[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4689-4702]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Pursuant to House Resolution 113 
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. 820.

                              {time}  1337


                     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. 820) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 
for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes, with Mr. Gillmor 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the 11th bill which the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure has brought to the floor thus far in 
this new session. Indeed, the other 10 bills passed overwhelmingly. I 
believe that this legislation, the Coast Guard authorization, deserves 
the same kind of overwhelming support.
  We are taking action today to authorize funding for one of the most 
important programs in the United States Government. This Act authorizes 
approximately $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2000 and $4.8 billion in 
fiscal year 2001 in expenditures for the Coast Guard operations. It 
provides funds for the Coast Guard at the levels requested by the 
President with additional amounts provided for drug interdiction 
operations.
  Last year, the Coast Guard received about $250 million in emergency 
supplemental funds to boost drug interdiction resources in the 
Caribbean. I can report to the House that I personally have gone out on 
missions with the Coast Guard and have seen firsthand the outstanding 
job they do.
  This legislation maintains the level of drug interdiction provided 
for fiscal year 1999 with additional amounts consistent with the 
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. This bill also contains 
additional funds for fishing vessel safety and to modernize the 
national distress and response system. The bill authorizes $128 million 
in fiscal 2001 to construct a replacement icebreaking vessel for the 
Great Lakes.
  I certainly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I would like to close by sharing with my colleagues examples of what 
our Coast Guard accomplishes every day. In any given day, on the 
average, our United States 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 the taxpayers of America very proud of their 
investment in the world's finest Coast Guard.
  So I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
legislation. It is worthy of their vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is very important legislation for this body. As 
the chairman of the full committee has pointed out, it is supported 
strongly in a bipartisan manner. That is because almost all of the 
Members of this Congress and certainly the Members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure share a common concern in the Coast 
Guard's activities and giving them adequate resources to fulfill the 
burdens that we put on them.
  The chairman has already gone on at some length, but I think it 
should be restated just so people remember, the Coast Guard does 
everything from local boating safety courses to search and rescue. If 
one is in trouble out on the water, they are the ones who respond. 
Sometimes in very hazardous situations, sometimes to loss of life to 
members of the Coast Guard, they are attempting to save mariners in 
distress.
  They safeguard our borders by watching for smugglers and people 
attempting both to enter the country illegally or to enter drugs and 
other substances illegally into our country. They are our first line of 
protection for our coastal resources and the environment.
  That leads me to some comments that are very close to home for me. 
The Coast Guard has been involved now for more than a month in the 
wreck of the New Carrisa which went aground in stormy weather outside 
the largest port in my district, very close to the mouth of the harbor.
  The Coast Guard is still working on its own internal investigation 
and summary of the events that led up to this tragedy. I think there 
will be much to be learned from that critical review, perhaps some 
further changes in authority for the Coast Guard, changes of law 
regarding insurance of these freighters and other ships.
  Today a freighter carries as much oil, these larger freighters, as 
did a small tanker 20, 25 years ago. They often carry more fuel than 
they need to accomplish their mission, as did this ship in this case, 
for ballast.
  So the potential for oil spill no longer just extends to tankers and 
tanker safety, but now the potential for catastrophic oil spills 
extends to large freighters. Yet, they do not have the same insurance 
requirements that we put on tankers, nor do they have the same hull 
safety requirements we put on tankers; and those are critical issues 
that we will need to look at in the future to safeguard our precious 
coastal resources here in the United States.

                              {time}  1345

  I am very pleased that this bill, with unanimous vote in the 
committee, and hopefully a similar vote here on the floor of the House, 
includes some modest initial amendments for changes in the law that I 
have proposed as I became educated as to what happens when a foreign 
ship is headed towards the United States. And in this case, had these 
provisions of law which are in this bill today by my amendment been in 
effect, we might not have had the New Carrisa tragedy on the coast of 
Oregon; we might not have despoiled our precious coastal waters.
  The Coast Guard, under this bill, will now be notified 24 hours in 
advance before a ship crosses into our 12-mile territorial limit. The 
Coast Guard will have the authority to hold a ship at that 12-mile 
limit if they have questions about the safety of the ship, the

[[Page 4690]]

competence of its crew, or other extraordinary circumstances are 
intervening that could jeopardize safety.
  In this case, the New Carrisa was on a list the Coast Guard keeps 
called the ``Watch List''. The ``Watch List'' is composed of ships that 
are known to the Coast Guard to have problems or to be registered in 
countries that are known to abide or to basically not fully enforce, 
rigorously enforce, international maritime rules. Panama, in this case. 
Liberia and other countries are also in question.
  This ship was on the ``Watch List'', and it would have been boarded 
once it reached the harbor. Unfortunately, it never reached the harbor 
because it went aground, I believe due to the misconduct of the 
captain, and it caused an ongoing and unfolding tragedy on the Oregon 
coast. This could happen anywhere in the United States of America.
  Under my legislation, the Coast Guard would be able to hold a ship on 
the ``Watch List'', ask them a number of questions about the condition 
of the vessel, the crew, etcetera, out at 12 miles. And if the Coast 
Guard was concerned about their capabilities or conduct or their 
navigational capabilities, they could require a pilot be put on board. 
They could require other actions be followed by that ship once it has 
entered into our territorial waters.
  In this case they may have well have told the ship to hold off out 12 
miles, where it was safer, because there was a huge storm brewing and 
the pilot could not get out to them.
  These are tools that the Coast Guard, I believe, will be able to 
prudently employ and, hopefully, avoid this happening again in Oregon 
or anywhere else in the United States. There may well be other measures 
we need to take, and next week, when we hold a hearing to review the 
oil spill liability legislation on the 10-year anniversary of the Exxon 
Valdez tragedy, I believe we will see a path to other changes in law 
that are necessary.
  Beyond that, the money in this bill is a good amount of money. 
Personally, if I had license, I would give the Coast Guard more money 
to conduct their mission. I believe that, in fact, they are operating 
in a very frugal manner, particularly compared to the other uniformed 
services, and they are spending our taxpayer dollars wisely and in a 
way that most all Americans are grateful on a daily basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest), be permitted to manage our time on this side of the 
aisle while I must absent myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my full support for this 
legislation and the amendments that will be proposed here in the next 
few minutes.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee for his 
support of this legislation, the full ranking member for his support of 
this legislation, and also the support of the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his work 
over the last several months on this legislation. We have worked very 
well together and I look forward to the rest of the session.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not specifically go into all of the funding 
details, because that will be in the statement I will submit for the 
Record, but what I would like to do for the Members of the House, those 
of whom are listening, is to go through the kind of things that this 
limited force does for the United States.
  Number one, it is the U.S. Coast Guard that is directly responsible 
for the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and all of its provisions around this 
country. Since the Oil Pollution Act went into effect, and since the 
Coast Guard has been monitoring this issue and enforcing this statute, 
oil spills in the world have dropped by 60 percent. It is through much 
of the effort of the U.S. Coast Guard in this area that is responsible 
for that drop.
  I have visited Prince William Sound, the sight of the Exxon Valdez 
spill, and the infrastructure put in place mainly because of the Coast 
Guard activities is phenomenal.
  Fifty percent of the cargo transported across our oceans is 
considered hazardous, and it is the Coast Guard that deals primarily 
with that particular issue.
  It is the Coast Guard, which leads the U.S. delegation to the 
International Maritime Organization that deals with 153 countries 
around the world, that ensures that not only our coastal waters, and 
not only our coastal waters out 200 miles of our coastlines but the 
international regime of the IMO of these 153 countries, that enhances 
the quality of our international waters.
  It is the Coast Guard that is directly responsible for patrolling the 
North Atlantic in something called ``The Ice Patrol'', so that not only 
the U.S. ships traveling in the North Atlantic can be safe from 
icebergs but the international community can be safe from icebergs.
  The coastal fisheries, out 200 miles off our coasts, not only off the 
Florida coast or the California coast but the Oregon and Washington 
coast, in the frigid waters of the north Pacific, 200 miles of the 
Alaskan coast, 200 miles off our coast, we monitor the coastal 
fisheries. And the U.S. Coast Guard ensures that U.S. law is enforced 
out that far, and they do a great job.
  Interdiction of drugs on the high seas. Just imagine the coastal 
waters of the United States; the Pacific coast, the Atlantic coast, the 
Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean. We have the technology, we have the 
resources to interdict almost all the drugs if the Coast Guard is given 
those resources. Within 5 to 7 years, I am convinced that we can 
interdict up to 85 percent of those drugs if the Coast Guard is given 
the right resources.
  We talked about safety at life at sea. Not only is the Coast Guard 
responsible for safety at life at sea for U.S. fishermen, but they also 
do a good job in the international arena. On every river, looking at 
the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes, our estuaries, the Coast Guard 
is responsible for safety at life at sea.
  Who inspects vessels, domestic and foreign? It is the Coast Guard. 
Who inspects these cargo ships, these container ships, these oil 
tankers, the bulk carriers, the small vessels? It is the U.S. Coast 
Guard. Who interdicts illegal immigrants being carried through to this 
country on the high seas? It is the U.S. Coast Guard. Who cuts ice in 
the Great Lakes; who cuts ice in the estuaries, like the Chesapeake 
Bay, around this country? It is the Coast Guard. Who cuts the ice 
leading to McMurdo Station in the Antarctic? It is the U.S. Coast 
Guard. Who cuts the ice in the Arctic Ocean? It is the U.S. Coast 
Guard.
  The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the U.S. Coast 
Guard does all of this with a force smaller than the New York City 
police force.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not only to support this 
legislation, but to think about the silent service that does a 
magnificent job, and all they ask for from this body is that we know 
something about the magnificent job that they and that we vote for this 
legislation.
  H.R. 820 was developed in a bipartisan manner, and deserves the 
support of all the Members.
  The primary purpose of H.R. 820, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
1999, is to authorize expenditures for the U.S. Coast Guard for fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001.
  Section 101 of the bill authorizes approximately $4.6 billion in the 
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2000, and $4.8 billion in fiscal year 2001. 
The amounts authorized for fiscal year 2000 include funding for Coast 
Guard programs at the levels requested by the President, with certain 
increases. The funding increases over the levels requested by the 
President are primarily for drug interdiction and commercial fishing 
and recreational vessel safety.
  Specifically, H.R. 820 contains an additional $380 million for drug 
interdiction, consistent with the provisions of the Western Hemisphere

