[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 25482-25491]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3619, COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT 
                                OF 2010

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 853 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 25483]]



                              H. Res. 853

       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. 3619) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment 
     to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in 
     the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question. All points 
     of order against such amendments are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with 
     such further amendments as may have been adopted. In the case 
     of sundry amendments reported from the Committee, the 
     question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros 
     and without division of the question. 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.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure or his designee. The 
     Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting 
     words of the bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 853 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. 
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule 
provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and 20 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the 
Homeland Security Committee.
  The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee shall be 
considered as adopted and shall be considered as read.
  The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment. 
The rule makes in order the amendments printed in the Rules Committee 
report accompanying the resolution and waives all points of order 
against all amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule makes in order 13 amendments, including all six of the 
Republican amendments that were submitted for consideration. In the 
case of sundry amendments reported by the committee, the question of 
their adoption shall be put to the house en gros and without division 
of the question. The Chair may not entertain a motion to rise unless 
offered by the Chair of the Committee on Transportation or his designee 
and may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting clause.
  I want to thank both Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Thompson for the 
good work their committees have done on this bill. Thanks to these two 
committees, we are here today to strengthen the Coast Guard's ability 
to implement its responsibilities. It is critical that the Coast Guard 
has the necessary funds, resources, and personnel to carry out the 
missions we need it to conduct.
  H.R. 3619 increases the authorized end strength for military 
personnel in the Coast Guard by 1,500 to a total of 47,000 personnel. 
It will also permanently increase to 6,700 the allowable number of 
officers in the service.
  The legislation also establishes marine safety as a core mission of 
the Coast Guard. It responds directly to the many shortcomings in Coast 
Guard acquisition efforts that the committee has examined over the last 
several years. For example, it prohibits the Coast Guard's use of a 
private sector lead system integrator, requires the Coast Guard to 
develop life-cycle cost estimates and prohibits contractor self-
certification.
  The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 will strengthen our 
Nation's Coast Guard by making important investments and key changes 
now, the benefits of which we will see for years to come.
  This bill also includes legislation that I offered earlier this year, 
and I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings for 
including this important language in this bill. There is an urgent need 
for the reforms I've outlined in the Cruise Vessel Safety and Security 
Act. For far too long, American families have unknowingly been at risk.
  Currently, cruise ships operate under foreign flags of convenience 
and are not required under U.S. law to report crimes occurring outside 
of our territorial waters. Leaving our territorial waters does not mean 
that cruise ships should be allowed to operate without basic laws that 
protect American citizens.
  My legislation requires that all crimes that occur aboard cruise 
ships be reported to the Coast Guard and to the FBI. Without proper 
screening processes and accountability, these reprehensible and violent 
acts will be allowed to continue.
  Under the status quo, criminals are left unpunished, and victims are 
left to fend for themselves. Unclear lines of jurisdiction are no 
longer an excuse for risking the safety of the millions of Americans 
who board cruise ships each year.
  I first became aware of the need for increased protections for 
Americans when one of my constituents, Laurie Dishman, wrote to me for 
help in April of 2006. Laurie was the victim of a sexual assault while 
on a cruise vacation. She was given no assistance by the cruise line in 
properly securing evidence of the assault; no assistance in identifying 
her attacker, who was an employee of the cruise ship; and no assistance 
in prosecuting the crime once back on shore. Devastated, Laurie reached 
out to me.
  I immediately called for hearings on this issue and began to work on 
the legislation that is now a part of this Coast Guard authorization 
bill. The congressional hearings, chaired by Chairman Cummings, made 
apparent the gross inadequacies of current cruise safety provisions. 
Because of these hearings, it was discovered there has not been a 
single conviction of an accused rape on a cruise ship in recent 
history.
  With ongoing news coverage of recent rapes on cruise ships, it is 
clear that legislation is both urgent and necessary. Many of my 
colleagues have

[[Page 25484]]

come to me with similar stories of constituents who have gone missing, 
been sexually attacked, or gone days, weeks or years without getting 
resolution. My legislation establishes stringent new standards to 
ensure the safety and security of passengers on cruise vessels.
  Its reforms include requiring that vessel personnel be able to 
preserve evidence of crimes committed on the vessels and provide 
appropriate medical treatment to the victims of sexual assaults. 
Security, safety and accountability must all be strengthened to hold 
criminals accountable and end the cycle of serious crimes on cruise 
ships.
  As this crucial legislation moves forward, it serves as proof to the 
victims of cruise crimes that progress is being made towards ensuring 
the safety of all Americans abroad. Laurie Dishman is here today to 
witness her cause move forward, and I want to thank her for her 
extraordinary courage and leadership.
  This has been a long, difficult road for all cruise victims and their 
families. These reforms are truly commonsense and are even supported 
now by the Cruise Line Industry Association. That is why this measure 
is a victory in the fight for cruise passenger rights.
  In much the same way, the Coast Guard Authorization Act is a major 
victory for people across our country who depend on the Coast Guard to 
keep their families safe.

