[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10106-10116]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 155 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. 1699.

                              {time}  1120


                     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. 1699) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal 
year 2002, with Mr. Miller of Florida 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 New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2001. Before I discuss this bill, however, I would 
like to thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), for his time, energy, enthusiasm, 
and guidance in working out this authorization bill, which sometimes 
had its moments.
  Also, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), who once again has helped us with crafting a bill on which 
we have strong bipartisan support, and thank the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), and their staffers for their help 
and cooperation on this legislation. H.R. 1699 was developed in a 
bipartisan manner and deserves the support of all Members of this body.
  The primary purpose of H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act 
of 2001, is to authorize expenditures for the United States Coast Guard 
for the fiscal year 2002.
  Section 2 of the bill authorizes approximately $5.4 billion for Coast 
Guard programs and operations for the fiscal year 2002. The bill funds 
the Coast Guard at the levels requested by the President, with an 
additional $300 million in Coast Guard operating expenses. The amounts 
authorized by this bill will allow the Coast Guard to address chronic 
budget shortfalls.
  Many of the Coast Guard's most urgent needs are similar to those 
experienced by the Department of Defense, including spare parts 
shortages and personnel training deficits. H.R. 1699 addresses those 
needs, and also increases the amounts available for Coast Guard drug 
interdiction, something very important for our country.
  H.R. 1699 provides $338 million for the Coast Guard's essential 
deepwater asset modernization program. To date, the Coast Guard has 
spent $117 million to develop a plan for replacing or modernizing 
existing deepwater assets. I strongly believe that the Integrated 
Deepwater System is the most economical and effective way for the Coast 
Guard to provide future generations of Americans with lifesaving 
services.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the men and 
women of the United States Coast Guard for the exceptional services 
that they provide to our Nation. From the new recruits at the Coast 
Guard Training Center in Cape May, where I was proud to keynote their 
53rd Anniversary celebration last week, to the men and women of the 
Coast Guard Air Station in Atlantic City and the LORAN Support Unit in 
Lower Township, I have been impressed by their devotion to duty and 
their constant readiness to stand watch over our shores. Their efforts 
are representative of their fellow shipmates all over our Nation.
  All Americans benefit from a strong Coast Guard that is equipped to 
stop drug smugglers, support the country's defense, and respond to 
national emergencies. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard, like other 
military services, suffers from readiness problems related to deferred 
maintenance, aging equipment, and personnel training and retention. We 
must act to correct these problems and put the Coast Guard on sound 
financial footing to be ready to respond to increasing demands on Coast 
Guard resources, especially the need to increase drug interdiction 
operations.
  Mr. Chairman, Coast Guard operations must be made whole next year, 
ending the destructive cycle of funding shortfalls and end-of-the-year 
supplemental funding bills, which are only bandaid approaches. The 
funding provided in this bill will accomplish this goal. In order for 
the Coast Guard to continue to live up to its motto, Semper Paratus, 
always ready, Congress today needs to stand up for the Coast

[[Page 10107]]

Guard. With today's vote, we will do just that. I urge all Members to 
support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1599. This is a 
bipartisan bill. I thank the ranking member, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Brown), for her support, and those people directly involved.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are taking action today to 
authorize the funding for these important programs. H.R. 1699, the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001, authorizes the fiscal year 2002 
Coast Guard budget at the level requested by the President, with an 
additional $300 million, as the gentleman has mentioned.
  I, being from Alaska, and my Alaskan constituents have had a love 
affair with the Coast Guard for as long as we have been a Territory and 
a State. The first Federal officer that was stationed in Alaska was a 
Coast Guard employee, a captain.

                              {time}  1130

  They are dedicated people. They are committed and they are 
courageous, especially in search and rescue of our fishing fleet, which 
is the most dangerous fishing fleet in the world because of the climate 
conditions.
  Just this year, there has been numerous rescue attempts successfully 
done by the Coast Guard using equipment that is outdated and not 
properly, very frankly, funded for the fuel that needs to do the 
mission. They have done so.
  This bill does the authorization that we believe will not only fund 
them adequately, but will increase their deep water capability.
  Many of the ships that are used by the Coast Guard in Alaska and 
other areas of the United States are 50 years old and older. The living 
conditions of those ships is deplorable, and this Congress has been 
neglectful. Our President has recognized it, and this Congress has 
recognized it for the leadership of the chairman. We are now 
authorizing the funding as it should be.
  I have a little comment to make for those that may question the 
amounts of money. This is long overdue. We hope to have supplemental 
money in the supplemental appropriation bill for the backlog of $92 
million that the Coast Guard was shorted last year.
  We have some people in OMB and other areas that have decided to make 
this an issue, and I will tell them and I will tell my colleagues on 
this floor, we are going to prevail to make sure our Coast Guard is 
adequately funded. This bill does that.
  We have to recognize the importance of this ability of this unit is 
really on the front lines all the time. I have great respect for my 
Army, my Navy. I have great respect for my Marines, my Air Force. But 
this unit of the Coast Guard is always on the front lines: drug 
interdiction, oil spill responsibility, immigration, all the things 
that they are charged with, we have not adequately done our job, and it 
is up to us to do so.
  Again, I want to thank those people that are directly involved in 
this, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, who has actually mentioned the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) and himself 
have done the job that I believe is correct for this great agency which 
serves every man, woman and child.
  There is a tendency sometimes to believe that the Coast Guard only 
serves those on the coast. That is why they call it the Coast Guard. 
But the fact is it serves every person in the United States inland and 
along the coast through drug interdiction, illegal immigration, oil 
spill responsibility. The work that they do affects every man, woman 
and child in the United States.
  So I urge this Congress to, not only to pass this bill, but to pass 
it overwhelmingly.
  At this time, I would also like to compliment numerous people that 
had amendments. There will be some dialogue between those people. We 
have kept this a clean bill. There is nothing in here to slow it down 
like happened last year. We have agreed and reached a compromise with 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). He will be offering an 
amendment which we will accept. But it is the only amendment because it 
pertains to Buy America. But the rest of the amendments, and some of 
them were very well-warranted, we will talk about, we will discuss, and 
then they will be withdrawn.
  I will compliment the wisdom of those Members to keep this bill clean 
so when it goes over to the Senate, they will not have the opportunity 
to do what they tried to do last year and put a lot of garbage on the 
bill that should have been passed.
  So I want to congratulate those involved.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard 
reauthorization Act of 2001. This legislation is vital to the future 
operation of the United States Coast Guard. Most importantly, H.R. 1699 
authorizes an additional $300 million above the President's request for 
Coast Guard operations. This means more money for law enforcement, drug 
interdiction, fishery enforcement and migrant interdiction. For the 
past several years, the Coast Guard has been forced to either decrease 
operation or transfer money from maintenance to operation.
  Each day the men and women of the Coast Guard are putting their lives 
on the line to save those in distress, stop migrants and immigration, 
drugs, enforce maritime safety laws, and provide security to our 
Nation's ports.
  The time has come to provide the Coast Guard with the financial 
resources it needs to successfully carry out its operations. The $300 
million in additional funds for operations will help pay for the 
backlog in maintenance for aircraft, allow the aircraft and cutters 
that were to be mothballed to continue to operate, and enable all of 
the Coast Guard's vessels and cutters to operate to their full 
capacity.
  In addition, H.R. 1699 authorized $338 million for the Coast Guard's 
Deepwater Acquisition Project. The Coast Guard has been a wise guardian 
of the people's money. They have managed to keep cutters operating that 
was built in the 1940s. However, it is time to modernize the Coast 
Guard aircraft and fleet of cutters. I am hopeful that the money 
authorized will allow the Coast Guard to successfully award the 
Deepwater contract early in fiscal year 2002.
  The bill before us is a clean authorizing bill. It contains no 
changes to Coast Guard policies or programs. We are hopeful that the 
Senate will agree with us that it is in the Nation's interest to enact 
a Coast Guard authorizing bill in time for the Committee on 
Appropriations to provide the authorizing funds.
  Mr. Chairman, failure to enact a bill authorizing appropriations to 
the Coast Guard is a failure to fulfill our obligations to the American 
people.
  A vote for H.R. 1699 is a vote to provide an extra $300 million to 
support Coast Guard operations. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of 
my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time and congratulate her on managing on our side the first Coast 
Guard bill of this session and look forward to her splendid work in the 
future.
  I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the professional 
and thorough way that he has conducted the leadership of the 
subcommittee on this matter.
  I express also my appreciation for the splendid working relationship 
with our chairman of the full committee, the