[[Page 4691]]

Drug Elimination Act which was enacted by Congress last year. H.R. 820 
authorizes an additional $142 million in operating expenses for fiscal 
year 2000 and $148 million in operating expenses for fiscal year 2001. 
These funds will allow the Coast Guard to operate 15 additional Coastal 
Patrol Boats, a regional law enforcement training center in Puerto 
Rico, several maritime patrol aircraft, and six medium endurance 
cutters. The bill further allows the Coast Guard to construct 15 
coastal patrol boats for $81 million and to begin construction of six 
medium endurance cutters for $100 million in fiscal year 2000. These 
new assets will allow the Coast Guard to execute its role under the 
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act.
  I have supported increases in the Coast Guard's drug interdiction 
spending because I am convinced that the level of Coast Guard drug 
interdiction has fallen well below what is necessary to fight the War 
on Drugs effectively. The $46 million increase in drug interdiction 
resources requested by the President for fiscal year 2000 is not 
adequate to respond to the alarming level of teenage drug use in this 
country.
  The bill also contains additional funds for voluntary fishing vessel 
safety personnel, and $100 million to accelerate the national distress 
and response system modernization project. Also, H.R. 820 authorizes 
$128 million in fiscal year 2001 to acquire a replacement icebreaking 
vessel for the Great Lakes.
  Section 102 of H.R. 820 authorizes an increase of Coast Guard 
military personnel to 40,000 by the end of fiscal year 2000, and 44,000 
by the end of fiscal year 2001, to allow the Coast Guard to 
aggressively fight the War on Drugs in the Caribbean.
  Finally, there are a few noncontroversial provisions in the bill, 
including a provision to require vessel operators to give notice to the 
Coast Guard 24 hours before they enter U.S. territorial waters. I thank 
the ranking member Mr. DeFazio from Oregon for that addition:
  At the appropriate time, I will offer a managers amendment which adds 
several noncontroversial provisions to H.R. 820.
  I urge the Members to support this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentleeomsn from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the attention of the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) a matter that concerns the city 
of Garden Grove and the United States Coast Guard. An oil spill has 
been detected in the Bolsa Chica wetlands, and the city, unfortunately, 
has been erroneously identified as the responsible party.
  The discharge was caused solely by another party, who discharged 
waste oil product from his truck into the city's catch basin. This 
party's waste oil passed through the catch basin and into the public 
storm drain. The circumstances of this case remain ambiguous.
  The city of Garden Grove cannot accept an open-ended obligation to 
pay future claims in an unknown and potentially enormous amount. The 
city's revenues are limited, as the gentleman knows, and it is 
difficult to expand that tax base. No reasonable public policy is 
served by having the taxpayers of the city of Garden Grove pay for the 
cleanup and the spill of a third party.
  The office of the Orange County district attorney is continuing a 
criminal investigation into the third party and we hope that we will 
have results soon with respect to that.
  I urge the gentleman from Minnesota to recommend to the Coast Guard 
that it closely monitor the situation and to pursue the true 
responsible party for the reimbursement of the costs and damages.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SANCHEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We are certainly aware of the Garden Grove problem. The 
discharge of waste oil product is particularly deleterious to the Bolsa 
Chica wetlands, a very sensitive environmental area. I had experience 
with this type of thing in my own Congressional District near Duluth, 
the Arrowhead Refinery site. It has taken us years to fix up and to fix 
responsibility on the third parties for that cleanup.
  We are particularly sensitive to the gentlewoman's appeal and to her 
concern. We adhere on this side vigorously to the principle of the 
responsible party pays: ``You make the mess; you clean it up.''
  We will work with the gentlewoman and the Coast Guard to reach a 
reasonable conclusion that suits the gentlewoman's constituents, and 
will continue to work closely with her and the Coast Guard to monitor 
this situation.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
and appreciate his remarks.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 820, the 
Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 1999.
  What is of special interest and concern to me, and a great pleasure, 
is that at long last, for 25 years of my service in the Congress, we 
are approaching the date when we can see on the Great Lakes a 
replacement for the Coast Guard icebreaker Mackinaw, now older than 
most Members of this body.
  The Mackinaw was built during the 1940s. It is now 55 years of age. 
It has done valiant service keeping the shipping lanes on the Great 
Lakes open during the late fall and early spring season to move goods 
to market. But the Mackinaw, battered by five and a half decades of 
breaking ice, is badly in need of replacement.
  This legislation provides a $3 million authorization for design 
competition for a replacement vessel. Not just a study, as we have done 
in the past and nothing has come of it, but design competition for a 
replacement vessel for the icebreaker Mackinaw; and $128 million 
authorization for the construction of that replacement vessel.

                              {time}  1400

  For those who are not familiar with the Great Lakes, this is home to 
20 percent of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth. It is the 
locus of one out of every five industrial jobs in America. The Great 
Lakes states generate 45 percent of the Nation's agriculture and 
produce over a third of the Nation's exports. And to move those 
commodities, to move the 58 million tons of iron ore that moved from 
northern Minnesota, northern Michigan to the lower lake steel mills, 
the 23 million tons of stone that are used in the Nation's highway 
construction project, and 20 million tons of coal each year that move 
from upper lake to lower lake to fuel with low sulphur western coal, 
the demands of power plants in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio with clean 
coal and the energy they need to keep their industry going, we have to 
keep those shipping lanes open in the late fall and the early spring to 
ensure the lowest cost delivery of these goods.
  Water borne transportation is the lowest energy consuming means of 
transportation in our country and anywhere in the world and the Great 
Lakes waterways are critical to the needs of upper and lower lakes. And 
it is not just the ports on the Great Lakes that benefit from this, nor 
the industries, but the farmers of western Minnesota, of North and 
South Dakota, of Montana, of Iowa, where the grain comes into the Port 
of Duluth. Grain farmers from Canada, it comes down from Thunder Bay 
into Lake Michigan and onto lower lake port and ultimately exported to 
the seven seas of the world.
  This Great Lakes waterway system is the great energy source for the 
national economy and for agriculture that reaches way west of the 
Mississippi and stretches far east of the Mississippi. The Mackinaw 
replacement project, a multipurpose vessel, will benefit the entire 
national economy. And I am delighted and I really appreciate the work 
of our chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest), who has been very understanding of our need on the Great 
Lakes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman, 
who has been supportive of this initiative, and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has been very helpful on this initiative. And 
for all my Great Lakes colleagues who for years have joined together 
and supported, at last we can say the end is in sight, replacement for 
the Mackinaw is coming.

