Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany 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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I greatly appreciate the gentleman's statement which has laid out very clearly the problem that we face on the Great Lakes. This is really a Great Lakes issue. It does not affect the rest of the Nation. The saltwater ports all have different regimes for pilotage. But this is not a new problem that the gentleman has laid out and detailed in a very clear manner. This goes back to the 1960s when we had a pilotage administration that was separate from the Coast Guard. It was run by a private sector, that is, a nonmilitary, non-Coast Guard, entity. And that was a failure. They did not manage the three pilotage districts, either in effectiveness in getting pilots when and where they were needed or in managing the pay.

Then the pilotage administration was absorbed from the Department of Transportation into the Coast Guard. For a while that worked, but the Coast Guard had a retired captain running the program, and he would on weekends be off at his farm in Virginia when they needed pilots to be assigned out of the reserves to guide ocean-going vessels into Great Lakes ports. That was unacceptable. We thought we had that fixed for a while. It was taken out of the Coast Guard, and now it is back in the Coast Guard again.

This is not acceptable for ocean shipping that enters the Great Lakes at a cost of as much as $15,000 a day when there are delays, when there is an inadequate reserve of pilots to guide the vessels. The gentleman has put his finger on it. The language that the gentleman offered on the floor which the chairman agreed to accept, which I accepted and which is in this bill, will hopefully prod the process along. But that is not good enough. We need to scrub this whole process from top to bottom, have an independent review of it, and find a better way to deal with pilotage. It is unacceptable that the Coast Guard has not resolved it, the Department of Transportation has not resolved it, and that the Department of Homeland Security got their hands in this mess when they have nothing to do with it and the whole pilotage rule was sent over to Homeland Security.

I see the chairman nodding his amusement over this mess which we knew was going to happen when the Coast Guard was taken out of the DOT and put over in Homeland Security. This is one of the fallouts of that whole mess. We have got to have this thing straightened out.

I pledge to the gentleman, with the support of our chairman who is a riverboat captain himself and knows how important it is to have good pilots, we will get this thing done and we will work with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). We will get this straightened out because it has to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for his observations. The gentleman's point and information is accurate, but the reason they are having difficulty getting pilots is for 2 years, pilots have been paid at the rate of a mate. The chairman of the committee knows very well what that means. A pilot ought to be paid better than the pay for a mate, and that pay has stayed there for 2 years and the Coast Guard has failed to act. And so the pilots are saying, We are out of here. They are quitting. You cannot bring a seasoned pilot on board with one season's experience. You are going to run that ship aground.

Because the Coast Guard has failed to act, because the pay has not been adjusted and the pilots are feeling abused, they are walking. What is happening is it is costing more for every piece of goods that comes into the Great Lakes. Every item that comes in on those vessels is taking longer, costing more than it would otherwise cost to be delivered to customers, and that means that our Great Lakes St. Lawrence system is less efficient and less competitive. That is not right. That is not fair. The Coast Guard needs to get this thing done and done quickly and fairly and equitably. If they are not going to do it, then we need to find another way to run this operation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his splendid management of the bill on our side.

I compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for his steadfast dedication to the purposes of the Coast Guard and his distinguished leadership of the subcommittee on this matter and other Coast Guard-related matters, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for the steadfast support that we had in adhering to the principles of the committee as expressed by the House and passage of our version of the Coast Guard reauthorization.

This is a very happy day for the committee and for the Coast Guard. It is the first time in 2 years, in fact a little bit more than that, that actually we are on the point of passing a Coast Guard reauthorization bill in the normal legislative course of business. It had to be done in the appropriations process last year, Mr. Speaker, because although the House did its work, passed the bill, the other body could not come to a resolution on the matter, and we never even got to conference.

But this year, congratulations on both sides. The Coast Guard will have its charter spelled out legislatively as we need to do.

We make a number of improvements, a significant increase in personnel for the Coast Guard. The former Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee was one of my first two committee assignments along with, then, Public Works when I was elected in 1974; and the personnel allocated to the Coast Guard in 1975 was listed at 39,000. It remained at that level for the next 30 years, and only recently have we begun to raise the number of personnel for the Coast Guard, while all along adding new responsibilities to the Coast Guard.

