Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2443) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2004, to amend various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the good words of the chairman of the subcommittee. I note that our full committee chairman has arrived, and I will curtail my remarks so that the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) can speak. But I just want to say to what a difference a week makes and how refreshing it is to be on the floor under an open rule where issues that are of concern to Members can be resolved in open fashion and that we can conduct the work of this committee in its traditional fashion, working in a bipartisan manner.

I respect enormously the work of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee, and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and particularly our riverboat captain chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who has not only firsthand experience on the water commanding a vessel, but has enormous respect, as I have, for the United States Coast Guard.

The chairman and I served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee from our very outset of service in the Congress, and through that work, we both came to have a great respect and admiration for the work of the Coast Guard, which started out, along with the Corps of Engineers, as one of the two oldest agencies of the Federal Government in its infancy in 1789. It was known as the Revenue Cutter Service and provided the first revenue and source of funding for our infant republic.

In the years since then, I have, in my observation and my work on the Coast Guard subcommittee, I have observed that there is probably no entity of the Federal Government from which the citizens of this country get a greater return on their investment than from the United States Coast Guard. As a former Commandant once observed, it takes a special person to wear this color blue. And they are all special people, men and women, of the United States Coast Guard.

What I regret about the Coast Guard is that in my 29 years of service, I have seen some 27 new responsibilities added by the Congress to the list of duties that the Coast Guard must perform. But that list of new duties and responsibilities has not been accompanied by a commensurate increase in personnel and in funding. And that has happened under Democratic and Republican administrations and Democratic and Republican Congresses.

Now, we bring to the floor a $7.1 billion bill to deal with the needs of the Coast Guard, and unfortunately, in past Congresses, this bill has not become law because of issues that the other body has wanted to hang on to it and slow down its progress. This time, the authorization has been done through the appropriation process. And I earnestly hope that we are not engaged in yet another exercise in futility getting a Coast Guard authorization passed and that indeed the other body will act expeditiously and not try to tie in unrelated issues to this very important authorization.

I further believe very strongly that although we have provided, I think, a responsible funding for the Coast Guard, it is still inadequate to the responsibilities that the Congress has saddled the Coast Guard with and visited upon it because we felt they could carry out all those responsibilities of drug interdiction and immigration interdiction, and now the homeland security responsibilities. They simply need more personnel and more funding to continue to carry out the job and not stretch the human resources of the Coast Guard as thin as has been done in the last few years.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), former ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. It is a matter of concern to just that very class of vessel operator that the gentleman has described. The technology known as AIS, automatic identification system, is very sophisticated. It probably has too many bells and whistles for small operators, ones they do not need.

The Coast Guard has come back to reconsider this issue and is working with the International Maritime Organization to adopt what is an international standard that will be far less technologically sophisticated, if you will, than the system they have required, which will give the operator e-mail and other technology downloaded from the signal. They do not need all of that stuff.

What they really need for the small vessels is name, GPS position and bearing, where they are headed; and that is what the Coast Guard will do. That will draw the cost from nearly $10,000 down to $2,000 or less for the small vessels operators, and give them and the Coast Guard the information that they really need without the bells and whistles. So I think that this ruling will be completed by next spring, hopefully in time for the boating season in the gentleman's district and in mine.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of pilotage rates on the Great Lakes is one of the most vexing matters that I have had to deal with going back to my service with my predecessor as the administrative assistant when we had so many problems with the Great Lakes Pilotage Administration. We once had an administrator of that agency who would go off to his farm in Northern Virginia over the weekends when he was needed most. We could not find him. They needed regulations changed or approvals to undertake certain activities; we could not find this guy. It has just been a big headache over the years. We have shifted back and forth between the Coast Guard and the pilotage administration and who is going to administer it. I think it has now been on track.

Again, pilotage has sort of been a football kicked back and forth between Coast Guard and DOT by the Office of Management and Budget; and in the process, pilots have been stiffed, to be very honest with the gentleman. Coast Guard first developed a rule for pilotage rates, sent it to the Office of Management and Budget. They reviewed it. They sent it back to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard then sent it to the Department of Transportation because that is where they used to live. Now they live over in the Homeland Security Department.

So Secretary Mineta's staff got right on it, and they worked it over and they said, well, we have these questions. And they asked the Coast Guard to answer certain questions. The Coast Guard questions were then sent to OMB. The OMB sent the questions back and now DOT has asked the Coast Guard to respond.

Secretary Mineta has assured me that his office, his staff will clear the way, hopefully get it done by the end of this week so that the interim rate can be approved, at least on an interim basis, pending a final rule.

It should not have to take this long, I assure the gentleman. I appreciate his advocacy on this issue. Hopefully, this will all get done within a week and pilots can apply their trade.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the former ranking member of the subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, how much time, may I inquire, do we have left?

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) guardian of the Jones Act.

Madam Chairman, does the gentleman have further speakers?

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Yesterday, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation conducted a hearing on the Staten Island ferry accident in which 10 passengers were killed. Even at this date, the captain and the pilot of the ferry claim to be too ill to testify before the National Transportation Safety Board. The Coast Guard can take no action against them because they are incompetent or a danger to the safety of a vessel because of their statements and because of a loophole in existing law.

The bill that the committee has reported includes a provision recommended wisely and appropriately by the administration to close that loophole. It does not give the Coast Guard authority to go on fishing expeditions to look at the health records of a mariner, but it does what I have long advocated, provide the Coast Guard authority that the FAA has, to require all mariners that are on medication or have illnesses that could affect their ability to operate a vessel safely, to report those circumstances to the Coast Guard so they can determine whether the individual can operate safely.

Enactment of this legislation is going to close a very troublesome loophole in existing law and result in far better safety on the waters as we have an obligation to provide and should undertake, and I thank the chairman for recognizing that circumstance. I know the chairman has been under enormous pressure, to put it mildly, advocacy, to do something differently, but at the hearing yesterday it became apparent why we need to proceed with the language in the bill, which I strongly support.

