Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3619) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 4 minutes in strong support of H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, the annual authorization for the Coast Guard, which we have several times passed in the House, but which the other body has not acted upon.

It's unfortunate that the Coast Guard has gone so many years without a formal authorization bill. The appropriation committees, which I applaud, in both previous Republican management and the past 2 years under Democratic leadership, the appropriation committees have continued authority for Coast Guard programs and provided funding to previously established levels. But the Coast Guard needs the legislative framework. It needs the policy framework that we provide in the authorizing legislation.

We have passed essentially this bill in the 110th Congress. We are now going to do it again, I am quite confident. We have wonderful bipartisan support, and I am very earnestly hoping and working, talking to our colleagues in the other body, to get their action so we can send this bill to the President for his signature.

And to that end, I express my very great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) who is the senior Republican on the committee and who has been a partner in working, not only this legislation, but many, many other bills that we have brought through committee to the House floor and through to signature by the President, including even an occasion where we had to override a Presidential veto.

I express great appreciation to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) who has taken on the responsibility of chairing the Coast Guard Subcommittee. The gentleman has applied himself diligently and vigorously to understand the workings of the Coast Guard, the issues of their mission, the needs of the various Coast Guard districts and of headquarters and has spent enormous amounts of time in chairing subcommittee hearings on the needs and issues of the Coast Guard and those maritime activities that depend upon or are regulated by the Coast Guard.

And I express appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), who in a previous Congress has chaired this subcommittee and was fair-minded, evenhanded and very diligent and has been a splendid partner in shaping the bill that we bring to the House, to the Committee of the Whole, today.

Our bill authorizes $10 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal 2010. It will increase the total end strength of the Coast Guard by 1,500 service personnel to a level of 47,000. Now that, I just have to point out, that compares to 39,000 authorized personnel in 1975, my first year in Congress, my first year in which I also served on the then- Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and on the Coast Guard Subcommittee. But since that time, Congress has added 27 new missions and responsibilities for the Coast Guard without substantially increasing the personnel or the funding for the Coast Guard to carry out those missions.

Now, the men and women who wear that unique color of blue uniform have prided themselves on being a multi-mission agency, and they have prided themselves on being able to carry out all these many responsibilities. But they are working shorthanded, they are working underfunded and they need this authorization bill, and they need this increased service personnel strength that we provide in the bill before us.

We authorized $153 million for the design and construction of a new replacement icebreaker for the Great Lakes.

I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

Last year, we had the situation where ships were moving in the upper lake, Lake Superior, and through the Sioux Locks beset with heavy ice cover, while the icebreaker Mackinaw was in the lower lakes on icebreaking mission. The Coast Guard has been provided funding for and have operated harbor icebreakers. Well, fine, they can operate in the harbor, they can move slush ice around, but they can't break the big ice. And when our iron ore needs to move from the upper lake to the lower lakes steel mills, it's got to get through that heavy ice. And we need an icebreaker on duty in both the upper lake and the lower lakes. And this legislation will provide funding for a second major Mackinaw- class icebreaker.

Last year, U.S.-flag vessels that were moving coal, critical for lower lakes power plants, coal that comes all the way by train from the Powder River Basin to the lake head of Duluth-Superior, those ships and our iron ore vessels sustained one plus--1\1/2\ to a larger million dollars in damages to hulls because of a decreased icebreaking capability of the Coast Guard. Five of the Coast Guard's smaller size, 1,200-horsepower capability vessels are at the end of their service life. We need a Mackinaw-class vessel on the Great Lakes in addition to the one that is now operating.

We, in this bill, respond to the many shortcomings in Coast Guard acquisition efforts over the past several years and require the Coast Guard to develop lifecycle cost estimates for assets that will cost more than $10 million, have a service life of at least 10 years, will prohibit contractors self-certification, an issue that arose in a 10- hour hearing Chairman Cummings conducted, Mr. LoBiondo was a part of this hearing.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

We went until late in the night to address this extraordinary failure of arm's length contractual relationship between the Coast Guard and its contractors. So the legislation takes the lessons learned in that intensive hearing and months-long investigation to establish the appointment of a chief acquisition officer as a qualified acquisition professional.

We held a hearing on mariner education and workforce in the Coast Guard Subcommittee, and we heard concerns that there will be a shortage of qualified and experienced personnel as the Coast Guard oversees expansion of industry import and export activities over the next decade. We will establish a recruitment and training and loan program so that we'll be able to establish a robust labor pool in the maritime industry.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

There are a number of other items in this bill that Mr. Cummings will further detail in his remarks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Certainly. The gentleman has the time.

The gentleman has correctly stated the intention of the provision, that the delegation can be made to a foreign classification society if the government of the foreign country in which the foreign society is headquartered delegates the authority to the ABS, or if the Secretary enters into agreement with that foreign government to provide for reciprocal treatment of ABS.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention and for his advocacy for this issue.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

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

May I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

I thank the Chair.

