sufficient funding, full operations and maintenance to do its mission.
The other body ought to move along. We ought to get this job done.
This bill also addresses the long plan and carefully thought out
Deepwater Replacement Project. This will involve replacing every ship
and every aircraft that operates more than 50 miles offshore for the
U.S. Coast Guard. It is a unique initiative. We have examined it in
hearings over the past 2 years and studied the proposals carefully
thought out. It ought to go ahead.
Instead of authorizing a specific type of ship built in a specific
shipyard, this proposal authorizes a 20-year acquisition program, a
performance-based procurement to obtain the very best aircraft and the
very best cutters the Coast Guard needs for its mission at the lowest
operational cost.
While we are here debating this legislation, it is a typical day for
the 35,800 men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard: doing 109 search-and-
rescue cases, saving 10 lives, rescuing 192 people in distress, saving
$3 million in property, seizing 169 pounds of marijuana, 306 pounds of
cocaine worth collectively $10 million. In fact, in some years, the
Coast Guard seizes drugs, illegal drugs that have a street value
greater than the Coast Guard's appropriated budget.
The Marine safety personnel are conducting safety checks on 100 large
vessels, investigating six Marine casualties, responding to 20 oil or
hazardous chemical spills, and servicing 135 aids to navigation. That
is a very impressive day's work for the men and women in this special
color blue.
I stand here in awe of them and in respect of their mission and their
contribution to America and urge this body to move quickly on and
affirmatively on this legislation.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, as a person who has been heavily involved in the drug
war in Central and South America, I want to speak out in praise of the
work of the Coast Guard.
In their effort to reduce the drug flow into the United States, no
one has done more and received less recognition than the United States
Coast Guard. They work to interdict the fast boats that cover the
Caribbean with the flood of drugs and should be commended for the
results that they have shown. If other branches of the services were
doing a comparable job of fighting this war, we would be in a much
stronger position to face the future.
The Coast Guard continues to deliver services without complaint in
spite of the shortages of funds provided to them and the difficulties
and dangers in their job.
I wish other government participants would demonstrate the same level
of commitment to fighting the war on drugs as the U.S. Coast Guard.
Today I stand to applaud their efforts and urge this Congress to renew
its commitment to this valued service.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
It is my great privilege to represent the part of Washington State
that borders on the southern part of our coastline and the Columbia
River. I have had the opportunity to join our Coast Guard crewmen as
they go out in the motor lifeboat school on one of the most dangerous
river bars in the world, the Columbia River Bar. That is why I am so
proud today to join with the Chair and the ranking member in supporting
this critical authorization bill.
Our Coast Guard Members save American lives every single day, and
they deserve our support. They currently operate what would otherwise
be one of the oldest navys in the world, and that should not be so. We
need to make sure we give them support when they perform their critical
life-saving needs when they work on environmental protection, when they
enforce our fisheries laws, and when they patrol our coastline for
whatever need they may be called upon to serve.
I am proud to join with the members of this committee and urge
passage of this critical legislation.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), a long-time supporter of the Coast Guard, who
is the very shy, reserved, quiet chairman of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, as a former chairman of the Subcommittee on
the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation, I want to admit a prejudice.
I have a huge incredible appreciation and admiration for the work of
the young men and women of our United States Coast Guard.
I have seen firsthand incredible sacrifices and the extraordinary
valor and courage they exercise every day in saving lives and
interdicting drugs and opening up seaways and keeping our waterways
safe and keeping the traffic that is critical to international trade in
and out of our harbors without collisions and damage and oil spills and
all the other things, the incredible number of missions that they
perform on a daily basis without a whole lot of thanks and without a
whole lot of expectation of reward.
{time} 1145
But it is time we recognize something; that the sons and daughters of
American citizens, who serve in the United States Coast Guard and who
daily save lives and save us from human suffering with their drug
interdiction and who save damage and destruction in our harbors as they
keep safety in these critical national commerce areas, that these men
and women too often work with outdated and outmoded equipment and that
their lives are at risk unnecessarily. It is time we put some real
resources into upgrading and updating the equipment, the boats and
planes and the equipment they use to carry out these extraordinary
missions.
I was on a flight one time in a Coast Guard plane whose engine gave
out on us, and communication was lost, and I thought we were all gone
for a little while. That should never happen to any young man or woman
who volunteers for service in the United States Coast Guard. Let us
today, in this vote, declare with a ringing sense of appreciation the
gratitude of the American people through this Congress for the
extraordinary sacrifice and service of the young men and women of our
United States Coast Guard. And let us dedicate ourselves to making sure
that as they save lives, as they perform the incredibly important
missions we have assigned to them, that we make their lives as sacred
as the lives they are saving, that we protect them with better
equipment and better boats and better planes.
Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly urge the passage of this bill.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee on
[[Page H2968]]
Transportation and Infrastructure, both the chairman, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the ranking member of the subcommittee,
for bringing this bill forward. And I am glad to follow my colleague,
who is chair of the House Committee on Commerce, because I served with
him in my first term in Congress on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Navigation when we had a Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
I rise in support of the authorization that recognizes the United
States Coast Guard and provides the necessary funding so that our
waterways will continue to be the safest in the world. And I would like
to speak briefly about the impact the Coast Guard has on not only
Houston but also on the Port of Houston that I am honored to represent.