Let me conclude by saying, we have an outstanding bill. We have an excellent piece of work.

I wish we were doing more in personnel and more in funding for the Coast Guard, but I think we have done all we can under the circumstances; and we will continue to work to improve those two areas, personnel and funding, for the Coast Guard in the future.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

The amendment addresses a number of issues. It is always a puzzle to people, if we bring a bill to the floor, why do we have a manager's amendment? Well, because from the time the bill leaves the committee and gets to the floor, there are issues that either were fermenting and developing or that arose from the time the committee reports a bill, and that is the case here.

We first have the Reserve Officer Training Program for Coast Guard officers that is established in the context of this manager's amendment, requiring all of the classification societies, including foreign classification societies, that want to do business in the United States, directly or indirectly through agents, to be licensed by the Coast Guard. We clarify that foreign flag vessels have to have security plans submitted to the Coast Guard in writing and may not operate after July 1, 2004, unless those plans have been reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard. A provision from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) to transfer responsibility for port security grants from DOT to Coast Guard in the Department of Homeland Security, that is a procedural matter; and the matter raised by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), which he adequately discussed just a moment ago on the Indian Point nuclear energy facility.

Finally, we will not have to deal with the issue of the authority in the basic bill for the Coast Guard to suspend or revoke a license if the mariner has been found to have operated a vessel in a negligent manner, or to have interfered with the safe operation of a vessel, endangering life or property. That has been discussed.

I think this manager's amendment does all of the right things and does what a manager's amendment is supposed to do. I appreciate the work of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). And as he and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) have noted, we have had full participation and discussion between the majority and the minority on this matter in the historic tradition of our committee.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairman, the subject at hand here is a matter that the gentleman from Connecticut and I did indeed discuss in the course of the markup on the Coast Guard authorization bill. I raised two questions. One was with respect to the funding the gentleman has discussed and language that he has read accurately from the committee bill. The second was the eminent domain issue. I recall how very poignantly the gentleman, in fact, we met in the Democratic sitting room off the committee floor, off the committee dias, told me how very poignantly his family had been displaced by an eminent domain proceeding and that he did not want to see anybody displaced by eminent domain. I read to him the language that the gentleman from Oregon has just a moment ago referred to from the Hartford newspaper. I was very distressed by this. People had written to me about it, especially that 87-year-old Italian immigrant

woman. Half Italian myself, I deeply sympathized with it.

But in further reviewing the matter since the issue was before the State supreme court, I said, I will desist from the eminent domain issue. Let us watch and see whether the court can resolve this matter. If not, we can revisit it again. So we bifurcated the issue and dealt with the Federal funding issue.

Now, comes the gentleman from Oregon who has been approached by the locals who very much are upset about this matter, and I understand his concern. Representing a western State, the gentleman from Oregon as the chairman of the full committee, frequently is crosscut by eminent domain issues and has confronted this matter time and again in the Committee on Resources. That is why, out of very deep personal conviction, he brings this issue to the floor. I say that for the Record. I want the Record to be clear. If the gentleman has any concern or question, I will be glad to give him a moment.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) to respond.

The gentleman's language limits to 1999. So it cannot go back as far as the gentleman is suggesting.

I regret that this matter could not have been resolved at the committee level. It is an issue raised out of deep conviction by the gentleman from Oregon. I support his concern.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I appreciate the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). It fits in with the longstanding position of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on Buy America on steel in our Federal aid highway and transit and Corps of Engineers programs. It is only recently the committee has had jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, and there too we need this vigilance over the Truman-Hobbs Act.

I authored in 1982 in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of that year a provision that requires American steel to be used in all Federal-aid highway projects. The amendment accepted in committee and approved in the House required 100 percent American steel on all Federal-aid highway programs; and when we got to conference with the Senate, we had a little dispute.

They wanted to be more supportive of international trade, and we worked out language that I had a fallback position on, and it has worked out well. It requires all steel in the Federal-aid highway program to be American steel. What we see is every bridge, every girder, every rebar, every guardrail, every fence post is American steel. When I chaired the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight in the mid-1980s, my good friend Bill Clinger, who was ranking Republican on the subcommittee at the time, and I conducted extensive inquiry into the application of the Buy American Act, and we found that the Federal Highway Administration was administering that program rigorously. Two million tons of steel a year that go into the Federal- aid highway program is American steel.

It was not quite so good in the Federal Transit Administration. The Corps of Engineers was not doing a very good job at all. When they put in the caissons for the footings for bridges that the Corps of Engineers built, they used foreign steel. They built the bridge with American steel. I said wait a minute, how can they do this? Well, this is a temporary structure. But I found that the corps leaves that steel covering for the caisson in place afterward to help against scouring at the time of flood. I said, so that is a permanent structure. So we changed the law to toughen it up so the corps could not circumvent the Buy America provision.

Now we come to the Coast Guard and the Truman-Hobbs bridge alteration program. The language that the gentleman offers restates a provision that is already in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act that requires American steel to be used in these projects, but we ought to put it in here. We ought to reinforce an already-established strongly held principle. These are American dollars, taxpayer dollars.

In the Federal Highway Program, that is our highway trust fund dollars that are to be used to buy American steel and put it in those facilities.

What stimulated events in 1982 was we were building a bridge between Duluth and Superior. The State of Wisconsin had a responsibility for that bridge construction. They let a contract to Japanese steel, 10,000 tons of Japanese steel to build a center-arch span in that bridge. I vowed that never again would we have this happen. That iron ore from the Minnesota Iron Range would have to go under a bridge built with Japanese steel? They have got to be kidding. Out of that came the Buy American provisions.