I yield myself 10 seconds to thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

I like the slogan, ``It's good for the Coast Guard and it's good for the country.'' I think that's all we need to say about this bill.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Madam Chairman, we have only one speaker left, which is myself. Does the gentleman from New Jersey have any time remaining?

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

I want to assure the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Michigan that the issue of ballast water will be dealt with. We are proceeding already. We have had staff-level discussions with both the Coast Guard Subcommittee staff and the Water Resources staff on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Madam Chairman.

And I believe we can reach an agreement on setting a strong national standard and language that will establish that standard to override States' individual standards, as we have discussed in our several meetings, and I'm hopeful that we'll be able to do that within the month and bring that bill through committee to the floor on suspension if the product is acceptable on both sides of the aisle, and I'm confident we'll get there.

I'd consume the balance of my time to emphasize just a couple of points. One, which the gentleman from Maryland has already addressed, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, and that is diversity in the Coast Guard. It was a shock to me to see the appallingly low level of minority participation in the Coast Guard Academy and at the officer level within the Coast Guard.

I visited the Coast Guard Academy. I had lunch with the Commandant and with the head of the academic program and with a very, very astute, learned, talented young woman, African American cadet. But she was also not only distinguished by her caliber of academic performance and Coast Guard career performance, but she was practically the only one. And we have to change that. And we have included language inspired by Mr. Cummings to give Members of Congress the same authority in nominating candidates for the Coast Guard as we do for the other service academies. I think that will make a major step toward diversifying the Coast Guard and reflecting America in all of its variations.

We also reorganize the senior leadership and overall structure of the Coast Guard. We spent a great deal of time in negotiations with the Commandant. I admire Commandant Allen. He's done a superb job for the Coast Guard. He resurrected FEMA during Katrina and put that agency back on a stable footing, and he, too, wants to restructure the Coast Guard.

Madam Chairman, I will include in the Record the balance of my remarks.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3619, the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010''. This is the annual authorization for the Coast Guard and is largely based on H.R. 2830, which passed the House on April 24, 2008. Unfortunately, the budget

for the Coast Guard was last authorized in 2006. It is time for us to work together to ensure this Service gets what it needs to serve the American people.

I applaud Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Chairman Cummings for his extensive oversight and support of the Coast Guard. Through his leadership, H.R. 3619 is a comprehensive bill that will enable the Coast Guard to carry out the Service's many missions with additional funding, new resources, and increased training standards. In addition, the safety provisions included in H.R. 3619 will reduce marine casualties and loss of life.

H.R. 3619 authorizes $10 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010 and increases the Service's total end strength by an additional 1,500 service members to a total of 47,000 personnel.

H.R. 3619 also authorizes $153 million for the design and construction of a new replacement icebreaker for the Great Lakes. Last year, U.S.-flagged ships operating on the Great Lakes sustained $1.3 million in damages to their hulls due to the Coast Guard's decreased ice breaking capabilities. Five of the Service's Great Lakes ice breakers are nearing the end of their service life.

H.R. 3619 responds directly to the many shortcomings in Coast Guard acquisition efforts, developed over the last couple of years. It also requires the Coast Guard to develop life-cycle cost estimates for assets that are expected to cost more than $10 million and to have a service life of at least 10 years. It prohibits contractor self- certification and requires the appointment of a Chief Acquisition Officer who is a qualified acquisition professional.

In 2007, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime held a hearing on Mariner Education and Workforce. Industry personnel expressed concern that, as the nation's volume of imports and exports increase over the next 10 years, there will be a shortage of qualified and experienced personnel. H.R. 3619 authorizes $10 million for the Secretary of Transportation to establish a maritime career recruitment, training and loan program to ensure a robust labor pool in the maritime industry.

H.R. 3619 also authorizes the Coast Guard to implement a reorganization of its senior leadership and overall structure. The Vice Commandant is promoted to full Admiral, and the Coast Guard's previous Atlantic and Pacific Area Commanders and Chief of Staff positions are eliminated. These positions will be replaced with four three-star positions, including: the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support; Deputy Commandant for Operations; Commander of Force Readiness Command; and Commander of Operations.

In August 2007, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the challenges facing the Coast Guard's marine safety program. H.R. 3619 will alleviate the concerns of industry and Congress that the Coast Guard's marine inspectors have diminished technical expertise and that the Coast Guard has overall lost its focus on marine safety in response to its increased security responsibilities since September 11, 2001. H.R. 3619 establishes marine safety as a core mission of the Coast Guard. It sets minimum qualifications and training standards for personnel within the marine safety workforce to ensure that marine inspectors are technical experts, and have an established career path to succeed in the Coast Guard.