The Houston-Galveston Vessel Traffic Service, the VTS, is located in
Galena Park, Texas. That Coast Guard facility plays a key role in
maintaining maritime safety and efficiency in the Houston-Galveston
region, which includes the Port of Houston.
The Port of Houston represents the largest petrochemical port in the
United States. It has the largest volume of foreign tonnage of all U.S.
ports and the second largest in combined tonnage and serves over 7,000
vessels a year. Acting as a communications hub, our VTS accomplishes
its mission by providing accurate, relevant, and timely information to
mariners, port authorities, facility operators, and local, State, and
Federal agencies. This information prevents vessel collisions,
groundings, and consequently reduces the loss of life, property, as
well as environmental damage associated with these incidents.
We basically have an industrial port. Our VTS information also
enables waterway managers, mariners, and advisory groups to better
understand the port's waterway systems and to make improvements to
vessel routing and safety.
Our area is also served by a Coast Guard Marine Safety Office that
protects the lives and the properties of all of us that enjoy and
benefit from not only our industrial port but the boating public. I
congratulate our local commander, Peter S. Simons, and the 48 men and
women under his command for their excellent job and performance.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage passage of this bill.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding me this time and for his leadership on this matter, as well as
the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, I am fortunate enough to represent Staten Island and
the Port of Brooklyn, that portion which is the gateway to the Port of
New York and New Jersey, one of the largest most active ports in the
entire world. I am also privileged to represent one of the largest
Coast Guard operations. Indeed, Activities New York is the largest
operational field command in the Coast Guard. Its responsibility
stretches from Long Branch, New Jersey to New York City, up to the
Hudson River to Burlington, Vermont.
I have come to appreciate over the last several years, and we have
heard it here but let me add my voice to the chorus of those commending
the dedication and the commitment and truly the love and honor of their
job, the men and women serving in the United States Coast Guard. We
have heard about the law enforcement. Indeed, they are saving kids,
they are preventing drugs from hitting our streets. When it comes to
the environment, just last year we had an oil spill off the shores of
Staten Island. There was the potential to damaging our beaches at a
critical time of the year. The Coast Guard, without hesitation, was on
that scene and curtailed what could have been a big problem. So they
are out there protecting the environment.
Above all, they need resources to do the job that they do so well
every single day. So I commend all the Members who have shown a true
passion to supporting the Coast Guard because they are out there for
us. They do this job without real call for attention, without the
desire to be heard. They do it for us, they do it for America, and I
think it is wonderful that we are finally taking a moment, this
Congress, to say we appreciate the job you are doing; we are going to
give you the tools you need to do the job you do so well.
Mr. Chairman, when men and women willingly and with honor serve our
country, I think without a moment's hesitation we should respond in
kind. And so I add my voice to the chorus of those who truly appreciate
what the Coast Guard does.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from the great State of
Minnesota for yielding, and I rise to commend the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for
their bipartisan work on this bill.
I also rise to express my support for the Coast Guard Authorization
Act and commend the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young),
and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), for reporting to the full House a balanced and bipartisan
measure to meet the requirements of the United States Coast Guard in
providing for a wide variety of maritime activities throughout the
broad scope of law enforcement, humanitarian, and emergency response
duties.
I also commend the committee for working in a bipartisan manner to
increase funding in the bill by $300 million above the President's
request to ensure that the Coast Guard can continue to operate in a
complex and dangerous maritime environment characterized by rapidly
changing security threats at home and also abroad.
The Coast Guard's counter-drug missions are critical to achieving the
national drug control strategy goals: to detect, disrupt, deter, and
seize illegal drugs that kill 15,000 Americans and cost the public more
than $110 billion each and every year. In fiscal year 1999, alone, the
Coast Guard interdicted more than 111,000 pounds of cocaine, keeping
some 500 million so-called hits with a value of $4 billion off
America's streets and out of our schools.
However, even more needs to be done. I recently returned from Cuba,
an area of significant concern to the United States in the war against
drugs. Despite our best efforts, including record drug seizures, Cuba
remains a transit point for trafficking between Central and South
America and Europe and North America. Moreover, only one drug
interdiction specialist is assigned to our interest section in Havana.
Certainly it could benefit from more manpower, more surveillance for
equipment, and more cutters.
While providing for this first drug interdiction specialist is an
important milestone, clearly a lone Coast Guard official in Havana does
not provide a strong and sustained presence in the region to make a
difference in our war on drugs. Therefore, I would encourage the
committee to direct at least a small portion of the $300 million plus-
up approved by the committee to additional drug interdiction around
this area of the Caribbean. I am confident, based on what I witnessed
in Cuba, that the United States would be making a sound investment by
bolstering our presence in the region and working toward mitigating
Cuba as a transit point and a gateway for the influx of illicit and
dangerous narcotics imported in ever-expanding amounts into the United
States.
I am hopeful that the committee will address this matter in
conference in the years ahead, and I thank the gentleman from Minnesota
for yielding me the time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the work
of the gentleman from Indiana. He has again demonstrated once more his
genuine concern in international affairs and hemispheric affairs, and I
greatly appreciate his interest in Cuba and the role that Cuba and the
United
[[Page H2969]]
States together can play in drug interdiction. He has certainly made a
valiant effort in this regard. I greatly respect his mission to Havana
just recently.