                              {time}  1645

  Passage of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 will allow many 
important reforms to be enacted and will help protect Americans across 
the Nation.
  Coast Guard authorization is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in support of this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Always Ready. That's the motto of the United States Coast Guard. 
Since its establishment in 1790 by Alexander Hamilton, the Coast Guard 
is the only branch in our military that is always deployed.
  As part of the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is 
tasked with maritime law enforcement, search and rescue for those in 
peril at sea, patrolling and protecting our ports, harbors and sea 
borders, marine environmental protection, helping manage offshore 
spills, facilitating maritime navigation and commerce, and so much 
more. In times of war, the Coast Guard also deploys with other service 
branches overseas.
  The underlying legislation, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
2010, being brought to the floor today authorizes approximately $10 
billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010. It increases the 
authorized end-strength by 1,500 members to a total of 47,000 
personnel. The legislation also authorizes additional Coast Guard 
maritime security response teams to assist in detecting explosives and 
drug interdiction.
  The Coast Guard is currently undergoing the largest single 
acquisition program in its history in order to upgrade and modernize 
its surface and air assets. The program currently known as Deepwater 
includes 91 new cutters, 124 new small boats, and 247 new or modernized 
airplanes, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
  According to the most recent acquisition program baseline, the 
Deepwater acquisitions are projected to cost $24 billion and take 25 
years to complete. The underlying legislation includes $1.2 billion for 
acquisition of new vessels, aircraft and support systems under the 
Deepwater program for 2010.
  The legislation also requires the Coast Guard to be responsible for 
the enforcement of any Federal security zone established around 
terminals and around tankers transporting ``especially hazardous 
materials.'' The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
through the Coast Guard, to conduct a pilot program in the maritime 
environment for the mobile biometric identification of suspected 
individuals to enhance our border security.
  The legislation establishes a pilot program to test and deploy 
preventative radiological or nuclear detection equipment on Coast Guard 
vessels and fixed locations in port areas. It establishes a 
congressional nomination system for admission to the Coast Guard 
Academy in New London, Connecticut. That process is similar to those 
already in place for the other service academies. Mr. Speaker, in south 
Florida we are all admirers of the Coast Guard. We see it day in and 
day out save lives and help citizens.
  While I support this important underlying legislation, I oppose the 
rule by which it is being brought to the floor. The last time that a 
Coast Guard authorization bill was enacted into law, the Republican 
majority at the time brought the legislation to the floor with a rule 
that allowed consideration of the bill under a modified open process, a 
modified open rule. That type of rule allows any Member of the House to 
offer any amendments to the legislation without having to receive the 
approval of the Rules Committee as long as the amendment is preprinted 
in the Congressional Record. That's why it is known as a modified open 
rule; any amendment can be brought forward, but you have to preprint 
it.
  Even though we historically considered this bill under a modified 
open rule, today the majority has brought that precedent to an end. It 
has decided that that precedent should be disregarded and that the 
right of Members to offer amendments should be restricted. Yesterday 
afternoon in the Rules Committee, we in the minority asked for the 
traditional modified open rule, and yet the majority voted it down on a 
party-line vote. I thought that was somewhat ironic. The last time the 
House considered this legislation under the traditional modified open 
rule, we were criticized for offering a modified open rule. That was 
called restrictive. Well, now we have again--unnecessarily and breaking 
with precedent--a structured rule; in other words, only those 
amendments made in order can be considered.
  So here we are, Mr. Speaker, yet again with another example of how 
the current majority restricts, unnecessarily and unfortunately, the 
procedural rights of all Members of this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I just 
want to say there were only six amendments to the bill submitted to the 
Rules Committee from the minority side of the aisle, and all six were 
made in order under this rule. It doesn't get more bipartisan than 
that.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank my friend and colleague for yielding and rise in 
support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, Senator Susan Collins and I toured the 
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Mindful of the assault on the USS 
Cole, during a security briefing with the Coast Guard, I asked what 
sort of protections were in place to defend against threats from small 
boats. The response made my jaw drop. We were told that small boats 
were advised to observe a 100-foot security perimeter around large 
ships--as if an imaginary ``Do Not Cross'' sign would deter terrorists 
bent on mimicking the USS Cole attack and blowing themselves up.
  Clearly, small boats continue to pose a critical security risk and 
deserve serious attention. The manager's amendment to the underlying 
bill contains a provision which I authored requiring the Coast Guard to 
conduct a study assessing whether transponders--such as radio frequency 
ID tags--on small boats can effectively mitigate the threat of small 
boat attacks in major ports. Such a system already exists in Singapore, 
and Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen has suggested it may work in the 
United States. Transponders are not the only way to address the small 
boat threat and they may not be the best, but they have the potential 
to greatly increase situational awareness in U.S. ports.