Commercial fishing has a high rate of injuries and death, and is noted as one of the most dangerous jobs in the United States. From 1994 to 2004, more than 641 fishermen lost their lives and approximately 1,400 fishing vessels were lost. H.R. 3619 requires training for fishing vessel operators, and enhances and clarifies the equipment requirements for these commercial fishing vessels.

H.R. 3619 also enhances the safety and security of cruise vessel passengers. Currently, there are no Federal statutes that explicitly require foreign-flagged cruise vessels to report alleged crimes to U.S. government officials, with the exception of foreign-flagged vessels operating in areas subject to the direct jurisdiction of the United States. For cruise vessels to which H.R. 3619 applies, owners will be required to keep a log book of certain crimes and theft of property valuing more than $1000, and will have to make that information readily accessible to law enforcement personnel. Owners will be required to modify the design and construction standards of applicable cruise vessels to increase the length of their railings to help prevent passengers from falling overboard. Also, vessel owners will be required to provide appropriate medical treatment to the victims of sexual assaults.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3619.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, October 20, 2009.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you regarding H.R.3619, the

``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010,'' introduced on

September 22, 2009. This legislation was initially referred

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and

sequentially referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

on October 16, 2009.

In the interest of permitting this important legislation to

proceed expeditiously to floor consideration, I have waived

further consideration of H.R. 3619. I have done so with the

understanding that waiving consideration of the bill should

not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security

waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting its jurisdiction

over subject matters contained in the bill which fall within

its Rule X jurisdiction.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of

Homeland Security conferees during any House-Senate

conference convened on this or similar legislation. I also

ask that a copy of this letter and your response be placed in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of this

bill.

I look forward to working with you on this legislation and

other matters of great importance to this nation.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I ran out of time under our allocation to express my great appreciation to the chairman for the splendid cooperation we've had, one-on-one and staff-to-staff, in fashioning those portions of the bill that come under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee. It's been a pleasure working with the chairman and his staff and to get this language fashioned, and appreciate the splendid cooperation that we've had. I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment makes a number of improvements to the bill, some of which have been already alluded to by other speakers this evening.

First, we improve the enforcement of Coast Guard-imposed security zones around hazardous materials terminals and tankers. The Coast Guard will be required to coordinate, to be responsible for enforcing Federal security zones established by the Coast Guard around vessels containing certain dangerous cargo.

It specifies that the Coast Guard may not approve of a facility security plan for a new facility built after date of enactment of the act that will receive or ship certain dangerous cargo unless there are sufficient resources available to ensure compliance of the facility security plant.

It establishes an alternative licensing program for operators of uninspected passenger vessels on Lake Texoma. The States of Oklahoma and Texas bisect this lake, and there has been a great concern because of the long distance of this lake from the nearest Coast Guard facility and concerns of boaters on both sides of the border, and they have expressed those concerns to me, to the Republican members of the committee, and to Mr. Cummings.

So what we have provided for in this amendment is an authorization for the Coast Guard upon the request of the Governor of the State of Texas or the Governor of the State of Oklahoma to enter into an agreement with the requesting State in which that State will license operators of uninspected passenger vessels operating on Lake Texoma in lieu of the Coast Guard if the State's plan meets the equivalent standards of environmental protection.

The State's plan must provide equivalent safety to a Coast Guard- issued license and include drug testing, criminal background checks, and physical standards for operators. It must also provide for the suspension and revocation of State licenses for negligent operation of the vessel and safety standards.

I want to be very clear about the provisions. I think it's very important; but this is, I think, a very beneficial agreement that we've reached to resolve the concerns of parties on both sides of the border of Lake Texoma.

We authorize delegation of authority by the Coast Guard to classification societies and have already had an ample discussion of that matter with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

We require the Coast Guard to conduct a study on the combination of facial and iris recognition for a nonintrusive collection of biometrics to assist the Coast Guard in its homeland security mission. We've had some discussion already of that aspect of the manager's amendment. I won't elaborate further.

We require the Government Accountability Office to investigate and report on the Coast Guard's efforts to recruit minority candidates to the Coast Guard's academy. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has discussed this, and I alluded to it in my general remarks. But we also want that assessment to include a report on geographic diversity at the academy and recommendations for increasing geographic diversity as well as minority diversity.

And we establish a process in this amendment for access to secure areas for individuals with a pending application for a transportation security card, which the gentleman from California has adequately discussed, and a uniform national standard for background checks for transportation security cards, which also has previously been discussed.

That is the sum of the manager's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time remains on our side?

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chairman of the subcommittee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume to acknowledge the concerns raised by the gentleman from New Jersey. They are proper and properly expressed.