[[Page 10108]]

gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). He is as vigorous an advocate for 
the Coast Guard as I, virtually a cheerleader for this special color 
blue uniform that makes such an enormous contribution to our safety, 
the safety of our inland waterways, our coastal waterways and of our 
Deepwater service.
  This bill is simply a numbers bill, if I could put it that way. We 
are trying to make up for failure of the past 2 years in the other body 
to move a Coast Guard authorization bill. In these past 2 years, this 
body and this committee has done its job. We have carried out our 
responsibility to the Coast Guard by bringing to the floor and passing 
an authorization bill that gives the Coast Guard the full authority to 
do its work.
  But when the bill got over to the other body, there were extraneous 
issues such as death on the high seas that have nothing to do with the 
mission of the Coast Guard that bogged the bill down, and we then did 
not get to an authorization. Now I urge the other body to take this 
bill and just without amendment, without extraneous matters, move the 
bill on to the President.
  We are authorizing $5.3 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 
2002. There is $300 million in here for the Coast Guard's operating 
expenses and for their drug interdiction mission.
  Because of the failure to enact a full authorization bill over the 
past 2 years, the Coast Guard has had to reduce its operations because 
they have had insufficient funds. This bill gives the Coast Guard the 
sufficient funding, full operations and maintenance to do its mission. 
The other body ought to move along. We ought to get this job done.
  This bill also addresses the long plan and carefully thought out 
Deepwater Replacement Project. This will involve replacing every ship 
and every aircraft that operates more than 50 miles offshore for the 
U.S. Coast Guard. It is a unique initiative. We have examined it in 
hearings over the past 2 years and studied the proposals carefully 
thought out. It ought to go ahead.
  Instead of authorizing a specific type of ship built in a specific 
shipyard, this proposal authorizes a 20-year acquisition program, a 
performance-based procurement to obtain the very best aircraft and the 
very best cutters the Coast Guard needs for its mission at the lowest 
operational cost.
  While we are here debating this legislation, it is a typical day for 
the 35,800 men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard: doing 109 search-and-
rescue cases, saving 10 lives, rescuing 192 people in distress, saving 
$3 million in property, seizing 169 pounds of marijuana, 306 pounds of 
cocaine worth collectively $10 million. In fact, in some years, the 
Coast Guard seizes drugs, illegal drugs that have a street value 
greater than the Coast Guard's appropriated budget.
  The Marine safety personnel are conducting safety checks on 100 large 
vessels, investigating six Marine casualties, responding to 20 oil or 
hazardous chemical spills, and servicing 135 aids to navigation. That 
is a very impressive day's work for the men and women in this special 
color blue.
  I stand here in awe of them and in respect of their mission and their 
contribution to America and urge this body to move quickly on and 
affirmatively on this legislation.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a person who has been heavily involved in the drug 
war in Central and South America, I want to speak out in praise of the 
work of the Coast Guard.
  In their effort to reduce the drug flow into the United States, no 
one has done more and received less recognition than the United States 
Coast Guard. They work to interdict the fast boats that cover the 
Caribbean with the flood of drugs and should be commended for the 
results that they have shown. If other branches of the services were 
doing a comparable job of fighting this war, we would be in a much 
stronger position to face the future.
  The Coast Guard continues to deliver services without complaint in 
spite of the shortages of funds provided to them and the difficulties 
and dangers in their job.
  I wish other government participants would demonstrate the same level 
of commitment to fighting the war on drugs as the U.S. Coast Guard. 
Today I stand to applaud their efforts and urge this Congress to renew 
its commitment to this valued service.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  It is my great privilege to represent the part of Washington State 
that borders on the southern part of our coastline and the Columbia 
River. I have had the opportunity to join our Coast Guard crewmen as 
they go out in the motor lifeboat school on one of the most dangerous 
river bars in the world, the Columbia River Bar. That is why I am so 
proud today to join with the Chair and the ranking member in supporting 
this critical authorization bill.
  Our Coast Guard Members save American lives every single day, and 
they deserve our support. They currently operate what would otherwise 
be one of the oldest navys in the world, and that should not be so. We 
need to make sure we give them support when they perform their critical 
life-saving needs when they work on environmental protection, when they 
enforce our fisheries laws, and when they patrol our coastline for 
whatever need they may be called upon to serve.
  I am proud to join with the members of this committee and urge 
passage of this critical legislation.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), a long-time supporter of the Coast Guard, who 
is the very shy, reserved, quiet chairman of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, as a former chairman of the Subcommittee on 
the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation, I want to admit a prejudice. 
I have a huge incredible appreciation and admiration for the work of 
the young men and women of our United States Coast Guard.
  I have seen firsthand incredible sacrifices and the extraordinary 
valor and courage they exercise every day in saving lives and 
interdicting drugs and opening up seaways and keeping our waterways 
safe and keeping the traffic that is critical to international trade in 
and out of our harbors without collisions and damage and oil spills and 
all the other things, the incredible number of missions that they 
perform on a daily basis without a whole lot of thanks and without a 
whole lot of expectation of reward.

