Expressing support for Teen Read Week.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Always Ready. That's the motto of the United States Coast Guard. Since its establishment in 1790 by Alexander Hamilton, the Coast Guard is the only branch in our military that is always deployed.

As part of the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is tasked with maritime law enforcement, search and rescue for those in peril at sea, patrolling and protecting our ports, harbors and sea borders, marine environmental protection, helping manage offshore spills, facilitating maritime navigation and commerce, and so much more. In times of war, the Coast Guard also deploys with other service branches overseas.

The underlying legislation, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, being brought to the floor today authorizes approximately $10 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010. It increases the authorized end-strength by 1,500 members to a total of 47,000 personnel. The legislation also authorizes additional Coast Guard maritime security response teams to assist in detecting explosives and drug interdiction.

The Coast Guard is currently undergoing the largest single acquisition program in its history in order to upgrade and modernize its surface and air assets. The program currently known as Deepwater includes 91 new cutters, 124 new small boats, and 247 new or modernized airplanes, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

According to the most recent acquisition program baseline, the Deepwater acquisitions are projected to cost $24 billion and take 25 years to complete. The underlying legislation includes $1.2 billion for acquisition of new vessels, aircraft and support systems under the Deepwater program for 2010.

The legislation also requires the Coast Guard to be responsible for the enforcement of any Federal security zone established around terminals and around tankers transporting ``especially hazardous materials.'' The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Coast Guard, to conduct a pilot program in the maritime environment for the mobile biometric identification of suspected individuals to enhance our border security.

The legislation establishes a pilot program to test and deploy preventative radiological or nuclear detection equipment on Coast Guard vessels and fixed locations in port areas. It establishes a congressional nomination system for admission to the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. That process is similar to those already in place for the other service academies. Mr. Speaker, in south Florida we are all admirers of the Coast Guard. We see it day in and day out save lives and help citizens.

While I support this important underlying legislation, I oppose the rule by which it is being brought to the floor. The last time that a Coast Guard authorization bill was enacted into law, the Republican majority at the time brought the legislation to the floor with a rule that allowed consideration of the bill under a modified open process, a modified open rule. That type of rule allows any Member of the House to offer any amendments to the legislation without having to receive the approval of the Rules Committee as long as the amendment is preprinted in the Congressional Record. That's why it is known as a modified open rule; any amendment can be brought forward, but you have to preprint it.

Even though we historically considered this bill under a modified open rule, today the majority has brought that precedent to an end. It has decided that that precedent should be disregarded and that the right of Members to offer amendments should be restricted. Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, we in the minority asked for the traditional modified open rule, and yet the majority voted it down on a party-line vote. I thought that was somewhat ironic. The last time the House considered this legislation under the traditional modified open rule, we were criticized for offering a modified open rule. That was called restrictive. Well, now we have again--unnecessarily and breaking with precedent--a structured rule; in other words, only those amendments made in order can be considered.

So here we are, Mr. Speaker, yet again with another example of how the current majority restricts, unnecessarily and unfortunately, the procedural rights of all Members of this body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my friend, Ms. Matsui, that when she says the amendments that were asked to be made in order before the Rules Committee were made in order, yes, that's correct. The tradition, as I pointed out earlier, of this House for many decades with regard to this legislation--especially since it's legislation that enjoys such widespread and bipartisan support--the tradition is that Members didn't have to go and beg the Rules Committee for authorization to have their amendments debated if they simply preprinted those amendments in the Congressional Record. That was another important tradition in this House that has been violated unnecessarily, that has been reversed, ended unnecessarily by the new majority. That's what I pointed out.

I would like to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey, the ranking member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Taylor brought out a very relevant and important example of why it was appropriate and important to follow what has been a decades-long tradition of allowing all Members with amendments to introduce them for consideration by the entire House simply by preprinting them in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Taylor should not have had to go to the Rules Committee and wait, and then ask, request, permission to have his amendment considered. In addition to having to wait and then ask for permission, he was denied permission to have his amendment considered, which is an important amendment.

He explained it in detail before the Rules Committee. In representation of his constituents and having developed an expertise throughout many years of service here, he communicated with the Coast Guard and basically came to an agreement on interpreting existing law, law that was passed before we entered into GATT and the international commitments that were referenced by my dear friend Ms. Matsui. Existing law before those commitments is what Mr. Taylor is trying to refine, to technically make clear, in pursuance of the interests of his constituents and our Nation.