[[Page 4692]]

  But this bill goes further. It provides the support for what I 
consider to be America's greatest return on investment entity, the U.S. 
Coast Guard. We get more for our dollar investment in the Coast Guard 
than out of any of the services, perhaps any other entity except maybe 
the Corps of Engineers. The return on investment in the Coast Guard is 
extraordinary.
  Whether in safety in the inland waterways of the coastal regions or 
in protection against drug runners, the interdiction role that the 
Coast Guard plays is extraordinary. The men and women who wear that 
special color blue deserve our total support, and this bill provides 
it.
  The $44 million authorization in this bill to continue the design and 
development process for the Deepwater project is critical. This is an 
initiative to replace all of the Coast Guard's vessels and aircraft 
that operate more than 50 miles out from the U.S. coastline along the 
Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts. This Deepwater initiative is really 
critical to keep the Coast Guard competitive, to keep it in line with 
all the additional responsibilities we in the Congress have saddled 
upon the Coast Guard, and to keep the United States vigilant in 
maintaining the integrity of our coastline.
  I will not go into all the many other initiatives, the fisheries 
enforcement, migrant interdiction, drug interdiction along our coast 
that the Coast Guard carries out. We really salute the men and women 
with the special blue of the U.S. Coast Guard and do so in a very 
practical and realistic way in this legislation.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing this legislation 
to the House floor.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest) for yielding time.
  First of all, I want to support the comments of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) regarding the Mackinaw and a number of the 
other issues he raised. The Mackinaw indeed is a worthy ship, but it is 
also an old ship and will not be able to operate much longer. And the 
Great Lakes depend mightily upon the efforts of that ship, particularly 
in the colder months.
  I would also point out in relation to the comments from the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the Great Lakes are really misnamed. 
They should be called the ``great seas'' because in fact they are seas. 
And that is why the Coast Guard plays such an important role in these 
bodies of water. It is very important to recognize their magnitude. And 
not only are they 20 percent of the world's fresh water supply, they 
are 95 percent of the United States' surface fresh water, and that is a 
very important factor in our country's future.
  I also thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation, for working with a number of us in resolving a major 
problem on Lake Michigan, an important component again of the Great 
Lakes. The administration, in submitting their budget proposal this 
year, eliminated helicopter service for the Coast Guard in the middle 
section of Lake Michigan.
  Now, recognize that Michigan has more boats per capita, in fact more 
boats total, than any other State of the Union. Furthermore, recognize 
that Michigan has more lake shore mileage than any State of the Union 
except Alaska. A tremendous amount of boating activity on Lake 
Michigan. And the administration is proposing to remove the Coast Guard 
helicopter station at Muskegon, Michigan.
  I appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee. That includes both 
minority and majority. We have been able to work this out and come up 
with a proposal within this that will maintain the Coast Guard station 
at Muskegon. That is extremely important. And not only that, but to 
look very carefully or perhaps reestablish the helicopter Coast Guard 
station in the Chicago area, which was shut down some years ago. Both 
are very important in terms of achieving what is one of the key 
missions of the Coast Guard, as outlined by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest), and that is ensuring the life and safety of 
individuals at sea, whether on the oceans or on the Great Lakes.
  Finally, let me register a concern about the general overall 
direction of the Coast Guard funding. The Coast Guard, as we just said, 
is responsible for the life and safety of individuals at sea. But yet 
the funding relative to other activities of the Coast Guard has 
steadily diminished, and the reason is very simple. The drug problem of 
this Nation and the drug interdiction responsibilities of the Coast 
Guard continues to drain resources away from the search and rescue 
operations of the United States Coast Guard.
  And even though the drug interdiction is a very important part of 
their responsibility and very important to this Nation, all of us must 
recognize that we cannot continue to give more responsibility to the 
Coast Guard in this area, we cannot continue to require more drug 
interdiction from them and not give them the money to do that, because 
by doing that we are pulling men away from their search-and-rescue 
activities.
  So if indeed we want to have the Coast Guard pursue their drug 
interdiction activities, fine, then good, but let's recognize that we 
have to provide the funding and not cut and chip away at the life and 
safety operation of the Coast Guard at the same time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would not only support the Coast Guard reauthorization and 
associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) as to the importance of the Coast Guard not just on the Great 
Lakes but throughout this great Nation, but I want to bring to the 
attention an amendment that we are going to have a little bit later 
here, the Upton amendment, which I believe the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) is going to accept and be even part of his amendment. 
Anyway, I have had the pleasure of working with the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), my colleague and friend, on this amendment.
  I would like to maybe take a moment here and highlight the importance 
and need for the Upton amendment which would help to bring to light the 
current problem with the Federal Government's assistance for 
transferring lighthouses.
  We have probably more lighthouses on the Great Lakes than anywhere 
else in this Nation. It helps to tell the story of our maritime 
history. They stand as a testament to the thousands of mariners who 
lived and died on these Great Lakes and to those who dedicated their 
lives to guiding them home safely. The modern technology is replacing 
the use of the lighthouses for navigational purposes. But there are 
many groups out there dedicated to preserving these monuments for 
posterity and history.
  Unfortunately, once the Federal Government decides it no longer needs 
a lighthouse, there is no guarantee that the historical groups that 
have worked for years to maintain these structures will be able to 
acquire them, even though the group may have spent thousands of dollars 
and hours restoring the lighthouses and maintaining the property. They 
are not given that go-ahead to take the transfer from the Coast Guard 
as to the physical assets.
  While we cannot change the system under this current bill, what the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is trying to do through his 
amendment and our support we are now considering, this amendment will 
help highlight the problem and, at the very least, ask the Coast Guard 
to provide us some advice and technical assistance for the 
organizations that want to preserve our maritime heritage.
  I hope this will further the dialogue to change the way in which the 
Federal Government transfers the lighthouses, and I urge my colleagues 
to look carefully at the Upton amendment and to adopt that amendment.
  And in final, I hope H.R. 820, the Coast Guard authorization bill, is

[[Page 4693]]