Madam Chair, on the piracy issue, we had reached an agreement in committee, which I thought was done in a fair and equitable way, but there are other committees that have pieces of jurisdiction over this bill, and other concerns were expressed and accommodated. However, I continue to believe that the gentleman had the right approach. Mr. Cummings, Mr. LoBiondo and I had reached an agreement, and I still believe that is the better approach.

We had a discussion earlier about ballast water. I need not repeat what I said except to reaffirm that we will proceed vigorously in the pursuit of an accommodation of the concerns of the gentleman from New Jersey and of those of the gentleman from Michigan, which are almost identical to mine. We will reach agreement, and we will bring a bill to the floor in this session of Congress.

Madam Chair, this amendment makes a number of improvements to the bill, as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Improves the enforcement of Coast Guard imposed security zones around

hazardous materials terminals and tankers

Requires the Coast Guard to coordinate and be responsible for enforcing Federal security zones established by the Service around a vessel containing certain dangerous cargo.

If a security arrangement has been made with a State or local government to enforce a Coast Guard imposed security zone, the Coast Guard must ensure the waterborne patrols have the training, resources, personnel and experience necessary to carry out the security responsibilities to the maximum extent practicable to deter and respond to a transportation security incident.

Specifies that the Coast Guard may not approve a facility security plan for a new facility constructed after the date of enactment of this Act that will receive or ship certain dangerous cargo on the water unless there are sufficient resources available to ensure compliance of the facility security plan.

Establishes an alternative licensing program for operators of

uninspected passenger vessels on Lake Texoma

Authorizes the Coast Guard upon the request of the Governor of the State of Texas or the Governor of the State of Oklahoma to enter into an agreement with the requesting State, whereby the State will license operators of uninspected passenger vessels operating on Lake Texoma in lieu of the Coast Guard if the State's plan meets equivalent standards of safety and environmental protection. The State's plan must provide equivalent safety to a Coast Guard issued license and include drug testing, criminal background checks, and

physical standards for operators. It also must provide for the suspension and revocation for State licenses for the negligent operation of the vessel and safety standards.

Authorizes the delegation of authority by the Coast Guard to

classification societies

Authorizes the Secretary to delegate the Coast Guard's authority to review and approve offshore facility plans and conduct inspections and examinations of offshore facilities to the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) or another classification society that meets acceptable standards.

The delegation can be made to a foreign classification society if the government of the foreign country in which the foreign society is headquartered delegates the authority to the ABS, or if the Secretary enters into an agreement with that foreign government that provides for reciprocal treatment of ABS.

Requires the Coast Guard to conduct a study on the combination of

facial and iris recognition

The study requires an assessment of the capability of a non-intrusive collection of biometrics in an accurate and expeditious manner to assist the Coast Guard in its homeland security mission.

Requires the Government Accountability Office to investigate and report on Coast Guard's efforts to recruit minority candidates to the Coast

Guard Academy

The report shall include the status of the Coast Guard's minority recruitment program and assessment of the program's effectiveness. The study should include the following statistics on minority applicants: the number of applicants that were contacted by the Academy; the number who completed applications; the number that were offered appointments; and the number of applicants that accepted appointments.

The report should also include an assessment of the geographic diversity at the Academy and should make recommendations for increasing geographic diversity.

Provides a process for access to secure areas for individuals with a

pending application for a transportation security card

Requires the Coast Guard to coordinate with owners and operators subject to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 to allow an individual who has applied for, but has not received, a transportation security card to be escorted into secure areas to work by another worker who has a transportation security card.

Establishes procedures for workers to submit fingerprints for the

purpose of obtaining transportation security cards at facilities

operated by, or under contract with, the relevant Federal agencies

Establishes a uniform, national standard for background checks for transportations security cards.

Directs the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to prohibit States or political subdivisions of States from requiring separate background checks for transportation security cards unless there is a compelling reason for the separate background checks.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask for a vote of approval of the manager's amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I share the frustration of the gentleman from Florida about the reader equipment, about the lack of continuity and about a number of other issues that he raised.

The problem I have is that the State of Florida requires one standard for truckdrivers with hazardous material, and it requires a different standard for those truckdrivers who enter ports. The State was moving in the direction of unifying those requirements, and if the State would do that, then I think we wouldn't have this kind of dichotomy and this problem. Therefore, I think the position of the Committee on Homeland Security has merit, and we should accept their position.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who has a large constituency of persons of Haitian origin in his district, requires the Coast Guard to submit a report within 180 days after enactment to examine the Coast Guard's short- and long-term ability to respond to a possible mass migration resulting from changes in U.S.-Haitian immigration policy. There was an increase in the number of Haitians attempting to enter the U.S. in the first quarter of this fiscal year, and every year thousands try to make unauthorized entries by water into the United States.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush issued Executive Order 12807, which directed the Coast Guard to prevent undocumented migrants from entering the U.S. by stopping them at sea and sending them back to their country of origin. Well, there was one standard for Haitians and a different standard for Cubans.