[[Page 25485]]

  Beyond the small boats provision, this bill contains two other 
measures I believe are critical. One is a requirement for an Inspector 
General's report evaluating port operation centers' relationships with 
State, local, and regional fusion centers. The other is a requirement 
for DHS to conduct a review of the potential consequences of an attack 
on a gasoline or chemical cargo ship in one of America's ports.
  I thank Chairman Oberstar for including my small boats provision, and 
I thank the Rules Committee, especially my California colleague and 
friend, Ms. Matsui, for bringing this bill to the floor.
  Vote ``aye'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to 
my friend, Ms. Matsui, that when she says the amendments that were 
asked to be made in order before the Rules Committee were made in 
order, yes, that's correct. The tradition, as I pointed out earlier, of 
this House for many decades with regard to this legislation--especially 
since it's legislation that enjoys such widespread and bipartisan 
support--the tradition is that Members didn't have to go and beg the 
Rules Committee for authorization to have their amendments debated if 
they simply preprinted those amendments in the Congressional Record. 
That was another important tradition in this House that has been 
violated unnecessarily, that has been reversed, ended unnecessarily by 
the new majority. That's what I pointed out.
  I would like to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, Mr. LoBiondo of 
New Jersey, the ranking member of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart).
  I would like to start off by thanking Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. 
Cummings for their bipartisan effort to look at all the serious issues 
that are involved with this legislation and to bring together a pretty 
good product. But I am disappointed, as Mr. Diaz-Balart is, because the 
traditions of this very bipartisan committee have been changed with the 
basis of the rule being closed. And while I understand and am 
appreciative that Republican amendments were made in order, I think 
that it is sad that such a long tradition--when the Republicans were in 
the majority, it was either an open or a modified open rule. It is 
almost a little bit amusing, but more sad than amusing that Republicans 
were criticized for even having a modified open rule just with a 
preprint requirement, and now there is no open rule at all.
  I am going to support the bill. I have a few considerations that we 
will be talking about when the amendments come up. But once again, I am 
disappointed with the rule.
  I do want to talk about one of the amendments that we will be talking 
about tomorrow--I think it is very timely--on the issue of piracy and 
how we deal with piracy, because just today there were two pirate 
attacks. Now, fortunately they were not on U.S. flag vessels. One, I 
believe, was on a Panamanian vessel--we think it was a cargo ship--
where there were 26 hostages taken. The other attack was on an Italian 
ship. Fortunately, my understanding is that a Belgium warship was 
nearby and was able to aid and assist the Italians in thwarting the 
pirates. But this only brings to light the serious nature--and we can 
all recall with horror when pirates took a U.S. flag vessel. If it were 
not for the heroics of the captain, the crew, and a Navy SEAL team, we 
could have had a devastating consequence. Because of that pirate attack 
on a U.S. flag vessel, our committee--again, in a very bipartisan way, 
with Mr. Mica, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Cummings--looked at what we could 
do. We all believed that the best answer to this would be for Coast 
Guard or Navy personnel to be on U.S. flag ships, but we understand the 
reality that that's not going to happen. So we entered into a 
bipartisan agreement, which was in the underlying bill before someone 
on the majority--and I think from the Judiciary Committee--got involved 