The committee has worked for years on this problem, and what we have
found is that when the Coast Guard or any of our drug interdiction
entities in the Federal Government clamp down in transit zones, say in
the Caribbean, drugs pop up on the West Coast. When we move assets to
the West Coast, they move back to the Caribbean or elsewhere. It is a
very delicate balancing act.
The Defense Department is also rethinking their role in the counter-
drug mission. The Coast Guard now has law enforcement detachments on
U.S. Navy vessels working in the Caribbean and off the west coast,
which have been of great value to our war on drugs, and we have come to
see the drug interdiction effort as a national security measure for the
United States.
So the question of where to deploy these assets and how to balance
them between the Caribbean, the west coast, the east coast and,
frankly, the U.S.-Canadian border, which my district borders on and is
becoming an entry point for drugs, is a very delicate matter.
We will continue our efforts to provide the Coast Guard with the
resources they need in high-endurance aircraft, high-endurance cutters,
additional personnel to participate in the already highly successful
interdiction effort of the Coast Guard on drug smuggling efforts, and I
will certainly bring to the attention of the Coast Guard the
gentleman's recommendation for additional personnel in the Havana
office.
We look forward to working with the gentleman as we proceed not only
with this bill but with the regular authorization bill when further
policy issues will be addressed, and I thank the gentleman for his
contribution.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the former
chair of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation, a Member of
this body whose name is synonymous with support of the Coast Guard over
the years. We affectionately refer to him as the Master Chief. He has
been to my district, the second district of New Jersey, with me, to
visit the Coast Guard Recruit Training Center. But more importantly he
trained there, so he knows it very well.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generous
introduction, although unfortunately I was never Master Chief, but I
like to claim that honor.
Mr. Chairman, I want to put a different face on this, because we have
heard sterling comments in praise of America's oldest continuing
seagoing service. I want to put a different face to it.
A man once said to me, he said, ``The Coast Guard is the invisible
service. Never hear about them.'' Well, we never hear about the Coast
Guard unless we happen to be in distress and we need to be rescued by
professionals. I spoke to a man who was once rescued, I spoke to him
moments after the rescue, and he said to me, ``That Coast Guard cutter
looked like an angel of mercy coming to me,'' and then he began to weep
softly. They are indeed angels of mercy. The Coast Guard cutters, the
Coast Guard aircraft, what they do is legendary; but it is oftentimes
invisible.
I have gone to Memorial Day and Veterans Day services across the
land. My good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), said we
appreciate all of the services, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.
Those four will be recognized; the Coast Guard inevitably will be
omitted. I went to a Veterans Day service back home in my district 4,
5, 6 years ago, and sure enough the inevitable happened, the four
services were recognized by the playing of their respective hymns, but
nothing about the Coast Guard.
{time} 1200
Mr. Chairman, I went to the music director of the school that day. I
asked about the omission. She said, I do not have the music. I said, It
is the most beautiful marching hymn of the services. Now, I am not
completely objective about that, Mr. Chairman.
She said, Get me the music; and I did.
The next year, the Coast Guard hymn was the first one played. She
came to me and she said, Are you satisfied? I said, Yes, indeed.
But oftentimes folks do not recognize that the Coast Guard is one of
our five armed services. Years ago the Coast Guard was the beneficiary
of Navy hand-me-downs. I am not putting down the Navy for this. We were
glad to get them and made the best of what we had. Now it is a little
better. We still get hand-me-downs, but part of the problem from years
gone by, many of the Coast Guard spokespersons would come up here and
say, We can get along with $5 million; we do not need $99 million.
Mr. Chairman, the other services were waiting to take that overflow.
Now I think that attitude has changed. The Coast Guard comes up here
more aggressively, not to embellish their budgetary needs, but to make
it clear, matter of factly, what is needed to keep those search-and-
rescue missions going, and to keep those drug interdiction raids
successfully executed.
I want the American people to recognize, and many do not, and it is
not their fault because oftentimes the Coast Guard is omitted, we need
to be aware that there are five armed services in this country; and the
Coast Guard is equally important, as are the other four.
The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) have addressed this issue well. They have said
this is a service whose time has come to be fully and openly recognized
as a vital cog in the armed services wheel. I commend those who have
brought the bill to the floor today; and I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for his generous introduction.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, on December 11, 1998, a great tragedy
occurred on Lake Michigan. The fishing vessel Linda E. and her crew of
three were out working hard, pulling in fish off Port Washington,
Wisconsin.
The Linda E. never came home. After 18 months of wondering and
worrying, the Linda E. was located in 260 feet of water at the bottom
of Lake Michigan. A Coast Guard investigation determined that the
vessel was struck by an integrated tug/barge. The accident resulted in
three unnecessary deaths and one of the crew members of the barge
losing his license.
There are two specific issues that relate to this tragedy and other
tragedies like it that I would like to work with the subcommittee and
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman, on. First,
this accident could have been prevented if the barge had been required
to have a collision-avoidance radar detection system on board.
Unfortunately, it did not.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the subcommittee to further
explore the issue of requiring vessels of this size operating on the
Great Lakes to install some collision-avoidance technology.
