[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 180 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6956-S6958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Coast Guard Reauthorization Bill

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to echo what my colleague from 
Tennessee just mentioned about a lot of bipartisan accomplishments on 
the Senate floor over the last several weeks. They are really important 
ones.
  He led the charge on the opioid bill which is going to help our 
entire country and so many others. They don't always get reported in 
the press, but it is important to make sure our fellow Americans, our 
constituents, know that is happening.
  This afternoon, I want to talk about another one that is a really 
important accomplishment that we were able to achieve on the Senate 
floor a couple of hours ago; that is, the Coast Guard Authorization Act 
of 2018.
  A number of Senators have already been down on the floor to talk 
about this: John Thune, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, which 
is where the oversight and responsibility of the Coast Guard lies; 
Senator Wicker from Mississippi; Senator Carper--so many Senators 
contributed to this important piece of legislation that we just passed 
today by almost a vote of over 90 Senators.
  It is a very bipartisan piece of legislation that we were able to get 
through the Senate floor today. As you know, this has taken some time. 
For almost 2 years, we have been working on the Coast Guard bill. A 
number of us put a lot of time and effort into it.
  I do want to do a shout out to my staff: Eric Elam, my legislative 
director; Tom Mansour, a Coast Guard fellow in my office; and Scott 
Leathard. All of them worked literally for the last year and a half, 
night and day, on this bill.
  Again, it is important for America and certainly important for my 
great State of Alaska. It raises a broader issue. We just celebrated 
Veterans Day. Our country was rightfully focused on our veterans. There 
was a lot of focus on the centennial of the Armistice of World War I, 
the ending of World War I. Often when there is a focus on the armed 
services, it focuses on the armed services at the Pentagon--Army, Navy, 
Air Force, and Marines--and sometimes the brave men and women in the 
Coast Guard can be overlooked. They shouldn't be. We all know that.
  One of the things I tried to focus on in my time in the Senate is 
making sure they are not. Prior to 9/11, the Coast Guard was probably 
the only service in the entire U.S. military--because they are a member 
of the services of the U.S. military--whose members were risking their 
lives every single day on the job. Post-9/11, with the national 
security challenges we have, every member of our military--all the 
services--are risking their lives every day, but the Coast Guard does 
it day in and day out.
  Pre-9/11 and post-9/11, men and women in that wonderful service 
undertake a heroic mission with actions that we see saving American 
lives and defending our national security.
  What do they focus on and what does this bill focus on? Well, the 
bottom line is, this bill is focused on making sure the men and women 
of the Coast Guard have the resources to do their job. Their job is 
varied and extremely important.
  We have all seen the Coast Guard coming out of the sky to rescue us--
rescue Americans on seas when they are in trouble; with the hurricanes 
we have seen over the last couple of years; the heroic pictures of the 
men and women in the Coast Guard doing thousands of rescues. We see 
that as part of their mission. They have been described as angels in 
helicopters. When they show up, it is certainly witnessing America at 
its very best. We have seen a lot of that. The mission of the Coast 
Guard also includes ice-breaking, marine environmental protection, port 
security, and international crisis response. Many members are deployed 
overseas in places like the Middle East, combating illegal fishing by 
other nations, protecting American fishermen, protecting Alaskan 
fishermen, readiness to support the Department of Defense operation. It 
is a long list. The Coast Guard does it very well.
  Importantly, the bill we just passed today will significantly help 
the men and women with this important mission. You and I serve on the 
Armed Services Committee. Again, what my colleague from Tennessee was 
talking about is another one of these bipartisan areas of achievement 
that we have seen in the Senate in the last year, year and a half, 
consensus on issues like rebuilding our military. We are doing that on 
the Armed Services Committee through the National Defense Authorization 
Act that passes the Senate and the House every year.
  I am certainly honored to be on the Armed Services Committee, where 
we are working on rebuilding from the cuts of 2010 to 2015. They were 
almost 25 percent of the Department of Defense budget while national 
security challenges were increasing all over the world.
  The other thing we are rebuilding--and it doesn't always get a lot of 
attention--we are rebuilding the Coast Guard. In essence, this bill we 
passed today is the NDAA for the U.S. Coast Guard. The recapitalization 
and rebuilding of the Coast Guard is a core element of the bill we just 
passed.
  Let's run through a couple of examples. Like what we just did in the 
NDAA, increasing the end strength of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
Marines, this bill today works to increase the end strength of the U.S. 
Coast

[[Page S6957]]