transferred and approved by this House and we have a strong vote on it 
to show our support for the United States Coast Guard.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with, 
basically, the comments on both sides of the aisle.
  I want to tell my colleagues, the things about drugs, the things 
about illegals, California pays a big price for all of the above. And I 
would tell the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the greatest 
thing that we do not have to deal with in San Diego is the ice cutters. 
They have to do that in Michigan. But I support his issue there.
  The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I will probably never 
vote for each other more than a handful of times, but this happens to 
be one of those times that we do. And I do think also that one of the 
things the Coast Guard does there is actually a requirement under OPA 
90, where we have dual hull tankers. I hope some day we can enforce 
that so we do not have things like the Valdez.
  And even our offshore oil, I put a requirement that the President 
supported that limited our offshore oil drilling off California because 
of the pollution not only in our wetland but our beaches. And we see 
every day these tankers going up and down from foreign countries that 
are leaking oil and coming on our beaches, and I worked with the 
gentleman to stop that.
  Last year we honored two policemen that died here in defending our 
Capitol. But we do not hear much about just 96 miles from here right 
off Point Lookout we lost a Coast Guard cutter, a rescue ship, and 
people gave their lives in service to that, too. So I think that it is 
a little unsung part of security that we have in this country but we 
should not forget, especially them, and it is a reason that most of us 
on both sides of the aisle support this.
  Another area in which they helped, we had a bipartisan vote. There is 
a Chinese shipping company that wanted to take over Long Beach. I am 
happy to tell my colleagues that the CIA has come out and said that, 
yes, there is a national security threat over Long Beach if they would 
take complete control. It is the Coast Guard that found that they were 
dealing chemical and biological and nuclear triggers.
  So I rise in strong support and I thank the Members on both sides of 
the aisle for this legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it has pretty well been said. The U.S. Coast Guard has 
made America a better place to live for 208 years. As members of this 
country's oldest continuous seagoing service, the men and women of the 
Coast Guard continue to do what they have always done, save lives and 
protect property at sea; ensure a safe, efficient maritime 
transportation system; protect and preserve our precious marine 
resources and environment; enforce laws and treaties in the maritime 
region; and defend our national security.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has already indicated 
that the Coast Guard, numbers-wise, is smaller than the New York City 
Police Department. Yet our Coast Guard carries out their vital missions 
in this country's ports and waterways, along its 47,000 miles of 
coastline, lakes and rivers, on international waters or in any maritime 
region as required to support national security.
  When I was a member of the Coast Guard, Mr. Chairman, we used to 
affectionately refer to the Navy as the Big Outfit. Conversely, they 
would refer to us as the Little Outfit, the Shallow Water Navy, the 
Knee-Deep Navy, the Hooligans Navy. They did it with tongues in cheek 
but they did it affectionately. There was good rapport between the two 
seagoing services.
  This essential and fiercely proud service continues its 24-hour-a-
day, 7-day-a-week vigilance against a host of transnational dangers, 
including pollution, illegal migration, international drug trafficking 
and terrorism.
  My friend from Minnesota mentioned the Mackinaw. The Mackinaw was 
synonymous with Great Lakes icebreaking, I guess, for four or five 
decades. He is right, the time has come to replace it. I am happy to 
see that that is going to happen.
  I talked with a Coast Guardsman not too long ago who was the 
recipient of the Coast Guard gold lifesaving medal. I think he had 
rescued either four or five people in this particular rescue effort. In 
so doing, he suffered a permanent injury, and he is disabled. As I was 
talking to him about his heroic rescue, he was very unassuming about 
it. ``No big deal,'' he said, ``this is what I'm supposed to do.'' 
Well, it was a big deal to those whom he pulled out of the drink. I can 
assure you it was a big deal to them. Even though he is now disabled, 
he said, ``I did what I'm supposed to do. I went to the aid of those 
who were in distress.'' That is what the Coast Guard men and women have 
been doing for years, 208, to be exact.
  I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to say to my friend from Pennsylvania 
that the full committee and the subcommittee has done yeoman work in 
getting this bill to the floor. It is a good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard's motto rings just as true today as it 
did in 1970, semper paratus, always ready.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 820.
  In representing the Port of Houston in my district, the U.S. Coast 
Guard has the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety and 
security of the vessels not only in my district but in the ports and 
waterways around the country.
  Also, in recent years the Coast Guard has been charged with the task 
of engaging in drug interdiction activities. In fact, just in late 
January, the Coast Guard intercepted and seized a Panamanian vessel 125 
miles off the coast of Jamaica. The vessel was then escorted back to 
the Port of Houston and upon searching the vessel nearly five tons of 
cocaine with an estimated street value of $375 million was discovered. 
This was one of the largest drug seizures in both Texas and our 
Nation's history.
  In this year's Coast Guard authorization, there is a 10 percent 
increase in the funds for discretionary activities. I am glad to see 
that. Hopefully this bill will pass very easily. That will mean 
approximately $400 million is earmarked for drug interdiction 
activities. That increase in funds will fully implement the Western 
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, enable the Coast Guard to operate an 
additional fifteen patrol boats, eight cutters and seven marine vessels 
to stop drugs before they enter our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and also in support of 
the Coast Guard's effort not only for the safety of our harbors and 
waterways but also for the drug interdiction activities.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 820--
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999. This much-needed bill 
authorizes $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2000 and $3.2 billion in fiscal 
year 2001 for Coast Guard operating expenses to carry out numerous 
missions.
  Included in this authorization is funding for the Coast Guard to 
Participate in search and rescue missions. The Coast Guard spends about 
11.6 percent of its operating expenses on search and rescue missions. 
This is a critical function of the Coast Guard and one that saves the 
lives and property of many who find themselves in peril on the open 
seas--particularly the perilous seas off the coast of South Florida.
  Recently, the Coast Guard launched a search and rescue mission off of 
the coast of South Florida in search of Haitian immigrants whose vessel 
capsized as they were trying to reach the United States. Unfortunately, 
although three Haitian immigrants were rescued from the Atlantic Ocean 
between the Bahamas and Florida, perhaps as many as 40 more Haitian 
immigrants were lost, despite the Coast Guard's best efforts.

[[Page 4694]]

  Over the years, the Coast Guard has rescued hundreds of Haitians, 
Cubans, and others seeking freedom and a better life in the United 
States. Unfortunately, many die trying to secure their dream of 
freedom. The Coast Guard serves critical role in helping to save human 
lives in the straits of Florida. The diverse ethnic communities in 
Miami are most grateful for the Coast Guard's search and rescue 
efforts.
  Search and Rescue is one of the Coast Guard's oldest missions. For 
over 200 years, the Coast Guard has responded to distress calls at sea. 
Minimizing the loss of life, injury, property damage, or loss by 
rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime 
environment has always been a Coast Guard priority. Coast Guard search 
and rescue response involves multimission stations, cutters, aircraft 
and boats linked by communications networks.
  The Coast Guard is the Maritime search and rescue coordinator and is 
recognized worldwide as a leader in the field of search and rescue. 
Each hour a U.S. Coast Guard aircraft is aloft costs about $3,700--and 
several maybe used in a single search. It is critical that the Coast 
Guard has the resources it needs to maintain its search and rescue 
efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 820, the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999. As a member of the Congressional 
Coast Guard Caucus, I am proud of the U.S. Coast Guard and all the hard 
work that each and every member selflessly gives each day to our 
nation. The United States Coast Guard is this nation's oldest and its 
premier maritime agency. The history of the Service is historic and 
multifaceted. It is the amalgamation of five Federal agencies--the 
Revenue Cutter Service, the Lighthouse Service, the Steamboat 
Inspection Service, the Bureau of Navigation, and the Lifesaving 
Service, which were originally independent agencies with overlapping 
authorities. They sometimes received new names, and they were all 
finally united under the umbrella of the Coast Guard. The multiple 
missions and responsibilities of the modern Service are directly tied 
to this diverse heritage and the magnificent achievements of all of 
these agencies.
  The Coast Guard, through its previous agencies, is the oldest 
continuous seagoing service and has fought in almost every war since 
the Constitution became the law of the land in 1789. The Coast Guard 
has traditionally performed two roles in wartime. The first has been to 
augment the Navy with men and cutters. The second has been to undertake 
special missions, for which peacetime experiences have prepared the 
Service with unique skills. Today the Coast Guard is engaged on many 
open sea patrols in the war on drugs throughout the vast oceans and 
seas of the world.
  The Coast Guard has helped to protect the environment for 150 years. 
In 1822 the Congress created a timber reserve for the Navy and 
authorized the President to use whatever forces necessary to prevent 
the cutting of live-oak on public lands. The shallow-draft cutters were 
well-suited to this service and were used extensively. Today, the 
current framework for the Coast Guard's Marine Environmental Protection 
program is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.
  In 1973, the Coast Guard created a National Strike Force to combat 
oil spills. There are three teams, a Pacific unit based near San 
Francisco, a Gulf team at Mobile, AL, and an Atlantic Strike Team 
stationed in Elizabeth City, NC. Since the creation of the force, the 
teams have been deployed worldwide to hundreds of potential and actual 
spill sites, bringing with them a vast array of sophisticated 
equipment.
  The 200-mile zone created by the Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act of 1976 quadrupled the offshore fishing area controlled by the 
United States. The Coast Guard has the responsibility of enforcing this 
law.
  The Coast Guard additionally has the major responsibility for 
conducting and coordinating Search and Rescue operations and licensing 
and regulating safety and commercial boating rules. This enormous task 
is performed day in and day out by the dedicated men and women of the 
Coast Guard.
  As you may be able to tell, the Coast Guard performs a complex but 
necessary array of missions that effect the very life blood of this 
nation in the areas of national defense, commerce, the environment, and 
lifesaving.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to particularly highlight one essential 
mission that the Coast Guard is performing right now in America's 
westernmost frontier, my home district on the island of Guam. During 
the past year, Guam has experienced a significant influx of Chinese 
illegal immigrants. Chinese crime syndicates organize boatloads of 
indigent Chinese citizens to illegally enter the United States for an 
exorbitant fee of $8,000-$10,000 per person. After undergoing an 
arduous journey under fetid, unsanitary conditions, the Chinese reach 
Guam dehydrated, hungry, disease-ridden and sometimes beaten. Upon 
arrival, the smuggled Chinese become indentured servants as they 
attempt to pay their passage to America.
  Guam's geographic proximity and asylum acceptance regulations make it 
a prime target for Chinese crime syndicates. According to the INS about 
700 illegal Chinese immigrants traveled to Guam last year. Since the 
beginning of this year alone, 157 have been apprehended by the Coast 
Guard, INS and local Guam officials. Since the INS does not have enough 
money to detain the Chinese illegal immigrants on Guam, they proposed 
to release them to the general populace without assistance. 
Fortunately, the Government of Guam has offered its already strained 
resources to detain the illegal aliens until they are ready to be 
adjudicated.
  Mr. Chairman, Chinese crime syndicates have exploited Immigration and 
Nationality (INA) asylum regulations. Because Guam, through INA 
directives, has to accept asylum applications, Guam becomes a cheap and 
attractive location for shipment of smuggled Chinese.
  The Marianas section of the Coast Guard, stationed out in Guam has 
been tasked to interdict, when possible, these wretched Chinese vessels 
that are transporting these illegals. The local command, which is 
currently undermanned and over extended, is doing the impossible under 
such circumstances.
  In the Armed Services Committee, where I am proud to serve, we have 
as of late been discussing the high level of OPSTEMPO and PERSTEMPO to 
describe the state of overextension of manpower and the drain on 
resources within our military. In the case of these dedicated men and 
women of the Coast Guard on Guam, they are no exception to these 
discussions.
  I recently had the pleasure of meeting with the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard, Admiral James M. Loy and I expressed to him the sentiments 
of the people of Guam as well as praised him for his leadership and 
dedication to this service. Along with my fellow Coast Guard Caucus 
Members, I promised to continue to support the fine work of our Coast 
Guard. I would additionally ask that Congress and Commandant Loy 
seriously look to find some additional resources for our beleaguered 
Coast Guard on Guam in order to more effectively contend with the 
growing onslaught of illegal Chinese immigrants and relieve the high 
level of OPSTEMPO faced by these Coastguardsmen and women. We are all 
very proud of the work that Captain Scott Glover, the CO of the 
Marianas Section, is performing on Guam as well as that of the entire 
Marianas Section of the U.S. Coast Guard for their compassion when 
dealing with these desperate Chinese and for their generosity in the 
performance of their duty. Si Yu'os Ma'ase.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. I appreciate the work that the Chairmen of the full 
Committee and the Subcommittee and their staff have done in addressing 
safety needs in southern Lake Michigan. For many years, I have been 
working with the U.S. Coast Guard in addressing the concerns of my 
constituents and other residents through the reestablishment and 
operation of a seasonal air rescue facility in the southern lake area. 
As many of you may be aware, the boat traffic, both commercial and 
recreational, in this area is the most congested in all of the lake. An 
air rescue facility in this area would greatly increase confidence of 
boaters and recreational users and the chance for survival in the 
extremely cold and dangerous waters of Lake Michigan.
  I am anticipating the completion of a report by the Coast Guard in 
the very near future to determine the best location for an additional 
facility in this area. In discussions with the Coast Guard, it appears 
that the regional airport in Waukegan, Illinois may be the ideal 
location as it is located very near the lake's shoreline thereby 
enabling a short response time and has additional hangars that could be 
leased to significantly reduce the cost of this rescue facility. In 
addition, the Waukegan Regional Airport offers a control tower, 
instrument landing system and twenty-four hour operation. However, I am 
very concerned with the cost estimate that the Coast Guard provided for 
this additional facility. The justification for this estimate includes 
some expenses that I believe can be reduced once we identify the 
location of the site, and I look forward to working with the Coast 
Guard on this.
  This legislation is an important step in providing safety and 
confidence to the boaters in southern Lake Michigan, and I look forward 
to its implementation and the establishment of this rescue facility.