Second, while the Coast Guard followed all of the procedures required
under law with respect to the investigation of the Linda E., I, along
with the family members of the Linda E. crew, would like to explore
ways to clarify the investigation and recovery process. We would hope
to work closely with both the Coast Guard and the subcommittee on this
matter.
Would the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, be willing to
devote some of the time of the subcommittee to review these matters?
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin for his continuing interest on this very important issue. The
sinking of the Linda E. was a terrible tragedy. We will be pleased to
work with the gentleman to explore his suggestion that collision-
avoidance radar be placed on barges operating in the Great Lakes and to
look at the issue of Great Lakes maritime safety and response to
maritime accidents in general.
[[Page H2970]]
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for his consideration and look forward to working with him to
ensure that the safety of all vessels operating on the Great Lakes is
of utmost importance.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Schrock).
Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, the goals of the Coast Guard are
straightforward: supply maritime safety, provide maritime security,
protect our natural resources, facilitate maritime mobility, and
support our national defense. Fulfillment of these goals is essential
for commerce and the safety of Americans, but they come at a price.
The Coast Guard fleet of ships and aircraft is aging and requires
rebuilding. They have implemented a strong recruiting drive that now
requires an increased focus on training for new recruits.
The Coast Guard has also taken on increased responsibility in refugee
and drug traffic interdiction. These and other new missions require
additional funds, and I am glad that we can supply the Coast Guard with
the needed resources to meet these tasks.
With over 78 million recreational boaters and over 250,000 maritime
workers in the U.S., the Coast Guard's mission of providing maritime
safety cannot be neglected. In fiscal year 2000, the Coast Guard saved
over 3,000 lives in imminent danger.
A recent rescue success story demonstrates the courage and dedication
of the Coast Guard. As an example, a 110-foot tugboat and its three
crewmen sent out a distress call in the middle of a blizzard with snow,
ice, freezing rain and near subzero visibility in the Chesapeake Bay.
The Coast Guard took a 41-foot utility boat from Coast Guard Station
Cape Charles, Virginia, and after a long period of time were able to
rescue these people, knowing that their lives could be lost as well.
Mr. Chairman, these guardsmen were not required to dispatch that day,
but they did, and they entered the high seas in a boat not equipped to
embark on such conditions. This is quite usual for the men and women of
the Coast Guard.
When the brave crew of this mission were congratulated for their
successful mission, Third Class Boatswain's Mate Scott Palmer modestly
said, ``Coasties do this every day.'' And they do.
We cannot let the brave men and women of the Coast Guard go out on
obsolete vessels. We must provide them with safe and up-to-date means
of transport in negotiating our waterways and shores in order to
protect the people who travel these waterways every day.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation we are considering today authorizes
$5.4 billion for Coast Guard operations for fiscal year 2002. This
represents a sorely needed increase of $1.39 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman
from New Jersey for supporting this increase, and urge my colleagues to
support this bill which protects our commerce, our national security,
and the American people.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the tragic issue of
carbon monoxide deaths on lakes around the country and in any body of
water.
A little under a year ago, two young boys, Dillan and Logan Dixey,
ages 8 and 11, died tragically swimming off the swim-step of their
houseboat on Lake Powell. That triggered a study that revealed that
there have been at least nine deaths on Lake Powell alone, and a total
of over 111 injuries on that lake in my State. Following that, there
had been a study by NIOSH which has documented at least an additional
30 deaths and 107 injuries.
Mr. Chairman, these deaths are caused by the intake of carbon
monoxide, both to people onboard boats and people swimming off the swim
platforms of houseboats on various lakes.
It was my intention to offer an amendment today to require the Coast
Guard to perform a study of these carbon monoxide deaths and to study
not only how they could be prevented by adding the correct venting
mechanism to the boats but also how the carbon monoxide detecting
devices, which are on many of these boats, could be improved so these
tragic deaths do not occur.
Over the past seven seasons, nine deaths and 111 injuries on Lake
Powell alone, 30 more deaths and 107 injuries on other lakes besides
Lake Powell. These are based solely on voluntary reports.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) conducted
a hearing on this issue, and I commend the gentleman for doing so. At
that hearing, the heart-wrenching testimony of the parents of Logan and
Dillan Dixey brought this issue home; but there are many others. This
is the NIOSH study discussing the 30 deaths that they know of on other
lakes. I hold press reports of deaths on bodies of water around the
country. This documents the death that the gentleman from Louisiana
spoke about in that State.
Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important that we study these deaths
and find out the cause of them. The Coast Guard has been given a grant
of money to study these deaths; but, unfortunately, I believe it is
critically important that we put language in the law that the study be
complete, that they study not only the cause of the deaths so we can
end these tragedies, but also study the mechanism to improve the carbon
monoxide-detecting equipment on these vessels.
Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the gentleman from New Jersey will
work with us hopefully through the passage of this legislation; and if
not otherwise, to insert this language requiring such a study for the
safety of all recreational boaters in the country.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman indicated, we have had
quite a bit of testimony on this issue already. I understand how
important this issue is to recreational boaters throughout the country,
and I pledge to work with the gentleman to include language in the next
maritime bill developed by our committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
In 1976, a young man 16 years old took the family out for a sail off
the coast of my district. After capsizing several times, his judgment
became impaired, and he decided to swim for it. In the cold May waters,
he had only about a half hour to live. Body temperature fell; he went
through a classic near-death experience, and eventually passed out.