Guard. Importantly, it starts to really accelerate what we are doing in 
terms of recapitalizing the Coast Guard fleet. For example, this bill 
authorizes the building of six more fast response cutters--these are 
critical cutters for the U.S. Coast Guard--and three more national 
security cutters for the U.S. Coast Guard. These are incredible 
vessels. They are huge--400-plus feet.
  I had the honor to go out to a commissioning of the Douglas Munro, 
one of the new national security cutters. These ships can do it all. 
They look like big Navy ships that can do it all. That is what these 
national security cutters are doing.
  This legislation also helps to streamline the building of Navy ships, 
which is important as we recapitalize the fleet. It directs the Coast 
Guard's overall policies.
  Now I want to talk a little bit about some of the more specific 
provisions in this bill that relate to my great State, the great State 
of Alaska, where the Coast Guard and the people of Alaska have a very 
special relationship. We love the men and women of the Coast Guard. We 
see them in action all the time, doing heroic missions. We had the 
largest Coast Guard base in the country in Kodiak, AK, and District 
17--that is the Coast Guard district in Alaska--is the largest 
geographic district in terms of square miles in the entire Coast Guard 
area of responsibility. There are close to 4 million square miles and 
over 47,000 miles of coastline just in the State of Alaska. That is 
more coastline than in the rest of the lower 48 States combined. So the 
Coast Guard has a huge mission in Alaska--a really important mission in 
Alaska--and it covers all kinds of territory.
  Let me just give you, again, a sense of the importance that District 
17 and the men and women of the Coast Guard in Alaska have to my 
constituents, to their fellow Alaskans--a snapshot from District 17's 
website. It reads, just in an average month in Alaska, that the Coast 
Guard saves 22 lives, performs 53 assists, and conducts 13 security 
boardings and 22 security patrols throughout this gigantic area of 
District 17, just to name a few of its duties, in addition to making 
sure that illegal fishing in this part of our Nation doesn't occur.
  I am also grateful that as we look at the recapitalization of the 
Coast Guard's fleet, the former Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral 
Zukunft, recognized how important Alaska was and sent me a letter, as I 
am the chairman of the subcommittee in the Commerce Committee that is 
in charge of the Coast Guard. My team and I put in a lot of effort with 
Chairman Thune and others in writing this bill and in working on it for 
the last 2 years.
  In a letter to me prior to his retirement, the former Commandant of 
the Coast Guard said that we know there are challenges and that there 
is a growing mission, from the Coast Guard's perspective, in Alaska. In 
terms of this recapitalization, we see a lot of these vessels coming to 
Southeast Alaska. For example, six fast response cutters that are being 
built and that are part of this bill are slated for Alaska, and two 
additional patrol boats are for Petersburg and Juneau. The FRCs will be 
home-ported--two of them--in Kodiak, one in Seward, one in Sitka, and 
two previously commissioned FRCs will remain stationed in Ketchikan. So 
those are a lot of assets coming, and I believe there are going to be 
more. We are going to continue to work on that.
  I thank the former Commandant and the current Commandant, Admiral 
Schultz, who has been on the job for about 6 months and has already 
been to Alaska three times. That is just another testament to 
recognizing how important the Coast Guard is to the great State of 
Alaska. I can't thank enough the men and women of the Coast Guard 
nationally and in my State for the great work they do.
  There are a number of provisions in this legislation, in addition to 
the national areas of recapitalizing the Coast Guard, that are actually 
focused, not surprisingly, on Alaska, given how important the Coast 
Guard is to Alaska. Let me just highlight a few of them.
  There is a provision that says the Coast Guard must position assets 
to respond to any incidences given the national security and economic 
significance growing in the Arctic region. The Department of Defense is 
starting to focus on the Arctic region, and, certainly, the Coast Guard 
is.
  The provision further states that it requires the Coast Guard, in 
consultation with the Department of Defense, to report to Congress on 
the progress being made in implementing the Coast Guard's Arctic 
strategy and to provide an assessment of the placement of additional 
Coast Guard assets and cutters in light of meeting those strategic 
objectives in the Arctic.
  We know that the demands of a more strategic Arctic are putting a 
strain on the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard. We believe--I 
believe--that the provisions in this bill state that the Coast Guard 
needs to look at that and provide more assets to do the mission if need 
be.
  As we are recapitalizing the fleet, it also talks about moving bigger 
cutters in for smaller ones in region 17 because the Coast Guard must 
continue to have adequate coverage. You don't want to move one ship out 
and another ship in and have a gap in coverage. This bill focuses on 
that--no gaps in coverage.
  The bill also requires the Coast Guard to deliver a plan to extend 
the life of the Polar Star, which is the heavy icebreaker that is home-
ported in Seattle and has a critical mission. Again, in the NDAA this 
year, we received authorization for six additional heavy icebreakers--
three heavies, three mediums. Yet we need to make sure that we still 
have coverage with the icebreakers we have as we look to build and 
deploy the new Coast Guard icebreakers that were authorized in the NDAA 
this summer. This provision focuses on that.
  It directs the Coast Guard to conduct persistent, aircraft-based 
surveillance in terms of monitoring illegal, unreported, and 
unregulated fishing in the Western Pacific. This is a huge problem. We 
have our 200-mile limit where American fishermen and Alaska fishermen 
can fish off the coast of Alaska and other States, but we often have 
pirate fishing going on. We have countries such as China that come and 
illegally take fish that should be in our economic zone or on the high 
seas. The Coast Guard does a great job in monitoring and catching this 
illegal fishing, which harms the oceans and harms our fisheries. This 
bill underscores how important that mission is and directs the Coast 
Guard to make sure there is persistent, aircraft-based surveillance in 
monitoring what we call IUU fishing--illegal, unreported, unregulated 
fishing--in the Western Pacific.

