Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I will make this very brief. I know we are up against the clock here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Shuster so very much for chairing the committee during my tenure on it and Mr. DeFazio, also, for his leadership. I want to also express my appreciation to the new chair, as well as the previous chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Hunter, with whom I was able to work over the last 3 years.

Essentially, this is a good bill. It covers the things that the Coast Guard needs. It increases their funding to a level that is necessary. The title of the bill is proper. We all thank Mr. LoBiondo for his many years of service.

There are a couple of things about the bill that I do want to speak to, and that is we have in the bill a backup system for the GPS that we so much rely upon now. It is finally going to get into the legislation. We also move forward with Blue Technologies and the autonomous, both air and underwater, vehicles that are going to be necessary for the Coast Guard to fully carry out its responsibilities.

Beyond that there are some things in the bill that are a compromise. I want to point one out that is very important, and that is section 834 to which I continue to object. This is a bill that actually allows for an aged wooden ship to ply the waters of the Mississippi. The Coast Guard correctly states that this vessel, constructed primarily of wood, and operating the overnight passenger trade, presents an unacceptable fire risk to its passengers and crew, and, accordingly, the Coast Guard is opposed to this particular section. It is unfortunate that is in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters, one from the Department of Homeland Security and another one from the National Volunteer Fire Council.

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs,

U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2017.

Hon. Bill Shuster,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Shuster: This letter sets forth

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) views with regard to S.

89, a bill ``[t]o amend title 46, United States Code, to

exempt old vessels that only operate within inland waterways

from the fire-retardant materials requirement if the owners

of such vessels make annual structural alterations to at

least 10 percent of the areas of the vessels that are not

constructed of fire-retardant materials and for other

purposes.''

Notwithstanding the form in which S. 89 is drafted, only

one vessel, the Steamer DELTA QUEEN, would be eligible for

the exemption. Because of the advanced age, construction, and

configuration of the Steamer DELTA QUEEN, the vessel

represents an unacceptable degree of fire safety risk to its

passengers and crew. Given the risk that a marine casualty

aboard the Steamer DELTA QUEEN poses to life, property, and

infrastructure, the DHS must oppose S. 89.

Background:

The Steamer DELTA QUEEN is a 20th century vessel, the

superstructure of which is constructed of wood. The vessel's

boilers are original and open directly to the wood

superstructure. Uniquely, the vessel's configuration has been

altered such that the sole means of egress is the stage

(gangway) on the bow.

In 1966, Congress stipulated that, ``no passenger vessel of

the United States . . . shall be granted a certificate of

inspection . . . unless the vessel is constructed of fire-

retardant materials (emphasis added).'' During the ensuing

decades, Congress temporarily delayed the effect of the

mandate as it would apply to the Steamer DELTA QUEEN five

separate times. Finally, in 2008, the temporary delay

expired, and the mandate was made applicable to the Steamer

With that, I think I have consumed all the time allowed. I will simply close in this way: All in all this is our third effort to successfully pass legislation. I see the majority counsel over there. I thank John so very much for working with us. And on the minority side David is an extraordinary individual. It has been a pleasure working with him on this, the third

successful passage of the Coast Guard reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my Chairman on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman Bill Shuster, and my Ranking Democrat Member on the Transportation Committee, Congressman Peter DeFazio, to endorse and support S. 140, the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018.

The Coast Guard is a special Federal agency, one that is selfless in service and highly proficient in its work. Ironically, the Coast Guard also is an agency that is over-worked, under-resourced, and rarely given the thanks that the men and women of the Coast Guard so rightly deserve.

Today, with the passage of this legislation, we can say that we are at last stepping up and authorizing funding levels commensurate with the many demands we ask our Coast Guard to undertake. The 2.6 percent increases for both fiscal years 2018 and 2019 will go far to address the deferred needs of the Coast Guard.

This stands in sharp contrast to the folly of the Trump administration's skinny budget for Fiscal Year 2017 that actually sought to cut Coast Guard funding by $1.3 billion--a gross mistake if there ever was one.

In general, I applaud Chairman Shuster and his staff, and Ranking Member DeFazio and his staff, for their cooperative and collegial, yet determined, negotiations with the other body to arrive at a final bill that advances or clarifies several maritime policy initiatives, improves Coast Guard administration and management, and enhances Coast Guard mission readiness and capabilities.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation advances the Coast Guard's future use of new technologies to improve maritime safety and security and maritime domain awareness.

Chief among these is my provision to direct the Department of Transportation to establish a reliable back-up timing system to function should the positioning, navigation and timing signals transmitted by GPS satellites be disrupted or degraded.

The loss of GPS signals has been characterized as a ``single point of failure'' for national security and for critical infrastructure systems. Simply stated, we no longer can afford to ignore this threat, and I urge members to join me and support this legislation today.

The bill also institutes a new acquisition policy for the Coast Guard to acquire unmanned aerial systems, or UAS. The inability of the Coast Guard to acquire UAS systems for its National Security Cutters is a chronic problem. Restricting the Coast Guard to acquire only systems already acquired and proven effective by other military or non-military agencies, should enable the Service to acquire a UAS system that meets its mission needs without, as they say, ``re-creating the wheel.''

In addition, the bill directs the Coast Guard to sponsor a National Academy of Science study on the status of unmanned, underwater vessels and their potential as mission platforms for the Coast Guard, especially for surveillance activities.

This study should help inform the work of the Coast Guard's Blue Technology Center of Expertise that Congress authorized earlier this year with the enactment of Public Law 115-265.

I also want to express my support for Title VII of the bill that reauthorize the activities of the Federal Maritime Commission and enact some important amendments to the Shipping Act made necessary by the disruption and consolidation in the global container shipping market.

