Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6469-H6475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2443, COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
ACT OF 2004

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 730, I
call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2443) to authorize
appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2004, to amend
various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 730, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
July 20, 2004 at page H 6022.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

{time} 1400

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
conference report on H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard Authorization and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.
This conference report is the result of a very bipartisan effort. I
notice this is a word being used often today on this floor, but I want
to compliment especially the committee I serve on. It was worked out
with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
LoBiondo), the ranking members from the full committee and the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and all of the conferees; and
it deserves the support of all Members.
As this body's only licensed mariner and elected Member for all of
Alaska, I am extremely interested in making sure the Coast Guard has
the tools necessary to carry out its many varied missions. This bill
gives the Coast Guard the resources and authorities necessary to
protect the safety and security of lives and property on U.S. waters.
H.R. 2443 authorizes $8.2 billion to support activities of the Coast
Guard for fiscal year 2005 and includes a number of provisions which
will result in a safer, more effective system of maritime
transportation.
My State of Alaska contains nearly one-third of the Nation's
exclusive economic zone, the Nation's largest fishery, and significant
cruise ship and oil tanker traffic. Therefore, I am concerned about the
ability of the Coast Guard to carry out its traditional search,
fisheries law enforcement, and vessel inspection missions.
Mr. Speaker, all of us recognize the exceptional work performed by
the Coast Guard, often under dangerous conditions and circumstances. I
urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report.