Mr. Chairman, this young man woke up inside a Coast Guard vessel from
the auxiliary station out of Wilmette, Illinois. He asked the guardsman
if he was going to live or die, and the man said, I do not know. But
thanks to the prompt rescue of the Coast Guard, that young man
survived.
Mr. Chairman, I am that young man. Every day of my life after my 16th
year is a borrowed day given to me by virtue of the United States Coast
Guard. It is a difficult thing to say for a Navy man, but the Coast
Guard saved my life; and that is the essence of their mission here.
The kind of life-saving that happens off of the coast of the 10th
Congressional District of Illinois is critical because Lake Michigan,
most months of the year, is lethal due to temperature. It is the kind
of work carried out by Air Station Waukegan, now providing life-saving
services via helicopter throughout the entire south Lake Michigan
region.
Mr. Chairman, I am incredibly supportive of the Coast Guard. I
strongly support this legislation. But for the Coast Guard, I would not
be here.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentleman from Illinois, whose story is indicative of the
work that the Coast Guard has done for so many years throughout the
Nation and that does not get the attention that it deserves. The men
and women of the Coast Guard put themselves in harm's way every day.
What I think America fails to realize is that it is a branch of
[[Page H2971]]
the military that saves civilians every day. There is not a day that
goes by that lives and property are not saved. There is not a day when
America is not benefited by the work of the Coast Guard, the men and
women, whether it is drug interdiction, whether it is saving lives and
property, whether it is responding to a national emergency or aiding
other branches of the military. Our examples go on and on and on.
{time} 1215
We have many Members in this body who individually expressed strong
support over the years for the work that the Coast Guard does. Now is
the time for us to stand up for them. They stand up for America every
day. It is our time to stand up for them during this authorization bill
or, more importantly, as we move through the appropriations process, so
we can provide the resources to the men and women who do this job every
day unselfishly the way they really deserve, with the assets that they
need.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard provides a
number of vital services to protect and defend our Nation's coastal
areas and waterways. H.R. 1699 authorizes funding to conduct search and
rescue efforts, vessel safety compliance, as well as wildlife promotion
and protection. I am particularly supportive of the funding increases
provided through H.R. 1699 that will increase the Coast Guard's drug
interdiction operations.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to show my
strong support for H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2001, sponsored by my colleagues Don Young of Alaska, James Oberstar of
Minnesota, Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, and Corrine Brown of Florida.
As you know, this bill would authorize appropriations for the Coast
Guard for fiscal year 2002 in six main areas: operating expenses;
acquisition, construction, and improvement; research, development,
test, and evaluation; retired pay; alteration of bridges; and
environmental compliance and restoration. In addition, it sets end of
the year strength levels for active duty personnel and establishes
military training levels.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee and as a representative
from a State with a substantial Coast Guard presence, I have had the
opportunity to witness the efforts and initiatives of the essential
life-saving mission of the U.S. Coast Guard. For over two centuries, it
has been saving lives from Maine to Guam. Last year alone, the Coast
Guard saved 5,000 recreational and commercial boaters, inspected over
34,000 vessels, maintained 50,000 aids-to-navigation, managed 13,000
marine pollution incidents, intercepted 4,200 illegal immigrants, and
seized over 130,000 lbs. of pure cocaine. However, the U.S. Coast Guard
is being asked to do more with less.
In my own State of Connecticut, the Coast Guard employs over 900
active members, in addition to the cadets at the U.S. Coast Guard
Academy in New London. There are also sizable search and rescue
stations in New London and New Haven, as well as a research and
development center in Groton. I would like to commend the outstanding
work of the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus, chaired by my colleagues
Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, Gene Taylor of Mississippi, and Howard
Coble of North Carolina. I strongly agree with its assertion that
unless the Coast Guard's current budget crisis is dealt with in a
timely fashion, the Coast Guard may be forced to make cuts in search-
and-rescue services, reduce hours at sea, consolidate small boat
stations, and compromise its other crucial missions.
Based on the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus' findings, it is clear
that certain pressing problems merit our immediate attention. First,
the Coast Guard has assumed a variety of increased responsibilities--
from drug interdiction to fisheries management to environmental
cleanup--while like other services, they have been unable to adequately
compensate its personnel, causing many of its best and brightest to
leave the Coast Guard for the private sector. Second, although the U.S.
Coast Guard is currently the seventh largest naval service in the
world, its cutter fleet is also one of the oldest--currently 40th out
of 42. Finally, many of its cutters, buoy tenders and aircraft are
reaching the end of their life expectancy. Unfortunately, with its
budget rising insufficiently in real dollars in the past, the Coast
Guard has not been able to address capital expenditure issues.
This Coast Guard Authorization Act will help address this situation
by authorizing $5.4 billion for Coast Guard programs and operations.
According to testimony by Admiral James M. Loy to the House
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the fiscal
year 2002 budget request will help to restore the readiness of Coast
Guard personnel while ensuring that all of the agency's missions are
performed at a level that can be sustained by its infrastructure. In
conclusion, I applaud the past efforts and service of the U.S. Coast
Guard, and I urge all of my fellow Members to vote with me in support
of this bill.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1699, the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001.''
