[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10102-10104]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1699, COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT 
                                OF 2001

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 155 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 155

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1699) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose 
     of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by 
     the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. House Resolutions 130, 147, 149, and 150 are laid 
     on the table.


[[Page 10103]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules did meet and granted a modified 
open rule for the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. The rule provides 
for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure. The rule also provides that the bill shall be open 
to amendment at any point. The rule makes in order only those 
amendments printed in the Congressional Record and pro forma amendments 
for the purpose of debate. The rule provides that each amendment 
printed in the Congressional Record may be offered only by the Member 
who caused it to be printed or his designee, and that each amendment 
shall be considered as read. The rule provides one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that House Resolutions 130, 
147, 149, and 150 are laid on the table.
  In a way, this is a sad moment because our friend Mr. Moakley always 
handled this rule in the past. But he is no longer with us. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) will be managing this rule for the 
minority. He is the new ranking minority member, and I know he will do 
a fine job in his new position.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 155 is a fair and open rule for a 
noncontroversial bill. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) worked very hard to craft a clean, 
straightforward bill so that the Coast Guard can quickly get the tools 
it needs to protect lives and property at sea.
  This is the way legislation should be done. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
thank the gentlewoman for her kind remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 155 is a modified open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. 
While Democratic members of the Committee on Rules question the need to 
require preprinting of amendments, we will not object to this rule 
since it otherwise allows for the consideration of any germane 
amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1699 authorizes $5.4 billion for Coast Guard 
programs and operations in fiscal year 2002, which is, according to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, about $300 million 
short of its needs for operating expenses for the coming fiscal year. 
Considering the important maritime safety, marine environmental 
protection, and law enforcement operations performed by the Coast 
Guard, this deficiency should be remedied either in this bill or in the 
appropriations which will follow in the coming weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I also want to acknowledge his leadership now as ranking member. 
It is obviously for me particularly being a Member from Massachusetts 
with a heavy heart that our dear friend and colleague Joe Moakley is 
not in his customary seat.
  Many of the issues that come before us in this Chamber are close 
calls. Not this one. The United States Coast Guard is so underfunded 
that its fleets are aging, its gas tanks are near empty, its supply of 
spare parts are low, its communications equipment is outdated, and its 
personnel is overworked. Why? Because for years now, the Coast Guard 
has been assigned mission after new mission, from search and rescue to 
ice breaking, from drug interdiction to environmental enforcement, 
without anything resembling commensurate funding increases. Some years 
we have been able to patch things over with supplemental 
appropriations. We have got our fingers crossed right now for a 
supplemental to address a deficit exceeding $100 million.
  In the meantime, the Coast Guard has become one of the oldest fleets 
in the world. I believe it ranks 39 out of 40. Its ability to respond 
to marine distress calls is dangerously stretched.

                              {time}  1030

  It is true, literally true, that it is now a matter of life and death 
and it is no secret. Testimony at hearing after hearing has documented 
how personnel fatigue from double shifts struggle with old 
communications equipment to dispatch extended air and sea assets. From 
hurricanes and refugee migrations, SOS calls and oil spills, the wear 
and tear accumulates, placing at risk Coast Guard personnel and the 
lifesaving mission they are mandated to fulfill.
  Now so far the Coast Guard has bootstrapped itself into beating the 
odds and getting the job, all of its many jobs, done; in fact, with the 
highest marks of any Federal agency in terms of efficiency and 
management. But there is a breaking point. There will come a time when 
the American people will get from the Coast Guard not what they want, 
but what they are paying for. Put it another way, it is time for us to 
decide precisely what we want the Coast Guard to do and then to pay for 
it.
  This bill is a good start. President Bush set a constructive tone 
with a budget that proposed a $545 million increase over last year's 
funding level. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), who really 
does deserve the gratitude of all of those who benefit from our oceans 
and waterways, today has brought to this floor legislation with an 
additional $250 million for an overall authorization of $5.35 billion. 
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  As I mentioned, studies have repeatedly lauded the Coast Guard for 
its institutional efficiency, for its morale and commitment to duty, 
but these reviews always seem to conclude with a mournful refrain about 
what might be possible if only the commandant had the tools he really 
needs to work with.
  If fully funded, H.R. 1669 would mean the Coast Guard could cover 
more of the costs of salary, health care and housing, of technological 
retrofits to improve fisheries enforcement and drug traffic 
surveillance, of deferred maintenance repairs to get its aircraft off 
the ground and its ships to sea.
  When I first arrived in this body 4 years ago, I joined with my 
colleagues the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to form the Congressional Coast 
Guard Caucus. As former Coast Guardsmen, we sought to focus attention 
on the courageous service of the men and women who risk life and limb 
every day to enforce the law of the high seas and to save lives.
  Day in, day out they do their job. Well, now it is time for us to do 
ours. I support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I support the 
bill, and I was very saddened and it is saddening here today to realize 
that one of the great Members of Congress, Mr. Moakley, is not here, 
who normally handles this bill. He was a friend of mine, and he was not 
afraid to be a friend of mine as some other Democrats were. He treated 
all Democrats fairly, and I think that is a legacy that speaks for 
itself. An old saying relative to Coach Vince Lombardi at Green Bay is 
that why did everybody love him? All his players said, everybody loved 
Coach Lombardi because he treated us all alike; like dogs at times but 
all alike. And Joe Moakley treated us all alike,