By heavens, I am not going to let that slip away. We lost 890,000 jobs in the steel industry in the last 20 years to foreign steel, subsidized overseas, dumped in America, driving American jobs out.

The gentleman offers a very fine amendment. We ought to toughen it, but we ought to take an overview in our committee, I say to the chairman of the subcommittee. We ought to have an in-depth review of the Buy America provision as it applies not just to the Coast Guard, and I say this to the chairman of the full committee, but as it applies to all the issues under the jurisdiction of our committee. We provide funding which averages about $80 billion a year for infrastructure programs, and we ought to make sure that everything we are buying is American steel, and American goods in other arenas as well. Cement that goes into the concrete, asphalt, they all ought to be American product. So I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the exchange that we have just had between the Michigan delegation, or its voice, and the Wisconsin delegation and the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, point up a problem that we have to face and to which I alluded in my previous remarks, and that is the Buy America provisions that affect activities under the jurisdiction of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure need to be revisited and thought through and refined.

We have two very differing views of the application of the Buy American Act to the procurement at hand that the Coast Guard is involved with. The Coast Guard is opposed to the amendment. They say the Deepwater Program will comply with the Buy American Act. The Coast Guard and the prime contractor on this procurement, Lockheed Martin, have not, to the best of my knowledge, yet selected the engine to be used, although it is widely known and supposed that it will be the Detroit Diesel engine, with major parts made in Germany, assembled in the United States.

That is where the refinements come in; products, parts of which are made overseas, assembled in the United States. We have lost the whole subway, locomotive and passenger car business to overseas producers. We have lost virtually all light rail and heavy rail production to overseas. Only just recently, Colorado Railcar has come in to produce a very high quality commuter rail vehicle. We need to recapture all of that back to the United States.

In the Transit Program, we have spent $36 billion over the last 6 years on buses and heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, intercity passenger rail, and a good deal of that is being produced overseas with subassemblies brought back to the United States, largely because our industry abandoned that field because we were not buying much of it, because we were building a lot of highways.

Now, a lot more money is going into the transit system. We are handling 1 million new transit riders a day in America. There is a new market, so we are starting to recreate that market. Yet, big pieces of it being be produced overseas.

Well, we need to recapture that business. We need to stimulate American manufacturers. The Manzullo amendment deals with steel in bridges under the Truman-Hobbs Act. The provision offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin deals with equipment, vessels. There will be others when we get into the Transit program that will deal with railcars and locomotives and so on. We need a comprehensive approach to this issue. We need to further refine how the Buy American Act applies.

While I sympathize fully and totally with the advocacy by the gentlewoman and the gentleman from Wisconsin, I think we are in an inadequate position right now, and I do not think that this language adequately addresses the problem at hand.

So, I urge the chairman of the subcommittee, and I will yield to the gentleman, to schedule hearings on this subject. Let us take a closer in-depth look as we prepare for the next authorization for the Coast Guard in the next session of this Congress.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's response. I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I will insist, and I know we will have the cooperation at the full committee level and subcommittee level, that we explore these matters in the depth and detail to which they are entitled and which you and your colleague from Wisconsin are entitled.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the concern of the gentleman. He presents a unique circumstance and that is that while the Coast Guard has authority for anything on the water or immediately adjacent to the water, the facilities the gentleman refers to are inland, several miles inland. We need a little time to think this through and to see whether the Coast Guard is the truly appropriate entity to have this responsibility and, if so, how we can provide it.

I will assure the gentleman that, as the bill moves forward and as we get into conference with the other body, there is always an opportunity to make some adjustments, and I think we should respond, hopefully in that context, but if not, certainly by the time the committee researches the next Coast Guard reauthorization, which will be sometime next spring. We should revisit this matter. I share the gentleman's concern. Our Port Security Act does not deal with a matter of this kind, and we ought to think of a way in which we can provide the protection the gentleman legitimately has concerns about.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act of 2003. Before I discuss the bill or make comments on it, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, for all of his efforts on behalf of the Coast Guard and, in particular, for this bill, also thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member, who certainly has been a champion of the Coast Guard and worked closely with us, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the ranking member on the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, for their help and cooperation with this legislation.

This legislation was developed in a bipartisan manner and deserves the support of all the Members of Congress. The primary purpose of this bill is to authorize expenditures for the United States Coast Guard and the Federal Maritime Commission for the fiscal year 2004.

Title I of the bill authorizes for fiscal year 2004 approximately $7.1 billion for Coast Guard programs and operations. The bill also authorizes the administration's request for 18.5 million for the Federal Maritime Commission.

This legislation will increase funding for Coast Guard programs at a level above the administration's request to ensure that the service can meet its traditional missions and make meaningful progress toward carrying out its homeland security responsibilities under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.

The bill funds the Coast Guard at levels requested by the President plus an additional $460 million. Of this amount, $70 million is for conducting the mandated U.S. port security plan approvals, $202 million to keep the Deepwater Capital Acquisition Program on track to meet its original 20-year implementation plan, $80 million to install equipment on already delivered C-130J aircraft, $39 million to establish a west coast HITRON squadron, $50 million for

conducting foreign port security assessments and foreign vessel security plan reviews, and, finally, $19 million is for making the Truman-Hobbs bridge alterations.

I am particularly concerned about the funding shortfalls for the critically important Deepwater recapitalization program designed to replace the Coast Guard's aging fleet of vessels and aircraft. From the start, Deepwater has been underfunded, jeopardizing on-time delivery of important assets. The effective accomplishment of the Coast Guard's national and homeland security missions, as well as its ability to sustain the level of performance of its traditional missions, is predicated upon having the required funding to recapitalize its aging assets sooner than the appropriated 20-year plan.