with this issue. The underlying bipartisan agreement basically said 
that if attacked by a pirate ship, a U.S. flag vessel crew member could 
take action to defend the crew, could defend who was on the ship 
against the pirates and not be held liable; a commonsense approach. The 
Judiciary language complicates it and makes it almost impossible. It 
puts a crew member in an incredibly difficult situation to determine 
the legal entanglements in his own mind as he's being fired upon with 
an automatic weapon or a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. If you 
think about the intensity of the moment, this is an attack on America. 
An attack on a U.S. flag vessel is an attack on the America. Why 
wouldn't we let the crew member have the opportunity to defend U.S. 
interests without liability?
  I think a bipartisan approach that was reached was exactly what this 
House is all about in understanding U.S. interests and what's best for 
the United States of America. The amendment tomorrow will deal with 
this further when the whole body will have an opportunity to listen to 
this debate and to make up their own minds whether it's going to be 
right to put a crew member in that impossible situation of having to 
decide, through the legal entanglement of a series of checkmarks in his 
own mind as they're coming under attack, whether to protect the crew 
and the ship.
  Once again, I thank my colleagues who have worked on this bill. I am 
disappointed with the rule. I will be voting against the rule, but I 
will be supporting the underlying bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland, who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank Ms. Matsui for yielding to me.
  I rise in strong support of House Resolution 853, which would provide 
a structured rule to allow for consideration of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2010, H.R. 3619. I thank Mr. Oberstar and 
certainly Mr. Mica, and I thank Mr. LoBiondo for his bipartisan 
efforts. Clearly, the bill is a work of just phenomenal bipartisanship.
  H.R. 3619 is legislation that would provide an authorization for the 
United States Coast Guard, the fifth branch of our Armed Forces. I note 
that, unlike the Department of Defense services, the Coast Guard has 
not been authorized since 2006.
  This legislation increases the authorized funding level for the 
service, as well as the number of military personnel allowed to be in 
the service. The legislation also addresses a number of other Coast 
Guard and maritime-related issues that have been considered by the 
Coast Guard Subcommittee and the full Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure over the past 3 years, including acquisition reform, 
fishing industry safety and implementation of the Coast Guard's marine 
safety program.
  H.R. 3619 also includes the text of H.R. 3360, the Cruise Vessel 
Security and Safety Act of 2009, which was ordered reported by the 
Transportation Committee on July 30, 2009, and which would institute a 
number of new safety measures intended to assure that cruise vessels 
carrying passengers to and from the United States are as safe as 
possible.
  Specifically, this legislation would include standards for the design 
and equipping of cruise vessel staterooms and cabins. It would require 
ships to employ trained medical personnel who can adequately treat the 
victims of sexual assault. The legislation would also make available on 
the Internet information on the number of crimes reported on each 
cruise line. H.R. 3360 was offered by Congresswoman Matsui, and I 
applaud her for her diligent and very hard work on this legislation.
  I also commend the victims of incidents on cruise ships, several of 
whom I know are watching today, including Laurie Dishman, who is here 
with us now. All of them testified before our subcommittee and helped 
inform the development of this legislation.
  Adoption of H. Res. 853 would also make in order for consideration 
the