[[Page H6470]]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. John Rayfield and Mr. Mark
Zachares for their hard work, and thank the staff on both the Senate
and House side. The staff has worked very hard to ensure this has been
done correctly.
Again, may I stress, I hope we can do the same thing on the highway
bill as we have done on this bill, and through a bipartisan effort,
achieve our goal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for
his remarks, and certainly the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the ranking member from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar). I would say to the gentleman from Alaska, maybe we
should ask unanimous consent to substitute the highway bill for this
conference report!
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Chairman Young to strongly support the
conference report for H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard Authorization and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.
This legislation is the culmination of our work in this Congress in
examining the Coast Guard missions, with particular emphasis on the
funding for the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and their
new homeland security missions.
The bill authorizes over $8.2 billion for Coast Guard operations for
fiscal year 2005. We believe this will be sufficient funding for the
Coast Guard to carry out their many missions, including homeland
security, search and rescue, marine safety, drug and migrant
interdiction and law enforcement, which includes $5.4 billion for Coast
Guard operating expenses, $1.5 billion for acquisition and construction
projects, $24.2 million for research and development, and $19.65
million for alteration of bridges.
In particular, I am pleased that the conferees recommended that the
Coast Guard should lease additional helicopters to establish a
helicopter interdiction tactical squadron, HITRON, armored on the West
Coast. Since their establishment in Jacksonville, Florida, the East
Coast HITRON squadron has stopped over $4 billion in illegal drugs from
entering the United States. Deployment of a HITRON squadron on the West
Coast will help stem the flow of illegal narcotics through the eastern
Pacific Ocean.
There is sufficient authorized funding in this bill for the Coast
Guard to lease the helicopters required for this deployment. If one
were to look at this using a cost-benefit analysis, the $39 million we
spend to lease and deploy an armored HITRON squadron on the West Coast
will stop drugs valued at more than 20 times that amount.
It is my strong view that the Coast Guard must increase existing
airborne use of force assets for port security and drug interdiction.
The lease option for these aircraft is already in place. The lease
provides antiterrorist and antidrug coverage for the next 3 to 5 years
while providing flexibility for the Coast Guard to engage in a
competition to select a permanent multimission Cutter helicopter to
meet the post-9/11 challenge. When these multimission helicopters are
deployed, the HITRON helicopters can be returned to the manufacturer at
the option of the Coast Guard.
We make a number of other substantive changes in the law, including
providing critical skill training bonuses for enlisted members,
providing legal authority to build new housing for Coast Guard and
military personnel, extending the International Safety Management Code
to all vessels operating in U.S. waters, and requiring electronic
charts on ships to help prevent accidents such as the 1989 accident of
the Exxon Valdez when they lost their way in Prince William Sound in
Alaska. We also extend the oil spill response plans to cargo ships
entering U.S. ports, not just tankers.
I thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young); the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo); and the ranking member of the full committee,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their bipartisan effort
to put the bill together.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the passage of
the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee, who
has done an outstanding job on this legislation.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership of the full committee and this conference.
I also want to thank the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), as well
as all of the conferees of the House and Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of the conference report on
the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act. The conference report
authorizes funding and personnel numbers for the Coast Guard and
includes a number of other measures that will improve both the
operational capability of the Coast Guard and the safety of our
maritime transportation system.
This conference report also includes important provisions designed to
build upon the work we did in the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2001 to strengthen security at our ports.
H.R. 2443 includes language to clarify that members of the Coast
Guard may make arrests for violations of Federal law while conducting
security operations at our port facilities, to direct the Coast Guard
to conduct vulnerability assessments of any waters adjacent to nuclear
power plants to help ensure we are properly prepared for a waterborne
threat to these facilities, and to authorize a new program to fund
pilot projects that will test promising new technologies that could
improve security at our ports.
I am particularly pleased that the other body has agreed with Members
of the House regarding the need to accelerate Coast Guard's asset
recapitalization program known as Operation Deepwater. This report
authorizes a funding level of $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2005. This
level of funding puts us on track to accelerate Deepwater's completion
date to February 1, 2006, 5 years earlier than originally planned.
The effective accomplishment of the Coast Guard's national and
homeland security missions, as well as its ability to sustain the level
of performance of traditional missions, is predicated upon having a
required funding level to replace its aging and rapidly failing assets
sooner than the 20-year projected plan.
The need to accelerate is compelling. Over 20 110-foot patrol boats
underwent emergency dry dock for breached hulls this past year, and the
rest of the fleet is in immediate need of repair for structural
corrosion. Over the past year, the HH-65 helicopters have suffered more
than 125 in-flight main engine power losses, robbing the asset of its
ability to hover and placing the lives of its crew, passengers and
those below in grave danger.
These failures are increasing maintenance costs and are resulting in
the direct loss of over 600 patrol days annually, severely affecting
readiness and diminishing the service's ability to respond to terrorist
threats and conduct its other vital missions.
I firmly believe that, as authorizers, it is our job to set goals and
priorities for the service. The accelerated replacement of these assets
is one of the Coast Guard's highest priorities. I commend my colleagues
for their support of this critical issue and encourage our
appropriators to work towards the goals we have established in this
report.
We all praise the work of the men and women of the Coast Guard almost
on a daily basis. We have seen the incredible footage of the videos of
the rescues that they have made. We hear of their heroism on a day-in-
and-day-out basis. While it is very nice to say thank you in words, we
need to show it in deeds, so we are providing the men

[[Page H6471]]