That idea should have been able to be debated. His proposal should be able to be debated and considered by the entire House. It is another example, and a concrete example, an important example, of why I believe it is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, to limit the procedural rights of the Members of this House.

I thank my friend Ms. Matsui for her courtesy, and all of those who have participated in this debate. I want to point out, and then I will reserve our time again--I believe you have more speakers--that when I refer to the breaking of tradition by the majority, in this instance the reversal of the tradition that allowed for Members to preprint their amendments and have them considered by the entire House, when we maintained that tradition, when we followed that tradition that is now reversed, we were criticized for not allowing in this instance a fully open rule, again because we maintained the tradition of the preprinting requirement known as the modified open rule, and we were criticized by the then-minority. And they promised, Mr. Speaker, to open the process further, to improve the process, to make it more transparent.

Well, that was another promise broken, because instead of improving, making more transparent the process that we were criticized for, instead of improving that process, they have further closed it. It is unfortunate.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my friend, Ms. Matsui, for her courtesy during this debate with regard to this important underlying legislation that's being brought to the floor. I also thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, as well as Chairman Cummings and Ranking Member LoBiondo.

I'd like to, before proceeding, yield 5 minutes to my friend from Miami, Florida, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

No, and I will wrap up my remarks shortly.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my friend, Ms. Matsui.

Over the past few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress, or they've made their opinions known at town hall meetings, asking their Congress Members whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people were outraged finding out that the majority has forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and often very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or even to read them. For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill; or on the cap-and-trade bill, that one we were provided at 3 in the morning, and then a few hours later it was here on the floor. In some instances, much less than 24 hours.

That's no way to run this House. Our constituents are rightly upset. I think they should be. The distinguished Speaker said, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site. Yet time and again, the distinguished Speaker and the majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge.

That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members and the general public for 72 hours before being brought to the House floor for a vote.

So that's why today I'll be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 554, a bipartisan bill by my friends and colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson.

Now, Members may be concerned that this motion would jeopardize the Coast Guard reauthorization bill, but I want to make clear the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can vote on the Coast Guard bill, and then once we're done, consider H. Res. 554.

I would ask, thus, Mr. Speaker, for the previous question to be defeated.

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

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of

this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention

of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the

consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the

Rules of the House of Representatives to require that

legislation and conference reports be available on the

Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and

for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) One hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the

Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative

day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order

without intervention of any point of order or demand for

division of the question, shall be considered as read and

shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain

instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of House Resolution 554.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 853 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 853 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Homeland Security Committee.

The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee shall be considered as adopted and shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment. The rule makes in order the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution and waives all points of order against all amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order 13 amendments, including all six of the Republican amendments that were submitted for consideration. In the case of sundry amendments reported by the committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the house en gros and without division of the question. The Chair may not entertain a motion to rise unless offered by the Chair of the Committee on Transportation or his designee and may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting clause.

I want to thank both Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Thompson for the good work their committees have done on this bill. Thanks to these two committees, we are here today to strengthen the Coast Guard's ability to implement its responsibilities. It is critical that the Coast Guard has the necessary funds, resources, and personnel to carry out the missions we need it to conduct.

H.R. 3619 increases the authorized end strength for military personnel in the Coast Guard by 1,500 to a total of 47,000 personnel. It will also permanently increase to 6,700 the allowable number of officers in the service.

The legislation also establishes marine safety as a core mission of the Coast Guard. It responds directly to the many shortcomings in Coast Guard acquisition efforts that the committee has examined over the last several years. For example, it prohibits the Coast Guard's use of a private sector lead system integrator, requires the Coast Guard to develop life-cycle cost estimates and prohibits contractor self- certification.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 will strengthen our Nation's Coast Guard by making important investments and key changes now, the benefits of which we will see for years to come.

This bill also includes legislation that I offered earlier this year, and I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings for including this important language in this bill. There is an urgent need for the reforms I've outlined in the Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act. For far too long, American families have unknowingly been at risk.

Currently, cruise ships operate under foreign flags of convenience and are not required under U.S. law to report crimes occurring outside of our territorial waters. Leaving our territorial waters does not mean that cruise ships should be allowed to operate without basic laws that protect American citizens.

My legislation requires that all crimes that occur aboard cruise ships be reported to the Coast Guard and to the FBI. Without proper screening processes and accountability, these

reprehensible and violent acts will be allowed to continue.

Under the status quo, criminals are left unpunished, and victims are left to fend for themselves. Unclear lines of jurisdiction are no longer an excuse for risking the safety of the millions of Americans who board cruise ships each year.

