An amendment numbered 10 printed in House Report 111-311 to require the Coast Guard to study the facility infrastructure requirements needed to fulfill the Coast Guard's missions and capabilities, and ensure that the department in which the Coast Guard is operating maintains the ability to utilize the latest technologies.

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Chu). Pursuant to House Resolution 853
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 3619.

{time}  0915

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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3619) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard
for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pastor of
Arizona (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
October 22, 2009, amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Himes) had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 111-311.
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk designated No. 7.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 182, after line 14, insert the following:
(g) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds
appropriated for the Fishing Safety Training Grants Program
pursuant to section 4502(i) of title 46, United States Code,
as amended by this section, may be used for a Congressional
earmark as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 853, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. This amendment is straightforward and, I believe,
noncontroversial. It should be familiar to those of us here. The
underlying bill establishes a new competitive grant program called the
Fishing Safety Training Grants program. This amendment would simply
prevent the new grant program from being a vehicle for earmarking.
I try to offer this amendment as often as I can when new grant
programs are established. The reason I do this is because,
unfortunately, we have a history now of these grant programs being
established and, even if the underlying legislation says that they are
to be awarded on the basis of merit or on a competitive basis, then,
oftentimes, a little down the road, many of these grant programs are
earmarked, some of them, we have learned through sad experience, almost
completely earmarked.
Competitive grant programs earmarked by Members of this body, we
simply can't have that. Now, I question why the Federal Government is
using taxpayer dollars to fund training for individuals who operate
commercial fishing vessels. I think that that's something that
commercial fishing organizations ought to do themselves. However, if we
are going to do this, then we should at least ensure that these grants
are awarded on a competitive basis and aren't earmarked.
And so I hope that this can be adopted. I should note that in the
110th Congress, this similar amendment was adopted to H.R. 2357, the
Beach Protection Act. It was approved by a roll call vote of 263-117.
And in the 111th Congress, this amendment was accepted on three
separate occasions, each time by voice vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
though I do not intend to oppose the gentleman.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is
recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to compliment the House's own version of
Survivor Man, not only on surviving on a desert island and doing so
very skillfully and astutely. Most of the time when Members of our body
wind up with a story in The Washington Post, it's for some misdeed or
misappropriation of funds. This was a remarkable story of personal
strength and courage that I suspect derives from the gentleman's own
upbringing and mission abroad for the church, and for his ability to
survive under difficult conditions.
He's also been a survivor on his campaign, Mr. Chairman, to limit
earmarks. And this is one case in which our committee agrees with the
gentleman. On Page 177, Lines 4 and 5, the bill reads: the Secretary
shall award grants under this subsection on a competitive basis. But
also, as the gentleman has pointed out, notwithstanding such language
in other bills,

[[Page H11718]]