Mr. Chairman, I lived 3\1/2\ years in Haiti. I have a great number of friends and students to whom I taught English during that year. I just recently visited Haiti for the 50th anniversary of the officers of the Haitian military academy, who were my English students.

Conditions in Haiti are wretched; 9 million people in a land of 10,000 square miles. That's land about one-third the size of my district with three times the population of the entire State of Minnesota.

These people, who are trying to leave Haiti for an opportunity in America are being exploited by unsavory ship captains who charge them $5,000 to get on board a vessel that can accommodate 100 people. They will put 200 people on the ship, and then they will throw some of them overboard before they get into U.S. waters if they think that the overpopulation of the boat is endangering its passageway. This is awful.

This study will help the Congress, the U.S. Government better understand the problems of the people of Haiti and the challenges to the Coast Guard. It's an important amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before my remarks, I would like to yield to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), such time as he may consume.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

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

I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. Cummings. I think the model that this subcommittee works with could be an example for the entire Congress, the bipartisan nature in which we proceed. The opinions and ideas of all are respected and acted upon, and that is reflected in H.R. 3619, this Coast Guard Authorization Act.

However, I do have some serious concerns about a few matters--Mr. Mica touched on some of them--in the underlying bill, and some others that are being proposed in the manager's amendment. I hope the chairmen of the committee and the subcommittee will work with Ranking Member Mica and myself to address these concerns, if they are not cleared up today, as we move forward to a conference bill with the Senate.

This bill has been a long time in coming, as has been noted by Mr. Mica and Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Cummings. We have worked on many of these provisions starting in the 109th Congress. Over that time, the absence of an authorization bill has had a real and negative impact on the Coast Guard.

Let me just stop for a minute and say I think we should all take a step back and recognize the tremendous job that the men and women of the Coast Guard have been doing, are doing, and will continue to do. They are true unsung heroes. They put themselves in harm's way, whether it is on a drug interdiction mission, whether it is in search and rescue, whether it is maritime

antiterrorism, or in the global war on terrorism, which they have also been involved in.

We owe them a great debt of gratitude. We should continue to recognize the many sacrifices they are making on behalf of our country. I thank Admiral Allen and the leadership team, but especially the men and women of the Coast Guard.

But to carry on with my statement, despite the addition of several new missions and focus areas, the service has been capped at an end- strength number that has not been increased since 2004. The lack of an authorization bill has also prevented the Coast Guard from moving forward with a planned reorganization of its senior staff, from receiving expedited hiring authorities to bolster its acquisition staff--something that is desperately needed in this time when they are replacing assets--and from exercising strengthened authorities to apprehend and prosecute alien smugglers by sea. The smugglers continue to try to improve their methods and the Coast Guard continues to respond. These are vital tools we are giving them with this authorization legislation.

This is an important bill, and I only hope our action this week will provoke an equal and prompt response from our counterparts in the United States Senate. We sometimes joke about it, we sometimes talk about it, but our ability to act on this side on an important measure like this should be followed up with the Senate. This is not the naming of a post office. There are literally lives that can be at stake here, and I hope the counterparts in the Senate will understand the severity of dealing with this in a timely manner.

In addition to authorizing much-needed funding for the Coast Guard in the coming fiscal year, the bill includes several important provisions which will improve the organization and capabilities of the Coast Guard. Under the bill, Coast Guard officers will enjoy improved flexibility to specialize in high-need mission areas without fear that they will be passed over for promotion in the process, something that is not true today.

The bill also includes the Coast Guard's proposed reorganization of its senior command structure, which will improve overall coordination of personnel, resources and capabilities to carry out all of their missions. This is increasingly important because of the needed flexibility of the changing of the mission, of the changing of the threat that the Coast Guard is protecting against, and this will be a vital component that will help them do their job.

H.R. 3619 also includes bipartisan language to overhaul the Coast Guard's acquisition program, something that Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Cummings and Ranking Member Mica have worked on very closely, to make sure that we can fine-tune this and make it much better as they recapitalize their major assets through the Deepwater program.

On balance, this is a very good bill, but it does include some provisions that need to be improved prior to enactment or signing by the President.

The bill continues to include language that would place unnecessary barriers in the way of approving and operating facilities that receive important energy and agricultural resources. While I understand this provision will be amended by the manager's amendment, we should look closely at whether the manager's amendment, the language therein, really improves the security, or merely sets up additional regulatory hurdles to the use of domestic energy resources, something that I don't think our country can afford.

I am likewise concerned with the proposal in the manager's amendment which would weaken language which was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the committee to provide protection from liability for vessel owners, operators, captains and crewmembers who take action to defend themselves from a pirate attack.

I want to spend just a couple more minutes talking about this. While I have an amendment on it, I think Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. Cummings were very thorough in helping us work out the language in a bipartisan way to deal with this liability issue with the pirates.

