[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2249-S2250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Coast Guard Authorization Bill

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today Senate Democrats have 
filibustered legislation to reauthorize funding for our Coast Guard.
  In a dangerous world, the brave men and women of the Coast Guard are 
always ready for the call, whether it be to interdict drugs, to secure 
our ports, or to conduct daring maritime rescues. They deserve our 
support. They don't deserve a filibuster for the sake of political 
posturing. So let's have a little plain talk about why the bill failed.

  Democrats filibustered this legislation because it contains an 
eminently sensible, bipartisan provision to streamline regulations for 
the mariners and vessel operators who drive America's maritime economy. 
It would cut back on duplicative rules and overlapping enforcement and 
provide a uniform standard that protects the environment and commerce 
alike.
  If this sounds like a commonsense, bipartisan measure, that is 
because that is exactly what it is. This legislation has been favorably 
reported by the Commerce Committee six times--six

[[Page S2250]]

times--during the last three Congresses, including when our Democratic 
friends controlled the committee.
  You might think that would be enough around here to get a bill 
passed. But earlier today, a number of the very same Democrats who 
cosponsored this very legislation, in this very Congress, flip-flopped 
under partisan pressure and voted against it. In fact, if all of the 
Senate Democrats who are currently cosponsors of this provision had 
voted for the bill, the cloture motion would have passed. Let me say 
that again. If the cosponsors of this measure in this Congress had 
voted for the bill, the cloture motion would have passed. If only those 
Democrats who had put their name on this provision would have actually 
followed through and voted for it, the filibuster would be over.
  Look, our constituents sent us here to stand for their interests. In 
landlocked States like Kentucky and Missouri, thousands and thousands 
of jobs depend on our inland waterways. In coastal States like 
Delaware, Washington, and Florida, major ports enable hundreds of 
billions of dollars of U.S. commerce. Of course, the people of Hawaii 
rely on shipping for everything from groceries to gasoline.
  In all of these States, and elsewhere, I know workers and job 
creators were excited about the prospect of reform in this area. How do 
I know that? Because, in several cases, they successfully persuaded 
their own Democratic Senators to support it--or so it had seemed, until 
today.
  You know, Americans might be forgiven for thinking that persuading 
their Senator to go out of their way and cosponsor a bill would be the 
same thing as persuading them to actually vote for it. Apparently, 
where several of my Democratic colleagues are concerned, that is simply 
not the case because when party leaders came calling and asked my 
colleagues to put party-line obstruction politics ahead of their 
constituents' best interests, they folded. This is what people don't 
like about this town.
  Well, my Democratic friends' political priorities may have shifted--
away from the people they are elected to fight for and toward leftwing 
pressure groups. But the merits of the issue have not changed, so the 
Senate will consider this issue further and will vote on this 
legislation again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to speak tonight because I did 
not support the Coast Guard bill as it came out of committee. We wanted 
to see changes to it, and the legislation that was brought up and the 
final language on Monday night gave our colleagues very little time to 
consider it.
  Washington State is very proud of the rich maritime heritage the 
Coast Guard provides, and our fishermen, Tribes, shipbuilders, sea 
trade, and thriving coastal tourism all count on us to work together 
for our maritime economy.
  Thousands of Pacific Northwest fishermen call Washington State home, 
with over 35,000 Washington State jobs supported by Alaska fisheries. 
The ports of Tacoma and Seattle are combined to be the fourth largest 
container gateway in the United States.
  The Coast Guard plays a pivotal role in national security, in 
fishing, in overseeing and, in many ways, keeping our waterways safe. 
That is why we would love to see a Coast Guard bill which moves forward 
without the controversial pieces of language that are included.
  I know many of my colleagues have thought this is a way to get our 
colleagues from the Midwest, and other places, to just swallow 
wholesale huge changes that could cost our economy billions of 
dollars--such as the zebra mussel, which alone would cost $6.4 billion 
a year, and an ecosystem full of rampant and sometimes toxic algae 
growth, which would and destroy recreation. This is from a letter 
regarding the Coast Guard Authorization Act.
  I would like to see us move forward tonight on the things we can 
agree on--Why? Because I know these things are important as well--and 
continue to work on a resolution for some of the thornier issues that 
still remain.
  I would like to see us move forward. I would like to see a 
recapitalization of the Coast Guard icebreaker and Polar Star. The 
Polar Star is homeported in Seattle and is operational only for our 
heavy icebreaker capabilities.
  This bill also includes language to improve the Coast Guard oversight 
of ships that pose an oilspill risk, which is a constant threat to us 
in Puget Sound and throughout the West, given the large amount of oil 
traffic that comes through Puget Sound out our strait.
  The bill also includes language to strengthen paid family leave 
policies at the Coast Guard. We just had the commandant nominee before 
the Commerce Committee. One of the reasons I questioned him on the paid 
family leave strategies and moving forward is that I want to give him 
every tool to continue to keep the workforce of women that they have in 
the Coast Guard. His commitment to me is that they would love to see 
this strengthened paid family leave policy in the underlying Coast 
Guard bill. Why not give that to them tonight? Our Coast Guard families 
should not be forced to choose between serving their country and 
supporting their families, and this bill would be a good step forward.
  Lastly, this bill includes bipartisan language that would help us 
protect shipyard jobs by making sure we fix the problem related to 
Dakota Creek and also making sure our permanent fishing vessel 
exemptions would be allowed in this legislation.
  I know we face challenges on continued definitions of best 
technology. But that is better than having a definition that exists in 
the underlying bill, which I think we should separate the good policy 
from, that would really make no indication or an economic analysis that 
would leave us with the Great Lakes, and many areas, without the kind 
of clean water that will allow us to continue to do good science and 
good fishery policy in that area of the United States.
  I hope we can move forward on the policies that my colleagues know we 
can get agreement on. I just heard the debate between the majority 
leader and Senator Schumer, so I understand there is an objection to 
moving the Coast Guard bill.