[[Page 4695]]


  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. The Act provides the United States 
Coast Guard with authorization for the funding they need to accomplish 
the important missions that the Congress and the Nation have asked them 
to accomplish.
  As a member with more than 120 miles of Lake Michigan coastline in my 
district, I fully understand the Coast Guard's mission and appreciate 
the fine level of search-and-rescue services that the Coast Guard 
provides to the boating and beach-going public in West Michigan.
  I rise especially today to discuss the way that this authorization 
bill impacts the operation of the Coast Guard Muskegon Air Facility. 
The Coast Guard has operated this air facility on a seasonal basis from 
April 1 to October 1 each summer since 1997. Prior to 1997, the Coast 
Guard had operated an air facility or air station to cover southern 
Lake Michigan out of the Chicago area since 1959.
  The bill before us today addresses the concerns of the Michigan and 
Illinois delegations regarding Coast Guard search and rescue air 
coverage on Lake Michigan. The bill provides that the Coast Guard shall 
continue to operate the Muskegon Air Facility and shall establish a 
Chicago area facility for operation through the end of FY 2001. In 
addition, the bill provides for a study of total search-and-rescue 
response on Lake Michigan and the establishment of a plan for the 
coordination of search-and-rescue response in the Chicago area.
  I hope that the Coast Guard will aggressively move to take the 
actions necessary to operate both the Muskegon and Chicago air 
facilities in FY 2000. I also hope that the Coast Guard will, in the 
interim, provide a high level of search-and-rescue air coverage for 
southern Lake Michigan by operating the Muskegon Air Facility on a 
seven-day, 24-hour-per-day basis during the summer of 1999.
  Finally, I want to thank Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
Chairman Shuster and the other subcommittee chairmen for their 
assistance in resolving the Lake Michigan Air Facility issue. I would 
also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, for his 
assistance on this issue and for helping to maintain the high level of 
boating safety enjoyed by those boating on Lake Michigan.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to 
express my appreciation on the members of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, and its Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Subcommittee, for the good work they have done in 
putting together this year's Coast Guard Reauthorization measure (H.R. 
820).
  As reported, this bill not only makes it easier to conduct the all-
important war against drugs, which is so important to this nation's 
future, but it will also promote public safety in a way that is very 
important to a great many people in the Upper Midwest. In particular, I 
am referring to all those folks who fly over, or take to, the waters of 
southwestern Lake Michigan and the lakes and rivers north and/or west 
of Chicago.
  Mr. Chairman, over 6 million people reside in the counties of 
northwestern Indiana, northeastern Illinois, and southeastern Wisconsin 
that border on Lake Michigan. Not only do many of them own a boat or 
enjoy going out on someone else's, but countless residents of, or 
visitors to, the region take advantage of the dinner voyages and 
sightseeing cruises that depart from Chicago's justly famous lakefront. 
On top of that, literally, hundreds of thousands of people fly in and 
out of O'Hare Airport and a number of other airports that dot the 
landscape from Gary, IN, to Milwaukee, WI. In short, there are people 
on or over southwestern Lake Michigan and nearby waters all the time--
people who would be at risk in the event of a boating accident or an 
airplane crash.
  Thankfully, over 40 years have passed since a major commercial 
airliner crashed into Lake Michigan. However, that is no guarantee 
against such an accident occurring in the future. Moreover, smaller 
planes have fallen into, or collided over, the Lake since then and 
there have been a number of instances where boats have capsized and/or 
sunk, not just in Lake Michigan, but in the Chain o' Lakes region north 
of Chicago. In fact, 26 people were killed in those sorts of accidents 
from October 1, 1995 to October 1, 1996, a figure which helps explain 
why so many citizens in the Chicago area were so concerned when the 
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) helicopter rescue unit stationed at the old 
Glenview Naval Air Station was transferred across the Lake to Muskegon, 
Michigan several years back.
  Not to belabor the point, but those citizens had good reason to be 
concerned. Not only was that USCG helicopter better equipped and its 
crew better prepared to deal with accidents well offshore than local 
rescue boats and helicopters, but the unit was 15 to 30 precious 
minutes further removed from the northeastern Illinois shoreline than 
had been the case previously. Also, the fact that the unit could spend 
more time in the air searching for accident victims if it were closer 
to the Chicagoland area argued strongly for either moving it in that 
direction or bringing in a new USCG helicopter rescue unit to serve the 
region.
  Having joined a number of my colleagues from both Illinois and 
Indiana in making that pro-safety argument, I am both pleased and 
relieved to see that the authors of this legislation have recognized 
its merits and have endorsed the latter course of action. According to 
the provisions of Section 204 of H.R. 820, a new USCG helicopter search 
and rescue (SAR) unit is to be situated on the southwest shore of Lake 
Michigan, where it is to remain until at least September 30, 2001. In 
the interim, a thorough study will be conducted to determine what SAR 
equipment will be needed in the region after the year 2001 and a 
comprehensive plan will be developed for the provision of the SAR 
services that are deemed necessary. As for the existing unit, it will 
continue to be based in Muskegon until at least September 30, 2001, 
thereby assuring the boating and aviation populations on both sides of 
Lake Michigan that timely USCG air SAR services will be more readily 
available than they have been heretofore.
  Mr. Chairman, while this approach is not quite as definitive as I 
would have preferred, it has two major advantages that should commend 
themselves to my colleagues. First, by authorizing additional air SAR 
resources for the heavily populated (by boats as well as people) 
Chicago area, it addresses a very significant public safety concern. 
Second, by leaving the existing unit in Muskegon, MI, it means that 
people in that area will not face a reduction in their USCG SAR 
coverage similar to the one faced by Chicagoland residents several 
years ago. To my way of thinking, each of these advantages would be 
sufficient to justify enactment of Section 204 of H.R. 820. Together, 
they and the drug interdiction features of H.R. 820 make a compelling 
case for the entire measure.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 820.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 820