and women of the Coast Guard the assets that they so dramatically need
to complete their mission.
Finally, I would like to thank the staff on both sides for their
tremendous work, particularly John Rayfield, Eric Nagel, Marsha Canter
from our subcommittee, as well as Liz Megginson from the full
committee, and John Cullather from the staff of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their efforts. I urge all Members to
support this legislation.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from California (Mr. Filner) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report
for H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.
I would like to commend the members of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation and all of the conferees for the great job
they did on this bill.
My interest in this bill stems from the work I do on the Committee on
Homeland Security and the strong need that we have to bolster the
security at our Nation's ports. I am thankful that the conferees
included the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson) on that committee. The traditional and
homeland security missions of the Coast Guard must both be supported,
and I think this bill addresses both of those areas well.
One provision requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop
a long-range vessel tracking system. A true global, satellite-based
tracking system that will give the Coast Guard worldwide maritime
domain awareness. When we have the ability to track ships on their
entire ocean voyage, we will be able to target the ships that exhibit
atypical or erratic behavior as well as to ensure their safety
throughout the journey.
The technology and infrastructure needed for such a tracking system
is already available and in place, and I hope to see it will be used
within months of passage of this legislation. I had previously
introduced legislation addressing that important issue, and I am glad
to see it is included in this bill. Tracking vessels is an important
part of overall maritime intelligence.
The bill also requires the Department of Homeland Security to report
to Congress on the maritime intelligence plan required by the Maritime
Transportation Security Act.
Container security is another key provision in the bill which
requires DHS to update Congress on container security technology, empty
container inspection, cargo targeting and the deployment of radiation
portal monitors at seaports.
Finally, this bill gives the Department of Homeland Security
continued authority to issue port security grants and accelerates the
Deepwater program implementation.
This bill will make the Coast Guard stronger and our Nation's ports
more secure. I urge my colleagues to vote to pass this legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska
(Chairman Young) for his support in including my provision in this bill
that calls for the timely review and adjustment of pilotage rates by
the United States Coast Guard; and of course, special thanks to the
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for his
continued efforts to advocate for the just treatments of our American
maritime pilots.
Unfortunately for American maritime pilots, the review has been far
from timely, and a permanent adjustment flat out has not happened. Last
fall, during floor debate on this bill, I engaged in a colloquy with
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to raise the issue that no
permanent rate adjustment for pilots had been made. At that time, I was
vexed at how the Coast Guard, whose responsibility it is to set the
rates that American pilots charge shipping companies for pilotage
services, let the 2003 shipping season come and go without issuing a
permanent rate adjustment.
The Great Lakes pilotage system performs critical safety and
environmental functions for the Great Lakes. And not only that, it also
requires by law that every vessel entering the Great Lakes has a
maritime pilot on board. It does not make sense to underfund a pilotage
system which is crucial to the largest freshwater body in the world,
yet the Coast Guard failed to complete a permanent, full rate
adjustment at all last year. At the end of last year, the Coast Guard
finally did issue an interim rule which provided only a partial rate
adjustment.
In a letter I received from the Commandant earlier this year, I was
advised that a supplemental rule scheduled to be published in February
was going to be delayed until May.
Mr. Speaker, Members, you might further understand my utter disbelief
and complete frustration that a supplemental rule is still not out yet,
and there are signs now it will not be out until October and maybe
later.

{time} 1415

Remember, the supplemental rule will not change the rate. It will
just trigger another round of public comment.
Every day that goes by is another day that pilots are not getting the
pay that they not only deserve but are entitled to. This is contrary to
the Coast Guard's promise of last year to adjust the current pilot
system funded at 1997 levels. This is particularly disturbing because
the Coast Guard regulations require rates to be reviewed and adjusted
on an annual basis. Setting rates to 1997 levels will inevitably result
in the fraying of the Great Lakes pilotage system.
Foreign shipping companies and their agents in the United States have
urged the Coast Guard to delay and reduce the proposed rate increase.
This is not surprising because foreign shipping companies have an
economic interest in reducing these rates, which they pay. However, it
is the Coast Guard that by law bears the responsibility for ensuring
that rate reviews and adjustments are completed in a timely manner and
reflect the formula set out in detail in the agency's own regulations.
It is simply not acceptable for the Coast Guard to have repeatedly
missed its own deadlines of a rate adjustment. Such delays will only
continue to subject the Coast Guard to the charge that it is placing
the economic interests of foreign shipping companies ahead of the
environmental protection and marine safety of the Great Lakes.
It is unbelievable to me that it is actually possible that another
shipping season will come and go without a permanent adjustment. After
having written five letters in the last year requesting a prompt
establishment of a permanent Great Lakes maritime pilotage rate, that
is five times we have written, enough is enough; and I believe we need
to call on GAO to investigate this issue.
Again, I exhort the Coast Guard to follow its own rules and implement
a full pilotage rate adjustment on the Great Lakes now. The pilots in
my congressional district bordering Lakes Michigan, Superior, and Huron
as well as pilots throughout the Great Lakes have waited long enough
for the Coast Guard's empty promise to come to fruition.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I greatly appreciate the gentleman's statement which
has laid out very clearly the problem that we face on the Great Lakes.
This is really a Great Lakes issue. It does not affect the rest of the
Nation. The saltwater ports all have different regimes for pilotage.
But this is not a new problem that the gentleman has laid out and
detailed in a very clear manner. This goes back to the 1960s when we
had a pilotage administration that was separate from the Coast Guard.
It was run by a private sector, that is, a nonmilitary, non-Coast
Guard, entity. And that was a failure. They did not manage the three
pilotage districts, either in effectiveness in getting pilots when and
where they were needed or in managing the pay.