As evidence of this, I attended on Saturday the return of the Coast Guard cutter Dependable from a drug interdiction mission in the Caribbean where it actually had confiscated a record Coast Guard bust. The drug smugglers had dumped about 2,500 pounds overboard and the Dependable and its crew had actually confiscated about the same amount. DEA was there to take control of the substance, to destroy it, but when listening to the discussion and listening to the account of how this took place, it is remarkable that the Coast Guard cutter Dependable, which was commissioned during the 1960s, with a top speed of only 17 knots and an aging frame, was able to counter the drugies with their fast boat with only a rigid-hull inflatable that was like a Corvair chasing a Corvette.

Operation Deepwater is critically needed. I strongly endorse increasing the Coast Guard's overall funding level in order to support a faster Deepwater recapitalization program commensurate with the findings of the Deepwater acceleration plan submitted to the Congress in March of 2003.

In addition to authorizing the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2004 budget and personnel resources, the measure also provides parity between certain Coast Guard and Department of Defense authorities, improves personnel management, and includes provisions to allow the service to better accomplish its traditional regulatory and law enforcement missions.

The recent ferry accident in New York Harbor shows that the maritime transportation will never be perfect. However, the Coast Guard's constant and careful review of vessel and crew minimizes the number of maritime accidents we see in the United States. The service's response efforts also minimize the impact those incidents have in terms of loss of life and damage to property.

I did hold a hearing in New York, on Tuesday of this week, to look for ways in which we can further improve our prevention and response system.

In preparing this bill, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee held hearings on the Coast Guard's and the Federal Maritime Commission's budget request and the legislative provisions in the Coast Guard's proposal. The bill contains many of the Coast Guard's legislative requests, as well as items of concern to Members of Congress that were brought to our attention.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the men and women of the Coast Guard. They do an amazing and remarkable job. Their ongoing traditional missions of illegal drug interdiction, of fisheries law enforcement, search and rescue, is always making the news. But what is really remarkable is the job that they are now doing on homeland and port security which is something that is new, that has been added to them since the terrible tragedy of September 11 of 2001.

America benefits from a strong Coast Guard that is equipped to stop terrorists and drug smugglers, support the country's defense, protect our natural resources, rescue mariners in distress, and respond to national emergencies.

We must act now to put the Coast Guard on sound financial footing, to be ready to respond to our increased homeland security demands, and other critical duties that the Coast Guard carries out daily. And the men and women of the Coast Guard are more than prepared to do their mission if we will only give them enough resources, enough assets and enough personnel to do the job. This bill will help ensure that that happens.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation.

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers on general debate. I reserve the balance of my time.

We are reserving the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which has been worked out with the minority to make changes from the reported bill.

In addition to reaching an agreement with the full committee ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the amendment includes provisions that have been proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). I appreciate the interest of all of these Members in this bill, and I look forward to their support today.

The amendment restructures the authorization to match the format used in the appropriation measure which funds the Coast Guard. It also makes changes to laws governing management of the Coast Guard. The amendment protects the Coast Guardsmen while they are forced to use disabling fire. It also authorizes a Coast Guard ROTC pilot program, allows the Coast Guard yard to work with private firms on government ship repair jobs, and allows the commandant to make recommendations directly to Congress.

The amendment also makes changes to shipping laws. It sets standards for vessel classification societies operating in the United States, and specifies membership in maritime security advisory committees.

Finally, the amendment contains other numerous issues of interest to members. It allows the Coast Guard to convey certain property it no longer uses, requires long-overdue regulations to be published by February 1, 2004, mandates a National Academy of Science study of future polar icebreaking needs, establishes a pilot project for improving the technology related to issuing merchant mariners' documents. It also authorizes funds to implement an intelligence-based vessel profiling system and a long-rang automated vessel tracking system for vessels operating in U.S. waters, and expresses the sense of Congress that Coast Guard should address safety risks posed by elevated levels of carbon monoxide in recreational vessels.

Again, this amendment has been worked out on a bipartisan basis. It incorporates numerous provisions sought by Members of both parties. It also makes improvements to U.S. maritime policy and Coast Guard management. I urge Members to vote in favor of this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. We have looked it over, and we think it is a good amendment; and we are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising some very good points. We will certainly take a close look at this. It is an issue that I think most Members in this body can agree that we want to put a focus of attention on.

I strongly agree with the gentleman that, while I understand the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, that this is not the right amendment, that this is the wrong time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, as Chair of the Subcommittee for Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment, and I join with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the chairman of the full committee, in saying that, first and foremost, this is a matter of national security.

This Deepwater Program that we are finally under way with and finally gaining some momentum with is replacing the aged assets of the Coast Guard that are desperately needed. Prior to September 11, it was an issue that just related to Coast Guard traditional missions. Since September 11, with the role that the Coast Guard has taken for homeland and port security, it is essential that we replace these assets as quickly as possible.

If in fact this amendment were to pass, the Coast Guard's National Security Cutter would be delayed by 18 months. That is totally unacceptable. The proposed amendment would also force the layoff of a number of U.S. workers; not workers in Germany, not workers somewhere else, workers right here in the United States of America. That is unacceptable.

This proposal actually is an attempt to rewrite and to go beyond the Buy America provisions that currently apply to the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program and would cancel, I repeat, cancel the current task force order that was awarded to another American company.

In addition to this, for those of my colleagues who are fiscally minded, this amendment, if enacted, would cost the American taxpayers in excess of $160 million. Unacceptable. Unacceptable on all fronts.

This was a bidding process that we entered into that we went through. I understand that there is a regional dispute about how one company was affected. But it was done fairly, it was done properly.

For the sake of the Coast Guard, and I will say that the Coast Guard has not taken a formal position because they have not had the opportunity to see this amendment in writing and to respond, but I feel very confident in saying that the Coast Guard would strongly oppose this if they had the opportunity to respond in writing for all of the reasons outlined above.