[[Page 25486]]

manager's amendment offered by the chairman of the full Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Congressman Jim Oberstar, as well as 
12 other amendments.
  I urge the adoption of H. Res. 853 so that we can move to provide a 
long overdue authorization for the Coast Guard, our thin blue line at 
sea.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for the time, and want 
to commend the chairman for his work on this bill, as well as the 
ranking member.
  I rise in strong support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act. This 
bill makes important strides in strengthening the modern day mission of 
our Coast Guard. It is such a privilege to represent the fine young men 
and women who serve our country at Cape Disappointment in my own 
district.
  Also included in this bill is language clarifying the rule related to 
the taxation of interstate waterway workers. In an effort to address an 
unfair tax situation of waterway workers, whose jobs require them to 
work in multiple States, I authored legislation in the 106th Congress 
called the Transportation Employment Fair Taxation Act. This 
legislation barred States from taxing a nonresident waterway worker who 
performs regularly assigned duties while engaged as a master, officer 
or crewman on a vessel operating on the navigable waters of more than 
one State.
  As the House report for this legislation stated, the purpose of this 
legislation was to prohibit any State from taxing the income of a 
nonresident interstate waterway worker. The Senate version of this 
legislation was signed into law on November 9, 2000.
  Unfortunately, a 2006 decision by one State's tax court is wholly 
inconsistent with the intent of the 2000 law. Due to the use of the 
word ``of'' instead of ``in,'' the court believes it only applies to 
the waterways that are owned jointly by more than one State. This was 
clearly not the intent of the 2000 law. The legislative history and 
Congressional Record make clear it was not the intent of the law, and I 
happen to know a little about that intent because I authored the 
legislation.
  This legislation today makes a slight wording change to clarify that 
the law is intended to apply to all interstate waterway workers on all 
waterways. It is my sincere hope that this minor change will make clear 
that States are prohibited from taxing the income of a nonresident 
interstate waterway worker, period. I want to make clear that this was 
the intent of the law I authored in 2000, and this legislation before 
us today will reinforce that congressional intent.
  Again, I thank the gentlelady for the time, and recommend passage.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise in opposition to the rule. We have at the moment about 10 
percent unemployment in the United States of America. Some of the 
oldest laws of our Republic are the cabotage laws, which reserve 
coastwide commerce for American-made, American-owned, American-crewed 
vessels. They also required that all repairs to those vessels take 
place in the United States of America, except for emergency repairs, 
and certainly prohibited the rebuilding of any vessel overseas.
  In recent years, I have supplied to the United States Coast Guard 
photographs of a ship that was clearly rebuilt in the People's Republic 
of China. Just yesterday, I supplied to the Rules Committee those same 
photographs, a vessel that any amateur could look at and clearly see 
this isn't an emergency repair. It is the rebuilding of an American-
flagged Jones Act vessel in the People's Communist Republic of China.
  Having brought this to the attention of the Commandant, he said that 
the law reads, and I want people to hear this, A vessel is deemed to 
have been rebuilt in the United States only if the entire rebuilding, 
including the construction of any major component of the hull or 
superstructure, is done in the United States.
  That seems pretty clear to me. Apparently it was not clear to the 
Marine Inspection Office of the Coast Guard. So I asked the Commandant 
of the Coast Guard for a clarification. ``Why don't you come up with 
something, Mr. Commandant, that your folks will understand?''
  He came up with a very simple amendment that said 10 percent of the 
weight of the vessel, if you are changing out 10 percent of the weight 
of the vessel, that is clearly a rebuild. It has to be done stateside.
  I regret that an amendment drafted by the United States Coast Guard 
was rejected by the Rules Committee. I am told it was a concern about 
some foreign treaties, and I would remind Members this is language that 
goes back to 1956, prior to GATT.
  So I am going to rise in opposition to this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi 
has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield an additional 2 minutes 
to the gentleman.
  Mr. TAYLOR. I would have thought with a Democratic majority that we 
would have been about trying to repeal things like NAFTA, things like 
most-favored-nation status for China, and those things that limit 
American job opportunities here within our own country.
  I am deeply disappointed in the ruling of the Rules Committee. 
Obviously, we need to get this bill to the floor, but we ought to be 
taking steps every chance we get to bring jobs home to America. The 
Rules Committee decided otherwise in a vote last night.
  I thank the gentleman very much for the opportunity.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just 
want to say that many of us on the Democratic side are sympathetic to 
the amendment offered by my colleague from Mississippi. We all think 
that we should build critical national security assets here at home in 
the United States.
  However, there are also some concerns about whether the Taylor 
amendment would have exposed our country to reprisals at the WTO. Trade 
issues are very delicate right now with the world economy struggling so 
much. We should deal with the issues brought up by Mr. Taylor, but we 
should do so at a time when we are certain that we do not do more harm 
to our economy than good.
  These issues certainly deserve more discussion and attention. My 
colleagues and I look forward to working with Mr. Taylor to address 
this very, very important topic.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2010. This important legislation will not only 
provide vital resources to one of our Nation's key security and law 
enforcement services, but also has the potential to bolster the 
maritime shipping industry and create much-needed jobs.
  The legislation requires the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute 
to carry out studies of the maritime shipping system of the Great 
Lakes. My language, included in the manager's amendment, requires these 
studies to include an analysis of the number and types of jobs that 
rely on the shipping system and how they are distributed across key 
demographics. This information will help legislators better assess and 
respond to the needs of the Great Lakes marine transportation and labor 
force.
  The Great Lakes shipping industry is a key component of our regional 
and national economic well-being. My language will provide vital 
information that will help develop the Great Lakes workforce and help 
us anticipate and meet future workforce challenges.