[[Page H6472]]

Then the pilotage administration was absorbed from the Department of
Transportation into the Coast Guard. For a while that worked, but the
Coast Guard had a retired captain running the program, and he would on
weekends be off at his farm in Virginia when they needed pilots to be
assigned out of the reserves to guide ocean-going vessels into Great
Lakes ports. That was unacceptable. We thought we had that fixed for a
while. It was taken out of the Coast Guard, and now it is back in the
Coast Guard again.
This is not acceptable for ocean shipping that enters the Great Lakes
at a cost of as much as $15,000 a day when there are delays, when there
is an inadequate reserve of pilots to guide the vessels. The gentleman
has put his finger on it. The language that the gentleman offered on
the floor which the chairman agreed to accept, which I accepted and
which is in this bill, will hopefully prod the process along. But that
is not good enough. We need to scrub this whole process from top to
bottom, have an independent review of it, and find a better way to deal
with pilotage. It is unacceptable that the Coast Guard has not resolved
it, the Department of Transportation has not resolved it, and that the
Department of Homeland Security got their hands in this mess when they
have nothing to do with it and the whole pilotage rule was sent over to
Homeland Security.
I see the chairman nodding his amusement over this mess which we knew
was going to happen when the Coast Guard was taken out of the DOT and
put over in Homeland Security. This is one of the fallouts of that
whole mess. We have got to have this thing straightened out.
I pledge to the gentleman, with the support of our chairman who is a
riverboat captain himself and knows how important it is to have good
pilots, we will get this thing done and we will work with the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). We will get this straightened out
because it has to be done.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the ranking member, and I think the chairman for
his help and support.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, continuing along with the concerns that
the gentleman from Minnesota expressed, I have another matter to bring
to the Members' attention that perhaps both the Chair and our ranking
member with their experience can be of assistance. I am here to ask for
help in remedying a situation on the Great Lakes that I have just been
made aware of.
I received a letter today, as a matter of fact, from the Port of
Cleveland raising serious concerns with a marine pilotage shortage that
is causing shipping delays on the Great Lakes. Federal law and Coast
Guard regulations require all ocean-going commercial ships to employ a
marine pilot on board when navigating the Great Lakes. For reasons
unknown, one of the pilotage associations has had trouble fulfilling
its mission. This is beginning to create shipping delays. Since the
beginning of this year, according to a study that has been provided to
me, there have been over 582 hours of shipping delays according to the
American Great Lakes Port Association and the St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation. A French cruise ship company has already
ceased operations in the Great Lakes and other shipping companies are
rumored to be wary of continued operations in the Great Lakes.
While I fully realize the Coast Guard must place a priority on safety
and lifesaving, the Coast Guard can stop these delays. Since the Coast
Guard regulates the pilot associations, I believe the Coast Guard must
ensure that shipping delays are avoided when reasonably possible.
I ask the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Filner) to work with me to explore this issue and to make sure that the
Coast Guard is taking all necessary steps to avoid unnecessary shipping
delays without impacting safety. To make this easier, I have provided
both the chairman and the ranking member a list of delays and several
letters of correspondence between the interested parties.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our
attention. I was unaware of this problem. I do appreciate his
suggestions. We will look into it.
Concerning the previous conversation, in this legislation there is a
provision in the bill to tell the Coast Guard to get off their you-
know-what and get busy and finish that problem that the gentleman from
Michigan was talking about, and we are going to take care of that.
With respect to the gentleman from Ohio's issue, I now will be
contacting the pilots association to find out what is the problem. I
was reading with dismay the amount of delays that did occur because
there were no pilots available. I cannot quite understand that myself
because these are fine-paying jobs; and very honestly, the revenue is
quite attractive. I am anticipating my career, and I am really shocked.
Maybe there is a place for me, after all, if I get out of this
position. I will be working with the gentleman very closely to see if
we can do it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for his
observations. The gentleman's point and information is accurate, but
the reason they are having difficulty getting pilots is for 2 years,
pilots have been paid at the rate of a mate. The chairman of the
committee knows very well what that means. A pilot ought to be paid
better than the pay for a mate, and that pay has stayed there for 2
years and the Coast Guard has failed to act. And so the pilots are
saying, We are out of here. They are quitting. You cannot bring a
seasoned pilot on board with one season's experience. You are going to
run that ship aground.
Because the Coast Guard has failed to act, because the pay has not
been adjusted and the pilots are feeling abused, they are walking. What
is happening is it is costing more for every piece of goods that comes
into the Great Lakes. Every item that comes in on those vessels is
taking longer, costing more than it would otherwise cost to be
delivered to customers, and that means that our Great Lakes St.
Lawrence system is less efficient and less competitive. That is not
right. That is not fair. The Coast Guard needs to get this thing done
and done quickly and fairly and equitably. If they are not going to do
it, then we need to find another way to run this operation.
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Filner) for their attention to this. The Port of Cleveland is essential
to the economy of our region in northeastern Ohio. Their knowledge and
cooperation is much appreciated here.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, Americans have always counted on the Coast
Guard to enforce maritime law, to secure our waterways and ports, to
rescue those in distress, and to intercept illegal drugs. In this new
century, however, we are going to need to count on them even more. In
the Iraqi theater, the Coast Guard is protecting key ports and oil
platforms and helping speed the delivery of relief supplies to those in
need.
This year, Petty Officer Third Class Nathan Bruckenthal became the
first member of the Coast Guard to die in battle since Vietnam. His
bravery and sacrifice shines a light on the often overlooked sacrifices
made by our Coast Guard. When I spoke to Nathan's father, he said
simply, ``My son served his country.'' Mr. Speaker, he did serve, and
sacrifice.
We have to keep Nathan and his family in our prayers, in our budgets,
and keep the Coast Guard the very best in the world. The Coast Guard is
always ready to defend our Nation and rescue those in trouble. Now it
is our turn. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and
to give the Coast