there have been deviations from the programmatic language, often by the
other body, but also, on occasion, in this body.
We feel that these grants ought to be awarded competitively and, for
that reason, very specifically wrote this language into the bill. I
suspect that after the vigorous hearings that Chairman Cummings has
held over the past 2\1/2\ years, exposing failures of the Coast Guard
contracting program, that this language will be honored and will be
adhered to.
As to the reason for the training grants, this is the deadliest
industry by a great many measures. In fact, there is a program on
television on fishing entitled ``The Deadliest Catch,'' and it tracks
those who put out to sea to earn their living in dangerous
circumstances. The safety training grants will deal with those and
other similar situations. So on the policy side, I simply want to
defend the provision.
But I concur with the gentleman on his concern, and we will accept
the amendment.
At this point, I would yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Chair of
the subcommittee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar, for your comments. Thank you
for yielding. I agree with you. We've already done basically what the
gentleman wants done. And I just want to add something, Mr. Oberstar,
and that is that this has been something that our subcommittee has--
this fishing problem, and safety is something that we've taken
extremely seriously. The Bureau of Labor Statistics names commercial
fishing as the most hazardous occupation in the United States. For the
11-year period from 1994 through 2004, 641 fishermen and -women lost
their lives on fishing vessels, and so we take it very seriously.
I also want to thank the gentleman for constantly making sure that we
do what you're hoping that we would do. We did it. Congratulations. And
so, therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairmen of the
committee and subcommittee for their vigilance here to make sure that
these awards, these grants, are awarded out on a competitive basis.
That's what we're seeking here. I'm glad that's going to happen.
For the record, I found no earmarks on Jabonwod, the island that I
stayed on. It was an incredible experience. Thanks for mentioning it.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. I'd like to rise in support of amendment, thank Mr.
Flake, and say that the Republicans on the committee are supportive of
the amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 111-311.
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 8.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 182, after line 14, insert the following:
(g) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds
appropriated for the Fishing Safety Research Grant Program
pursuant to section 4502(j) of title 46, United States Code,
as amended by this section, may be used for a Congressional
earmark as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 853, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical. It simply deals
with a separate grant program established by the underlying bill. This
one would refer to the Fishing Safety Grant, the fishing Safety
Research Grant program, whereas the last one was the Fishing Safety
Training Grants program. So I believe the same arguments apply here.
And with that, if the gentleman will agree to accept the amendment
again, then I'll be prepared to yield back the balance of my time. But
for now, I'll reserve.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise to claim time in opposition, though I do not
oppose the amendment
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is
recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The language of this provision is similar to the
previous: to establish a Fishing Safety Research Grant program for
academia, members of nonprofit organizations, businesses involved in
fishing and maritime, to conduct research on methods of improving the
safety of commercial fishing industry, vessel design, survival
equipment.
The gentleman ought to be very concerned about survival equipment.
He's a survivor himself. Vessel monitoring systems, de-icing technology
and severe weather detection, the gentleman had none of those on the
island. He didn't have any equipment to detect severe weather or
absence of water. He didn't have a water finder; he had to create his
own water using the sun. So he's the antithesis of this language.
But the issue is not the underlying policy. The issue really is
competitive basis award of grants. I think the gentleman's language
will reinforce the purpose of the committee.
Does the gentleman from Maryland wish to be heard?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for laying that
out. And I thank the gentleman for his vigilance with regard to these
types of issues. Similar to the previous amendment offered by Mr.
Flake, which prohibits earmarking of the grants to be awarded under the
Fishing and Safety Training Grant program, this amendment would
prohibit earmarking of the grants authorized by H.R. 3619. The Fishing
Safety Research grant is a complement of the Fishing Safety Training
program. The research grant program would provide funding to
individuals in academia, members of nonprofit organizations and
businesses involved in fishing and other maritime matters and other
persons with expertise in the fishing industry to support research to
identify measures that will improve safety in this industry. And of
course these would be bid on a competitive basis.
But the one thing I did want to say, and I know that the chairman of
the committee will agree with me, I must give a lot of credit to
Congressman Barney Frank, who worked tirelessly on these issues. And I
know I've had at least 10 to 12 conversations with him. I know he's met
with the chairman, and I just wanted to make sure that we gave him
credit because he has championed this like nobody I've ever known, and
I just wanted to say that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for pointing that out, that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has been a vigorous advocate
for his fishing community, which is largely a Portuguese immigrant
community of long ancestry; and he really has been a strong advocate,
along with Mr. Young of Alaska.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time}  0930

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 111-311.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona:
Page 312, after line 22, add the following new section:

SEC. __. STRATEGY REGARDING DRUG TRAFFICKING VESSELS.

Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, acting through the Commandant of

[[Page H11719]]