Congress so loved the Coast Guard and so admired the work it could do that it laid on 27 new authorities and responsibilities for the Coast Guard to carry out without adding the personnel to do the job, and only in the last 8 years, 9 years have we begun the Blue Water program and the program of adding extended endurance helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft and surface vessels and high-endurance, high-speed vessels to combat the illegal drug trade and immigration trade in the Caribbean and on the coastal waterways of the United States.

This legislation takes us significantly forward. We authorize Coast Guard to set hours of service limits for personnel working on towing vessels to avoid the kind of tragedies that occurred at South Padre Island. We require all commercial vessels to have electronic charts beginning in 2007.

We authorize establishment of a National Maritime Enhancement Institute on the Great Lakes to study maritime transportation needs on the Great Lakes, and full safety inspection of towing vessels.

We require the Coast Guard to set standards for adequate amounts of potable water on commercial vessels. After many years of studying this issue, we are finally going to deal with it.

And we extend the authority of ships operating on the Great Lakes to dispose of dry bulk cargo residue in accordance with standards already set by the Coast Guard for at least a decade.

The only disappointment I have with this legislation, and it is a major one, is that we did not come to a resolution of security issues along the lines that the committee agreed upon, the House voted on, and the motion to instruct conferees was passed with an overwhelming vote in this body, and that was to deal with security plans for foreign-flag vessels entering U.S. ports.

We passed the affectionately known Port Security Act, known properly as the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and I were at the White House for the signing of this bill, along with Members of the other body. We all patted each other on the back. There was not enough money in that bill on the one hand to carry out the intentions of the legislation, but there was very good and very strong language in that legislation to protect U.S. ports.

``An owner or operator of a vessel . . . shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a security plan for the vessel . . . for deterring a transportation security incident to the maximum extent practicable.''

It goes on to say, ``A vessel or facility for which a plan is required to be submitted to the Secretary under this subsection may not operate after July 1, 2004 unless, A, the plan has been approved by the Secretary; and, B, the vessel or facility is operating in compliance with the plan.''

Well, that seems, on the face of it, very clear language, a very clear directive to the Coast Guard, but hardly was the ink dry when they went to the International Maritime Association and negotiated something quite different and issued regulations saying that instead of reviewing foreign vessel security plans, the Coast Guard will simply accept the security certificates issued by the flag state or by a security organization approved by the flag state under which that vessel operates.

Many ships coming into U.S. harbors operate from a flag state country that we know as ``flag states of convenience'' or ``flags of convenience,'' those great seafaring nations of Panama, Malta, Cyprus. Cyprus may have been a seafaring nation B.C., but not in recent times. And under the Coast Guard regulations, the agency would have to accept approvals from these countries or their security organizations. Those countries do not inspire a great deal of security confidence in me or other observers of the security scene.

So we came back with the House bill to strengthen that language, make it clear what we intended; and the other body had a little different version. We tried mightily to come to an agreement. When we could not, the conferees agreed to delete language in both bills and leave current law standing.

That outcome and this conference report, Mr. Speaker, should not be construed as endorsing the Coast Guard's regulations. They are inconsistent with current law. Current law states very clearly that foreign vessels must have their security plans approved by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. And those regulations are not in compliance, and they should be revised, not only not in compliance but not providing adequate security.

Under these regulations, this is what can and will and is happening. A foreign vessel enters U.S. waters. Under Coast Guard regulations, the Coast Guard will not examine the vessel's security plan unless there is clear evidence that the crew has insufficient knowledge of the security plans and procedures. And even if the Coast Guard finds that the crew does not have sufficient knowledge about security, regulations do not allow the Coast Guard to look at these areas of the security plan for that vessel, identifying restricted areas on the vessel and measures to prevent unauthorized access to those areas, procedures for responding to security threats or breaches of security, procedures for responding to security instructions of the flag state under which that vessel is operating.