I had an opportunity at the end of August and beginning of September to visit the East Coast of Africa and to visit a Navy SEAL team on the Manda Bay, which is in Kenya, just across from Somalia where the pirates are doing most of their activities.

Our SEAL team is training Kenyans. They are doing a magnificent job, but they pointed out that the threat is very real and the pirates, because of some successes, are expected to pick up their activity. Little did we realize that this activity was going to pick up today.

For those who did not hear my remarks earlier during the debate on the rule, we had two pirate attacks today. One pirate attack took 26 hostages, took them from a Panamanian-flagged cargo vessel, as I understand it, something that gives us all great concern. There was another attack on an Italian ship. Fortunately, there was a Belgian warship that was close enough to be able to get involved and thwart that effort.

An attack on a U.S. flag vessel happened barely 6 months ago. We all watched with great anxiety how our very heroic captain and crew of a U.S.-flagged vessel conducted themselves and the heroics of a Navy SEAL team to save the lives of Americans.

The language that was worked out that was in the underlying bill, before the majority on the Judiciary Committee decided to change this, was something that will work, that will give the protection from liability to our crewmembers that they need.

The language that was put in the manager's amendment by the Judiciary Committee will set up a legal tangle and a horrific situation for a crewmember trying to thwart an attack by pirates who may be firing upon them with automatic weapons or grenade launchers. Whatever the ammunition and firepower they have, this crewmember has to go through a legal tangle in their mind of five, six or seven things to understand what they can and can't do. This is an attack on U.S. interests. So I hope Members pay particular attention to the piracy amendment as we move forward with that.

Lastly, I am concerned with our inability to include language that would establish uniform national standards for vessel discharges, including ballast water. I have spoken on numerous occasions with Mr. Oberstar, and I want to take particular note to thank Mr. Oberstar once again for his keen interest in solving this problem and bringing so many interested parties to the table. I know that Mr. Oberstar shares my concerns and that of many of my colleagues, both on the committee and in Congress, to address this issue through legislation this year. I thank him for his offer to work with us, and I look forward to bringing the bill to the floor in the very near future.

I plan to support the bill, even though I have a few reservations. I think it is a very important piece of legislation that we need to move forward, and I hope we will continue to improve the bill as we move through the process with amendments made in order today and as we move in a conference with the Senate. But I will continue to urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. It's good for the Coast Guard and it's good for America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Madam Chairman, once again I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Mica and our colleagues who have worked so hard on this. I want to reiterate how important this is for the men and women of the Coast Guard, who are putting their lives on the line every day for us, and to repeat what I said earlier, where I believe that this is one of those rare situations where we find a double win: It is very good for the Coast Guard, and it is very good for the United States of America.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

On balance, this amendment does more good than harm, and for that reason, as I mentioned, I will not oppose the amendment or the adoption thereof.

I do, however, want to raise several concerns I have with the amendment. The amendment before us now overhauls several important provisions that passed with wide bipartisan support in the committee. The language was added despite the continued objections of the minority.

The manager's amendment rewrites language that would confer protections against liability for U.S. mariners that act in self- defense against a pirate attack on U.S.-flagged vessels. We have all read the accounts on the attacks of the Maersk Alabama and the Liberty Sun. Do we really want future mariners to hesitate in the face of a pirate armed with automatic weapons while they determine whether or not their actions will be deemed by a court reasonable with a check-off list in their minds as an attack is taking place? I don't think so

And with the two pirate attacks today, while they weren't U.S.- flagged vessels, they could have been, and we certainly don't want to have that kind of a situation.

So I strongly oppose this section of the amendment. And a little bit later in the debate, I'll offer an amendment to replace the language with the bipartisan agreement that we worked out within our committee.

I want to once again thank Chairman Oberstar for his acceptance of the language that would extend an existing exemption for fishing vessels and small commercial vessels from complying with certain vessel discharge requirements. This action will allow this segment to continue operations while Environmental Protection Agency surveys the magnitude of discharges from the vessels and whether regulations are necessary.

And I very much appreciate the chairman's commitment to continue to work with us on the goal of setting a single national standard, which makes the most sense of all, to regulate the discharge of ballast water and other incidental discharges from vessels.

It simply is unacceptable to require our maritime sector to comply with two Federal standards and with as many as 30 different State standards and, often, conflicting State standards for vessel discharges. So it is a situation, I think, we are all looking forward to trying to solve.

I also want to thank, once again, Chairman Oberstar for improving language regarding the security of the vessels and of the facilities handling certain dangerous cargos. While I still believe too much of this provision is unnecessary and duplicative to current requirements under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the language, Mr. Chairman, is a very marked improvement over the committee-reported amendment, and I thank you for your consideration.