I have the honor of representing the Second District of Connecticut,
home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Through the years, I have had the
opportunity to witness first-hand the excellence of the Coast Guard.
On any given day, on the average, our U.S. 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 taxpayers very proud of their investment in
the world's finest Coast Guard.
The bill before us today will allow the Coast Guard to continue its
unique, multimission capabilities that are characterized so well by its
motto, ``Semper Paratus--Always Ready.''
I want to complement Chairmen Young and LoBiondo for moving this bill
forth and for their long-time commitment to, and support of, the U.S.
Coast Guard.
As vice chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Subcommittee and a die-hard supporter of the U.S. Coast Guard, I urge
my colleagues to support this authorization bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, too often the great role the men and women of
our Coast Guard play in up keeping our national security is
overshadowed by the larger Department of Defense.
Certainly, their funding is insufficient and they are operating under
conditions that hold them back from doing all they can do. By
supporting this rule and the underlying legislation, we have the
ability to recognize and aid the importance of the Coast Guard to our
Nation's security and well being. Its responsibilities are varied and
numerous ranging from protection of natural resources to search and
rescue to stopping the drug trade at sea and more.
Since 1790, the Coast Guard has been defending the United States in
times of war. With the $300 million increase in operating expenses, the
Coast Guard will be able to continue to support the armed services.
This additional money, among other things, provides the needed fuel and
maintenance to fully employ their cutters and planes to keep seafaring
Americans safe on the open waters and fulfill myriad other missions. In
fully utilizing the Coast Guard's resources and improving their assets,
our shoreline and our Nation at large will be safer and the war on
drugs will be fought even harder.
Despite aging equipment and low funding levels, the Coast Guard has
demonstrated its commitment to winning the war against drugs. In fact,
in the first 6 months of 2001, over 60,000 pounds of cocaine has been
seized. This success indicates the Coast Guard is well on its way to
matching and even surpassing last year's record-breaking confiscation.
Illegal drug activity is creeping into all corners of the United
States and the Coast Guard must be commended for their achievements to
date in stopping illegal drugs before they hit American soil. Funding
provided in H.R. 1699 is a step in that direction.
A special aspect of the Coast Guard's budget for fighting the war on
drugs is the ``Deepwater'' Program. This program exemplifies the Coast
Guard's ability to look ahead and plan for the constant battle against
the drug traffickers at sea. The goal of this program is to update the
Coast Guard's fleet and allow it to keep up with illegal activities in
the waters off our shore. Currently the Coast Guard's ships and planes
are not fully capable of stopping the high-tech drug world. The $338
million targeted for the Deepwater project will provide needed funding
to acquire certain improved assets. If we are serious about success, it
is imperative that we provide funding to enable the Coast Guard to do
its many missions. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of H.R.
1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. This authorization
will increase the Coast Guard's funding by $845 million over last
year's appropriation, an amount that is vital to correct persistent
funding shortfalls over the past years. The bill also provides $338
million to implement the Coast
[[Page H2972]]
Guard's Integrated Deepwater System, a program that will enable the
Coast Guard to replace and modernize its fleet of offshore assets.
As a member of the Coast Guard Caucus and Representative of a coastal
district, I see firsthand the vital role played by our Coast Guard in
protecting our natural resources, providing for our national defense
and ensuring the mobility, security, and safety of our maritime
community.
A key provision of this bill will increase the Coast Guard's
personnel endstrengths, a requirement to continue the Coast Guard's
ability to protect our borders from drug smugglers. In Fiscal Year
2000, the Coast Guard set a maritime seizure record of more than 60
metric tons of cocaine. Drug smugglers have become increasingly
sophisticated through the use of small, extremely fast boats that are
difficult to detect by the larger, slower moving fleet of Coast Guard
vessels.
Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral James M. Loy recently stated
that, ``We know that we are sustaining our operations only through the
heroic efforts of our people, but faced with tired and aging platforms,
depleted inventories, stretched logistics and support systems, even our
heroes are getting tired.''
This bill will give our Coast Guard personnel the tools, benefits and
capabilities to provide a vital and multipurpose entity to the defense
of our national interests and resources. I ask my colleagues to fully
support this bill and support the heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 1699 is as follows:
H.R. 1699
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 2001''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2002 for necessary expenses of the Coast Guard, as follows:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard,
$3,682,838,000, of which--
(A) $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; and
(B) $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, $659,323,000, of which--
(A) $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; and
(B) not less than $338,000,000 shall be available to the
Coast Guard only to implement the Coast Guard's Integrated
Deepwater System.
(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, $21,722,000, 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 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, $876,346,000.
(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, $15,466,000,
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), $16,927,000, to remain
available until expended.
SEC. 3. 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 44,000 as
of September 30, 2002.
(b) Military Training Student Loads.--The Coast Guard is
authorized average military training student loads as
follows:
(1) For recruit and special training for fiscal year 2002,
1,500 student years.
(2) For flight training for fiscal year 2002, 125 student
years.
(3) For professional training in military and civilian
institutions for fiscal year 2002, 300 student years.
(4) For officer acquisition for fiscal year 2002, 1,000
student years.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the bill is in order except
those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for
that purpose and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate.