[[Page H6473]]

Guard the funds that it needs to meet the national security challenges
of the 21st century in honor of the Bruckenthal family which served and
sacrificed.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my debate
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and, pending that,
I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be permitted to control the
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Filner) for yielding me this time to speak on this legislation. I
rise today to support America's Coast Guard, and that is why I intend
to support the conference report for H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard
Authorization Act.
I represent Maryland's Second Congressional District, which includes
both the Port of Baltimore and the Coast Guard Yard. So while I applaud
attempts to provide adequate funding for the Coast Guard and its
mission to protect America's shorelines, I am disappointed that this
conference report does not provide any language to protect the critical
role and mission that the Baltimore Coast Guard Yard serves.
The Baltimore Coast Guard Yard is a unique and indispensable asset to
this Nation and the Coast Guard itself. For over a century it has
served as the service's sole ship construction and major repair
facility. It is an essential part of the Coast Guard's core of
industrial support base and supplier of depot-level services.
In the wake of the September 11 attack on America and the intensity
of the national Coast Guard homeland security response, the yard
capabilities and skill allowed the Coast Guard to sustain critical
readiness for the fleet and our Nation. The yard plays a unique and
indispensable role in both our homeland security and homeland defense
priorities.
For example, it supported efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan through a
joint Department of Defense and Coast Guard project. Engineers and
tradesmen designed, tested, and constructed the custom shipping cradles
needed to transport the 110 patrol boats needed in Iraq. The yard also
answered an urgent request from the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to
quickly repair over a dozen old-style bridge erection boats. These
boats were refurbished and shipped to Iraq, allowing bridges to be
built over the inland rivers permitting the transportation of personnel
and supplies.
It is my understanding that the core logistics of the yard are being
threatened, and I am deeply troubled by the absence of language in the
conference report to protect the Coast Guard Yard's mission. This is an
incredibly important issue to the security of our country. Protecting
the yard and its shipbuilding and repair facilities is critical to all
Americans.
I urge my colleagues to consider the tradition of excellent service
the Baltimore Coast Guard Yard has provided in the defense of the
Nation for over a century. The dedicated and skilled craftsmen working
at the yard today are among this country's greatest assets protecting
our way of life.