I also thank Chairman Oberstar for his willingness to work with us on a variety of issues that we have encompassed in this bill, and I look forward to further consultation as the bill moves further down the line to enactment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but only to say we have no objection to the chairman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment, along with Mr. Coble of North Carolina, to conform Coast Guard authorities to provide child care in development services, to support chaplain-led activities, and to issue medicals and commendations on a par with those available to the other branches of the military.

The Coast Guard is unique within the military community because it is located outside of the Department of Defense. While these authorities have been made available to the other military services, this amendment is necessary to provide the Coast Guard similar capabilities. This is a commonsense amendment which will improve services to servicemembers and their families.

The amendment also directs the Coast Guard to conduct a comprehensive study of military housing currently available to members of the Coast Guard and their families. While we had initially intended to reinstate authorities necessary to construct new Coast Guard housing--which I might add is desperately needed--through public-private partnerships, a scoring issue with the CBO has presented us from better addressing the deplorable condition of Coast Guard housing.

I know all Members want to provide the finest housing to these servicemen and -women who are giving so much to their country and who put their lives on the line each and every day to protect us. It is my hope that we will be able to work out a solution with Chairman Oberstar and the CBO to provide the service with the authority to improve their housing.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with my colleague, Mr. Michaud. This is a simple amendment which would require that the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of Transportation, report to Congress on the decommissioning of the LORAN- C system. LORAN-C is a radio-based navigation and positioning system which many mariners use as a backup to GPS. It is also a primary means of navigation for bush pilots in Alaska.

At the request of the Obama administration, the FY10 Homeland Security Appropriations Act does not include funding to continue the system's operation. This is being done despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security came to the conclusion in February of 2008 that a backup system to GPS is needed.

I am very concerned about the impact this will have on the safety of our waterways. In many regions around the country, the GPS can be found unreliable. I do not believe, as some in the administration have suggested, that we should go back to the days of navigating by sextant and lighthouse.

Our amendment would simply require the two departments to study the issue of whether a backup to the GPS is needed for safe navigation and report the findings to Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment would require the Coast Guard to establish the American Waterways Watch Program, which I understand is already in operation today. The language is identical to language that was offered by former Transportation Committee member from the State of Washington, Dave Reichert, as an amendment to the bill in the 110th Congress. So we have no object to its inclusion once again.

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

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 Chair, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, I rise today in strong support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, H.R. 3619. I applaud Chairman Oberstar for his diligent work on this legislation, his detailed oversight of the Coast Guard, including his focus on ensuring that the service remains prepared to carry out all of its traditional missions, and for his leadership on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

I also thank Congressman Mica, the ranking member of the full committee, and Congressman LoBiondo, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their work on this legislation. I certainly thank Chairman Bennie Thompson and Ranking Member Peter King from the Homeland Security Committee for working so closely with us to move this very important legislation to the floor today.

This comprehensive legislation would authorize approximately $10 billion to fund the Coast Guard's operations for fiscal year 2010. The legislation would also increase the level of military personnel authorized to be in the service by 1,500 servicemembers to 47,000 personnel. I have long said that the Coast Guard is our thin blue line at sea, and that thin blue line is now stretched as never before, as Mr. Oberstar has said, as it attempts to carry out its traditional missions while performing new Homeland Security responsibilities it assumed after 9/11.

The increase in the service's end strength that will be provided by the

bill would be a first step in what must be the continued growth that will finally make the Coast Guard's size equal to the demands our Nation makes of it. By incorporating a number of bills that have passed the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in some cases the full House, this legislation will also address the most pressing issues facing our Coast Guard and our Nation's merchant mariners.

For example, this legislation incorporates H.R. 1665, the Coast Guard Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, which passed the House on July 29 by a vote of 426-0. I offered that legislation to modernize the Coast Guard's management of its billion-dollar annual acquisition program. This legislation responds directly to the shortcomings the committee and subcommittee examined in the Coast Guard's implementation of several Deepwater procurements by requiring the appointment of a Chief Acquisition Officer who can be a senior military officer or a member of the senior executive service, but who must be a trained acquisition professional.

The legislation would also eliminate the use of private sector lead systems integrators and require the Coast Guard to develop tailored testing and evaluation programs and independent life-cycle cost estimates for its largest procurements.

H.R. 3619 also includes the Maritime Workforce Development Act, H.R. 2651, which would authorize the appropriation of $10 million in each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015 to fund loans to help mariners in all stages of their careers obtain the training and certifications they need to move ahead.

In addition, H.R. 3619 would authorize a reorganization of the Coast Guard's senior leadership as proposed by the Commandant, Admiral Thad Allen; would make marine safety a core mission of the Coast Guard, and would require that those appointed to marine safety positions have the training necessary to effectively carry out this mission.