                              {time}  1145

  But it is time we recognize something; that the sons and daughters of 
American citizens, who serve in the United States Coast Guard and who 
daily save lives and save us from human suffering with their drug 
interdiction and who save damage and destruction in our harbors as they 
keep safety in these critical national commerce areas, that these men 
and women too often work with outdated and outmoded equipment and that 
their lives are at risk unnecessarily. It is time we put some real 
resources into upgrading and updating the equipment, the boats and 
planes and the equipment they use to carry out these extraordinary 
missions.
  I was on a flight one time in a Coast Guard plane whose engine gave 
out on us, and communication was lost, and I thought we were all gone 
for a little while. That should never happen to any young man or woman 
who volunteers for service in the United States Coast Guard. Let us 
today, in this vote, declare with a ringing sense of appreciation the 
gratitude of the American people through this Congress for the 
extraordinary sacrifice and service of the young men and women of our 
United States Coast Guard. And let us dedicate ourselves to making sure 
that as they save lives, as they perform the incredibly important 
missions we have

[[Page 10109]]

assigned to them, that we make their lives as sacred as the lives they 
are saving, that we protect them with better equipment and better boats 
and better planes.
  Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly urge the passage of this bill.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, both the chairman, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the ranking member of the subcommittee, 
for bringing this bill forward. And I am glad to follow my colleague, 
who is chair of the House Committee on Commerce, because I served with 
him in my first term in Congress on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and 
Navigation when we had a Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
  I rise in support of the authorization that recognizes the United 
States Coast Guard and provides the necessary funding so that our 
waterways will continue to be the safest in the world. And I would like 
to speak briefly about the impact the Coast Guard has on not only 
Houston but also on the Port of Houston that I am honored to represent.
  The Houston-Galveston Vessel Traffic Service, the VTS, is located in 
Galena Park, Texas. That Coast Guard facility plays a key role in 
maintaining maritime safety and efficiency in the Houston-Galveston 
region, which includes the Port of Houston.
  The Port of Houston represents the largest petrochemical port in the 
United States. It has the largest volume of foreign tonnage of all U.S. 
ports and the second largest in combined tonnage and serves over 7,000 
vessels a year. Acting as a communications hub, our VTS accomplishes 
its mission by providing accurate, relevant, and timely information to 
mariners, port authorities, facility operators, and local, State, and 
Federal agencies. This information prevents vessel collisions, 
groundings, and consequently reduces the loss of life, property, as 
well as environmental damage associated with these incidents.
  We basically have an industrial port. Our VTS information also 
enables waterway managers, mariners, and advisory groups to better 
understand the port's waterway systems and to make improvements to 
vessel routing and safety.
  Our area is also served by a Coast Guard Marine Safety Office that 
protects the lives and the properties of all of us that enjoy and 
benefit from not only our industrial port but the boating public. I 
congratulate our local commander, Peter S. Simons, and the 48 men and 
women under his command for their excellent job and performance.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage passage of this bill.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership on this matter, as well as 
the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I am fortunate enough to represent Staten Island and 
the Port of Brooklyn, that portion which is the gateway to the Port of 
New York and New Jersey, one of the largest most active ports in the 
entire world. I am also privileged to represent one of the largest 
Coast Guard operations. Indeed, Activities New York is the largest 
operational field command in the Coast Guard. Its responsibility 
stretches from Long Branch, New Jersey to New York City, up to the 
Hudson River to Burlington, Vermont.
  I have come to appreciate over the last several years, and we have 
heard it here but let me add my voice to the chorus of those commending 
the dedication and the commitment and truly the love and honor of their 
job, the men and women serving in the United States Coast Guard. We 
have heard about the law enforcement. Indeed, they are saving kids, 
they are preventing drugs from hitting our streets. When it comes to 
the environment, just last year we had an oil spill off the shores of 
Staten Island. There was the potential to damaging our beaches at a 
critical time of the year. The Coast Guard, without hesitation, was on 
that scene and curtailed what could have been a big problem. So they 
are out there protecting the environment.
  Above all, they need resources to do the job that they do so well 
every single day. So I commend all the Members who have shown a true 
passion to supporting the Coast Guard because they are out there for 
us. They do this job without real call for attention, without the 
desire to be heard. They do it for us, they do it for America, and I 
think it is wonderful that we are finally taking a moment, this 
Congress, to say we appreciate the job you are doing; we are going to 
give you the tools you need to do the job you do so well.
  Mr. Chairman, when men and women willingly and with honor serve our 
country, I think without a moment's hesitation we should respond in 
kind. And so I add my voice to the chorus of those who truly appreciate 
what the Coast Guard does.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from the great State of 
Minnesota for yielding, and I rise to commend the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for 
their bipartisan work on this bill.
  I also rise to express my support for the Coast Guard Authorization 
Act and commend the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 
and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), for reporting to the full House a balanced and bipartisan 
measure to meet the requirements of the United States Coast Guard in 
providing for a wide variety of maritime activities throughout the 
broad scope of law enforcement, humanitarian, and emergency response 
duties.
  I also commend the committee for working in a bipartisan manner to 
increase funding in the bill by $300 million above the President's 
request to ensure that the Coast Guard can continue to operate in a 
complex and dangerous maritime environment characterized by rapidly 
changing security threats at home and also abroad.
  The Coast Guard's counter-drug missions are critical to achieving the 
national drug control strategy goals: to detect, disrupt, deter, and 
seize illegal drugs that kill 15,000 Americans and cost the public more 
than $110 billion each and every year. In fiscal year 1999, alone, the 
Coast Guard interdicted more than 111,000 pounds of cocaine, keeping 
some 500 million so-called hits with a value of $4 billion off 
America's streets and out of our schools.
  However, even more needs to be done. I recently returned from Cuba, 
an area of significant concern to the United States in the war against 
drugs. Despite our best efforts, including record drug seizures, Cuba 
remains a transit point for trafficking between Central and South 
America and Europe and North America. Moreover, only one drug 
interdiction specialist is assigned to our interest section in Havana. 
Certainly it could benefit from more manpower, more surveillance for 
equipment, and more cutters.
  While providing for this first drug interdiction specialist is an 
important milestone, clearly a lone Coast Guard official in Havana does 
not provide a strong and sustained presence in the region to make a 
difference in our war on drugs. Therefore, I would encourage the 
committee to direct at least a small portion of the $300 million plus-
up approved by the committee to additional drug interdiction around 
this area of the Caribbean. I am confident, based on what I witnessed 
in Cuba, that the United States would be making a sound investment by 
bolstering our presence in the region and working toward mitigating 
Cuba as a transit point and a gateway for the influx of illicit and 
dangerous narcotics imported