So I would urge my colleagues as strongly as I can to understand the implications of the Deep Water program moving forward, not being delayed, to understand the implications of national security, to understand the implications of taxpayer dollars being spent wisely, and vote against this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleagues for working with me to establish a national Coast Guard Museum. This issue of eminent domain came up at a business meeting of the subcommittee on June 12, 2003, when I offered legislation to create a national Coast Guard Museum that was designed to extend the curriculum of the cadets at the academy and also for the leadership courses which take place in New London, which is the location of the academy.

Currently there is a one-room museum on academy grounds that is used for this purpose. It is inadequate for this purpose, and for years we have wanted to expand that facility into what we call the National Coast Guard Museum. The distinguished ranking member of the committee raised an objection at the time and stated that while he felt the language was well-intentioned and a good idea, a number of problems were brought to his attention by a homeowners association raising concerns. This was the issue of the displacement of people under eminent domain authority, an issue that I share his concern about.

In the context of the subcommittee meeting, I was asked by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey, if I would be willing to withdraw my amendment and work with the distinguished ranking member on language which addressed this issue. In the intervening weeks, we did just that. On Wednesday, June 25, alternative language was introduced which is now in the bill, which I believed and I think others believed address the issue. When it was passed unanimously by the committee, I thanked the ranking member, I thanked the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee for their cooperation on this matter. It has only been in the last week that I have discovered that another Member had concerns about this language.

It is true that the bill is silent on the issue of eminent domain. That was the intent. Because issues of eminent domain, especially issues that are in litigation, should not be affected one way or another by legislative action. But what the language of subsection (d) does which is so important and it does it in what I consider to be a very elegant way, and I thank the ranking member and his staff for coming up with this formulation. It says, before the date on which the Commandant establishes a museum under subsection (a), the Commandant shall provide to the committee, shall, he has no choice. He must do it. He must provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure a plan for operating and maintaining such a museum which gives us as members of the committee the opportunity to say yes or to say no. That is where the discussion of eminent domain from our standpoint should take place, from my point of view, not legislating language that would interfere with ongoing litigation involving the State, the municipality and other instruments. I believe firmly that this is the solution that we were looking for. This is the solution that very elegantly threads the needle on this difficult issue. I was grateful to the ranking member and to the other members of the committee for this assistance in coming up with this language.

We all know that the Coast Guard has assumed new duties and a new role since September 11. We all know that the Coast Guard is the only uniformed service that currently does not have a

national-level museum. The Army, and I was proud to serve in the Army for 37 years, has 46 museums. The Marine Corps has six. The Navy has 11, and so on and so on and so forth.

But let us take the discussion of eminent domain just one step further. Following the action of the full committee on June 25, the New London Day published an article the following day which says, Museum Proposal Makes Progress. Congressional Panel Approves, et cetera, et cetera.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Madam Chairman, it states, very briefly, the oversight provision, this is subsection (d), will enable Members of Congress to continue to raise questions as the project proceeds and should make it harder for backers of the museum to pursue the Fort Trumbull site, according to Scott Bullock, attorney for the Institute for Justice. Then it goes on to make several other statements in that line.

I think it is apparent, based on the reading of the Record and based on the reading of that public news story, that in crafting the oversight language, we met the objectives of dealing with the issue of eminent domain without interfering with litigation that may be taking place at a municipal or a State level. In that way, we have fulfilled our obligations and any further amendments to this effect are not helpful.

[From the New London Day, June 26, 2003]

Museum Proposal Makes Progress--Congressional Panel Approves NL as Host

for Coast Guard Plan

(By Judy Benson)

A Congressional subcommittee approved a measure Wednesday

that authorizes the establishment of a Coast Guard museum in

New London.

In addition, the measure, an amendment to a larger Coast

Guard authorization bill, gives Congress continued oversight

of the museum project, an addition that addresses concerns

about using property taken by eminent domain.

The original measure was introduced by U.S. Rep. Rob

Simmons, D-2nd District, with the oversight language added by

other members of the panel concerned that property in the

Fort Trumbull neighborhood in New London taken by eminent

domain would be used.

The oversight provision will enable members of Congress to

continue to raise questions as the project proceeds and

should make it harder for backers of the Coast Guard museum

to pursue the Fort Trumbull site, according to Scott Bullock,

attorney for the Institute for Justice, The institute is

representing property owners in the Fort Trumbull

neighborhood in a lawsuit to block the city and the New

London Development Corp. from taking the land by eminent

domain as part of a redevelopment project.

Simmons said the action Wednesday is an important step

toward the creation of the museum in New London, the home of

the Coast Guard Academy. Earlier this month, Simmons proposed

a similar amendment that he later withdrew when a ranking

committee member brought up the eminent domain issue.

``Today's action in the House Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee was a bipartisan stamp of approval

to move forward and designate a national museum for the U.S.

Coast Guard,'' Simmons said. ``Every other military service

has at least six museums to commemorate their histories and

service men and women. The Coast Guard deserves to have one.

``As the Coast Guard increases its responsibilities in a

post-September 11 world,'' he continued, ``now is the time to

honor the service and history of the many men and women in

the Coast Guard with a national museum.''

The bill containing the amendment next goes to the full

transportation committee for a vote and then to the full

House. Funds to build the museum are to come from private

groups.

Bullock said he considers Wednesday's action significant

because it enables the museum project to move forward, but

with the restriction of Congressional oversight even though

federal funds have not been allocated for the museum.

``This demonstrates the very real concern in Congress about

what is happening in New London and how eminent domain would

be used,'' Bullock said.

He noted that the amendment said that the preferred site

would be ``at or near the Coast Guard Academy,'' leaving the

door open for a location in New London other than Fort

Trumbull.

``There are ways to establish the museum in New London and

make all parties happy,'' he said.

Coast Guard leaders remain committed to locating the museum

near the academy, and are considering all options in New

London, according to Jolie Shifflet, spokeswomen for the

Coast Guard.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

The Coast Guard Academy is in my district.