I first became aware of the need for increased protections for Americans when one of my constituents, Laurie Dishman, wrote to me for help in April of 2006. Laurie was the victim of a sexual assault while on a cruise vacation. She was given no assistance by the cruise line in properly securing evidence of the assault; no assistance in identifying her attacker, who was an employee of the cruise ship; and no assistance in prosecuting the crime once back on shore. Devastated, Laurie reached out to me.

I immediately called for hearings on this issue and began to work on the legislation that is now a part of this Coast Guard authorization bill. The congressional hearings, chaired by Chairman Cummings, made apparent the gross inadequacies of current cruise safety provisions. Because of these hearings, it was discovered there has not been a single conviction of an accused rape on a cruise ship in recent history.

With ongoing news coverage of recent rapes on cruise ships, it is clear that legislation is both urgent and necessary. Many of my colleagues have come to me with similar stories of constituents who have gone missing, been sexually attacked, or gone days, weeks or years without getting resolution. My legislation establishes stringent new standards to ensure the safety and security of passengers on cruise vessels.

Its reforms include requiring that vessel personnel be able to preserve evidence of crimes committed on the vessels and provide appropriate medical treatment to the victims of sexual assaults. Security, safety and accountability must all be strengthened to hold criminals accountable and end the cycle of serious crimes on cruise ships.

As this crucial legislation moves forward, it serves as proof to the victims of cruise crimes that progress is being made towards ensuring the safety of all Americans abroad. Laurie Dishman is here today to witness her cause move forward, and I want to thank her for her extraordinary courage and leadership.

This has been a long, difficult road for all cruise victims and their families. These reforms are truly commonsense and are even supported now by the Cruise Line Industry Association. That is why this measure is a victory in the fight for cruise passenger rights.

In much the same way, the Coast Guard Authorization Act is a major victory for people across our country who depend on the Coast Guard to keep their families safe.

Passage of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 will allow many important reforms to be enacted and will help protect Americans across the Nation.

Coast Guard authorization is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I just want to say there were only six amendments to the bill submitted to the Rules Committee from the minority side of the aisle, and all six were made in order under this rule. It doesn't get more bipartisan than that.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just want to say that many of us on the Democratic side are sympathetic to the amendment offered by my colleague from Mississippi. We all think that we should build critical national security assets here at home in the United States.

However, there are also some concerns about whether the Taylor amendment would have exposed our country to reprisals at the WTO. Trade issues are very delicate right now with the world economy struggling so much. We should deal with the issues brought up by Mr. Taylor, but we should do so at a time when we are certain that we do not do more harm to our economy than good.

These issues certainly deserve more discussion and attention. My colleagues and I look forward to working with Mr. Taylor to address this very, very important topic.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment before I yield.

This legislation before us today is bipartisan and widely supported. It was reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by voice vote. During that bipartisan markup process, only two amendments were offered, and both were adopted by voice vote. The working relationship between Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica is well known because they work together, and that is what we're trying to do today. Today's rule is structured the way it is so to continue this tradition of working issues out before they become political in nature.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any remaining speakers.

I have no speakers on my side. I'm prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

The rule before us today is a fair rule that includes a bipartisan group of Democratic and Republican amendments. All of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee are made in order by this rule. Furthermore, the underlying legislation strengthens and reforms a key component of our Nation's security forces.

Coast Guard authorization has been long in coming. That delay has meant inadequate authorization levels for ever-increasing demand. One of the good things this bill would do is encourage a larger, more educated merchant marine workforce by establishing a maritime career recruitment training and loan program. It will modernize the Coast Guard by reorganizing senior leadership and by establishing a firm foundation for a robust marine safety program. U.S. cruise ship passengers will also receive enhanced safety and security protections thanks to this legislation.

In total, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 will strengthen our Nation's Coast Guard and our national security for years to come.

I urge passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my remarks.

On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, I was in Long Beach, California hosting Deputy Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari and Maritime Administrator David T. Matsuda at an important national transportation conference held in my district.

On Thursday, October 22, and Friday, October 23, I was in American Samoa and Samoa monitoring the ongoing relief and recovery efforts of FEMA and others currently underway in response to the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck those islands on September 29. As the Member of Congress with the nation's largest concentration of Samoan Americans on the mainland and as a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, undertaking this fact-finding mission was directly related to my representational, legislative, and committee responsibilities.

Because of these excused absences I was unable to return in time for rollcall votes 793 through 813.