[[Page 10110]]

in ever-expanding amounts into the United States.
  I am hopeful that the committee will address this matter in 
conference in the years ahead, and I thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the work 
of the gentleman from Indiana. He has again demonstrated once more his 
genuine concern in international affairs and hemispheric affairs, and I 
greatly appreciate his interest in Cuba and the role that Cuba and the 
United States together can play in drug interdiction. He has certainly 
made a valiant effort in this regard. I greatly respect his mission to 
Havana just recently.
  The committee has worked for years on this problem, and what we have 
found is that when the Coast Guard or any of our drug interdiction 
entities in the Federal Government clamp down in transit zones, say in 
the Caribbean, drugs pop up on the West Coast. When we move assets to 
the West Coast, they move back to the Caribbean or elsewhere. It is a 
very delicate balancing act.
  The Defense Department is also rethinking their role in the counter-
drug mission. The Coast Guard now has law enforcement detachments on 
U.S. Navy vessels working in the Caribbean and off the west coast, 
which have been of great value to our war on drugs, and we have come to 
see the drug interdiction effort as a national security measure for the 
United States.
  So the question of where to deploy these assets and how to balance 
them between the Caribbean, the west coast, the east coast and, 
frankly, the U.S.-Canadian border, which my district borders on and is 
becoming an entry point for drugs, is a very delicate matter.
  We will continue our efforts to provide the Coast Guard with the 
resources they need in high-endurance aircraft, high-endurance cutters, 
additional personnel to participate in the already highly successful 
interdiction effort of the Coast Guard on drug smuggling efforts, and I 
will certainly bring to the attention of the Coast Guard the 
gentleman's recommendation for additional personnel in the Havana 
office.
  We look forward to working with the gentleman as we proceed not only 
with this bill but with the regular authorization bill when further 
policy issues will be addressed, and I thank the gentleman for his 
contribution.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the former 
chair of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation, a Member of 
this body whose name is synonymous with support of the Coast Guard over 
the years. We affectionately refer to him as the Master Chief. He has 
been to my district, the second district of New Jersey, with me, to 
visit the Coast Guard Recruit Training Center. But more importantly he 
trained there, so he knows it very well.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generous 
introduction, although unfortunately I was never Master Chief, but I 
like to claim that honor.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to put a different face on this, because we have 
heard sterling comments in praise of America's oldest continuing 
seagoing service. I want to put a different face to it.
  A man once said to me, he said, ``The Coast Guard is the invisible 
service. Never hear about them.'' Well, we never hear about the Coast 
Guard unless we happen to be in distress and we need to be rescued by 
professionals. I spoke to a man who was once rescued, I spoke to him 
moments after the rescue, and he said to me, ``That Coast Guard cutter 
looked like an angel of mercy coming to me,'' and then he began to weep 
softly. They are indeed angels of mercy. The Coast Guard cutters, the 
Coast Guard aircraft, what they do is legendary; but it is oftentimes 
invisible.
  I have gone to Memorial Day and Veterans Day services across the 
land. My good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), said we 
appreciate all of the services, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. 
Those four will be recognized; the Coast Guard inevitably will be 
omitted. I went to a Veterans Day service back home in my district 4, 
5, 6 years ago, and sure enough the inevitable happened, the four 
services were recognized by the playing of their respective hymns, but 
nothing about the Coast Guard.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, I went to the music director of the school that day. I 
asked about the omission. She said, I do not have the music. I said, It 
is the most beautiful marching hymn of the services. Now, I am not 
completely objective about that, Mr. Chairman.
  She said, Get me the music; and I did.
  The next year, the Coast Guard hymn was the first one played. She 
came to me and she said, Are you satisfied? I said, Yes, indeed.
  But oftentimes folks do not recognize that the Coast Guard is one of 
our five armed services. Years ago the Coast Guard was the beneficiary 
of Navy hand-me-downs. I am not putting down the Navy for this. We were 
glad to get them and made the best of what we had. Now it is a little 
better. We still get hand-me-downs, but part of the problem from years 
gone by, many of the Coast Guard spokespersons would come up here and 
say, We can get along with $5 million; we do not need $99 million.
  Mr. Chairman, the other services were waiting to take that overflow. 
Now I think that attitude has changed. The Coast Guard comes up here 
more aggressively, not to embellish their budgetary needs, but to make 
it clear, matter of factly, what is needed to keep those search-and-
rescue missions going, and to keep those drug interdiction raids 
successfully executed.
  I want the American people to recognize, and many do not, and it is 
not their fault because oftentimes the Coast Guard is omitted, we need 
to be aware that there are five armed services in this country; and the 
Coast Guard is equally important, as are the other four.
  The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) have addressed this issue well. They have said 
this is a service whose time has come to be fully and openly recognized 
as a vital cog in the armed services wheel. I commend those who have 
brought the bill to the floor today; and I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for his generous introduction.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, on December 11, 1998, a great tragedy 
occurred on Lake Michigan. The fishing vessel Linda E. and her crew of 
three were out working hard, pulling in fish off Port Washington, 
Wisconsin.
  The Linda E. never came home. After 18 months of wondering and 
worrying, the Linda E. was located in 260 feet of water at the bottom 
of Lake Michigan. A Coast Guard investigation determined that the 
vessel was struck by an integrated tug/barge. The accident resulted in 
three unnecessary deaths and one of the crew members of the barge 
losing his license.
  There are two specific issues that relate to this tragedy and other 
tragedies like it that I would like to work with the subcommittee and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman, on. First, 
this accident could have been prevented if the barge had been required 
to have a collision-avoidance radar detection system on board. 
Unfortunately, it did not.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the subcommittee to further 
explore the issue of requiring vessels of this size operating on the 
Great Lakes to install some collision-avoidance technology.
  Second, while the Coast Guard followed all of the procedures required 
under law with respect to the investigation of the Linda E., I, along 
with the family members of the Linda E.