the Coast Guard, shall develop a comprehensive strategy to
combat the illicit flow of narcotics, weapons, bulk cash, and
other contraband through the use of submersible and semi-
submersible vessels. The strategy shall be developed in
coordination with other Federal agencies engaged in
detection, interdiction, or apprehension of such vessels. At
a minimum, the strategy shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the threats posed by submersible and
semi-submersible vessels, including the number of such
vessels that have been detected or interdicted.
(2) Information regarding the Federal personnel, technology
and other resources available to detect and interdict such
vessels.
(3) An explanation of the Coast Guard's plan, working with
other Federal agencies as appropriate, to detect and
interdict such vessels.
(4) An assessment of additional personnel, technology, or
other resources necessary to address such vessels.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 853, the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment
today because, while I speak about securing our borders to stop the
illegal crossings of drugs, weapons, and people, it is important to
remember that our physical border is just one line of defense.
Our fight against the drug cartels--which operate the smuggling
routes--actually begins in the jungles of South America. Much of the
cocaine that enters the United States today originates in South America
before working its way north. For years, the United States, Colombian,
and Mexican governments have increasingly cracked down on the major
smuggling routes.
As these paths have been squeezed, the cartels have found new and
innovative ways to move their product. Recently, the traffickers have
begun resorting to semi-submersibles, which are submarine-like boats
that skim just below the surface of the water.
To further avoid detection, these boats incorporate advanced
technology, including a design that reduces their ability to be
detected by radar and utilizing water-cooled exhaust mufflers to reduce
their heat signal. They can travel up to 3,000 miles without stopping
for refueling, allowing crews to move cocaine from secret shipyards
along the Colombian coast to safe harbors in Mexico where they join the
land trafficking routes that take the drugs across the land border and
into the United States.
With these advances, semi-submersibles are extremely difficult for
authorities to track or even locate once they take to sea.
With an estimated 70 boats being deployed this year alone with the
sustaining cargo capabilities of up to 10 tons, it is not surprising
that over one-third of the cocaine reaching the United States is
shipped this way. Even worse, these boats can just as easily be used to
smuggle weapons or potential terrorists into the country.
Although the Coast Guard does an excellent job with the resources
available to stop these vessels, the fact remains that it is a tough
task, and only a small percentage of semi-submersibles are captured.
My amendment calls on the Coast Guard to establish a comprehensive
strategy to combat the illegal flow of narcotics, weapons, bulk cash,
and other contraband through the use of semi-submersible and
submersible vessels.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Yes, I'll yield.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Even as we discussed this amendment, the U.S. Coast
Guard has interdicted a self-propelled semi-submersible vessel in the
Eastern Pacific with a multi-ton load of narcotics on board. Smuggling
using submersible and semi-submersibles have become a part of the
increasingly sophisticated smuggling operation.
We accept the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Thank you.
As part of this plan, the Coast Guard will address what additional
resources they need to get the job done so we can make sure they get
the help they need. Our fight against the cartels is constantly
evolving, and we must continue to support those on the front line in
adapting new strategies.
Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition
although I am not in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the
gentleman from New Jersey for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LoBIONDO. As the gentlelady stated and the chairman stated, this
is something that the Coast Guard plays a critical role in their
interdiction. We have dealt with the issue of submersibles and semi-
submersibles to combat the growing drug threat. We need to give the
Coast Guard the authority to do this.
We're happy to support the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Yes, I'll yield.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.
I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to congratulate Mrs. Kirkpatrick for this
outstanding amendment. As our ranking member said, this is something
the committee has been addressing for a while. But what we now want to
do is make sure that the efforts of the Coast Guard are most effective
and efficient, and the study and looking into this is what this is all
about. And I think this will allow us to accomplish a lot more with
regard to the equipment that we have.
I've actually seen these submersibles many times. As a matter of
fact, I was just in Colombia and Mexico and actually saw them and saw
they had been used to get around the Coast Guard.
And I know for a fact that they welcome this amendment, and I want to
thank you very much because basically what you've done, Mrs.
Kirkpatrick, is you've made a very good bill even better.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Kratovil

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 111-311.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kratovil:
Page 312, after line 22, add the following new section:

SEC. ___. REPORT ON THE EFFECT OF FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE
ON MISSION FULFILLMENT.

(a) Study.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall conduct
a national study on the facility infrastructure requirements
needed to fulfill the Coast Guard's prescribed missions and
capabilities, and ensure that the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating maintains the ability to utilize the
latest technologies.
(b) Report.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Commandant shall submit a report on the results
of the study conducted under subsection (a) to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate. The report shall include--
(1) an assessment of any current shortfalls in facility
infrastructure, including the extent of the use of temporary
trailers and an inventory of the number and type of new
facilities needed to meet the Coast Guards's mission needs;
and
(2) a plan for how the Commandant will develop the
appropriate facility infrastructure, including timelines,
budgets, and any additional legislative authority the
Commandant determines is required to implement such plan.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 853, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
3619 because I believe it is our duty to ensure the Coast Guard has
top-notch facilities and infrastructure in order to