[[Page 25487]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the Coast Guard Authorization Act.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Taylor 
brought out a very relevant and important example of why it was 
appropriate and important to follow what has been a decades-long 
tradition of allowing all Members with amendments to introduce them for 
consideration by the entire House simply by preprinting them in the 
Congressional Record.
  Mr. Taylor should not have had to go to the Rules Committee and wait, 
and then ask, request, permission to have his amendment considered. In 
addition to having to wait and then ask for permission, he was denied 
permission to have his amendment considered, which is an important 
amendment.
  He explained it in detail before the Rules Committee. In 
representation of his constituents and having developed an expertise 
throughout many years of service here, he communicated with the Coast 
Guard and basically came to an agreement on interpreting existing law, 
law that was passed before we entered into GATT and the international 
commitments that were referenced by my dear friend Ms. Matsui. Existing 
law before those commitments is what Mr. Taylor is trying to refine, to 
technically make clear, in pursuance of the interests of his 
constituents and our Nation.
  That idea should have been able to be debated. His proposal should be 
able to be debated and considered by the entire House. It is another 
example, and a concrete example, an important example, of why I believe 
it is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, to limit the procedural rights of the 
Members of this House.
  I thank my friend Ms. Matsui for her courtesy, and all of those who 
have participated in this debate. I want to point out, and then I will 
reserve our time again--I believe you have more speakers--that when I 
refer to the breaking of tradition by the majority, in this instance 
the reversal of the tradition that allowed for Members to preprint 
their amendments and have them considered by the entire House, when we 
maintained that tradition, when we followed that tradition that is now 
reversed, we were criticized for not allowing in this instance a fully 
open rule, again because we maintained the tradition of the preprinting 
requirement known as the modified open rule, and we were criticized by 
the then-minority. And they promised, Mr. Speaker, to open the process 
further, to improve the process, to make it more transparent.
  Well, that was another promise broken, because instead of improving, 
making more transparent the process that we were criticized for, 
instead of improving that process, they have further closed it. It is 
unfortunate.
  I reserve my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment before I 
yield.
  This legislation before us today is bipartisan and widely supported. 
It was reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by 
voice vote. During that bipartisan markup process, only two amendments 
were offered, and both were adopted by voice vote. The working 
relationship between Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica is well 
known because they work together, and that is what we're trying to do 
today. Today's rule is structured the way it is so to continue this 
tradition of working issues out before they become political in nature.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by 
thanking Chairmen Oberstar and Cummings and Ranking Member Mica for all 
of their hard work on this bill.
  We've given the Coast Guard so much responsibility, and they have 
been up to every challenge. The Coast Guard has been protecting our 
shores for more than 200 years and have done an outstanding job. The 
Coast Guard was the first agency to react to the terrorist attacks on 
September 11, and was the only agency in the Bush administration to 
actually do their job during the evacuation and disaster of Hurricane 
Katrina. Today, we are finally providing the crucial agency the 
resources it needs to complete its new expanded mission.
  As a Member from the State of Florida, which has 14 ports and 
numerous cruise lines, I have particular interest in the cruise 
industry. The cruise industry is an important economic engine in the 
State of Florida. Florida ranks first in the Nation for cruise industry 
expenditures, with over $6 billion in direct spending, accounting for 
33 percent of the total industry direct spending. Cruise industry 
spending generates more than 127,000 jobs and wages totaling over $5 
billion in income to Floridian workers, and over 5 million passengers 
embarked from Florida's five cruise ports in 2007.
  Before coming to Congress, I owned, really, three travel agencies, 
and I can tell you that cruises are one of the most cost-effective, 
safe, and enjoyable vacations one can take. In fact, I just recently 
sent my mother on a cruise.
  The cruise industry is highly regulated by the State, the Federal 
Government, and international laws. They ensure that their passengers 
are safe and have a sound security record. It is apparent from the FBI 
statistics that crimes against U.S. passengers on cruise ships are 
rare.
  A leisure cruise is one of the most popular vacation options because 
of its excellent safe record and a high quality of service provided on 
board.
  I look forward to working with the committee members to continue to 
ensure that safety and well-being of passengers on cruise ships is 
maintained.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to 
reserve.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule in support of 
H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. I'd like to thank my 
colleague from Minnesota, Chairman Oberstar, and his staff for their 
hard work on this bill.
  Michigan's First Congressional District borders three of the five 
Great Lakes and contains 1,613 miles of shoreline, more than any other 
congressional district in the continental United States. The Coast 
Guard is not only the largest military resource in the area and a key 
defender of the Great Lakes, but is also of utmost importance to 
securing commerce routes and assisting the navigation.
  I'd like to address a few provisions in the bill. First, the bill 
recognizes the need for a Coast Guard presence on the Great Lakes by 
authorizing $153 million for a new Great Lakes icebreaker. During the 
winter months, 17 million tons of commerce moves through the Great 
Lakes, and icebreakers play an important role in keeping our channels 
open.
  Ice-breaking capacity on the Great Lakes has dropped dramatically 
over the past few years. The Coast Guard Cutter Acacia, stationed in 
Charlevoix, Michigan, was decommissioned on June 7, 2006, after 60 
years of service. The Canadian Government also recently decommissioned 
two of its icebreakers on the Great Lakes without replacing them. 
Without a sufficient cutter presence, the island communities, 
businesses, and individuals that rely on the Great Lakes shipping are 
put at risk. It's critical that Congress provide the funding for a new 
Coast Guard cutter and ensure the Coast Guard can meet its operational 
responsibility on the Great Lakes.
  Secondly, I appreciate that section 1323 of the bill includes the 
authority to transfer the old Coast Guard facility and surrounding 
acres in Marquette, Michigan, to the city. In 2008, the city of 
Marquette sold 1.5 acres of Lake Superior waterfront property to the 
Coast Guard for $1 to construct a new facility. The city also committed 
$170,000 to reroute bike trails, make roadway improvements, and make 
infrastructure improvements in order to prepare the property for a new 
Coast Guard facility. In exchange, an agreement was reached between the 
city and the Coast Guard to transfer land that was then occupied by the 
Coast Guard to the