  The bill requires the Coast Guard to have tested the capability of 
oilspill vessel response plans in Alaskan waters and to report to 
Congress on these capabilities.
  It also, importantly, focuses on funding to update and maintain the 
Nation's nautical charts with there being an emphasis on the Arctic, 
where there is growing vessel traffic. Yet we have nautical charts that 
are 70 or 80 years old, and some places have never been charted.
  This bill facilitates the construction of a viable home port for the 
NOAA research vessel Fairweather in Ketchikan, AK, which is an issue 
that is important to my constituents, and to be perfectly honest, with 
regard to NOAA, it has been hanging out there for too long. This bill 
helps to make sure that the vessel is going to be home-ported where it 
should be legally home-ported under the law, and that is in Ketchikan.
  Those are just a few examples of the national aspects of this bill 
for the Coast Guard's recapitalization effort and of some of the more 
important provisions that focus on the Coast Guard's special 
relationship with Alaska.
  This act also contains many important items for our fishermen and 
fisheries and our maritime industry throughout the United States, 
whether in the oceans, whether on the Great Lakes, whether in the 
rivers that we have. It is very, very important to our fishing 
community, to our fishermen, and to the maritime workers throughout the 
country.
  Of course, this is important to my State. I often refer to Alaska as 
the superpower of seafood. What am I talking about? Almost 60 percent 
of the commercial and sport fish that is harvested in the United States 
of America comes from Alaska. It is billions of dollars in terms of the 
economic impact for our State. So included in this legislation is 
important language to permanently address issues that have plagued 
Alaskan fishermen, American fishermen, and

[[Page S6958]]

commercial vessel owners and operators of maritime fleets and, 
importantly, the workers in these important industries for decades--
regulatory problems and challenges that these important industries and 
the important men and women who work in these industries have been 
struggling with for decades with no long-term solutions. At long last, 
this bill addresses these--the long-term, permanent solutions.
  What am I talking about?
  Currently, our fishing fleets throughout the entire country, as well 
as vessel owners and operators--again, throughout the entire country in 
rivers, lakes, and oceans--are forced to comply with a patchwork of 
burdensome Federal and State regulations that are well-intentioned but 
often conflicted for incidental discharges off the decks of these ships 
and for ballast water. Let me start with the incidental discharges.
  Again, it is very important to my State but very important to any 
State with regard to the fishing industry and fishermen who work hard 
every day. If you are a commercial fisherman on a fishing vessel and 
you have caught some fish and you want to hose down your deck--because 
let's face it; fishing can be a bit of a messy business--through a long 
history of requirements and lawsuits, you are forced to report to the 
EPA these incidental discharges, and you need to get a permit to hose 
down your deck of a fishing vessel or you will face a fine.
  Now, you don't have to be a fisherman to recognize that this is 
ridiculous and that people--Democrats and Republicans in this body--
have been trying to address this issue for decades because it creates 
inefficiency, and it certainly doesn't help the environment. It adds to 
costs, inhibits economic prosperity, and hurts fishermen and the 
vessels they operate. This body has introduced short-term fixes for 
years to try and address this. Those have not been sufficient. So this 
bill addresses it for good.
  Let me talk about another provision that tries to cut through the 
patchwork of burdensome State regulations--again, well-intentioned but 
often conflicted for ballast water and vessels. Currently, ballast 
water is regulated by both the Coast Guard and the EPA. They both have 
separate, inconsistent, and sometimes directly conflicting sets of 
Federal requirements that are interdispersed with requirements from 
States. This is literally a patchwork of requirements for vessels that 
move through different State waters. Let me give you an example.
  You are the owner-operator of a commercial vessel that is going up 
the full length of the Mississippi River. You are moving commerce and 
keeping a strong economy stronger. As you do that, not only must you 
comply with inconsistent Coast Guard and EPA requirements, but you also 
will likely have to comply with different and separate requirements 
regarding ballast water for Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and 
Missouri. You get the picture. It is a patchwork of regulations--all 
well-intentioned--that has the impact of inhibiting commerce and, most 
importantly, of inhibiting job opportunities for the men and women in 
this commerce. Twenty-five States have been regulating ballast water 
under separate, inconsistent, and sometimes directly conflicting sets 
of requirements. This has not only inhibited U.S. economic growth, but 
it also actually makes it more likely that invasive species will 
accidentally be introduced into this ballast water because the 
requirements are so different, it is hard to keep up with them.