       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 1999''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.

                        TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 201. Vessel NOT A SHOT.
Sec. 202. Costs of clean-up of Cape May lighthouse.
Sec. 203. Clarification of Coast Guard authority to control vessels in 
              territorial waters of the United States.
Sec. 204. Coast Guard search and rescue for Lake Michigan.
                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Funds are authorized to be appropriated for necessary 
     expenses of the Coast Guard, as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $3,084,400,000, of which--
       (i) $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;
       (ii) not less than $663,000,000 shall be available for 
     expenses related to drug interdiction; and
       (iii) $5,500,000 shall be available for the commercial 
     fishing vessel safety program; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $3,207,800,000, of which--
       (i) $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;
       (ii) not less than $689,500,000 shall be available for 
     expenses related to drug interdiction; and

[[Page 4696]]

       (iii) $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--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $691,300,000, of which--
       (i) $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;
       (ii) not less than $280,300,000 shall be available for 
     expenses related to drug interdiction;
       (iii) $100,000,000 shall be available for modernization of 
     the national distress response system; and
       (iv) $3,000,000 shall be available for completion of the 
     design of a replacement vessel for the Coast Guard icebreaker 
     MACKINAW; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $792,000,000, of which--
       (i) $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;
       (ii) not less than $233,000,000 shall be available for 
     expenses related to drug interdiction;
       (iii) $110,000,000 shall be available for modernization of 
     the national distress response system; and
       (iv) $128,000,000 shall be available for construction or 
     acquisition of a replacement vessel for the Coast Guard 
     icebreaker MACKINAW.
       (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--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $21,700,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $23,000,000,

     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--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $730,000,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $785,000,000.
       (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--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $11,000,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $11,000,000,

     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)--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $19,500,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $21,000,000,
     to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 102. 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--
       (1) 40,000 as of September 30, 2000; and
       (2) 44,000 as of September 30, 2001.
       (b) Military Training Student Loads.--The Coast Guard is 
     authorized average military training student loads as 
     follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, 1,500 student years; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, 1,500 student years.
       (2) For flight training--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, 100 student years; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, 100 student years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, 300 student years; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, 300 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, 1,000 student years; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, 1,000 student years.
                        TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 201. VESSEL NOT A SHOT.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United 
     States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
     certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
     employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel NOT A SHOT 
     (United States official number 911064).

     SEC. 202. COSTS OF CLEAN-UP OF CAPE MAY LIGHTHOUSE.

       Of amounts authorized by this Act for fiscal year 2000 for 
     environmental compliance and restoration of Coast Guard 
     facilities, $99,000 shall be available to reimburse the owner 
     of the former Coast Guard lighthouse facility at Cape May, 
     New Jersey, for costs incurred for clean-up of lead 
     contaminated soil at that facility.

     SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION OF COAST GUARD AUTHORITY TO CONTROL 
                   VESSELS IN TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 15. ENTRY OF VESSELS INTO TERRITORIAL SEA; DIRECTION 
                   OF VESSELS BY COAST GUARD.

       ``(a) Notification of Coast Guard.--Under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, a commercial vessel entering the 
     territorial sea of the United States shall notify the 
     Secretary not later than 24 hours before that entry and 
     provide the following information:
       ``(1) The name of the vessel.
       ``(2) The port or place of destination in the United 
     States.
       ``(3) The time of entry into the territorial sea.
       ``(4) Any information requested by the Secretary to 
     demonstrate compliance with applicable international 
     agreements to which the United States is a party.
       ``(5) If the vessel is carrying dangerous cargo, a 
     description of that cargo.
       ``(6) A description of any hazardous conditions on the 
     vessel.
       ``(7) Any other information requested by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Denial of Entry.--The Secretary may deny entry of a 
     vessel into the territorial sea of the United States if--
       ``(1) the Secretary has not received notification for the 
     vessel in accordance with subsection (a); or
       ``(2) the vessel is not in compliance with any other 
     applicable law relating to marine safety, security, or 
     environmental protection.
       ``(c) Direction of Vessel.--The Secretary may direct the 
     operation of any vessel in the navigable waters of the United 
     States as necessary during hazardous circumstances, including 
     the absence of a pilot required by State or Federal law, 
     weather, casualty, vessel traffic, or the poor condition of 
     the vessel.''.

     SEC. 204. COAST GUARD SEARCH AND RESCUE FOR LAKE MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Requirements.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Secretary of Transportation--
       (A) shall continue to operate and maintain the seasonal 
     Coast Guard air search and rescue facility located in 
     Muskegon, Michigan, until at least September 30, 2001; and
       (B) shall establish a new seasonal Coast Guard air search 
     and rescue facility for Southern Lake Michigan to serve the 
     Chicago metropolitan area and the surrounding environment, 
     and operate that facility until at least September 30, 2001.

     In establishing the facility under subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall study Illinois sites in the Chicago 
     metropolitan area, including Waukegan, Illinois.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to the 
     other amounts authorized by this Act, there are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation--
       (A) for operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard air 
     search and rescue facility in Muskegon, Michigan--
       (i) $3,252,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (ii) $3,252,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       (B) for acquisition, construction, and improvement of 
     facilities and equipment for the Coast Guard air search and 
     rescue facility for Southern Lake Michigan established under 
     paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) $8,100,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (ii) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (C) for operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard air 
     search and rescue facility for Southern Lake Michigan 
     established under paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) $5,505,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (ii) $4,060,000 for fiscal year 2001.
       (3) Limitation on closing or downsizing other facilities.--
     The Secretary of Transportation may not close or downsize any 
     Coast Guard facility for the purpose of accommodating the 
     capability required pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (b) Study of Search and Rescue Capabilities for Lake 
     Michigan.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     study, determine, and report to the Congress the overall 
     aircraft and vessel search and rescue capability for Lake 
     Michigan, including--
       (1) the capability of all Federal, State, and local 
     government and nongovernment entities that perform search and 
     rescue functions for Lake Michigan; and
       (2) the adequacy of that overall capability.
       (c) Plan for Search and Rescue Response for Chicago, 
     Illinois.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     prepare, submit to the Congress, and begin implementing a 
     comprehensive plan for aircraft and vessel search and rescue 
     response for Lake Michigan in the vicinity of Chicago, 
     Illinois.
       (d) Use of Helicopters for Drug Interdiction.--During the 
     portion of each year when the seasonal facilities required 
     under subsection (a)(1) are not in operation, the Secretary 
     of Transportation shall use helicopters assigned to those 
     facilities for drug interdiction.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes

[[Page 4697]]

the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows 
another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question 
shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC.   . VESSEL COASTAL VENTURE.

       Section 1120(g) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
     1996 (Public Law 104-324; 110 Stat. 3978) is amended by 
     inserting ``COASTAL VENTURE (United States official number 
     971086),'' after ``vessels''.

     SEC.   . VESSEL PRIDE OF MANY.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United 
     States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
     certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
     employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel PRIDE OF 
     MANY (Canadian official number 811529).