[[Page 25488]]

city upon completion of the new facility. In August 2009, the Coast 
Guard moved into a new facility. As such, remediation of the old parcel 
should be done by the Coast Guard without delay; however, remediation 
is not scheduled until fiscal year 2013. I hope the chairman and the 
Coast Guard will work with me and the city of Marquette to see that 
remediation is completed in a more timely manner. The city generously 
lived up to its end of the deal and we must ensure the Coast Guard does 
the same.
  I also appreciate the inclusion of a provision that would facilitate 
a land transfer between the Coast Guard to the Cornerstone Christian 
Academy in Cheboygan, Michigan, of six acres of property the Coast 
Guard deems as excess property. This land is supported by the Coast 
Guard, the academy, and the Cheboygan community.
  Finally, I appreciate Chairman Oberstar's past support for inclusion 
of a provision in the 2008 Coast Guard reauthorization bill to return a 
historic Fresnel lens to the Presque Isle Lighthouse station in Presque 
Isle, Michigan. I know the Coast Guard reauthorization bill passed by 
the Senate committee includes this language, and I hope the chairman 
will work with me on the issue as the bill goes forward. I hope an 
agreement can once again be reached on this matter.
  Again, I thank the chairman for his work on crafting this bill. I 
thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I look forward to continuing to 
work with everyone on the Coast Guard issues.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my 
friend, Ms. Matsui, for her courtesy during this debate with regard to 
this important underlying legislation that's being brought to the 
floor. I also thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, as well 
as Chairman Cummings and Ranking Member LoBiondo.
  I'd like to, before proceeding, yield 5 minutes to my friend from 
Miami, Florida, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart, for his leadership on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that today and tomorrow the House is 
debating the Coast Guard Authorization Act. The U.S. Coast Guard has 
over 42,000 men and women serving in active duty. These proud 
individuals are tasked with 11 specific missions ranging from coastal 
security to drug interdiction and marine safety. It is our duty to 
ensure that they are fully funded and equipped to carry out these 
responsibilities.
  As the Representative of south Florida and the Keys, I know just how 
important their mission is. My congressional district contains over 265 
miles of U.S. coastline and includes the largest coral reef system in 
the continental United States. Two of the largest Coast Guard sectors 
in the U.S., Sector Miami, commanded by Captain James O. Fitton, and 
Sector Key West, commanded by Captain Pat DeQuattro, are located in my 
congressional district.
  The men and women serving these Coast Guard sectors play key roles in 
fighting the flow of illegal drugs to our country. They deny smugglers 
the use of air and maritime routes into our country, and in fiscal year 
2009, the U.S. Coast Guard seized 29,485 pounds of cocaine. But 
determined drug smugglers are using very sophisticated ships and 
technologies, and it will become increasingly difficult to prevent 
their illegal activities without providing the Coast Guard the 
fundamental resources that it needs. South Florida is an all-too-
convenient transit hub for many of these smuggling operations, and I 
commend our local Coast Guard sectors for their ongoing efforts to 
fight the flow of illegal drugs into our neighborhoods.
  As my constituents well know, the Coast Guard also saves thousands of 
lives every year. According to the latest statistics published by the 
Coast Guard, in 2008, Coast Guard Search and Rescue responded to 24,000 
cases and saved 4,000 lives. Sector Miami responded to 858 Search and 
Rescue cases this year, with 1,410 lives saved and over $12 million in 
property saved.
  This year, Sector Miami also established the Coast Guard's first 
Cruise Ship Center of Expertise. This center provides a unique 
partnership between the Coast Guard and the cruise ship industry so 
that they're better able to meet the compliance with international 
safety standards as well as maritime security and environmental 
standards.
  Ensuring that the brave men and women have the tools that they need 
in the Coast Guard to effectively patrol our coasts is one of my 
priorities. In Sector Key West, this past year alone, the Coast Guard 
was able to respond to 300 law enforcement cases as well as 645 rescue 
and search cases. At this sector, also, many treasured natural wonders 
are contained there, and they also responded to 152 pollution reports 
in the protection of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
  Sector Key West was also instrumental in coordinating with the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the State and local agencies 
in the successful artificial reefing of the 520-foot ex-USS Vandenberg. 
This was the second largest ship to become an artificial reef in the 
U.S.
  Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Coast Guard has served 
as the primary agents responsible for our Nation's maritime security. 
This year, they even deployed six patrol boats and 400 personnel to 
help protect Iraq's maritime oil infrastructure, train Iraqi naval 
forces, and enforce U.N. sanctions in the Arabian Gulf.
  We can all agree that the brave men and women of our oldest, 
continuous seagoing service deserves more than just our respect and 
admiration. They deserve the appropriate funding to carry out their 
important missions. I urge all Members to recognize the crucial need to 
protect our Nation by strengthening the United States Coast Guard so 
that they may continue to live up to their motto, ``Always Ready.''
  I thank the Speaker and I thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. 
Diaz-Balart, for yielding me the time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from 
Florida if he has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. No, and I will wrap up my remarks 
shortly.
  Ms. MATSUI. I have no speakers on my side. I'm prepared to close.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again I thank my 
friend, Ms. Matsui.
  Over the past few months, the American people have written and called 
their Members of Congress, or they've made their opinions known at town 
hall meetings, asking their Congress Members whether they will pledge 
to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people 
were outraged finding out that the majority has forced Congress to vote 
on a number of sweeping and often very expensive bills without giving 
Members time to understand or even to read them. For example, we were 
forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus bill, on the omnibus 
appropriations bill; or on the cap-and-trade bill, that one we were 
provided at 3 in the morning, and then a few hours later it was here on 
the floor. In some instances, much less than 24 hours.