[[Page H11720]]

effectively play its part in keeping America safe.
My amendment requires the Commandant of the Coast Guard to conduct a
national study on the facility infrastructure requirements needed to
fulfill the Coast Guard's prescribed mission and capabilities. This
amendment is needed to assess the prevalence and effects of the Coast
Guard operating out of temporary facilities and buildings.
In Maryland's First District, my district, as an example, the Coast
Guard is operating out of a double-wide temporary trailer shared with
NOAA operations in Oxford, Maryland. The Oxford Coast Guard does not
own its own pier and must lease space from a commercial pier nearly 1
mile away from the temporary trailer. This temporary arrangement could
be, obviously, affecting operations and mission capability.
My amendment requires a report to Congress that must include an
assessment of any shortfalls in facility infrastructure, including the
extent of the use of temporary trailers, an inventory of the number and
type of new facilities needed to meet the service's mission, and a plan
for how the Commandant of the Coast Guard will develop the appropriate
facility infrastructure, including timelines, budgets, and additional
legislative authority the Commandant determines is required to
implement the plan.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a commonsense means towards ensuring
those entrusted with protecting our coasts and shorelines are being
given the right tools and facilities to do so effectively.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition although I am
not in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's
amendment. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
repeatedly requested information on the condition and the need for
additional Coast Guard shoreside facilities. The gentleman's amendment
would require the service to submit a report detailing current
shortfalls and future shoreside needs.
We congratulate the gentleman. We fully support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KRATOVIL. The gentleman will yield.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I compliment the gentleman on this amendment. As Mr.
LoBiondo said just a moment ago, there are serious needs, a $1 billion
backlog in the Coast Guard's shore construction program, and the
gentleman's amendment is right on point, and I commend him for offering
it.
And if the gentleman would yield to the Chair of the subcommittee,
I'd appreciate it.
Mr. KRATOVIL. I will yield.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered
by my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil). This amendment will
require the Coast Guard to develop a national inventory of its office
buildings and other facilities to assess its facilities' shortfalls.
However, we realize there is a service backlog, as the chairman just
said, of $1 billion, a shore facility repair backlog, that is.
So basically what this will do is allow the Coast Guard to more
effectively and efficiently address this backlog.
And again, this is a very thoughtful amendment. I want to
congratulate the Congressman and sponsor for submitting it. And again,
I strongly support it and would urge our colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairmen of the
committee and the subcommittee for their leadership. I appreciate and
also thank the other side of the aisle for their support and urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Nye

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 111-311.
Mr. NYE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Nye:
Page 312, after line 22, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. AUTHORITY OF THE COAST GUARD TO CARRY OUT ITS
HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS.

The provisions of this Act that relate to the Coast
Guard's marine safety mission shall not impair the authority
of the Coast Guard to carry out its homeland security
missions, including--
(1) protecting ports, waterways, and marine transportation
systems in the United States from acts of terrorism;
(2) safeguarding the United States' international borders
from maritime intrusions by aliens seeking unlawful entry
into the United States, and from individuals who aim to
traffic in illegal drugs, firearms, and weapons of mass
destruction in the United States;
(3) maintaining defense readiness, as one of the armed
forces, to rapidly mobilize and deploy defensive security
personnel during a national emergency;
(4) coordinating efforts with Federal, State, and local
intelligence agencies to deter, detect, and take action
against acts of terrorism;
(5) preventing human smuggling operations at ports, on
waterways, and throughout the marine transportation system;
and
(6) enhancing stability in the United States in support of
the national security strategy of the United States as
referred to in section 108 of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 853, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Nye) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. NYE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge my colleagues to support
a commonsense, yet necessary, amendment which will make clear the Coast
Guard's critical role in the homeland security of America.
The Coast Guard security mission is not new. Since 1790, the Coast
Guard has served as America's principal law-of-the-sea entity with a
maritime responsibility of 6 million square miles. However, today the
Coast Guard must manage multiple security responsibilities as it faces
the extremely difficult challenge of enforcing increasingly complex
laws against highly sophisticated adversaries.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has expanded dramatically its port security
activities to the more than 300 U.S. ports and millions of Americans
who live, work, or recreate near them. This is especially important to
my constituents in Hampton Roads. I represent one of the largest ports
in the United States, the Port of Virginia. The Port of Virginia is the
deepest, newest, and biggest port on the east coast, capable of
handling ships loaded 26 containers across.
Last month alone, Virginia's Norfolk International Terminal processed
89,359 container units. With the expanded reopening of the Panama Canal
in 2014, the port will only grow, and it will be the mission of the
Coast Guard to ensure the safety of all of those affected by its
commerce.
The purpose of this amendment is simple. The Coast Guard is a
multiple-mission armed force that must have uninhibited freedom to flex
its military and security powers and respond to numerous concerns and
threats in the maritime domain. This amendment makes clear that this is
the most important mission of the Coast Guard, and nothing shall hinder
that responsibility.
It is important to note that this amendment does not create new
authorizations. It simply makes clear the continued importance of
protecting our waterways and ports, maintaining defense readiness and
coastal security, and securing our borders against aliens seeking to
unlawfully enter the United States.
Americans deserve to know that they will continue to be safe from
maritime threats. This amendment does just that by clarifying the Coast
Guard's homeland security missions.