That is where we hope the museum will be.

This will be built by an entity that was created to build the museum without the expenditure of Federal funds.

I thank the chairman for those comments.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his recollections. I refer to a letter from the Coast Guard in June of this year saying, the Coast Guard is not directly involved in the acquisition process. The issue of eminent domain is not for the Coast Guard to decide. We look forward to a resolution of these issues by the community.

If I could further add to the Record, the amendment, as drafted, would prevent any property that has been taken by eminent domain from being used for this purpose. If the Coast Guard, for example, was to decide to take the existing 3,500-square-foot facility and add a second and a third floor to it and call it the national museum, they could not because that property was taken by eminent domain back in the thirties.

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard,

Washington, DC, June 18, 2003.

Hon. Robert Simmons,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Simmons: I am writing to you concerning

the establishment and siting of the National Coast Guard

Museum. The American public deserves a National Coast Guard

Museum to preserve the heroic and important heritage of the

Service.

For over 90 years, the Coast Guard has enjoyed a close,

warm, and productive relationship with the people of New

London and Connecticut. New London is already the home of the

Coast Guard Academy, our Leadership Development Center,

America's tall ship EAGLE, Coast Guard Station New London,

and Coast Guard Cutter CHINOOK. New London is also a city

where our roots are established and a center of maritime and

nautical tradition. Therefore, New London is the focus of

current efforts to acquire a suitable property.

We realize there is an energetic local dialogue and debate

over the merits of possible sites and methods of acquiring

property suitable for a National Coast Guard Museum. The

Coast Guard is not, however, directly involved in the

acquisition process. The issue of eminent domain is not for

the Coast Guard to decide. We look forward to a resolution of

these issues by the community.

We have recognized, and have signed an agreement that

establishes, the Coast Guard National Museum Association

(CGNMA) as the sole organization working to acquire land,

raise funds for the construction of a museum, and donate the

museum and land to the Coast Guard. We have no formal

relationship with New London Development Corporation (NLDC)

beyond informing them on the progress of the museum project.

I refer you to the President of the National Coast Guard

Museum Association to discuss the specifics about any

agreements between them and the NLDC.

Although there is an initial conceptual design, the final

design of the building will depend on the site chosen and the

finalization of plans for the museum style, exhibits, and

functions. It will be integrated into the overall plans for

development of the selected site through coordination with

appropriate local officials, agencies, and affected parties.

The Coast Guard has been part of the New London community

for over 90 years and has great ties with, and great feelings

for the people of New London. My House Liaison Office at

(202) 225-4775 would be pleased to respond to any further

questions you or your staff may have.

Sincerely,

T.J. Barrett,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,

Acting Commandant.

Madam Chairman, unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. Unfortunately, 90 acres of land that was disposed of by the Navy as part of the BRAC process is now the focus of this development activity in a distressed city in the State of Connecticut and nobody can tell me with any assurance that this language that has been offered will not make it impossible for the Coast Guard to accept any of that Navy property, Customs property or even preexisting Coast Guard property.

If I could just make one other point. The language addresses the Coast Guard museum and places a burden on the Coast Guard, whether it be looking at property in Connecticut or New York or New Jersey, but nothing in the language prevents the New London Development Corporation from proceeding with its condemnation activities which are currently in the courts. Nothing in this amendment protects those families.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I am pleased we are taking up this bill today. For too many years the needs of the Coast Guard were neglected as we failed year after year to pass authorizing bills, and the amount of funds to the Coast Guard for their mission were inadequate.

Their mission, of course, today, is even more difficult than it was then; but I think that this bill is beginning to recognize the need for more funds, the need for better housing allowances, the need of fulfilling that expanded mission. So I am pleased to stand in general support of the bill before the House.

I mean, the Coast Guard is crucial to my District. I represent more than half

the Oregon coast, difficult port entrances, still an active fishing fleet and pleasure boats, and the Coast Guard is called upon many times to conduct rescues at the risk of their own life and also to do fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction and now, of course, the whole new emphasis on homeland security and all the problems in that.

There are two issues where I would raise concerns. The first, I will have an amendment on later, and that is the potential that the Coast Guard museum, which I support the idea of a Coast Guard museum, could be sited on property taken by eminent domain, and I think Congress should speak clearly on that issue, and I will have an amendment on that later.

The other is something I have raised with the Commandant in hearings, and it is just a general note of concern to other Members of Congress. I feel that the Coast Guard is doing an excellent job in its mission of homeland security, but the one place where I would fault them is as our lead negotiator with the International Maritime Organization.

The International Maritime Organization works by consensus, and often I feel rather than us setting down a hard marker and saying, this is where the rest of the world has to go on shipping, crew certification and safety issues, the Coast Guard gets much too involved in bargaining. We should lead by example with world standards. It is not enough to say, well, we always have port/State control issues where we can board these ships once they get here. No, we do not want those ships on the ocean at all. We do not want ships out there where we do not know who the owners are. We do not want ships out there where we do not know who the crews are, and we do not want ships out there when we do not know what the cargoes are.

Those are extraordinary threats both to the safety, the environment as with the New Carissa incident in my district. We had a totally incompetent foreign skipper, who did everything in defiance of good practice and managed to put his ship on the beach, spilling a tremendous amount of bunker fuel, causing an environmental disaster, and the ship is still there. He skipped out of the country before we could put him in jail unfortunately, but I do not think he will be coming back, but there are other skippers like that out there, not to say there are not many good ones.

But we need better crew certification requirements. We cannot have these paper schools that issue certificates. That is what we have got today. We are allowing to say, well, these schools exist in the Philippines. There is no one that goes around to certify that the schools exist, certify the curriculum, certify people have gone through the curriculum. We do not know who the crew members are. We do not have noncounterfeitable ID cards. We do not have a way of knowing better what the cargo is.