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION OF NEW MARITIME USER FEES.

       Section 2110(k) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the last sentence.

     SEC.    . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING OIL SPILL RESPONSE 
                   ACTIONS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that to ensure that 
     liability concerns regarding response actions to remove a 
     discharge of oil or a hazardous substance, or to mitigate or 
     prevent the threat of such a discharge, do not deter an 
     expeditious or effective response, the President should 
     promulgate guidelines as soon as possible under the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 and other applicable Federal laws 
     clarifying that a person who is not a responsible party (as 
     that term is used in that Act) and who takes any response 
     action consistent with the National Contingency Plan 
     (including the applicable fish and wildlife response plan) or 
     as otherwise directed by the President to prevent or mitigate 
     the environmental effects of such a discharge or a threat of 
     such a discharge should not be held liable for the violation 
     of fish and wildlife laws unless the person is grossly 
     negligent or engages in a willful misconduct.

  Mr. GILCHREST (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined this amendment, and we 
are prepared to accept it on our side.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. We would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment. 
We have no problem.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for agreeing to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pickett

  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Pickett:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC.    . VESSEL NORFOLK.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and section 12106 of title 46, United 
     States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
     certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement for 
     the vessel NORFOLK (United States official number 1077852) 
     before January 1, 2001, if--
       (1) before that date the vessel undergoes a major 
     conversion (as defined in section 2101 of title 46, United 
     States Code) in a shipyard located in the United States; and
       (2) the cost of the major conversion is more than three 
     times the amount the owner of the vessel paid to purchase the 
     vessel.

  Mr. PICKETT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PICKETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined this amendment and we are 
prepared to accept it on our side.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Likewise on our side, Mr. Chairman. We have no 
reservations.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide Jones Act 
status to a vessel that is U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-flagged, 
but which is not eligible for the coastwise trade of the United States 
because at one time it was flagged foreign.
  Simply stated, my amendment would provide a Jones Act waiver for the 
tug ``Norfolk'' before January 1, 2001 only if before that date the 
vessel undergoes a major conversion in a shipyard located in the United 
States and the cost of this major conversion is more than three times 
the amount the owner of the vessel paid to purchase the vessel. I 
emphasize again that the vessel is U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-
flagged.
  I offer the amendment on behalf of Bay Gulf Trading Company, a 
locally owned Virginia corporation with its headquarters and principal 
place of business in Norfolk, Virginia. Jerry McDonald, a former U.S. 
Navy captain, is the chairman of the company. Bay Gulf is wholly owned 
by U.S. citizens. It is a small business that owns and operates 8 tugs 
and 10 tanker barges, and employs about 75 persons.
  The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 provides that a U.S. vessel once sold 
foreign or placed under foreign registry cannot engage in U.S. 
coastwise trade. Only by special legislation can such a vessel built in 
the United States, flagged foreign, and reflagged in the United States 
be documented by the coast guard with a coastwise trade endorsement.
  The Norfolk--built in 1975 at Mangone Shipyard, Houston, Texas--
subsequently it was Norwegian flagged and American Bureau of Shipping 
classed until 1994. During the early 1990's it was sold and reflagged 
in Italy. In late 1995, the vessel experienced an extensive fire off 
the coast of Italy. Much of the interior spaces above the main deck 
were gutted. It was sold ``as is'' to a company in Ontario, and was 
towed from Italy to Canada. Repairs were never completed.
  Bay Gulf acquired the vessel in December 1998. The tug was the only 
American built large tug available anywhere in North America. Bay Gulf 
proposes to use the tug for anchor handling, coastal/ocean towing, and 
salvage duties. The necessary repair work--estimated cost of $3 
million--will be done in the Norfolk area by Norfolk shipyards and 
contractors. The work is estimated to cost $3 million, which is more 
than three times the amount the owner of the vessel paid for the 
purchase of the tug.
  Mr. Chairman, existing U.S. law--the Wrecked Vessels Act of 1994--
permits the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
documentation with a coastwise endorsement for any foreign-built vessel 
wrecked on the coasts of the United States when purchased by a citizen 
of the United States and thereupon repaired in a shipyard in the United 
States if the repairs are equal to three times the appraised salved 
value of the vessel. My amendment applies this standard in the case of 
the Norfolk, which is a U.S.-built vessel. So, I would argue that this 
amendment is eminently fair.
  There is clearly no surplus of large anchor handling vessels in the 
U.S. coastwise trade. Based upon the best information that I can 
obtain, only one U.S. flagged, coastwise certified 8000 horsepower tug 
is available on the market, and it is not an anchor handling tug.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . DRUG INTERDICTION.

       (a) Vessel Shore Facilities.--In addition to amounts 
     otherwise authorized by this Act, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation $20,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2000 for the acquisition, construction, 
     rebuilding, and improvement of shore facilities for Coast 
     Guard vessels used for drug interdiction operations.
         (b) Acquisition of Coastal Patrol Craft.--If the 
     Department of Defense does not offer, by not later than 
     September 30, 1999, seven PC-170 coastal patrol craft for the 
     use of the Coast Guard pursuant to section 812(c) of the 
     Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act (title VIII of 
     division C of Public Law 105-277), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation, in addition 
     to amounts otherwise

[[Page 4698]]

     authorized by this Act, up to $210,000,000 for fiscal years 
     2000 and 2001 for the acquisition of up to six PC-170 coastal 
     patrol craft, or the most recent upgrade of the PC-170 
     coastal patrol craft, for use by the Coast Guard.

  Mr. LoBIONDO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It 
allows the Coast Guard to purchase six PC-170 coastal patrol boats, 
adding funding to the Coast Guard budget already approved by the full 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard's ability to effect drug interdiction 
is tied to this amendment. The Coast Guard with this amendment will 
bring six fast, highly maneuverable vessels to the front lines of the 
drug war in roughly 1 year's time. With the intensity that we hear of 
drugs coming into this country, Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity 
for my colleagues to be able to do something about it. We all want to 
talk, every Member of Congress, about how tough we are on drugs. We all 
talk about how the Coast Guard is the front line of drug interdiction. 
We all talk about how important it is to give them the resources. Mr. 
Chairman, this is an opportunity to give the Coast Guard the resources 
they need.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) and I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell) and all the members of the committee for their help with this 
particular amendment. I urge full support of the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished vice 
chairman of the subcommittee, we have examined this and we strongly 
support this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we support 
the amendment. We do not want to see the Coast Guard trying to perform 
this difficult and dangerous mission with equipment that is not 
suitable. This is the right equipment for this mission. We are 
supportive of the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, for far too long we have fought the war 
on drugs as if it were a short-term conflict. It is not. It is a long-
haul conflict. We must make a 20-year commitment to drug interdiction 
operations. This amendment will help us do that. We support the 
amendment on this side.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) for his support.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 113, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. LoBiondo) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Upton

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Upton:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC.   . GREAT LAKES LIGHTHOUSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Great Lakes are home to more than 400 lighthouses. 
     120 of these maritime landmarks are in the State of Michigan, 
     more than in any other State.
       (2) Lighthouses are an important part of Great Lakes 
     culture and stand as a testament to the importance of 
     shipping in the region's political, economic, and social 
     history.
       (3) Advances in navigation technology have made many Great 
     Lakes lighthouses obsolete. In Michigan alone, approximately 
     70 lighthouses will be designated as surplus property of the 
     Federal Government and will be transferred to the General 
     Services Administration for disposal.
       (4) Unfortunately, the Federal property disposal process is 
     confusing, complicated, and not well-suited to disposal of 
     historic lighthouses or to facilitate transfers to nonprofit 
     organizations. This is especially troubling because, in many 
     cases, local nonprofit historical organizations have 
     dedicated tremendous resources to preserving and maintaining 
     Great Lakes lighthouses.
       (5) If Great Lakes lighthouses disappear, the public will 
     be unaware of an important chapter in Great Lakes history.
       (6) The National Trust for Historic Preservation has placed 
     Michigan lighthouses on their list of Most Endangered 
     Historic Places.
       (b) Assistance for Great Lakes Lighthouse Preservation 
     Efforts.--The Secretary of Transportation, acting through the 
     Coast Guard, shall--
       (1) continue to offer advice and technical assistance to 
     organizations in the Great Lakes region that are dedicated to 
     lighthouse stewardship; and
       (2) promptly release information regarding the timing of 
     designations of Coast Guard lighthouses on the Great Lakes as 
     surplus property, to enable those organizations to mobilize 
     and be prepared to take appropriate action with respect to 
     the disposal of those properties by the Federal Government.