[[Page H11721]]

I commend to all of my colleagues this commonsense amendment, and I
urge its support.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NYE. I will yield.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye). It's an outstanding amendment. This
amendment states that none of the provisions relating to marine safety
included in H.R. 3619 would impair the authority of the Coast Guard to
carry out its homeland security missions.
I support the amendment and its intention, and I urge its adoption.
That said, the Transportation Committee and the Coast Guard
Subcommittee have examined the Coast Guard's performance of its marine
safety mission in great detail and have significant concerns that the
service has assigned inexperienced and unqualified individuals to
conduct casualty investigations, vessel inspections, and other marine-
safety functions.
The shortcomings in the program have been well documented by the
Homeland Security's inspector general, by retired Coast Guard Vice
Admiral James C. Card, and by the committee's own examination of the
Cosco Busan allision in San Francisco. And so certainly the provisions
of this amendment will be extremely helpful in helping us again help
the Coast Guard be most effective and efficient in its efforts, and it
can only improve the bill and improve an already great organization,
the United States Coast Guard, our thin blue line at sea.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye) for the following reasons:
The amendment specifies that the marine safety provisions in H.R.
3619 shall not impair the authority of the Coast Guard to carry out its
homeland security missions.
The Coast Guard constantly monitors maritime transit zones and the
Service's law enforcement authority enables it to apprehend foreign
fishing vessels engaged in poaching and interdict vessels carrying
illegal drugs, firearms and undocumented migrants.
The Committee has held several hearings regarding the Coast Guard's
marine safety program over the past three years. Commandant Thad Allen
was very concerned about the condition of the marine safety program, so
he asked retired Admiral Jim Card to conduct a thorough analysis of the
program. Admiral Card confirmed all of the problems that had been
raised by industry and mariners during these hearings. H.R. 3619
addresses these programmatic shortfalls in the marine safety program.
The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency and it is important that it
carries out all of its missions in an effective manner--from marine
safety and search and rescue, to homeland security.
Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment that clarifies that
nothing in the marine safety portions of H.R. 3619 will affect the
Coast Guard's legal authority to execute its homeland security mission.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

{time}  0945

Mr. NYE. I thank the chairmen of the committee and the subcommittee
for their support, and I yield back the balance my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 111-311.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise as the designee of Mr. Stupak to offer the
amendment on his behalf.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
At the end of title 11, add the following new section:
Sec. __. The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall conduct a
study and analysis of the feasibility of the restoring the
Fresnel Lens in the Presque Isle Light House in Presque Isle,
Michigan to operating condition to meet the safety needs of
commerce and submit within 180 days the report to the
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee after the date of
enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 853, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the Presque Isle Lighthouse at Presque
Isle Township on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is very important, has
served a very important navigational purpose over many, many years on
those stormy waters of Lake Superior. Those are treacherous waters.
Unlike the ocean where waves have a long distance, hundreds of miles to
play themselves out, the waters of the Great Lakes, and particularly of
Lake Superior, even with a surface of 33,000 square miles, are short
and choppy and harsh and brutal in the coming months of November,
December, January, February.
The Presque Isle Lighthouse has saved many a mariner. It continues to
operate, but its light has been replaced by one of more modern quality
and capability with much greater candle power, much greater visibility,
and longer distance than the Fresnel lens that the Coast Guard has used
for probably 150 years; not only the Coast Guard, but other marine
navigation services. Fresnel lenses are treasured historical pieces,
but they are not navigational pieces any longer.
The gentleman's amendment would require the Coast Guard to do a study
of the feasibility of reinstalling the Fresnel lens in the lighthouse
in a condition so that it can provide safe navigation to commercial
vessels on Lake Huron or at the juncture point of the upper waters and
also serve as a supplement to the existing light.
I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. We are happy to support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 111-311.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
Page 312, after line 22, add the following new section:

SEC. __. USE OF FORCE AGAINST PIRACY.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding title X of this Act,
chapter 81 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 8107. Use of force against piracy