The Coast Guard is just starting to work on these things, and they are not taking the toughest position they could in the International Maritime Organization to secure our borders, our security and our safety, and I just want to urge them to redouble their efforts and set a higher standard to protect the homeland of the United States of America.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, as was discussed earlier, there were issues that arose. At least in my case I was contacted by an attorney representing a number of homeowners, Mr. Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice, after the committee mark. I have discussed this with a number of members of the committee.

This is a simple amendment, and there seems to be some consensus on the objective. The problem is that the bill has no statement regarding the issue of eminent domain. It is silent on that issue. In fact, that was confirmed in a letter that I received today from the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut, which says the bill does not address the issue of eminent domain and we believe it should be left to the local judicial process.

Certainly condemnation of property in New London, Connecticut, should be left to the local judicial process; but the issue of whether or not a Federal facility, the Coast Guard Museum, might be sited on property taken by eminent domain is the business of this Congress and this committee.

I feel strongly about this issue. We have families that have lived for generations on this site. I have letters from five people who are affected homeowners, but this is from the son of one: ``My great- grandmother's family moved to this neighborhood from northern Italy in the 1890s. My mother was born in her house at 87 Wabach Street in 1918, never lived anywhere else. She married my father, a merchant marine in World War II in 1945. They have lived in the house for 56 years. She has seen three of her four children die in this property, including her first. These houses are not simply buildings on a plot of land, but home for her with a lifetime of memories. I live with my wife, son, and niece in a home right next door.'' The letter has other sections that are pertinent.

I will just read one other letter: ``I hope all Members of Congress will recognize that if the Coast Guard Museum is ultimately built on property that has been taken through eminent domain, it will be forever tainted. There is no honor in kicking my mother, an 85-year-old woman, or my father, who fought for this country in World War II, out of the only home she has ever known to make room for a museum that celebrates the past, present, and future of the Coast Guard, a service whose history is steeped in honor and integrity.''

That is the issue before this body. It is quite simple. The bill is silent on this issue. A proceeding has begun locally, and that is up to the local jurisdiction to take this property by eminent domain with the idea that the museum would be sited there. The commandant of the Coast Guard, I have been told, says they do not want to take property by eminent domain. I would hope it would also mean that they do not want the museum to ever be sited on property that was taken by eminent domain with the intent of them moving there, and this would just make that clear.

This amendment would say any property condemned or taken after December 31, 1999, by eminent domain by the Federal Government, State or local government, or any other person acting under a delegation of authority. And that is what has happened in Connecticut; the local government has delegated to a development group the authority to take this property by eminent domain. It is pending in the courts of Connecticut.

If we do not adopt this amendment, the museum could end up on property that was taken from families who have lived there for generations by a local corporation, if it is upheld by the State courts to site the museum. There seems to be broad consensus on the objective. I offered to the gentleman whose project this is, and it is a meritorious project, and I congratulate him on that, to make this a friendly amendment since he agrees he does not want eminent domain used. I said I would be happy if we could do it as a friendly amendment. The gentleman does not want to do that. I hope the gentleman will explain why, and if he wants to contest that the bill somehow restricts eminent domain, I hope he cites from a specific section of the bill because I have read the only section that pertains to this. There is no mention of restriction on siting this museum on property taken by eminent domain, and it seems to me there is no good reason why we should not adopt this amendment. I would hope the committee would move forward and look at it as a friendly amendment and adopt it.

Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will give me the courtesy of an additional 2 minutes to respond, I would be happy not to object.

Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, the point here is that this says that a private entity will build this museum and then gift it to the Federal Government for operation. This is ultimately going to be an official museum of the United States Coast Guard, a Federal museum. This amendment does not interfere in the litigation for a taking. If this local development corporation indeed has the right under Connecticut law and the United States Constitution to take the land and throw these people off their property, they will have that right as determined by the courts. All this amendment says is that this Coast Guard museum, which is going to be a Coast Guard facility in the future after it is built and gifted to the Federal Government and the Coast Guard, will not be built on land that was condemned for that purpose, throwing families out of their homes. It is very simple. That is the issue before this Congress.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I guess maybe we could establish at least one point here.

I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut if he would agree that the museum should not be placed on property that is condemned for that purpose.

Madam Chairman, in the previous exchange, I did not get a definitive answer. He read from something from the Coast Guard that says they are neutral on this. If someone else condemns the land and the museum is built there, they will accept it. That is what that letter says. That is the bottom line here. We are not protecting these families who have lived on that land for nearly a century and do not want to give it up. An 87-year-old woman and her husband, a merchant mariner from World War II. I would just like a simple answer. I know the gentleman does not generally support eminent domain, he added something with his own family, but the question is simple. Would the gentleman agree, will he stand up and say ``yes'' in response to the question, will the gentleman say that this museum should not be built on property taken from these families in New London, Connecticut, by eminent domain, yes or no. It is a simple question.

There we have it. As the gentleman said earlier in the debate, it does not interfere in the legal proceedings, and certainly we cannot do that. But what this amendment does, and this has nothing to do with the BRAC process or Federal excess property, a museum established under this section may not be located on any property that is condemned or taken after December 31, 1999. The land that was formerly a military base BRAC process does not meet that definition. By eminent domain. That is the key here. There is a group of people who are targeted. They are targeted. Families are targeted, living on this property. They do not want to give up their homes. An elderly couple. Their son and daughter-in-law and others who live on this property and have lived there for years, they do not want to give it up. This is simple. The Coast Guard has many options on where to put this museum and many adjacent and in the city of New London. It does not have to be on property that was condemned for that purpose.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime

Transportation Act of 2003. The bill is a result of a bipartisan effort, and it deserves the support of all the Members. I especially again want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the full and subcommittee ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), for their help and cooperation in developing this bill.