  Mr. UPTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to thank my kind colleagues the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the full 
committee; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) who has been 
very understanding as we have worked through this language; the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), always a friend of the Coast 
Guard; and also my Great Lakes colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak) in particular; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) 
and others that I conferred with before I offered this amendment this 
afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in offering this amendment to protect Great 
Lakes lighthouses. As I am sure the chairman is aware, lighthouses are 
a very important part of Great Lakes culture and they stand as a 
testament to the importance of shipping in the region's political, 
economic and social history.
  In Michigan alone, the U.S. Coast Guard plans to designate 
approximately 70 of these structures as surplus Federal property and 
turn them over to the GSA for disposal. Unfortunately, the standard 
Federal property disposal process is very confusing, complicated, and 
it does not facilitate transfers to nonprofits. This is especially 
troubling because in many cases, a local, not-for-profit historical 
organization has dedicated tremendous resources to preserving and 
maintaining those lighthouses.
  In the city of South Haven, Michigan, this very situation occurred 
only last year. For years, the Coast Guard leased an historical 
lighthouse keeper's dwelling to the Michigan Maritime Museum that was 
going to be used as a curatorial center for maritime artifacts. The 
property was taken away from the museum, turned over to the GSA for 
disposal and after many months the GSA offered to sell the property 
back to the museum for $300,000. My colleagues have to be aware that 
they will be seeing this type of situation again and again as the Coast 
Guard hands these properties to the GSA for disposal.
  Fortunately, a group of Michigan historical preservation leaders have 
formed a group known now today as the Michigan Lighthouse Project which 
is dedicated to lighthouse preservation and maintenance. I am glad to 
report that the Coast Guard has been working hand in hand with the 
Michigan Lighthouse Project and I applaud their current cooperation and 
encouragement for their continued involvement.
  This amendment states that the Coast Guard shall continue to offer 
advice and technical assistance to organizations in the Great Lakes 
region which are dedicated to lighthouse stewardship. Specifically the 
Coast Guard is

[[Page 4699]]

urged to promptly release information related to the timing of when a 
property is going to be excessed by the GSA. That is needed so that 
organizations can mobilize and be prepared to take action.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish that this amendment might be able to go further, 
but I know that we are going to have some discussions when this bill 
goes to conference. It is my hope that this body will accept this 
amendment so that not only the Coast Guard but GSA and other Federal 
agencies will create a fairer and equitable Federal disposal process 
that in fact recognizes the historic nature of lighthouses and their 
wonderful contribution to Great Lakes history.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined this and we are pleased 
to accept this amendment on our side.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. Lighthouses are a matter of particular interest and 
importance to this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The 
very first public works authorized by the very first Congress was done 
by the predecessor of our today Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure when that Rivers and Harbors Committee authorized the 
Fort Henry Lighthouse in 1790. Lighthouses have been a critical part of 
our navigation system in America not only for waterborne navigation but 
also from the mid 1920s to the mid 1930s, the Lighthouse Service 
provided the first navigational guide, aids to aviation navigation on 
land for airborne transportation.

                              {time}  1430

  It was the first nighttime guidance system provided by the lighthouse 
service to aviation.
  For those and for so many other reasons lighthouses have such a 
fascination for the American public, a point of nostalgia. They are 
national treasures. They are linked to our maritime heritage. They are 
landmarks for travel and tourism, and where abandoned and replaced by 
our modern aids to navigation, lighthouses serve a multitude of 
purposes including benefits to local economy.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The time of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Oberstar, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Upton was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, in my own congressional district the City 
of Two Harbors lighthouse along the north shore of Lake Superior in the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act last year was conveyed to the local Two 
Harbors and Lake County Historical Society which will be responsible 
for the upkeep of the facility while the Coast Guard maintains the 
light itself, and soon we are going to have a major bicycling event 
along the north shore from Duluth to another historic landmark, the 
Split Rock Lighthouse when we, hopefully this summer, convene the Split 
Rock century, arrived from Duluth to Split Rock and back.
  Lighthouses serve many, many purposes. The gentleman's amendment will 
give the Coast Guard the authority it needs to further the conveyance 
of lighthouses to non-profit organizations that will have the 
resources, and the will and the desire to preserve these national 
treasures, and I compliment the gentleman from Michigan on this 
amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Just to finish up my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's support. I know that it has been there from the very onset, 
and we worked in a very strong bipartisan basis to make sure this was 
done, and as I live along the Great Lakes in St. Joseph, Michigan, and 
I think about all the harbors all the way up to Mackinaw and Lake 
Superior, these are needed, they are very precious, and this amendment, 
I think, will really help to preserve those in the future.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Upton was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. UPTON. But as I think about all these lighthouses in so many 
different ports throughout the Great Lakes, Mr. Chairman, they are 
something that needs to be preserved, and we think about, too, the 
safety of all those boaters. Whether one sails across Lake Michigan at 
night, or Lake Superior, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, they are important, and 
they stand as a beacon for every community in terms of historical 
significance, and I appreciate the gentleman's support and also that of 
my Michigan colleagues that were instrumental in getting this amendment 
adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, again I appreciate the help of the full committee here 
in helping me prepare the amendment and the time this afternoon.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6(f) of rule XVIII, the 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. LoBiondo), if ordered, will be a 5-minute vote.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHUSTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding we are rolling 
votes, and I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) wants 
to move to strike the last word. Are we not rolling votes now?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair was not aware of additional 
debate. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania may strike 
the last word.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Except the gentleman wants to move to strike the last 
word I believe.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is recognized for 5 minutes prior to 
conducting the recorded vote.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I want to stand in support of this legislation particularly because 
the managers saw fit to include a provision of mine which exempts the 
vessel, The Pride Of Many, from Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act 
of 1920. It is popularly referred to as the Jones Act. As my colleagues 
know, the Jones Act prevents all foreign-built vessels from 
participating in domestic, coastal and intercostal trade.
  In 1975 the Youth Services Agency of Pennsylvania was established. 
This is a not-for-profit agency, and it runs four alternative 
community-based high schools for at-risk youth. The students who are 
referred to the agency either by their home high school after having 
established a pattern of negative behavior or by court order. The 
mission of the agency is to expose at-risk youth to a variety of 
activities and opportunities in an effort to help these students 
overcome social and/or personal hindrances so that they can achieve 
their full emotional, physical, intellectual and spiritual potential.
  In an effort to provide the 500 students in this program with a sense 
of accomplishment, self worth and the need for self-discipline, they 
are being taught how to man a Canadian-manufactured tall ship similar 
to the famous Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria which they christened The 
Pride Of Many.
  Additionally, the vessel will assist in the youths' involvement in 
port-to-port community service activities. Not only will the nearby 
communities benefit from their efforts, but it will also contribute to 
the youths' realization of the importance of community.

[[Page 4700]]

  In order to assure that the goals of the Youth Services Agency of 
Pennsylvania are realized, The Pride Of Many needs to be allowed to 
participate in commercial activities that will offset the expense of 
the vessel.
  Mr. Chairman, the Youth Service Agency of Pennsylvania has already 
provided many tangible benefits for the local community and its 
students, and I know that The Pride Of Many will help continue their 
effort of good work. I ask all Members of the House join with me in 
support of this legislation.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) on which a recorded vote was 
ordered.
  This will be a 15-minute vote and will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 428, 
noes 0, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 53]

                               AYES--428

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hyde
     Largent
     Myrick
     Pitts
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1455

  So, the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424, 
noes 4, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 54]

                               AYES--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page 4701]]


     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--4

     Paul
     Royce
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Houghton
     Largent
     Myrick
     Pitts
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1507

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hefley, 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. 820) 
to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the 
Coast Guard, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 113, 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote on the question 
of passage of H.R. 975.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424, 
noes 7, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               AYES--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence

[[Page 4702]]


     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--7

     Chenoweth
     Doolittle
     Paul
     Pombo
     Royce
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Myrick
     Pitts
       

                              {time}  1525

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________