Duties of shipboard personnel assigned security responsibilities and of other shipboard personnel on security aspects of their duties.

Procedures to ensure the inspection, testing, calibration, and maintenance of any security equipment on board the vessel.

Identification of the location where the ship's security alter activation point is located.

Procedures, instructions, and guidance on the use of the ship security alert system.

And yet, the Administration wants us to believe that under this system ships would be secure. This is not the type of security that we need. This is not what the law currently requires. The Coast Guard's regulations must be revised to comply with the law.

Apart from this difficult security issue, H.R. 2443 makes many substantive improvements to maritime safety and the quality of life for the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard.

I thank Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Filner for the cooperation and teamwork in successfully concluding this Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support adoption of this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership of the full committee and this conference. I also want to thank the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), as well as all of the conferees of the House and Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of the conference report on the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act. The conference report authorizes funding and personnel numbers for the Coast Guard and includes a number of other measures that will improve both the operational capability of the Coast Guard and the safety of our maritime transportation system.

This conference report also includes important provisions designed to build upon the work we did in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2001 to strengthen security at our ports.

H.R. 2443 includes language to clarify that members of the Coast Guard may make arrests for violations of Federal law while conducting security operations at our port facilities, to direct the Coast Guard to conduct vulnerability assessments of any waters adjacent to nuclear power plants to help ensure we are properly prepared for a waterborne threat to these facilities, and to authorize a new program to fund pilot projects that will test promising new technologies that could improve security at our ports.

I am particularly pleased that the other body has agreed with Members of the House regarding the need to accelerate Coast Guard's asset recapitalization program known as Operation Deepwater. This report authorizes a funding level of $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2005. This level of funding puts us on track to accelerate Deepwater's completion date to February 1, 2006, 5 years earlier than originally planned.

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 traditional missions, is predicated upon having a required funding level to replace its aging and rapidly failing assets sooner than the 20-year projected plan.

The need to accelerate is compelling. Over 20 110-foot patrol boats underwent emergency dry dock for breached hulls this past year, and the rest of the fleet is in immediate need of repair for structural corrosion. Over the past year, the HH-65 helicopters have suffered more than 125 in-flight main engine power losses, robbing the asset of its ability to hover and placing the lives of its crew, passengers and those below in grave danger.

These failures are increasing maintenance costs and are resulting in the direct loss of over 600 patrol days annually, severely affecting readiness and diminishing the service's ability to respond to terrorist threats and conduct its other vital missions.

I firmly believe that, as authorizers, it is our job to set goals and priorities for the service. The accelerated replacement of these assets is one of the Coast Guard's highest priorities. I commend my colleagues for their support of this critical issue and encourage our appropriators to work towards the goals we have established in this report.

We all praise the work of the men and women of the Coast Guard almost on a daily basis. We have seen the incredible footage of the videos of the rescues that they have made. We hear of their heroism on a day-in- and-day-out basis. While it is very nice to say thank you in words, we need to show it in deeds, so we are providing the men

and women of the Coast Guard the assets that they so dramatically need to complete their mission.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff on both sides for their tremendous work, particularly John Rayfield, Eric Nagel, Marsha Canter from our subcommittee, as well as Liz Megginson from the full committee, and John Cullather from the staff of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their efforts. I urge all Members to support this legislation.

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

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

I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and everyone aforementioned for their support in bringing this conference report to the floor.

I would like just to put a human face on it for a minute, that this is really about the men and women of the Coast Guard who are out there every day doing such a heroic job both here and abroad.

For those who think that the Coast Guard is only here on our shores, recently there was a Coast Guard helicopter crew that was in theater in Iraq. One of those engine failures that I talked about earlier was experienced. The captain of the helicopter really had a tremendous challenge on his hands when he had an engine failure and had to decide whether to set the helicopter down in Syria or do a hard landing on the deck.

We can just let our minds wonder a little bit about what it would have been like to have one of our Coast Guard helicopters having to set down in Syria and the implications of that. We can all see that that is not a good scenario.