{time} 1430

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act.
It has been almost 3 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks,
and we still do not have sufficiently detailed information about what
enters our ports. We know that approximately 6 million shipping
containers enter the United States each year, but we do not know what
all these containers contain nor do we know what it would cost to
inspect all of these containers.
We also know that approximately 6- to 7,000 ships enter the United
States each year, but that figure refers mainly to deep-draft vessels.
How many smaller ships, or break bulk vessels, enter our ports? We do
not really know.
When this bill was considered in the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure last year, I offered an amendment that was accepted by
committee, asking the Coast Guard to do a study. I wanted to know a
complete breakdown of the number and types of containers and ships that
enter the United States each year. I also wanted to know the cost that
would be incurred if we were to inspect adequately all of these
containers and ships.
Once we understand the different elements of what enters our ports,
we can establish a better baseline on what we are currently spending on
port security. More importantly, we will have a better understanding of
how we can improve port security and the cost that will be entailed
with each type of improvement.
I am pleased that this port security study provision has been
included in the final conference report that is before us today, along
with additional reporting requirements regarding container security
inserted by the Senate.
This is a good bill that will authorize appropriations for the Coast
Guard. It has good provisions that will enable us to get a better
handle on proper security in our ports, and I urge my colleagues to
support its adoption.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full
committee.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his splendid management of the bill on our side.
I compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for his
steadfast dedication to the purposes of the Coast Guard and his
distinguished leadership of the subcommittee on this matter and other
Coast Guard-related matters, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young)
for the steadfast support that we had in adhering to the principles of
the committee as expressed by the House and passage of our version of
the Coast Guard reauthorization.
This is a very happy day for the committee and for the Coast Guard.
It is the first time in 2 years, in fact a little bit more than that,
that actually we are on the point of passing a Coast Guard
reauthorization bill in the normal legislative course of business. It
had to be done in the appropriations process last year, Mr. Speaker,
because although the House did its work, passed the bill, the other
body could not come to a resolution on the matter, and we never even
got to conference.
But this year, congratulations on both sides. The Coast Guard will
have its charter spelled out legislatively as we need to do.
We make a number of improvements, a significant increase in personnel
for the Coast Guard. The former Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
was one of my first two committee assignments along with, then, Public
Works when I was elected in 1974; and the personnel allocated to the
Coast Guard in 1975 was listed at 39,000. It remained at that level for
the next 30 years, and only recently have we begun to raise the number
of personnel for the Coast Guard, while all along adding new
responsibilities to the Coast Guard.
Congress so loved the Coast Guard and so admired the work it could do
that it laid on 27 new authorities and responsibilities for the Coast
Guard to carry out without adding the personnel to do the job, and only
in the last 8 years, 9 years have we begun the Blue Water program and
the program of adding extended endurance helicopters and fixed-wing
aircraft and surface vessels and high-endurance, high-speed vessels to
combat the illegal drug trade and immigration trade in the Caribbean
and on the coastal waterways of the United States.
This legislation takes us significantly forward. We authorize Coast
Guard to set hours of service limits for personnel working on towing
vessels to avoid the kind of tragedies that occurred at South Padre
Island. We require all commercial vessels to have electronic charts
beginning in 2007.
We authorize establishment of a National Maritime Enhancement
Institute on the Great Lakes to study maritime transportation needs on
the Great Lakes, and full safety inspection of towing vessels.