[[Page 10111]]

crew, would like to explore ways to clarify the investigation and 
recovery process. We would hope to work closely with both the Coast 
Guard and the subcommittee on this matter.
  Would the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, be willing to 
devote some of the time of the subcommittee to review these matters?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for his continuing interest on this very important issue. The 
sinking of the Linda E. was a terrible tragedy. We will be pleased to 
work with the gentleman to explore his suggestion that collision-
avoidance radar be placed on barges operating in the Great Lakes and to 
look at the issue of Great Lakes maritime safety and response to 
maritime accidents in general.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for his consideration and look forward to working with him to 
ensure that the safety of all vessels operating on the Great Lakes is 
of utmost importance.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Schrock).
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, the goals of the Coast Guard are 
straightforward: supply maritime safety, provide maritime security, 
protect our natural resources, facilitate maritime mobility, and 
support our national defense. Fulfillment of these goals is essential 
for commerce and the safety of Americans, but they come at a price.
  The Coast Guard fleet of ships and aircraft is aging and requires 
rebuilding. They have implemented a strong recruiting drive that now 
requires an increased focus on training for new recruits.
  The Coast Guard has also taken on increased responsibility in refugee 
and drug traffic interdiction. These and other new missions require 
additional funds, and I am glad that we can supply the Coast Guard with 
the needed resources to meet these tasks.
  With over 78 million recreational boaters and over 250,000 maritime 
workers in the U.S., the Coast Guard's mission of providing maritime 
safety cannot be neglected. In fiscal year 2000, the Coast Guard saved 
over 3,000 lives in imminent danger.
  A recent rescue success story demonstrates the courage and dedication 
of the Coast Guard. As an example, a 110-foot tugboat and its three 
crewmen sent out a distress call in the middle of a blizzard with snow, 
ice, freezing rain and near subzero visibility in the Chesapeake Bay.
  The Coast Guard took a 41-foot utility boat from Coast Guard Station 
Cape Charles, Virginia, and after a long period of time were able to 
rescue these people, knowing that their lives could be lost as well.
  Mr. Chairman, these guardsmen were not required to dispatch that day, 
but they did, and they entered the high seas in a boat not equipped to 
embark on such conditions. This is quite usual for the men and women of 
the Coast Guard.
  When the brave crew of this mission were congratulated for their 
successful mission, Third Class Boatswain's Mate Scott Palmer modestly 
said, ``Coasties do this every day.'' And they do.
  We cannot let the brave men and women of the Coast Guard go out on 
obsolete vessels. We must provide them with safe and up-to-date means 
of transport in negotiating our waterways and shores in order to 
protect the people who travel these waterways every day.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation we are considering today authorizes 
$5.4 billion for Coast Guard operations for fiscal year 2002. This 
represents a sorely needed increase of $1.39 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman 
from New Jersey for supporting this increase, and urge my colleagues to 
support this bill which protects our commerce, our national security, 
and the American people.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the tragic issue of 
carbon monoxide deaths on lakes around the country and in any body of 
water.
  A little under a year ago, two young boys, Dillan and Logan Dixey, 
ages 8 and 11, died tragically swimming off the swim-step of their 
houseboat on Lake Powell. That triggered a study that revealed that 
there have been at least nine deaths on Lake Powell alone, and a total 
of over 111 injuries on that lake in my State. Following that, there 
had been a study by NIOSH which has documented at least an additional 
30 deaths and 107 injuries.
  Mr. Chairman, these deaths are caused by the intake of carbon 
monoxide, both to people onboard boats and people swimming off the swim 
platforms of houseboats on various lakes.
  It was my intention to offer an amendment today to require the Coast 
Guard to perform a study of these carbon monoxide deaths and to study 
not only how they could be prevented by adding the correct venting 
mechanism to the boats but also how the carbon monoxide detecting 
devices, which are on many of these boats, could be improved so these 
tragic deaths do not occur.
  Over the past seven seasons, nine deaths and 111 injuries on Lake 
Powell alone, 30 more deaths and 107 injuries on other lakes besides 
Lake Powell. These are based solely on voluntary reports.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) conducted 
a hearing on this issue, and I commend the gentleman for doing so. At 
that hearing, the heart-wrenching testimony of the parents of Logan and 
Dillan Dixey brought this issue home; but there are many others. This 
is the NIOSH study discussing the 30 deaths that they know of on other 
lakes. I hold press reports of deaths on bodies of water around the 
country. This documents the death that the gentleman from Louisiana 
spoke about in that State.
  Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important that we study these deaths 
and find out the cause of them. The Coast Guard has been given a grant 
of money to study these deaths; but, unfortunately, I believe it is 
critically important that we put language in the law that the study be 
complete, that they study not only the cause of the deaths so we can 
end these tragedies, but also study the mechanism to improve the carbon 
monoxide-detecting equipment on these vessels.
  Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the gentleman from New Jersey will 
work with us hopefully through the passage of this legislation; and if 
not otherwise, to insert this language requiring such a study for the 
safety of all recreational boaters in the country.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman indicated, we have had 
quite a bit of testimony on this issue already. I understand how 
important this issue is to recreational boaters throughout the country, 
and I pledge to work with the gentleman to include language in the next 
maritime bill developed by our committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  In 1976, a young man 16 years old took the family out for a sail off 
the coast of my district. After capsizing several times, his judgment 
became impaired, and he decided to swim for it. In the cold May waters, 
he had only about a half hour to live. Body temperature fell; he went 
through a classic near-death experience, and eventually passed out.
  Mr. Chairman, this young man woke up inside a Coast Guard vessel from 
the auxiliary station out of Wilmette, Illinois. He asked the guardsman 
if he was going to live or die, and the man said, I do not know. But 
thanks to the prompt rescue of the Coast Guard, that young man 
survived.
  Mr. Chairman, I am that young man. Every day of my life after my 16th 
year

[[Page 10112]]

is a borrowed day given to me by virtue of the United States Coast 
Guard. It is a difficult thing to say for a Navy man, but the Coast 
Guard saved my life; and that is the essence of their mission here.
  The kind of life-saving that happens off of the coast of the 10th 
Congressional District of Illinois is critical because Lake Michigan, 
most months of the year, is lethal due to temperature. It is the kind 
of work carried out by Air Station Waukegan, now providing life-saving 
services via helicopter throughout the entire south Lake Michigan 
region.
  Mr. Chairman, I am incredibly supportive of the Coast Guard. I 
strongly support this legislation. But for the Coast Guard, I would not 
be here.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois, whose story is indicative of the 
work that the Coast Guard has done for so many years throughout the 
Nation and that does not get the attention that it deserves. The men 
and women of the Coast Guard put themselves in harm's way every day. 
What I think America fails to realize is that it is a branch of the 
military that saves civilians every day. There is not a day that goes 
by that lives and property are not saved. There is not a day when 
America is not benefited by the work of the Coast Guard, the men and 
women, whether it is drug interdiction, whether it is saving lives and 
property, whether it is responding to a national emergency or aiding 
other branches of the military. Our examples go on and on and on.