``(a) Limitation on Liability.--An owner, operator, time
charterer, master, or mariner who uses force, or authorizes
the use of force, to defend a vessel of the United States
against an act of piracy shall not be liable for any injury
or death caused by such force to any person participating in
the act of piracy.
``(b) Promotion of Coordinated Action.--To carry out the
purpose of this section, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall work through the
International Maritime Organization to establish agreements
to promote coordinated action among flag-and port-states to
deter, protect against, and rapidly respond to acts of piracy
against the vessels of, and in the waters under the
jurisdiction of, those nations, and to ensure limitations on
liability similar to those established by subsection (a).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:

``8107. Use of force against piracy''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 853, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, pirates attacked two American-flag
vessels transiting waters off the Horn of Africa. If it were not for
the heroic actions of our Special Forces, the bravery

[[Page H11722]]

of the captain and the crew of these vessels, a terrible tragedy would
have been at hand. Just yesterday we got reports that a Panamanian-
flagged vessel had been seized by pirates with hostages being taken. We
cannot allow this to continue.
Knowing this would be an ongoing problem, the bill, as it was
reported from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, included
a very carefully worked out bipartisan agreement that we worked with
Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Mica, and myself that would shield U.S.
merchant mariners, ship owners, operators, and captains from
liabilities in U.S. courts following any action taken to defend a U.S.-
flagged vessel, for instance, taken to defend the United States of
America against a pirate attack.
Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee objected and requested
Chairman Oberstar add language to his recently adopted manager's
amendment that appears to be an entanglement for getting the right
thing done. The way the Judiciary Committee has worded this in the
manager's amendment, a crewmember would be forced to go through a
checklist in his mind or her mind of what legal entanglements could
occur because of this.
The language in the manager's amendment only grants relief liability
to the crew owner, meaning the vessel owners or operators and captains
would still be sued. They would not be held without harm. They would
have monetary damages, possibly.
Our amendment restores this bipartisan agreement. It's a commonsense
agreement, something that the people on the committee worked out. It
makes no sense in the heat of an attack, when you have got pirates
coming at a U.S.-flagged vessel with automatic machine gunfire, with
rocket-propelled grenades, or whatever else may happen, to suggest that
a crewmember is going to be able to take the time to check through what
is substantially or in excess or whatever the case is. We need to
protect American interests.
Under our amendment, an American crewmember would only need to prove
that the person attacking the vessel was a pirate in order to receive
liability relief.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I fully share the desire of the
sponsor of the amendment to effectively combat piracy on the high seas,
but I hope this amendment will not be adopted.
As he has pointed out, the manager's amendment does address this
issue and does so consistently with well-established, long-observed
legal traditions which go back to the ancient civilizations of Rome and
Babylon. The language in the bill, now with the manager's amendment,
incorporated language of the Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Judiciary Committee in place of what was in the introduced bill.
Now this amendment, unfortunately, goes too far. It grants absolute
immunity within the United States on our lakes and rivers to violence
against our own citizens. Now, the difference in the two provision, one
carefully crafted by the Judiciary Committee and now the one being
offered on the floor, is not about enabling ship's crews to respond to
piracy. Both do that fine. The difference is that this amendment would
eliminate all legal restraints. There will be no legal accountability,
not even under criminal law. When they say no liability, the way the
bill is drafted, it would be you could commit crimes against people and
still be exempt.
Now, I can't imagine that the sponsor actually meant to do this. I
think he is talking about civil liability. But when he says--the
language in the bill, with the manager's amendment, says that you are
totally immune unless you knew what you were doing was substantially in
excess of what was necessary.
The language in the amendment, however, is not even limited to a
civil liability. It's not even limited to during the attack. It could
be after the attack when no one is under any danger, and there is no
limit on what crimes can be committed at that point.
I would hope, whether this amendment is adopted or not, if there are
still concerns about the amendment, that we would work together
cooperatively as we go forward to make sure that we give the
crewmembers all of the flexibility they need in these situations
without going too far and allowing crime and torture and everything
else under criminal law.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Mica.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, while I know the Judiciary Committee may be
well-intended--the Judiciary Committee has the responsibility to make
certain and ensure that citizens' rights are protected--we are not
talking about any act that is committed within waters of the United
States. In fact, there are laws and definitions that rule enforcement
and legal proceedings. We are talking about an act of piracy on the
high seas.
We are talking about the way the Judiciary Committee has constructed
this language that we now have a piracy or a pirate protection
provision in the bill that we worked so hard on in a bipartisan manner
to make certain that we give every tool possible to those who man our
vessels, American-flagged vessels on the high seas, to take on pirates
with whatever force they need. We don't need to have a test and read
them their Miranda rights and a whole host of normal, civil procedures.
What we need to do is give those who are being attacked, when we see
murder and mayhem on the high seas, give them the tools to respond
adequately. Just like a citizen would defend their own home or their
own property, we have American-flagged vessels that deserve the
protection of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. LoBiondo).
I urge its adoption.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a couple of
questions to the sponsor of the amendment, if he would respond.
My first question would be whether it's his intent, because the
language under the amendment does not limit it to the high seas, is it
your intent to limit this application to high seas?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Well, under title 18, an act of piracy is defined as
happening on the high seas. The intention is to defend against an act
of piracy and, as defined by law, it has to be on the high seas.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I would ask another
question, Mr. Chairman.
Is it your intent to limit this to the application of civil law and
not criminal law? Would you exempt owners and operators from criminal
acts?
Mr. LoBIONDO. Yes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Yes, you do exempt them from criminal acts?
Mr. LoBIONDO. For civil.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Just civil.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Just civil.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the
wording, as it is, says that an owner-operator who uses force or
authorized the use of force to defend a vessel of the United States
against an act of piracy shall not be liable for any injury or death
caused by such force.
That does not limit it, in its present version, to civil. It would
actually exempt him from any liability, that would include criminal. I
would hope that the gentleman, whatever happens to the amendment, would
work cooperatively so that we would limit it to the intent as he has
articulated today.
Mr. LoBIONDO. We certainly would be happy to work with you to make
sure that we are in synchronization with what we are all understanding.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Just to close, again, the manager's amendment, the
crewmember of the vessel would have to prove in court that he knew at
the time, she knew at the time, that the defensive actions were not
substantially in excess of what is reasonable. That's not what's going
to happen if a piracy attack occurs.