[[Page 10104]]

the big chairman with all the power and just the little representatives 
with an idea.
  I have an amendment for this bill. I am going to support this bill 
whether it passes or not. I understand there has been a deal made that 
there is going to be no amendments, everybody is going to withdraw 
theirs. Well, I have news. I am not going to withdraw mine. My area 
used to be the third leading steel producing region of the world, and 
now I have my last steel mill in Chapter XI, with CSC being ready to be 
dismantled.
  Now my amendment can be beat. It can be said that part of it is 
already law. They do not really follow that law anyway. I want it 
established, firmly ingrained into this bill, the following: Any new 
vessel constructed for the Coast Guard with amounts made available 
under this act shall be constructed in the United States of America, 
built by Americans, number one. Number two, shall not be constructed 
using any steel other than steel that is made in the United States of 
America by American workers. Number three, that this bill shall be 
monitored and held in compliance with the Buy American Act that is 
waived more than women sailors.
  I understand there are some difficulties, and I want the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure Members who are here to listen. There 
are small components which would make it difficult to trace the origin 
of the steel. I do not care about that. Handle that in conference. I am 
talking about the major bulk of steel that goes into construction. And 
by God, if we cannot do that, what do we say it for? I am utterly 
disappointed that the Democrat administration would not even look at 
unfair steel dumping and now President Bush, a Republican, has taken 
the task on of looking at illegal dumping of steel in America. Now 
Democrats, wise up.
  I expect groceries on the shelf. I want my amendment included in this 
bill. It can be tailored in conference but, by God, if there is any new 
vessel to be built, it should be built by American workers with 
American steel in American ports.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) for giving me the consideration to offer my little idea 
as a Democrat.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in 
support of the fiscal year 2002 Coast Guard reauthorization bill. I 
commend the work of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
and the Coast Guard Caucus in bringing this bill to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard has five training facilities across the 
country that prepares its members to perform their jobs so ably, and I 
am proud to represent the only Coast Guard training facility on the 
West Coast, the Two Rock Training Facility in Petaluma, California. 
Several years ago, my constituents and I fought hard to keep Two Rock 
Coast Guard Training Facility open. The Coast Guard's most modern, 
spacious and environmentally clean training facility survived, and we 
were delighted.
  This decision to keep Two Rock open ensured the Coast Guard that the 
Coast Guard continues nationwide the technological, environmental and 
global economic challenges of the 21st century. I am pleased that 
today's bill will give Two Rock and the Coast Guard the financial tools 
they need to meet their challenges.
  The Coast Guard does a top notch job of enforcing maritime law and 
safeguarding the lives and property of Mariners throughout the coastal 
waters of the United States and its possessions, and its territories. 
Through this bill's provisions, the Coast Guard will continue its 
program, operations, including search and rescue, marine environmental 
protection, defense readiness and drug interdiction. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and support this bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________