I want to stress that, again, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has mentioned, it has been a long time since this bill has become a law, and it is time that the other body acts as we pass it today.

I am pleased we are taking the action today to authorize funding for the most important programs of the United States Coast Guard and Federal Maritime Commission.

In addition to authorizing the fiscal year of 2004 FMC budget at the level requested by the administration, this bill authorizes the fiscal year 2004 Coast Guard budget at the level requested by the President, plus an additional $460 million.

Of this amount, $70 million is authorized for the Coast Guard domestic port security activities, $80 million is to equip four C-130J aircraft for Coast Guard missions, and $202 million is for the Coast Guard's Deepwater capital equipment modernization project.

We have also provided $39 million for an armed Coast Guard helicopter squadron, $50 million for Coast Guard foreign port security activities, and $19 million for the alteration of bridges which obstruct navigation.

H.R. 2443 will result in improved operation of the Coast Guard and the Federal Maritime Commission and safer, more efficient maritime transportation.

However, nearly one-third of our exclusive economic zone lies off the shores of Alaska. These waters include the Nation's largest fishery, and sufficient cruise ship and oil tanker traffic. Therefore, I am concerned about the ability of the Coast Guard to carry out its traditional search and rescue, fisheries law enforcement, and vessel inspection missions. There are concerns that some of these missions may be suffering as a result of the new emphasis on homeland security.

I remain optimistic that this legislation will provide the Coast Guard with the resources and legal authorities necessary to get the service back to an acceptable state of mission balance.

Mr. Chairman, all of us recognize the exceptional work performed by the Coast Guard, often under dangerous circumstances.

I urge all my colleagues to support this bill which authorizes sufficient resources for the Coast Guard to carry out its many missions and make necessary improvements of laws governing maritime transportation.

Mr. Chairman, I again speak about the role of the Coast Guard in the great State of Alaska. We have more coastline than all the United States combined and more Coast Guard activities, not only in the fisheries, but again in the oil tanker business, and in the interception of all types of foreign vessels that occur.

I can only compliment my Coast Guard contingency in Alaska for the work they do in adverse conditions, flying in weather that you cannot believe, rescuing people, fishermen, and, yes, even some tourists, recovering them with helicopters and with ships themselves. They have done yeoman's duty day after day in very adverse conditions.

I will again stress, as one of the authors of Homeland Security, and I expressed at that time the Coast Guard be put at the top of the list in homeland security and they were, not at the bottom, which they were under the original proposal.

But I am still very concerned. There is a possibility that their mission, which is actually navigation, safety, interdiction of drugs, of doing duties which this Congress made them responsible for, now there is sort of an emphasis on security purposes and that alone. We must protect and make sure that does not occur, that they have their mission. In fact, I will at the appropriate time, not in this legislation but during the coming year, make a proposal that we take Coast Guard out of Homeland Security, put it back where it belongs and make sure it can do the missions that we have charged them with.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to understand the importance of this legislation. We will have some amendments offered. We hope to work most of them out before they are offered. We will debate those, and we will finally pass a very good piece of legislation for the United States Coast Guard.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I gladly will accept a colloquy with the good gentleman.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, my concern is that we were going to have another colloquy on something else that is very dear to your heart.

Madam Chairman, I cannot specifically answer the gentleman's question at this time. It is my intent to make sure the vessels, whatever vessels operate in these waters, will be under Coast Guard jurisdiction, and I think that is what the intent of this is. It is my intent, personally, as chairman.

The gentleman brings up a point about a Customs ruling that can be changed. I do not intend to do anything. As my colleague knows, I support the Jones Act equally as he does, and we will be reviewing this, and I am willing to work with the gentleman as this legislation goes forward to see if we cannot make sure that his and my ideas are implemented because I am not going to get involved right now with the trips to nowhere because I do not know the effect of this legislation on those activities at this time.

To my knowledge, no, and if that is the case, we will be taking care of that as time goes by. I was unaware of it. If that does this, we will be looking at it very closely.

No, and I believe if the gentleman is talking about the M/V Coastal, which vessels is the gentleman talking about?

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman is referring to

page 35, the Bluefin and the M/V Coastal Merchant, I do believe this applies as long as it is retroactive. We do not go back and disown them. We have to probably allow them to continue to operate as American-flagged vessels, these two vessels. There are only two vessels mentioned in the bill.

Madam Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that it is not my intent to do so at this time. That is why we will have the committee to review it, but if these vessels were actually authorized and they were done under a law of 1976 I believe it is, then we cannot make it say, no, they are no longer eligible.

Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman made a very good point about the bipartisan bill. As the gentleman read Members' names off of amendments that were worked out, it shows we can work together and that there is a good relationship between the majority and the minority. In fact, some of those amendments, if there was any hostility, I would not have accepted by some of the Members; but because we tried to work out the differences, I believe we have come out with a very good bill.

Again, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for their work on this legislation, understanding there will be some discussion on other amendments. Overall, we have settled every difficult amendment prior to coming to the floor. That is one thing I pride this committee on, is working behind the scenes, in front of the scenes, and making sure the scene is finally done. And this bill does it, and I compliment the gentlemen. I also thank the staff who worked very hard on this legislation over the past 6 to 8 months. We have come out with a very good product.

Is this museum going to be in the gentleman's district?

That is where the museum will be?

This will not be built on Federal land?

There will be no Federal funds and not on Federal lands. It is not on Federal property as was just mentioned? I think the point here, and I have, as the gentleman from Oregon knows, some great interest in condemnation proceedings, which I do not approve of, but I do think it is wrong, though, for this body to get involved in a local government and in a State process in a condemnation deciding which side it should be on. It should be left up to the local governments to do this because there are no Federal lands involved and no Federal funds. I think gentleman's presentation is correct. Although, I do not like condemnation proceedings, I do think we have to look at the local government's position as well as the State, and we should butt out, frankly.