[[Page H11723]]

I don't think any Members are going to even want to be close to
voting for a piracy protection provision in line with what's going on.
What does substantially in excess of reasonable mean? A crewmember is
going to have to think through this checklist as a pirate attack is
happening?
That's not what we have in mind. I don't think it's the right way to
go. I would urge all of our Members to vote in favor of this amendment
to make sure that U.S. interests are protected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on the amendment printed in House Report 111-311 on
which further proceedings were postponed:

Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Kratovil of Maryland.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Kratovil

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Kratovil) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 398,
noes 0, not voting 40, as follows:

[Roll No. 812]

AYES--398

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--40

Abercrombie
Baca
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Braley (IA)
Buyer
Calvert
Capuano
Cardoza
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Dreier
Engel
Faleomavaega
Forbes
Gohmert
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Inslee
Jones
Lofgren, Zoe
Maffei
Maloney
McCaul
Melancon
Nadler (NY)
Price (NC)
Richardson
Rogers (MI)
Rush
Thornberry
Walden
Wamp
Wexler
Young (AK)

{time}  1040

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 812 I was not
able to vote on the House floor on the amendment to H.R. 3619, the
Coast Guard Authorization Act offered by Representative Kratovil due to
a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 812 the amendment offered
by Representative Kratovil from Maryland, which requires the USCG to
conduct a study on the facility infrastructure requirements needed to
fulfill the Coast Guard's missions and capabilities and report the
findings within 180 days. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendments being in order, under the
rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, Acting Chair
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.
3619) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year
2010, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 853, he
reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that resolution, back to the
House with sundry further amendments adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Pursuant to House Resolution 853, the question on adoption of the
further amendments will be put en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were 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 passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 385,
nays 11, not voting 36, as follows:

[[Page H11724]]

[Roll No. 813]

YEAS--385

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NAYS--11

Broun (GA)
Courtney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
King (IA)
Paul
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Tiahrt

NOT VOTING--36

Abercrombie
Baca
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Boyd
Braley (IA)
Buyer
Calvert
Capuano
Cardoza
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Dreier
Forbes
Gohmert
Higgins
Hinojosa
Inslee
Jones
Lofgren, Zoe
Maffei
Maloney
McCaul
Melancon
Richardson
Rogers (MI)
Rush
Thornberry
Walden
Wamp
Wexler
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). One minute is left in the
vote.

{time}  1057

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. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 813 I was not
able to vote on the House floor on the passage of H.R. 3619, the Coast
Guard Authorization Act due to a family matter. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 813, final passage of the
Fiscal Year 2010 U.S. Coast Guard Authorization Act, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________