[[Page H6474]]

We require the Coast Guard to set standards for adequate amounts of
potable water on commercial vessels. After many years of studying this
issue, we are finally going to deal with it.
And we extend the authority of ships operating on the Great Lakes to
dispose of dry bulk cargo residue in accordance with standards already
set by the Coast Guard for at least a decade.
The only disappointment I have with this legislation, and it is a
major one, is that we did not come to a resolution of security issues
along the lines that the committee agreed upon, the House voted on, and
the motion to instruct conferees was passed with an overwhelming vote
in this body, and that was to deal with security plans for foreign-flag
vessels entering U.S. ports.
We passed the affectionately known Port Security Act, known properly
as the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The gentleman from
Alaska (Chairman Young) and I were at the White House for the signing
of this bill, along with Members of the other body. We all patted each
other on the back. There was not enough money in that bill on the one
hand to carry out the intentions of the legislation, but there was very
good and very strong language in that legislation to protect U.S.
ports.
``An owner or operator of a vessel . . . shall prepare and submit to
the Secretary a security plan for the vessel . . . for deterring a
transportation security incident to the maximum extent practicable.''
It goes on to say, ``A vessel or facility for which a plan is
required to be submitted to the Secretary under this subsection may not
operate after July 1, 2004 unless, A, the plan has been approved by the
Secretary; and, B, the vessel or facility is operating in compliance
with the plan.''
Well, that seems, on the face of it, very clear language, a very
clear directive to the Coast Guard, but hardly was the ink dry when
they went to the International Maritime Association and negotiated
something quite different and issued regulations saying that instead of
reviewing foreign vessel security plans, the Coast Guard will simply
accept the security certificates issued by the flag state or by a
security organization approved by the flag state under which that
vessel operates.
Many ships coming into U.S. harbors operate from a flag state country
that we know as ``flag states of convenience'' or ``flags of
convenience,'' those great seafaring nations of Panama, Malta, Cyprus.
Cyprus may have been a seafaring nation B.C., but not in recent times.
And under the Coast Guard regulations, the agency would have to accept
approvals from these countries or their security organizations. Those
countries do not inspire a great deal of security confidence in me or
other observers of the security scene.
So we came back with the House bill to strengthen that language, make
it clear what we intended; and the other body had a little different
version. We tried mightily to come to an agreement. When we could not,
the conferees agreed to delete language in both bills and leave current
law standing.
That outcome and this conference report, Mr. Speaker, should not be
construed as endorsing the Coast Guard's regulations. They are
inconsistent with current law. Current law states very clearly that
foreign vessels must have their security plans approved by the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. And
those regulations are not in compliance, and they should be revised,
not only not in compliance but not providing adequate security.
Under these regulations, this is what can and will and is happening.
A foreign vessel enters U.S. waters. Under Coast Guard regulations, the
Coast Guard will not examine the vessel's security plan unless there is
clear evidence that the crew has insufficient knowledge of the security
plans and procedures. And even if the Coast Guard finds that the crew
does not have sufficient knowledge about security, regulations do not
allow the Coast Guard to look at these areas of the security plan for
that vessel, identifying restricted areas on the vessel and measures to
prevent unauthorized access to those areas, procedures for responding
to security threats or breaches of security, procedures for responding
to security instructions of the flag state under which that vessel is
operating.
Duties of shipboard personnel assigned security responsibilities and
of other shipboard personnel on security aspects of their duties.
Procedures to ensure the inspection, testing, calibration, and
maintenance of any security equipment on board the vessel.
Identification of the location where the ship's security alter
activation point is located.
Procedures, instructions, and guidance on the use of the ship
security alert system.
And yet, the Administration wants us to believe that under this
system ships would be secure. This is not the type of security that we
need. This is not what the law currently requires. The Coast Guard's
regulations must be revised to comply with the law.
Apart from this difficult security issue, H.R. 2443 makes many
substantive improvements to maritime safety and the quality of life for
the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard.
I thank Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo, and
Subcommittee Ranking Member Filner for the cooperation and teamwork in
successfully concluding this Conference.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support adoption of this
conference report.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar),
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young), and everyone aforementioned for their support in bringing
this conference report to the floor.
I would like just to put a human face on it for a minute, that this
is really about the men and women of the Coast Guard who are out there
every day doing such a heroic job both here and abroad.
For those who think that the Coast Guard is only here on our shores,
recently there was a Coast Guard helicopter crew that was in theater in
Iraq. One of those engine failures that I talked about earlier was
experienced. The captain of the helicopter really had a tremendous
challenge on his hands when he had an engine failure and had to decide
whether to set the helicopter down in Syria or do a hard landing on the
deck.
We can just let our minds wonder a little bit about what it would
have been like to have one of our Coast Guard helicopters having to set
down in Syria and the implications of that. We can all see that that is
not a good scenario.
He very heroically put the helicopter down without any injuries to
himself, the crew, or damage to the helicopter. But it is symptomatic
of why we have to make sure that they have the resources necessary.
This authorization bill will be a critical, but first step in getting
us to that point.
So I would urge all my colleagues to continue to understand the
tremendous mission that the Coast Guard has undertaken, the tremendous
job that they do day in and day out. I ask everyone to please support
this legislation.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2443. I want
to thank the chairmen and ranking members for all their hard work. The
Coast Guard is an integral part of our Nation's homeland security
efforts.
I want to mention that I am a strong supporter of the Deepwater
program that is replacing a number of aging vessels with new, high tech
ships that I have no doubt will serve the Coast Guard and the American
people very well.
Most of all, I want to thank my colleagues on the Transportation
Committee for retaining and broadening language regarding security
assessments at nuclear facilities. When the House debated its version
of this bill, I offered and the chairs and ranking members generously
accepted, an amendment to study the vulnerability of the Indian Point
Nuclear power plant in Westchester County New York.
I am very pleased that during negotiations with the Senate on the
final bill, this version was expanded to include all nuclear facilities
that are adjacent to navigable waters.
We have a responsibility to ensure that our Nation is safe. We know
that Al Qaeda has plans for our nuclear facilities. This assessment
will help us in Congress and the Administration to better plan for
protecting and preventing an attack that may be attempted.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important
legislation.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the
conference report on H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act, a bill to reauthorize Coast Guard operations for
fiscal year 2005.
I thank Chairman Don Young and Frank LoBiondo, and Ranking Member Jim
Oberstar for their hard work and leadership on behalf of our Coast
Guard men and women. And