  So, again, what this bill does at long last, working across the 
aisle--and trust me, we worked on this for over a year, on these 
provisions, Democrats and Republicans rolling up their sleeves, in good 
faith, getting to work. Because we know how important this is to our 
constituents, we looked at and focused on getting permanent solutions, 
not quick fixes--the way these issues have been handled in the past, 
for over a decade--to these significant challenges.
  This bill will provide a permanent exemption on incidental vessel 
discharges for all commercial fishing vessels and commercial vessels 
under 79 feet in length. This is very important to the American fishing 
industry, the men and women in that industry, and it is something that 
they have been advocating for and Members of this body, of both 
parties, have been trying to get for well over a decade. Well, we did 
it today. That is important. As I said, without this exemption, small 
vessel owner-operators would be required, as they have been for years, 
to get an EPA permit to hose off their decks--not a good use of the EPA 
and not a good use of the hard-working time of American fishermen.
  Similarly, this bill provides a comprehensive solution to this 
patchwork ballast water challenge that I just described, establishing a 
single, nationally uniform standard for the regulation of ballast water 
and other vessel discharges, and the EPA and the Coast Guard, with 
input from the States, will work together. This uniform standard will 
have the impact of helping our environment and our maritime industry 
and fishing industry workers and the U.S. economy all at the same time. 
That is an important accomplishment, and that is why over 90 Senators 
voted for this bill today.
  In conclusion, the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard do heroic 
work day in and day out. I am honored to chair the subcommittee of the 
Commerce Committee in charge of the Coast Guard. This bipartisan bill 
will support them and their incredibly important mission, and it was 
long overdue. It was long overdue, but we got it done.
  The Coast Guard's motto, ``Semper Paratus''--``Always Ready''--is a 
motto I think we can learn from here in the U.S. Senate. It is so 
appropriate for what they do for us. I want to make sure that the 
members of the Coast Guard who are watching or learning about this bill 
know that it is a signal that they have strong bipartisan support from 
the vast majority of the Members of the U.S. Senate.
  Hopefully, this bill will get over to the House quickly. We have been 
working closely with the House on a number of these provisions, and 
they are going to pass it, we hope, and we will get it to the President 
soon for his signature.
  Going forward, we have to work to make sure there is not an almost 2-
year delay in getting the Coast Guard Authorization Act passed in the 
U.S. Senate. When we work together, we can see that it is very 
bipartisan.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, the Presiding Officer 
and I both know that the National Defense Authorization Act moves every 
year. What I think we need to do is make sure, when we start debating 
the NDAA in late spring, early summer every year, as we do, that we 
reserve time to move and debate and pass the Coast Guard bill as well. 
This is an issue I have raised with the leadership on both sides of the 
aisle, with the chairmen of the Commerce Committee and the Armed 
Services Committee, and I am hopeful that we can make some progress on 
that so we are moving a Coast Guard Authorization Act, as we should be, 
with the other services in the NDAA. But that is for tomorrow. For 
today, we have an important accomplishment for our country, an 
important accomplishment for the State of Alaska, and most importantly, 
an important accomplishment for the men and women of the U.S. Coast 
Guard who continue to undertake heroic actions day in and day out on 
our behalf.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________