H.R. 3619 would also create a process through which Members of Congress could nominate students to attend the United States Coast Guard Academy as is done it all other Federal service academies. Data provided by the Coast Guard show that only approximately 15 percent of the incoming class of 2013 at the Coast Guard Academy was comprised of minority students. By comparison, the Naval Academy's class of 2013 was the most diverse class in that institution's history, with 35 percent of the incoming class of midshipmen being minorities. I strongly believe that initiating a nomination process will enable the Members of Congress to support and fully engage in the Coast Guard's ongoing efforts to expand diversity at the Academy and help ensure that the service's officer corps and future leaders truly reflect the diversity of our great Nation.

H.R. 3619 will provide a long overdue authorization for the Coast Guard and address the pressing issues that the committee and the subcommittee have examined through extensive oversight efforts during the past 3 years.

I strongly urge adoption of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of the manager's amendment.

I again commend Chairman Oberstar for his work on this legislation and for his dedication to effectively overseeing the Coast Guard and the entire marine transportation system. I also take this opportunity to thank the chairman for the support he has given me as a subcommittee Chair and throughout my membership on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The amendment offered by the chairman covers a number of subjects, and in the interest of time, I will note just a few of these:

This amendment would require that State and local law enforcement engaged in enforcing Coast Guard-imposed security zones around certain dangerous materials have the training, resources, personnel and experience they need to carry out the security responsibilities they have been engaged to perform. Further, the amendment would require the Coast Guard to report annually on the resource deficiencies they have pertaining to the enforcement of security zones around hazardous material shipments.

These provisions are not directed at any single material or terminal, but rather, they are intended to ensure that the most dangerous materials transported on the water are moved safely and that chemicals which could put entire communities at risk are secured against the threats which we know exist.

The manager's amendment would also address a number of other issues, including requiring an assessment of technologies that can combat the small-boat security threat, modifying several statutes governing the issuance of TWIC cards and addressing a critical licensing issue on Lake Texoma.

In the interest of time, I will end my statement here by urging the adoption of the manager's amendment and by, again, commending the work of the Chair.

I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings.

This amendment will require the Coast Guard to study its ability to respond to the possible effects of a change in U.S. policy regarding immigration from Haiti.

While I agree with Mr. Hastings that it is past time for the U.S. to review our immigration policies towards Haiti, particularly as that Nation continues to suffer in the wake of the ongoing worldwide economic downturn and recurring natural disasters, we need to understand the full range of consequences that such a policy change might bring.

The study requested by the gentleman's amendment will ensure that we have a thorough analysis of current conditions, as well as an analysis of past experiences to inform our consideration of immigration policy towards Haiti, as well as the development of the Coast Guard's plans and missions in the event that a policy change is made.

I support the gentleman's thoughtful amendment and his leadership on the issue and urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, and Mr. Coble, a distinguished member of the subcommittee and a former member of the United States Coast Guard.

This amendment would require the Coast Guard to conduct a study of its family housing units, including requiring the development of a comprehensive inventory of such units and their physical condition. The study should also recommend legislative changes that could expand the availability of housing units. The state of the housing stock at some Coast Guard units is, frankly, appalling, and this is certainly the quality of life issue which is most often raised to the subcommittee by the Coast Guard members and their dependents.

I want to thank Mr. LoBiondo for his concern about it. We have talked about it many times. It is one of my major conditions and that of our subcommittee.

The amendment offered by the gentleman would help us begin to understand the true extent of the Coast Guard's need for family housing, as well as the steps that we could take to ensure that the need is met and given the budget scoring issues that seem to be impeding the development of new housing.

This amendment would also support several other quality of life initiatives and authorize the Coast Guard to award a Coast Guard Cross and the Silver Star Medal in recognition of heroic actions in service to our Nation.

These are all initiatives that I strongly support, and I applaud the leadership of our ranking member, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Coble.

Let me also say that it's one thing for us to want our Coast Guard's men and women to go out and do a good job, but at the same time we must be concerned about their housing. Where they live, where they raise their children, where they take care of their families is so very, very important.

While we talk about thin blue line and how much we honor them and applaud them, if we say that in one breath and then the next breath do not do the things like this to help them live the very best lives that they can, that's something that's simply awfully wrong with the picture.

I applaud my colleague, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Michaud of Maine.

This amendment would require the Coast Guard, together with the Department of Transportation along with other appropriate Federal agencies, to study whether we need a national navigational system to supplement and to serve as a backup to the Global Positioning System known as GPS.

In August of 2006, the U.S. Department of Transportation commissioned a study to assess whether a backup to GPS was needed. The study, conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses, argued that a backup was needed because GPS is vulnerable to local interference and even intentional jamming.

The amendment offered by Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Michaud is a thoughtful amendment intended to ensure that we continue to deepen our understanding of our Nation's need for backup navigation aid systems in the event that the GPS is taken offline for some reason.

I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.