                              {time}  1215

  We have many Members in this body who individually expressed strong 
support over the years for the work that the Coast Guard does. Now is 
the time for us to stand up for them. They stand up for America every 
day. It is our time to stand up for them during this authorization bill 
or, more importantly, as we move through the appropriations process, so 
we can provide the resources to the men and women who do this job every 
day unselfishly the way they really deserve, with the assets that they 
need.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard provides a 
number of vital services to protect and defend our Nation's coastal 
areas and waterways. H.R. 1699 authorizes funding to conduct search and 
rescue efforts, vessel safety compliance, as well as wildlife promotion 
and protection. I am particularly supportive of the funding increases 
provided through H.R. 1699 that will increase the Coast Guard's drug 
interdiction operations.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to show my 
strong support for H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
2001, sponsored by my colleagues Don Young of Alaska, James Oberstar of 
Minnesota, Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, and Corrine Brown of Florida. 
As you know, this bill would authorize appropriations for the Coast 
Guard for fiscal year 2002 in six main areas: operating expenses; 
acquisition, construction, and improvement; research, development, 
test, and evaluation; retired pay; alteration of bridges; and 
environmental compliance and restoration. In addition, it sets end of 
the year strength levels for active duty personnel and establishes 
military training levels.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee and as a representative 
from a State with a substantial Coast Guard presence, I have had the 
opportunity to witness the efforts and initiatives of the essential 
life-saving mission of the U.S. Coast Guard. For over two centuries, it 
has been saving lives from Maine to Guam. Last year alone, the Coast 
Guard saved 5,000 recreational and commercial boaters, inspected over 
34,000 vessels, maintained 50,000 aids-to-navigation, managed 13,000 
marine pollution incidents, intercepted 4,200 illegal immigrants, and 
seized over 130,000 lbs. of pure cocaine. However, the U.S. Coast Guard 
is being asked to do more with less.
  In my own State of Connecticut, the Coast Guard employs over 900 
active members, in addition to the cadets at the U.S. Coast Guard 
Academy in New London. There are also sizable search and rescue 
stations in New London and New Haven, as well as a research and 
development center in Groton. I would like to commend the outstanding 
work of the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus, chaired by my colleagues 
Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, Gene Taylor of Mississippi, and Howard 
Coble of North Carolina. I strongly agree with its assertion that 
unless the Coast Guard's current budget crisis is dealt with in a 
timely fashion, the Coast Guard may be forced to make cuts in search-
and-rescue services, reduce hours at sea, consolidate small boat 
stations, and compromise its other crucial missions.
  Based on the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus' findings, it is clear 
that certain pressing problems merit our immediate attention. First, 
the Coast Guard has assumed a variety of increased responsibilities--
from drug interdiction to fisheries management to environmental 
cleanup--while like other services, they have been unable to adequately 
compensate its personnel, causing many of its best and brightest to 
leave the Coast Guard for the private sector. Second, although the U.S. 
Coast Guard is currently the seventh largest naval service in the 
world, its cutter fleet is also one of the oldest--currently 40th out 
of 42. Finally, many of its cutters, buoy tenders and aircraft are 
reaching the end of their life expectancy. Unfortunately, with its 
budget rising insufficiently in real dollars in the past, the Coast 
Guard has not been able to address capital expenditure issues.
  This Coast Guard Authorization Act will help address this situation 
by authorizing $5.4 billion for Coast Guard programs and operations. 
According to testimony by Admiral James M. Loy to the House 
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the fiscal 
year 2002 budget request will help to restore the readiness of Coast 
Guard personnel while ensuring that all of the agency's missions are 
performed at a level that can be sustained by its infrastructure. In 
conclusion, I applaud the past efforts and service of the U.S. Coast 
Guard, and I urge all of my fellow Members to vote with me in support 
of this bill.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1699, the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001.''
  I have the honor of representing the Second District of Connecticut, 
home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Through the years, I have had the 
opportunity to witness first-hand the excellence of the Coast Guard.
  On any given day, on the average, our U.S. 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 taxpayers very proud of their investment in 
the world's finest Coast Guard.
  The bill before us today will allow the Coast Guard to continue its 
unique, multimission capabilities that are characterized so well by its 
motto, ``Semper Paratus--Always Ready.''
  I want to complement Chairmen Young and LoBiondo for moving this bill 
forth and for their long-time commitment to, and support of, the U.S. 
Coast Guard.
  As vice chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Subcommittee and a die-hard supporter of the U.S. Coast Guard, I urge 
my colleagues to support this authorization bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, too often the great role the men and women of 
our Coast Guard play in up keeping our national security is 
overshadowed by the larger Department of Defense.
  Certainly, their funding is insufficient and they are operating under 
conditions that hold them back from doing all they can do. By 
supporting this rule and the underlying legislation, we have the 
ability to recognize and aid the importance of the Coast Guard to our 
Nation's security and well being. Its responsibilities are varied and 
numerous ranging from protection of natural resources to search and 
rescue to stopping the drug trade at sea and more.
  Since 1790, the Coast Guard has been defending the United States in 
times of war. With the $300 million increase in operating expenses, the 
Coast Guard will be able to continue to support the armed services. 
This additional money, among other things, provides the needed fuel and 
maintenance to fully employ their cutters and planes to keep seafaring 
Americans safe on the open waters and fulfill myriad other missions. In 
fully utilizing the Coast Guard's resources and improving their assets, 
our shoreline and our Nation at large will be safer and the war on 
drugs will be fought even harder.

[[Page 10113]]