He very heroically put the helicopter down without any injuries to himself, the crew, or damage to the helicopter. But it is symptomatic of why we have to make sure that they have the resources necessary. This authorization bill will be a critical, but first step in getting us to that point.

So I would urge all my colleagues to continue to understand the tremendous mission that the Coast Guard has undertaken, the tremendous job that they do day in and day out. I ask everyone to please support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for his remarks, and certainly the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the ranking member from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I would say to the gentleman from Alaska, maybe we should ask unanimous consent to substitute the highway bill for this conference report!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Chairman Young to strongly support the conference report for H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard Authorization and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.

This legislation is the culmination of our work in this Congress in examining the Coast Guard missions, with particular emphasis on the funding for the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and their new homeland security missions.

The bill authorizes over $8.2 billion for Coast Guard operations for fiscal year 2005. We believe this will be sufficient funding for the Coast Guard to carry out their many missions, including homeland security, search and rescue, marine safety, drug and migrant interdiction and law enforcement, which includes $5.4 billion for Coast Guard operating expenses, $1.5 billion for acquisition and construction projects, $24.2 million for research and development, and $19.65 million for alteration of bridges.

In particular, I am pleased that the conferees recommended that the Coast Guard should lease additional helicopters to establish a helicopter interdiction tactical squadron, HITRON, armored on the West Coast. Since their establishment in Jacksonville, Florida, the East Coast HITRON squadron has stopped over $4 billion in illegal drugs from entering the United States. Deployment of a HITRON squadron on the West Coast will help stem the flow of illegal narcotics through the eastern Pacific Ocean.

There is sufficient authorized funding in this bill for the Coast Guard to lease the helicopters required for this deployment. If one were to look at this using a cost-benefit analysis, the $39 million we spend to lease and deploy an armored HITRON squadron on the West Coast will stop drugs valued at more than 20 times that amount.

It is my strong view that the Coast Guard must increase existing airborne use of force assets for port security and drug interdiction. The lease option for these aircraft is already in place. The lease provides antiterrorist and antidrug coverage for the next 3 to 5 years while providing flexibility for the Coast Guard to engage in a competition to select a permanent multimission Cutter helicopter to meet the post-9/11 challenge. When these multimission helicopters are deployed, the HITRON helicopters can be returned to the manufacturer at the option of the Coast Guard.

We make a number of other substantive changes in the law, including providing critical skill training bonuses for enlisted members, providing legal authority to build new housing for Coast Guard and military personnel, extending the International Safety Management Code to all vessels operating in U.S. waters, and requiring electronic charts on ships to help prevent accidents such as the 1989 accident of the Exxon Valdez when they lost their way in Prince William Sound in Alaska. We also extend the oil spill response plans to cargo ships entering U.S. ports, not just tankers.

I thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo); and the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their bipartisan effort to put the bill together.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the passage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for his support in including my provision in this bill that calls for the timely review and adjustment of pilotage rates by the United States Coast Guard; and of course, special thanks to the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for his continued efforts to advocate for the just treatments of our American maritime pilots.

Unfortunately for American maritime pilots, the review has been far from timely, and a permanent adjustment flat out has not happened. Last fall, during floor debate on this bill, I engaged in a colloquy with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to raise the issue that no permanent rate adjustment for pilots had been made. At that time, I was vexed at how the Coast Guard, whose responsibility it is to set the rates that American pilots charge shipping companies for pilotage services, let the 2003 shipping season come and go without issuing a permanent rate adjustment.

The Great Lakes pilotage system performs critical safety and environmental functions for the Great Lakes. And not only that, it also requires by law that every vessel entering the Great Lakes has a maritime pilot on board. It does not make sense to underfund a pilotage system which is crucial to the largest freshwater body in the world, yet the Coast Guard failed to complete a permanent, full rate adjustment at all last year. At the end of last year, the Coast Guard finally did issue an interim rule which provided only a partial rate adjustment.

In a letter I received from the Commandant earlier this year, I was advised that a supplemental rule scheduled to be published in February was going to be delayed until May.

