[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 155 (Friday, October 23, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 22, 2009

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration of the bill (H.R. 3619) to 
     authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 
     2010, and for other purposes:
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I rise today to commend Chairman Oberstar 
and Subcommittee Chairman Cummings for their hard work on this 
legislation. I believe H.R. 3619 will go far towards ensuring that the 
U.S. Coast Guard has the financial resources and management structure 
in place to do their job efficiently and effectively.
  More importantly I want to thank both gentlemen for helping to 
address my concerns regarding the bridge permitting process for the 
Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project led by the U.S. Coast Guard.
  Ultimately the U.S. Coast Guard found that the owner of the 
Ambassador Bridge had not provided the relevant information necessary 
to make a decision on a permit at this time; an outcome I commend, as I 
believe that while the Ambassador Bridge Enhancement Project may 
ultimately be a worthy undertaking, the owner of the bridge must go 
through the proper channels of federal permitting, abiding by federal 
law and regulation, and including all relevant environmental, safety 
and structural information as requested and as all other public 
operators do.
  However, at the same time the U.S. Coast Guard was conducting their 
process, Federal Highway Administration was conducting a separate 
permitting process for a new public span, the Detroit River 
International Crossing.
  The differences in these two processes, as well as differences in the 
level of community engagement and state government engagement, is of 
concern to me and many in Southeast Michigan.
  The report language makes clear that there is a requirement that the 
Commandant of the USCG, with the Secretaries of Transportation and 
Homeland Security have to submit a report to the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and other relevant committees 
regarding the existing coordination protocols for joint infrastructure 
responsibilities as well as recommended improvements to these 
protocols.
  It is my hope that this will help to guide early coordination on the 
bridge permitting process and all other infrastructure projects, 
between the United States Coast Guard, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as well as 
the relevant State agencies.
  I have long believed that the end result of the legislative process, 
the NEPA process, or in this instance the bridge permitting process, is 
drastically improved by working with all relevant stakeholders. Such 
processes always benefit from thoughtful, careful, informed 
deliberation in compliance with all relative federal law and 
regulation.
  Again, I thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings for their 
support and their work on this matter.

                          ____________________