Had I been present I would have voted as follows:

1. On rollcall No. 793, I would have voted ``aye.'' S. 1793. Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009.

2. On rollcall No. 794, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 811. Expressing support for designation of October 2009 as ``National Principals Month.''

On rollcall No. 795, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 837. Recognizing Kentucky Wesleyan College for their service as an institution of higher education for over 150 years.

On rollcall No. 796, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 660. Recognizing the distinguished history of the Laurinburg Normal Industrial Institute.

On rollcall No. 797, I would have voted ``aye.'' S. Con. Res. 43. Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to former Senator Edward Brooke.

On rollcall No. 798, I would have voted ``aye.'' Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 3585--Solar Technology Roadmap Act of 2010 (H. Res. 846).

On rollcall No. 799, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 846. Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3585--Solar Technology Roadmap Act of 2010.

On rollcall No. 800, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 797. Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of cyber security in the United States, and supporting the goals and ideals of the sixth annual National Cyber Security Awareness Month (Representative Clarke--Science and Technology).

On rollcall No. 801, I would have voted ``no.'' Broun (GA) amendment. Changes the number of years for which the Committee is authorized from five to three; reduces to $250,000,000 the amount authorized in each of the three years, from 2011 to 2013.

On rollcall No. 802, I would have voted ``aye.'' Kaptur (OH) amendment. Requires the Roadmap Committee to provide recommendations to strengthen the use of research and development strategies in making domestic industry more competitive and to assist in the commercialization of solar technologies.

On rollcall No. 803, I would have voted ``aye.'' Klein (FL) amendment. Includes research on solar energy storage technology as eligible for funding under the Secretary of Energy's research and development program.

On rollcall No. 804, I would have voted ``aye.'' Titus (NV)/Teague (NM)/Cohen (TN) amendment. Includes the development of solar technology products that are water efficient as a focus of the bill.

On rollcall No. 805, I would have voted ``aye.'' Heinrich (NM) amendment. Requires the Solar Technology Roadmap Committee to release a draft Roadmap to the public at least one month prior to publication in order to receive public input.

On rollcall No. 806, I would have voted ``aye.'' Himes (CT) amendment. Clarifies that solar thermal technologies and concentrating solar photovoltaic technologies will be included within the scope of the research and development program authorized by the bill.

On rollcall No. 807, I would have voted ``aye.'' Final Passage of H.R. 3585. Solar Technology Roadmap Act of 2010.

On rollcall No. 808, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 175. Condemning the Government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights.

On rollcall No. 809, I would have voted ``aye.'' Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 3619--Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H. Res. 853).

On rollcall No. 810, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 853. Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3619--Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.

On rollcall No. 811, I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 836. Expressing support for Teen Read Week.

On rollcall No. 812, I would have voted ``aye.'' Kratovil (MD) amendment. Requires the Coast Guard to study the facility infrastructure requirements needed to fulfill the Coast Guard's missions and capabilities, and ensure that the department in which the Coast Guard is operating maintains the ability to utilize the latest technologies.

On rollcall No. 813, I would have voted ``aye.'' Final Passage of H.R. 3619. Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart).

I would like to start off by thanking Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. Cummings for their bipartisan effort to look at all the serious issues that are involved with this legislation and to bring together a pretty good product. But I am disappointed, as Mr. Diaz-Balart is, because the traditions of this very bipartisan committee have been changed with the basis of the rule being closed. And while I understand and am appreciative that Republican amendments were made in order, I think that it is sad that such a long tradition--when the Republicans were in the majority, it was either an open or a modified open rule. It is almost a little bit amusing, but more sad than amusing that Republicans were criticized for even having a modified open rule just with a preprint requirement, and now there is no open rule at all.

I am going to support the bill. I have a few considerations that we will be talking about when the amendments come up. But once again, I am disappointed with the rule.