[[Page H6475]]

I thank my colleagues and fellow conferees for working with me to
authorize the establishment of a National Coast Guard Museum in New
London, Connecticut--where the Service first came ashore and
established the Coast Guard Academy.
In 2001, I became one of the founding members of the National Coast
Guard Museum Association. Our goal was to fund and construct the museum
in New London. The seven-member board included our chairman, James
Coleman, Jr., Connecticut State Senator Cathy Cook, Rear Adm. Richard
Larrabee, USCG (ret.), Cmdr. Don Chapman, USCG (ret.), Richard Grahn
and John Johnson. These civic-minded individuals dedicated their time
and talent to make this project work.
Connecticut's two Senators Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman,
also supported this project and I thank them for their input and
support. I am proud to have been part of the effort, which we
anticipate will be completed with full support of the community.
The bill appropriately directs the Coast Guard Commandant to
establish the museum in New London at, or in close proximity to, the
Academy. This will ensure that future cadets, commissioned officers,
warrants and petty officers attending the leadership school at the
Coast Guard Academy will benefit from the collection and programs of
the new museum.
The people of Connecticut and the New London area are proud of their
Coast Guard and maritime heritage, and eager to support the new museum.
I am confident that local leaders will support this effort and be
diligent in securing a suitable location for the museum.
The Coast Guard is our major force in maritime safety and law
enforcement, an integral part of our national defense, and an important
member of our New London community. It is right to honor the service
and sacrifice of the men and women in the Coast Guard by establishing
this museum, and it is fitting to locate the facility in New London.
A National Coast Guard Museum will be a place to honor, preserve and
share the story of our beloved ``Coasties.'' It is the proud story of
brave men and women who live and serve by their motto--Semper Paratus.
Always Ready.
Mr. Speaker, today this body is ready to say thank you. More than 70
museums across the country celebrate our military services, and H.R.
2443 pays a long overdue tribute to the Coast Guard in establishing the
first museum dedicated to this Service. I am gratified to have the
support of my colleagues in passing this bill.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________