  Despite aging equipment and low funding levels, the Coast Guard has 
demonstrated its commitment to winning the war against drugs. In fact, 
in the first 6 months of 2001, over 60,000 pounds of cocaine has been 
seized. This success indicates the Coast Guard is well on its way to 
matching and even surpassing last year's record-breaking confiscation.
  Illegal drug activity is creeping into all corners of the United 
States and the Coast Guard must be commended for their achievements to 
date in stopping illegal drugs before they hit American soil. Funding 
provided in H.R. 1699 is a step in that direction.
  A special aspect of the Coast Guard's budget for fighting the war on 
drugs is the ``Deepwater'' Program. This program exemplifies the Coast 
Guard's ability to look ahead and plan for the constant battle against 
the drug traffickers at sea. The goal of this program is to update the 
Coast Guard's fleet and allow it to keep up with illegal activities in 
the waters off our shore. Currently the Coast Guard's ships and planes 
are not fully capable of stopping the high-tech drug world. The $338 
million targeted for the Deepwater project will provide needed funding 
to acquire certain improved assets. If we are serious about success, it 
is imperative that we provide funding to enable the Coast Guard to do 
its many missions. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of H.R. 
1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. This authorization 
will increase the Coast Guard's funding by $845 million over last 
year's appropriation, an amount that is vital to correct persistent 
funding shortfalls over the past years. The bill also provides $338 
million to implement the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System, a 
program that will enable the Coast Guard to replace and modernize its 
fleet of offshore assets.
  As a member of the Coast Guard Caucus and Representative of a coastal 
district, I see firsthand the vital role played by our Coast Guard in 
protecting our natural resources, providing for our national defense 
and ensuring the mobility, security, and safety of our maritime 
community.
  A key provision of this bill will increase the Coast Guard's 
personnel endstrengths, a requirement to continue the Coast Guard's 
ability to protect our borders from drug smugglers. In Fiscal Year 
2000, the Coast Guard set a maritime seizure record of more than 60 
metric tons of cocaine. Drug smugglers have become increasingly 
sophisticated through the use of small, extremely fast boats that are 
difficult to detect by the larger, slower moving fleet of Coast Guard 
vessels.
  Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral James M. Loy recently stated 
that, ``We know that we are sustaining our operations only through the 
heroic efforts of our people, but faced with tired and aging platforms, 
depleted inventories, stretched logistics and support systems, even our 
heroes are getting tired.''
  This bill will give our Coast Guard personnel the tools, benefits and 
capabilities to provide a vital and multipurpose entity to the defense 
of our national interests and resources. I ask my colleagues to fully 
support this bill and support the heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 1699 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1699

       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 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Funds are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2002 for necessary expenses of the Coast Guard, as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $3,682,838,000, of which--
       (A) $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; and
       (B) $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, $659,323,000, of which--
       (A) $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; and
       (B) not less than $338,000,000 shall be available to the 
     Coast Guard only to implement the Coast Guard's Integrated 
     Deepwater System.
       (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, $21,722,000, 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, $876,346,000.
       (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, $15,466,000, 
     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), $16,927,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

     SEC. 3. 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 44,000 as 
     of September 30, 2002.
       (b) Military Training Student Loads.--The Coast Guard is 
     authorized average military training student loads as 
     follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training for fiscal year 2002, 
     1,500 student years.
       (2) For flight training for fiscal year 2002, 125 student 
     years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions for fiscal year 2002, 300 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition for fiscal year 2002, 1,000 
     student years.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the bill is in order except 
those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 
that purpose and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. 
Amendments printed in the Record may be offered only by the Member who 
caused it to be printed, or his designee, and shall be considered read.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Biggert:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC. __. ASSISTANCE FOR MARINE SAFETY STATION ON CHICAGO 
                   LAKEFRONT.

       (a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may use amounts authorized under this section to provide 
     financial assistance to the City of Chicago, Illinois, to pay 
     the Federal share of the cost of a project to demolish the 
     Old Coast Guard Station, located at the north end of the 
     inner Chicago Harbor breakwater at the foot of Randolph 
     Street, and to construct a new facility at that site for use 
     as a marine safety station on the Chicago lakefront.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project carried out with assistance under this section may 
     not exceed one third of the total cost of the project.
       (2) Non-federal share.--There shall not be applied to the 
     non-Federal share of a project carried out with assistance 
     under this section--
       (A) the value of land and existing facilities used for the 
     project; and
       (B) any costs incurred for site work performed before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, including costs for 
     reconstruction of the east breakwater wall and associated 
     utilities.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to the 
     other amounts authorized by this Act, for providing financial 
     assistance under this section there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation $2,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2002, to remain available until expended.

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I intend to ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment at the end of my time; but before I do, I would 
like to explain its purpose and then enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation.
  Simply put, my amendment authorizes funding for the Federal share of 
a Federal-State-local partnership to build a maritime safety station 
along Chicago's lakefront. Though my congressional district does not 
encompass any of the Chicago lakefront, I, like

[[Page 10114]]

most Illinoisans, am concerned about the area's safety needs. Many of 
my constituents sail on Lake Michigan, and the U.S. Coast Guard's 
marine safety office is located in Burr Ridge, Illinois, in the 
district I represent.
  From the Burr Ridge location, the servicemen and women of the U.S. 
Coast Guard are responsible for commercial vessel safety, marine 
environmental response, port safety and security, and waterways 
management for the Illinois River and its tributaries, the Des Plaines 
River, the Chicago River and portions of Lake Michigan.
  Despite this extensive mission, the U.S. Coast Guard has no presence 
or base of operation in Chicago along the lakefront. The U.S. Coast 
Guard resources nearest to the Chicago lakefront are in Burr Ridge, 
Waukegan, or Calumet Harbor, all of which are at least 45 minutes away. 
Anyone who has visited Chicago knows how much Chicagoans enjoy and take 
advantage of our beautiful lakefront. In fact, Chicago's lakefront 
includes a number of very busy harbors and marinas and hosts a number 
of important events.
  There are approximately 95,000 recreational boats registered in the 
nine-county Chicago metropolitan area, and over 30 excursion, dining, 
or tour vessels operate out of Chicago. The city of Chicago also 
celebrates many events, including the Air and Water Show, the Chicago/
Mackinaw Sailboat Race, the Fourth of July Fireworks and the Taste of 
Chicago, and Venetian Night along its lakefront, attracting substantial 
pedestrian and recreational boat traffic from around the Great Lakes 
region.
  I believe we can enjoy the lakefront with greater safety if we 
establish a marine safety station along the lakefront. Let us not wait 
until it is too late. Let us not wait until the Coast Guard finds 
itself unable to respond in a timely fashion to an emergency situation 
along Chicago's lakefront.
  An intergovernmental group of marine emergency service providers 
consisting of the U.S. Coast Guard, the city of Chicago's Marine Police 
and Illinois' Department of Natural Resources Conservation Police 
identified the old Coast Guard station, a facility in a state of 
disrepair and partially condemned, as an ideal location for 
redevelopment as a Chicago marine safety station. The U.S. Coast Guard 
has offered to relocate some of its existing resources including staff 
and rescue vessels to this facility to provide a more effective 
response in the downtown Chicago area. The total project would cost $6 
million split evenly between the Federal, State and local 
jurisdictions. It is my belief that the $2 million Federal share is a 
small price to pay for significantly improving public safety and law 
enforcement.
  I respect the chairman's wish that this authorization bill not 
include projects and withdraw my amendment. I believe strongly in the 
bill that has just been debated, but I would like to engage him in a 
brief colloquy to ask for his assistance in moving this project 
forward.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the 
gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman work with me and other interested 
parties to include authorization for this much-needed project in future 
legislation to be considered by the subcommittee and full committee?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Yes, I would like to assure the gentlewoman that I will 
work with her and other Members of the Illinois delegation, the State 
of Illinois, the City of Chicago, and the United States Coast Guard to 
give this project full and fair consideration in future legislation and 
ensure that the safety needs of the Chicago lakefront are met.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman very much for his efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC. __. REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT ONLY AMERICAN-MADE VESSELS.