I do want to talk about one of the amendments that we will be talking about tomorrow--I think it is very timely--on the issue of piracy and how we deal with piracy, because just today there were two pirate attacks. Now, fortunately they were not on U.S. flag vessels. One, I believe, was on a Panamanian vessel--we think it was a cargo ship-- where there were 26 hostages taken. The other attack was on an Italian ship. Fortunately, my understanding is that a Belgium warship was nearby and was able to aid and assist the Italians in thwarting the pirates. But this only brings to light the serious nature--and we can all recall with horror when pirates took a U.S. flag vessel. If it were not for the heroics of the captain, the crew, and a Navy SEAL team, we could have had a devastating consequence. Because of that pirate attack on a U.S. flag vessel, our committee--again, in a very bipartisan way, with Mr. Mica, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Cummings--looked at what we could do. We all believed that the best answer to this would be for Coast Guard or Navy personnel to be on U.S. flag ships, but we understand the reality that that's not going to happen. So we entered into a bipartisan agreement, which was in the underlying bill before someone on the majority--and I think from the Judiciary Committee--got involved with this issue. The underlying bipartisan agreement basically said that if attacked by a pirate ship, a U.S. flag vessel crew member could take action to defend the crew, could defend who was on the ship against the pirates and not be held liable; a commonsense approach. The Judiciary language complicates it and makes it almost impossible. It puts a crew member in an incredibly difficult situation to determine the legal entanglements in his own mind as he's being fired upon with an automatic weapon or a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. If you think about the intensity of the moment, this is an attack on America. An attack on a U.S. flag vessel is an attack on the America. Why wouldn't we let the crew member have the opportunity to defend U.S. interests without liability?

I think a bipartisan approach that was reached was exactly what this House is all about in understanding U.S. interests and what's best for the United States of America. The amendment tomorrow will deal with this further when the whole body will have an opportunity to listen to this debate and to make up their own minds whether it's going to be right to put a crew member in that impossible situation of having to decide, through the legal entanglement of a series of checkmarks in his own mind as they're coming under attack, whether to protect the crew and the ship.

Once again, I thank my colleagues who have worked on this bill. I am disappointed with the rule. I will be voting against the rule, but I will be supporting the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule in support of H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. I'd like to thank my colleague from Minnesota, Chairman Oberstar, and his staff for their hard work on this bill.

Michigan's First Congressional District borders three of the five Great Lakes and contains 1,613 miles of shoreline, more than any other congressional district in the continental United States. The Coast Guard is not only the largest military resource in the area and a key defender of the Great Lakes, but is also of utmost importance to securing commerce routes and assisting the navigation.

I'd like to address a few provisions in the bill. First, the bill recognizes the need for a Coast Guard presence on the Great Lakes by authorizing $153 million for a new Great Lakes icebreaker. During the winter months, 17 million tons of commerce moves through the Great Lakes, and icebreakers play an important role in keeping our channels open.

Ice-breaking capacity on the Great Lakes has dropped dramatically over the past few years. The Coast Guard Cutter Acacia, stationed in Charlevoix, Michigan, was decommissioned on June 7, 2006, after 60 years of service. The Canadian Government also recently decommissioned two of its icebreakers on the Great Lakes without replacing them. Without a sufficient cutter presence, the island communities, businesses, and individuals that rely on the Great Lakes shipping are put at risk. It's critical that Congress provide the funding for a new Coast Guard cutter and ensure the Coast Guard can meet its operational responsibility on the Great Lakes.

Secondly, I appreciate that section 1323 of the bill includes the authority to transfer the old Coast Guard facility and surrounding acres in Marquette, Michigan, to the city. In 2008, the city of Marquette sold 1.5 acres of Lake Superior waterfront property to the Coast Guard for $1 to construct a new facility. The city also committed $170,000 to reroute bike trails, make roadway improvements, and make infrastructure improvements in order to prepare the property for a new Coast Guard facility. In exchange, an agreement was reached between the city and the Coast Guard to transfer land that was then occupied by the Coast Guard to the city upon completion of the new facility. In August 2009, the Coast Guard

moved into a new facility. As such, remediation of the old parcel should be done by the Coast Guard without delay; however, remediation is not scheduled until fiscal year 2013. I hope the chairman and the Coast Guard will work with me and the city of Marquette to see that remediation is completed in a more timely manner. The city generously lived up to its end of the deal and we must ensure the Coast Guard does the same.

I also appreciate the inclusion of a provision that would facilitate a land transfer between the Coast Guard to the Cornerstone Christian Academy in Cheboygan, Michigan, of six acres of property the Coast Guard deems as excess property. This land is supported by the Coast Guard, the academy, and the Cheboygan community.

Finally, I appreciate Chairman Oberstar's past support for inclusion of a provision in the 2008 Coast Guard reauthorization bill to return a historic Fresnel lens to the Presque Isle Lighthouse station in Presque Isle, Michigan. I know the Coast Guard reauthorization bill passed by the Senate committee includes this language, and I hope the chairman will work with me on the issue as the bill goes forward. I hope an agreement can once again be reached on this matter.

Again, I thank the chairman for his work on crafting this bill. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I look forward to continuing to work with everyone on the Coast Guard issues.