Amendments printed in the Record may be offered only by the Member who
caused it to be printed, or his designee, and shall be considered read.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Biggert
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Biggert:
At the end of the bill add the following:
SEC. ____. ASSISTANCE FOR MARINE SAFETY STATION ON CHICAGO
LAKEFRONT.
(a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Transportation
may use amounts authorized under this section to provide
financial assistance to the City of Chicago, Illinois, to pay
the Federal share of the cost of a project to demolish the
Old Coast Guard Station, located at the north end of the
inner Chicago Harbor breakwater at the foot of Randolph
Street, and to construct a new facility at that site for use
as a marine safety station on the Chicago lakefront.
(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out with assistance under this section may
not exceed one third of the total cost of the project.
(2) Non-federal share.--There shall not be applied to the
non-Federal share of a project carried out with assistance
under this section--
(A) the value of land and existing facilities used for the
project; and
(B) any costs incurred for site work performed before the
date of the enactment of this Act, including costs for
reconstruction of the east breakwater wall and associated
utilities.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to the
other amounts authorized by this Act, for providing financial
assistance under this section there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation $2,000,000
for fiscal year 2002, to remain available until expended.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I intend to ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment at the end of my time; but before I do, I would
like to explain its purpose and then enter into a colloquy with the
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation.
Simply put, my amendment authorizes funding for the Federal share of
a Federal-State-local partnership to build a maritime safety station
along Chicago's lakefront. Though my congressional district does not
encompass any of the Chicago lakefront, I, like most Illinoisans, am
concerned about the area's safety needs. Many of my constituents sail
on Lake Michigan, and the U.S. Coast Guard's marine safety office is
located in Burr Ridge, Illinois, in the district I represent.
From the Burr Ridge location, the servicemen and women of the U.S.
Coast Guard are responsible for commercial vessel safety, marine
environmental response, port safety and security, and waterways
management for the Illinois River and its tributaries, the Des Plaines
River, the Chicago River and portions of Lake Michigan.
Despite this extensive mission, the U.S. Coast Guard has no presence
or base of operation in Chicago along the lakefront. The U.S. Coast
Guard resources nearest to the Chicago lakefront are in Burr Ridge,
Waukegan, or Calumet Harbor, all of which are at least 45 minutes away.
Anyone who has visited Chicago knows how much Chicagoans enjoy and take
advantage of our beautiful lakefront. In fact, Chicago's lakefront
includes a number of very busy harbors and marinas and hosts a number
of important events.
There are approximately 95,000 recreational boats registered in the
nine-county Chicago metropolitan area, and over 30 excursion, dining,
or tour vessels operate out of Chicago. The city of Chicago also
celebrates many events, including the Air and Water Show, the Chicago/
Mackinaw Sailboat Race, the Fourth of July Fireworks and the Taste of
Chicago, and Venetian Night along its lakefront, attracting substantial
pedestrian and recreational boat traffic from around the Great Lakes
region.
I believe we can enjoy the lakefront with greater safety if we
establish a marine safety station along the lakefront. Let us not wait
until it is too late. Let us not wait until the Coast Guard finds
itself unable to respond in
[[Page H2973]]
a timely fashion to an emergency situation along Chicago's lakefront.
An intergovernmental group of marine emergency service providers
consisting of the U.S. Coast Guard, the city of Chicago's Marine Police
and Illinois' Department of Natural Resources Conservation Police
identified the old Coast Guard station, a facility in a state of
disrepair and partially condemned, as an ideal location for
redevelopment as a Chicago marine safety station. The U.S. Coast Guard
has offered to relocate some of its existing resources including staff
and rescue vessels to this facility to provide a more effective
response in the downtown Chicago area. The total project would cost $6
million split evenly between the Federal, State and local
jurisdictions. It is my belief that the $2 million Federal share is a
small price to pay for significantly improving public safety and law
enforcement.
I respect the chairman's wish that this authorization bill not
include projects and withdraw my amendment. I believe strongly in the
bill that has just been debated, but I would like to engage him in a
brief colloquy to ask for his assistance in moving this project
forward.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the
gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman work with me and other interested
parties to include authorization for this much-needed project in future
legislation to be considered by the subcommittee and full committee?
Mr. LoBIONDO. Yes, I would like to assure the gentlewoman that I will
work with her and other Members of the Illinois delegation, the State
of Illinois, the City of Chicago, and the United States Coast Guard to
give this project full and fair consideration in future legislation and
ensure that the safety needs of the Chicago lakefront are met.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman very much for his efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of the bill add the following:
SEC. ____. REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT ONLY AMERICAN-MADE
VESSELS.
Any new vessel constructed for the Coast Guard with amounts
made available under this Act--
(1) shall be constructed in the United States;
(2) shall not be constructed using any steel other than
steel made in the United States; and
(3) shall be constructed in compliance with the Buy
American Act.
Modification to Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be modified.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Traficant:
In lieu of the matter proposed on page 1, strike lines 1
through 9 and insert the following:
SEC. ____. REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT ONLY AMERICAN-MADE
VESSELS.
(a) In General.--Any new vessel constructed for the Coast
Guard with amounts made available under this Act--
(1) shall be constructed in the United States;
(2) shall not be constructed of steel or iron produced
outside of the United States; and
(3) shall be constructed in compliance with the Buy
American Act.