       Any new vessel constructed for the Coast Guard with amounts 
     made available under this Act--
       (1) shall be constructed in the United States;
       (2) shall not be constructed using any steel other than 
     steel made in the United States; and
       (3) shall be constructed in compliance with the Buy 
     American Act.


        Modification to Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be modified.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       In lieu of the matter proposed on page 1, strike lines 1 
     through 9 and insert the following:

     SEC. __. REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT ONLY AMERICAN-MADE VESSELS.

       (a) In General.--Any new vessel constructed for the Coast 
     Guard with amounts made available under this Act--
       (1) shall be constructed in the United States;
       (2) shall not be constructed of steel or iron produced 
     outside of the United States; and
       (3) shall be constructed in compliance with the Buy 
     American Act.
       (b) Limitation on Application.--Subsection (a)(2) shall not 
     apply--
       (1) if the Secretary finds that the application of that 
     subsection would be inconsistent with the public interest;
       (2) to the use of steel or iron produced outside of the 
     United States if the Secretary finds that such material is 
     not produced in the United States in sufficient and 
     reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory 
     quality; or
       (3) if compliance with subsection (a)(2) will increase the 
     cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the modification is 
agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the Coast Guard for 
seizing 111,000 pounds of cocaine that when stepped on will be worth 
more than $12 billion on the streets of the United States of America. I 
also listened carefully to the wise remarks of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) when he mentioned the national security issue 
of narcotics.
  I would like to remind this committee that former President Bush 
created Task Force 6, a military operation that worked in conjunction 
with civilian forces on our border. I do recommend and will be offering 
legislative amendments to future national security measures to enhance 
and reapply and to make Task Force 6 once again a strong and even 
bigger reality.
  Today's amendment is straightforward. If we are going to be 
constructing vessels for the Coast Guard, it should be American workers 
and American steel where at all possible. I want to commend the 
leadership of the committee: the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. LoBiondo), who has done a fine job the first time I have seen him 
on the floor and the excellent work of the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Brown.)
  With that, I ask that my amendment be passed over without prejudice, 
be kept in the bill, and I do not get shafted in conference.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the committee, in bringing this 
legislation to the floor, had agreed that this is not a policy bill. 
This is the only policy-type amendment to be accepted on the floor, 
which I will accept in consultation with the chairman, he will speak 
for himself on the matter, but because it already is a statement of 
already existing law in a previous iteration of

[[Page 10115]]

transportation legislation from this committee in a Surface 
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 and the gentleman's language 
offered here tracks exactly current law in the Federal aid highway 
program which has served to protect 60 million tons of American steel 
in the Federal aid highway program over the last 20 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to commend 
then Chairman Oberstar in his role in that legislation and for being 
perhaps the original leader of a Buy American movement in the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
LoBiondo), the distinguished subcommittee chair.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for his determination and energy over the years 
for his Buy American program. In consultation with the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), I 
am very pleased to endorse and accept this amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hoekstra:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC.  . COAST GUARD AIR SEARCH AND RESCUE FACILITIES FOR LAKE 
                   MICHIGAN.

       Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to the other 
     amounts authorized by this Act, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for operation 
     and maintenance of the Coast Guard air search and rescue 
     facility in Muskegon, Michigan, $2,028,000 for fiscal year 
     2002.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  As the gentleman from New Jersey knows, I have filed an amendment to 
authorize to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation roughly 
$2 million for the continued operation and maintenance of the Coast 
Guard air search and rescue facility in Muskegon, Michigan for fiscal 
year 2002.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I am familiar with the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I also understand the gentleman's desire to expedite a 
Coast Guard authorization bill this year and avoid the difficulties 
that have plagued Coast Guard authorization bills in years past.
  As the gentleman is aware, the Coast Guard's primary mission on the 
Great Lakes is that of search and rescue. Unfortunately, the U.S. Coast 
Guard's fiscal year 2002 budget weakens that mission by proposing to 
close the Coast Guard's seasonal search and rescue air facility that 
has operated out of Muskegon since 1997.
  I fear that the closing of this facility puts the safety of Lake 
Michigan boaters in danger. The Muskegon site was selected by the Coast 
Guard after an elaborate selection process that proved Muskegon to be 
the most cost-effective location for their capabilities. In addition, 
the proposal to close this facility directly violates fiscal year 1999 
appropriations language that establishes a seasonal facility to better 
serve the Chicago area. However, that very provision also directs the 
Coast Guard not to close or downsize any other facility to accommodate 
this additional seasonal capability.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the gentleman's desire 
to maintain the search and rescue facility at Muskegon, Michigan as 
well as the feelings of the entire Michigan delegation who expressed 
their support for the facility in a letter to me. The gentleman from 
Michigan should be commended for his work to ensure the safety of his 
constituents and Lake Michigan boaters and that they are not 
jeopardized.
  I appreciate his understanding of the need to move this bill before 
us today as expeditiously as possible, and I pledge to work with the 
gentleman from Michigan on this issue when my committee takes action on 
additional Coast Guard-related matters in the very near future.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
also appreciate his willingness to address this matter on a more 
appropriate piece of authorization legislation from his committee. In 
addition, will the gentleman agree to express his support for the 
safety of Lake Michigan boaters and the need for additional funds to 
maintain the operation of the seasonal search and rescue facility in 
Muskegon?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. As the gentleman from Michigan noted, I will work to 
address with him this matter in my committee as well as express the 
need for additional funds to maintain the search and rescue 
capabilities from Muskegon, Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
his leadership. I look forward to continuing to work together on this 
matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Are there any further amendments 
to the bill?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Biggert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, 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. 
1699) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 
2002, pursuant to House Resolution 155, he reported the bill back to 
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  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.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 411, 
nays 3, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 155]

                               YEAS--411

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor

[[Page 10116]]


     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     Paul
     Schaffer
     Tancredo

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Burton
     Dingell
     Ferguson
     Hutchinson
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     Miller, George
     Putnam
     Simmons
     Solis
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Waters
     Wexler

                              {time}  1258

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 155, I was the speaker at 
my son's high school graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 155 on H.R. 1699, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''

                          ____________________