Mr. Speaker, Members, you might further understand my utter disbelief and complete frustration that a supplemental rule is still not out yet, and there are signs now it will not be out until October and maybe later.

Remember, the supplemental rule will not change the rate. It will just trigger another round of public comment.

Every day that goes by is another day that pilots are not getting the pay that they not only deserve but are entitled to. This is contrary to the Coast Guard's promise of last year to adjust the current pilot system funded at 1997 levels. This is particularly disturbing because the Coast Guard regulations require rates to be reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis. Setting rates to 1997 levels will inevitably result in the fraying of the Great Lakes pilotage system.

Foreign shipping companies and their agents in the United States have urged the Coast Guard to delay and reduce the proposed rate increase. This is not surprising because foreign shipping companies have an economic interest in reducing these rates, which they pay. However, it is the Coast Guard that by law bears the responsibility for ensuring that rate reviews and adjustments are completed in a timely manner and reflect the formula set out in detail in the agency's own regulations. It is simply not acceptable for the Coast Guard to have repeatedly missed its own deadlines of a rate adjustment. Such delays will only continue to subject the Coast Guard to the charge that it is placing the economic interests of foreign shipping companies ahead of the environmental protection and marine safety of the Great Lakes.

It is unbelievable to me that it is actually possible that another shipping season will come and go without a permanent adjustment. After having written five letters in the last year requesting a prompt establishment of a permanent Great Lakes maritime pilotage rate, that is five times we have written, enough is enough; and I believe we need to call on GAO to investigate this issue.

Again, I exhort the Coast Guard to follow its own rules and implement a full pilotage rate adjustment on the Great Lakes now. The pilots in my congressional district bordering Lakes Michigan, Superior, and Huron as well as pilots throughout the Great Lakes have waited long enough for the Coast Guard's empty promise to come to fruition.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I thank the ranking member, and I think the chairman for his help and support.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 730, I call up the conference report on 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard Authorization and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.

This conference report is the result of a very bipartisan effort. I notice this is a word being used often today on this floor, but I want to compliment especially the committee I serve on. It was worked out with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the ranking members from the full committee and the subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and all of the conferees; and it deserves the support of all Members.

As this body's only licensed mariner and elected Member for all of Alaska, I am extremely interested in making sure the Coast Guard has the tools necessary to carry out its many varied missions. This bill gives the Coast Guard the resources and authorities necessary to protect the safety and security of lives and property on U.S. waters.

H.R. 2443 authorizes $8.2 billion to support activities of the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2005 and includes a number of provisions which will result in a safer, more effective system of maritime transportation.

My State of Alaska contains nearly one-third of the Nation's exclusive economic zone, the Nation's largest fishery, and significant cruise ship and oil tanker traffic. Therefore, I am concerned about the ability of the Coast Guard to carry out its traditional search, fisheries law enforcement, and vessel inspection missions.

Mr. Speaker, all of us recognize the exceptional work performed by the Coast Guard, often under dangerous conditions and circumstances. I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. John Rayfield and Mr. Mark Zachares for their hard work, and thank the staff on both the Senate and House side. The staff has worked very hard to ensure this has been done correctly.

Again, may I stress, I hope we can do the same thing on the highway bill as we have done on this bill, and through a bipartisan effort, achieve our goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. I was unaware of this problem. I do appreciate his suggestions. We will look into it.

Concerning the previous conversation, in this legislation there is a provision in the bill to tell the Coast Guard to get off their you- know-what and get busy and finish that problem that the gentleman from Michigan was talking about, and we are going to take care of that.

With respect to the gentleman from Ohio's issue, I now will be contacting the pilots association to find out what is the problem. I was reading with dismay the amount of delays that did occur because there were no pilots available. I cannot quite understand that myself because these are fine-paying jobs; and very honestly, the revenue is quite attractive. I am anticipating my career, and I am really shocked. Maybe there is a place for me, after all, if I get out of this position. I will be working with the gentleman very closely to see if we can do it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my debate time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and, pending that, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be permitted to control the time.