(b) Limitation on Application.--Subsection (a)(2) shall not
apply--
(1) if the Secretary finds that the application of that
subsection would be inconsistent with the public interest;
(2) to the use of steel or iron produced outside of the
United States if the Secretary finds that such material is
not produced in the United States in sufficient and
reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory
quality; or
(3) if compliance with subsection (a)(2) will increase the
cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the modification is
agreed to.
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the Coast Guard for
seizing 111,000 pounds of cocaine that when stepped on will be worth
more than $12 billion on the streets of the United States of America. I
also listened carefully to the wise remarks of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) when he mentioned the national security issue
of narcotics.
I would like to remind this committee that former President Bush
created Task Force 6, a military operation that worked in conjunction
with civilian forces on our border. I do recommend and will be offering
legislative amendments to future national security measures to enhance
and reapply and to make Task Force 6 once again a strong and even
bigger reality.
Today's amendment is straightforward. If we are going to be
constructing vessels for the Coast Guard, it should be American workers
and American steel where at all possible. I want to commend the
leadership of the committee: the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. LoBiondo), who has done a fine job the first time I have seen him
on the floor and the excellent work of the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Brown.)
With that, I ask that my amendment be passed over without prejudice,
be kept in the bill, and I do not get shafted in conference.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, the
distinguished ranking member.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the committee, in bringing this
legislation to the floor, had agreed that this is not a policy bill.
This is the only policy-type amendment to be accepted on the floor,
which I will accept in consultation with the chairman, he will speak
for himself on the matter, but because it already is a statement of
already existing law in a previous iteration of transportation
legislation from this committee in a Surface Transportation Assistance
Act of 1982 and the gentleman's language offered here tracks exactly
current law in the Federal aid highway program which has served to
protect 60 million tons of American steel in the Federal aid highway
program over the last 20 years.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to commend
then Chairman Oberstar in his role in that legislation and for being
perhaps the original leader of a Buy American movement in the House.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
LoBiondo), the distinguished subcommittee chair.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for his determination and energy over the years
for his Buy American program. In consultation with the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), I
am very pleased to endorse and accept this amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as
modified, offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hoekstra:
At the end of the bill add the following:
SEC. . COAST GUARD AIR SEARCH AND RESCUE FACILITIES FOR LAKE
MICHIGAN.
Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to the other
amounts authorized by this Act, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for operation
and maintenance of the Coast Guard air search and rescue
facility in Muskegon, Michigan, $2,028,000 for fiscal year
2002.
[[Page H2974]]
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy
with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the
subcommittee.
As the gentleman from New Jersey knows, I have filed an amendment to
authorize to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation roughly
$2 million for the continued operation and maintenance of the Coast
Guard air search and rescue facility in Muskegon, Michigan for fiscal
year 2002.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I am familiar with the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I also understand the gentleman's desire to expedite a
Coast Guard authorization bill this year and avoid the difficulties
that have plagued Coast Guard authorization bills in years past.
As the gentleman is aware, the Coast Guard's primary mission on the
Great Lakes is that of search and rescue. Unfortunately, the U.S. Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2002 budget weakens that mission by proposing to
close the Coast Guard's seasonal search and rescue air facility that
has operated out of Muskegon since 1997.
I fear that the closing of this facility puts the safety of Lake
Michigan boaters in danger. The Muskegon site was selected by the Coast
Guard after an elaborate selection process that proved Muskegon to be
the most cost-effective location for their capabilities. In addition,
the proposal to close this facility directly violates fiscal year 1999
appropriations language that establishes a seasonal facility to better
serve the Chicago area. However, that very provision also directs the
Coast Guard not to close or downsize any other facility to accommodate
this additional seasonal capability.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the gentleman's desire
to maintain the search and rescue facility at Muskegon, Michigan as
well as the feelings of the entire Michigan delegation who expressed
their support for the facility in a letter to me. The gentleman from
Michigan should be commended for his work to ensure the safety of his
constituents and Lake Michigan boaters and that they are not
jeopardized.
I appreciate his understanding of the need to move this bill before
us today as expeditiously as possible, and I pledge to work with the
gentleman from Michigan on this issue when my committee takes action on
additional Coast Guard-related matters in the very near future.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
also appreciate his willingness to address this matter on a more
appropriate piece of authorization legislation from his committee. In
addition, will the gentleman agree to express his support for the
safety of Lake Michigan boaters and the need for additional funds to
maintain the operation of the seasonal search and rescue facility in
Muskegon?
Mr. LoBIONDO. As the gentleman from Michigan noted, I will work to
address with him this matter in my committee as well as express the
need for additional funds to maintain the search and rescue
capabilities from Muskegon, Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
his leadership. I look forward to continuing to work together on this
matter.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
{time} 1230
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Are there any further amendments
to the bill?
If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Biggert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1699) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year
2002, pursuant to House Resolution 155, he reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
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.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 411,
nays 3, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 155]
YEAS--411
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
[[Page H2975]]
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--3
Paul
Schaffer
Tancredo
NOT VOTING--18
Burton
Dingell
Ferguson
Hutchinson
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Lewis (KY)
Lofgren
Miller, George
Putnam
Simmons
Solis
Tauzin
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Waters
Wexler
{time} 1258
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 155, I was the speaker at
my son's high school graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 155 on H.R. 1699, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________