                              {time}  1730

  That's no way to run this House. Our constituents are rightly upset. 
I think they should be. The distinguished Speaker said, ``Members 
should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports 
before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site. Yet time and 
again, the distinguished Speaker and the majority leadership have 
refused to live up to their pledge.
  That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members of Congress have signed 
a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all 
legislation and conference reports be made available to Members and the 
general public for 72 hours before being brought to the House floor for 
a vote.
  So that's why today I'll be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that 
legislation, H.

[[Page 25489]]

Res. 554, a bipartisan bill by my friends and colleagues, 
Representatives Baird and Culberson.
  Now, Members may be concerned that this motion would jeopardize the 
Coast Guard reauthorization bill, but I want to make clear the motion I 
am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson 
bill within 3 days so that we can vote on the Coast Guard bill, and 
then once we're done, consider H. Res. 554.
  I would ask, thus, Mr. Speaker, for the previous question to be 
defeated.

 Amendment to H. Res. 853 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) One hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution. . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The rule before us today is a fair rule that includes a bipartisan 
group of Democratic and Republican amendments. All of the Republican 
amendments submitted to the Rules Committee are made in order by this 
rule. Furthermore, the underlying legislation strengthens and reforms a 
key component of our Nation's security forces.
  Coast Guard authorization has been long in coming. That delay has 
meant inadequate authorization levels for ever-increasing demand. One 
of the good things this bill would do is encourage a larger, more 
educated merchant marine workforce by establishing a maritime career 
recruitment training and loan program. It will modernize the Coast 
Guard by reorganizing senior leadership and by establishing a firm 
foundation for a robust marine safety program. U.S. cruise ship 
passengers will also receive enhanced safety and security protections 
thanks to this legislation.
  In total, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 will strengthen 
our Nation's Coast Guard and our national security for years to come.
  I urge passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this rule and the underlying bill--H.R. 3619, the Fiscal Year 2010 
Coast Guard Authorization Act.
  I would like to commend the Rules Committee for approving a Rule that 
will allow for a robust debate. I am particularly pleased that it 
provides 20 minutes of debate on the port security title of the bill.
  Over the past few weeks, we worked closely, and on a bipartisan 
basis, with Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Mica, 
and Ranking Member LoBiondo to bring this critical security bill to the 
floor as expeditiously as possible.
  The bill that we are considering today builds on H.R. 2830, the Coast 
Guard Authorization bill that the House approved by a vote of 395 to 7 
last Congress. Unfortunately, despite strong bipartisan support, that 
measure was not ultimately enacted into law.
  Like that bill, H.R. 3619 provides long-overdue resources to an 
agency that has been underfunded for many years, while providing the 
Coast Guard new tools to secure our Nation's maritime environment in 
this post-9/11 world.
  With respect to port and maritime security, H.R. 3619 provides key 
new resources to help the Coast Guard execute this homeland security 
mission. Specifically, it provides 1,500 additional Service Members, 
more Maritime Security Response Teams and Canine Detection Teams.
  The bill also includes an important Coast Guard acquisition reform 
provision that requires the Coast Guard to take over the management of 
the 25-year, $24 billion Deepwater program.
  Finally, I am pleased that the bill fosters greater diversity at the 
Coast Guard Academy--one of the Nation's fine military academies. 
Specifically, a provision I authored with Chairman Cummings would, for 
the first time, allow Members of Congress to nominate candidates for 
the Coast Guard Academy. It also directs the Coast Guard to establish 
programs to identify young adults from Minority Serving Institutions 
who may be candidates for becoming Coast Guard officers.
  Passage of H.R. 3619 will provide the Coast Guard with a cadre of 
diverse, bright candidates from non-coastal areas of the nation and has 
the potential of helping to improve the culture within the Coast Guard 
Academy.
  In closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.

[[Page 25490]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 853, if 
ordered; and suspension of the rules with regard to House Resolution 
836, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 171, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 809]

                               YEAS--236

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--171

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Massa
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Buyer
     Cardoza
     Davis (AL)
     Dreier
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Gohmert
     Hinojosa
     Inslee
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     McCaul
     Murtha
     Obey
     Pascrell
     Radanovich
     Richardson
     Rogers (MI)
     Walden
     Wamp
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1800

  Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, CASSIDY, ISSA, and MASSA changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 192, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 810]

                               YEAS--213

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers

[[Page 25491]]


     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Massa
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walz
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Buyer
     Cardoza
     Davis (AL)
     Dreier
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Gohmert
     Hinojosa
     Inslee
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     McCaul
     Murtha
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rogers (MI)
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Wamp
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1807

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________