Overall, I am pleased that this legislation would authorize increased funding levels for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 for the Federal Maritime Commission. Increased funding should enable the Commission to improve its capabilities to monitor shipping trades that remain turbulent.

The bankruptcy of Hanjin Lines in 2016 and the subsequent consolidation of the few remaining ocean carriers into three large alliances produced shock waves in global shipping markets. These new alliances also sent shock waves to U.S. marine terminal operators, tug operators, bunkering operators, and other marine service providers.

Title VII of this bill amends the Shipping Act to make some targeted and strategic amendments to improve the legal standing of U.S. port service providers. Additionally, this title strengthens the authority of the Federal Maritime Commission to oversee and intervene, if necessary, in future interactions between these alliances and U.S. port service providers to ensure fair competition.

I support these amendments to the Shipping Act as a good first step. I expect that these ideas will require additional refinement as the process moves forward, especially on how best to protect confidential and proprietary information gathered by the Federal Maritime Commission to understand market dynamics. I am open to those discussions and look forward to improving the bill.

I also want to express my support for Title IX of the bill that establishes new authorities for the regulation of ballast water and incidental discharges from commercial vessels.

While perhaps not perfect, the measure does provide for uniform regulation of vessel discharges within the scope of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the legislation addresses several important issues raised by coastal states, none the least granting states the ability to establish ``no discharge zones'' if necessary to protect sensitive state waters.

In closing, this bill is non-controversial legislation that addresses the interests of the Coast Guard and U.S. maritime industry. It also addresses the needs of the members on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the Capitol. I support the legislation and urge its adoption.

Although I spoke earlier to express my full support for the underlying bill, I rise now to express my strong opposition to a provision that the Senate inserted into the legislation over my objection.

The specific provision is section 834, Fire Retardant Materials. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What this provision actually does is reinstate an exemption from a longstanding fire safety requirement for passenger vessels carrying 50 or more people on overnight voyages to be constructed using fire retardant materials.

And although the provision does not clearly state the vessel or vessels that would benefit from this exemption, the reality is that there is only one vessel, the Delta Queen, an aged paddlewheel steamship whose superstructure is almost entirely built out of wood, for which the exemption will apply.

In 2008, the 110th Congress decided--wisely in my view--not to renew this ill-advised exemption for the Delta Queen in favor of upholding maritime safety. It was the correct decision then, and it remains the correct decision today.

I have little choice but to raise my objections to this provision based on the manner by which the other body tacked it onto the Coast Guard bill despite the fact that companion legislation introduced in the House, H.R. 619, went nowhere.

This legislation would waive a critical maritime fire safety standard and consequently expose the American public to overnight travel on a vessel that the Coast Guard maintains is ``an unacceptable fire hazard to passengers and crew.''

The Coast Guard's position remains clear and unequivocal. As stated in its 2008 Special Inspection report, the Coast Guard found that ``The combustible construction of the vessel presents an unacceptable fire risk that cannot be mitigated by the addition of fire suppression measures.''

The Coast Guard also concluded that, ``The vessel, constructed primarily of wood and operating in the overnight passenger trade, presents an unacceptable fire risk to its passengers and crew.'' Accordingly, the Coast Guard has been, and remains, opposed to legislation to renew the exemption from fire safety standards for the Delta Queen.

Mr. Speaker, I have included in the Record the administration's views letter stating its opposition to S. 89, which is the underlying provision in section 834.

This provision also has drawn opposition from the National Volunteer Fire Council. The Council concludes that the ``fire safety exemption in S. 140 will endanger the lives of passengers and crew members aboard historical vessels, but also for the dangerous precedent it sets.''

Mr. Speaker, I have included in the Record the Council's letter stating its opposition to section 834.

I commend the Coast Guard for upholding its fire safety standards. I fail to see why it makes any sense for the other body to advance legislation that would sharply contradict the Coast Guard's recommendations and compromise maritime safety.

The American public trusts Congress to ensure that our nation's transportation system remains the safest in the world. Section 834 violates that trust.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of S. 140, legislation that we have been somewhat patiently waiting for the Senate to move on for over a year. This legislation incorporates three different bills passed and reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last year: H.R. 2518, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017; H.R. 1726, the Coast Guard Improvement and Reform Act; and H.R. 2593, the Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act.

This is going to provide both positive improvements in maritime policy, help with the competitiveness of the U.S. maritime industry, and it is going to be of substantial assistance to the Coast Guard. There are issues where we had some disagreement. It is not a perfect bill, but I am pleased to support it, and I urge all Members to support it.

I am particularly pleased with the 2-year authorized funding levels for the Coast Guard. It has been hurt over a number of years. Their budget has been too thin, and cuts imposed by the

Budget Control Act have been harmful. So this is a reasonable--not optimal--funding level, but it will meet both the acquisition and operational needs, and the Appropriations Committee will have the capability of meeting the targets we have set.

It would have a rigorous new process before the Coast Guard can permanently close any air facility it operates. In my home State of Oregon there was a rather sudden announcement of a closure of an air facility in the mid-coast, Newport, in Representative Schrader's district. The waters of the Pacific are extraordinarily cold year- round. Survival times are not long, and we were putting mariners--both recreational, commercial, and others--at risk. So we have now imposed a new process. There will have to be an extensive public review justification, and then Congress will also have time to review, evaluate, and, if necessary, reject future proposed closures.

I also support a provision in the bill that will allow certificates of documentation to be renewed on a multiyear basis. The Coast Guard has had a backlog forever on certificates of documentation, and they are annual. The rationale has been, well, we need to know your home port every year. We are going to have a process where you can get a 5- year certificate, and then if you change your home port, you have to report it within a certain number of days to the Coast Guard. That solves that issue.

There was a long-discussed provision that was very controversial on the Senate side on the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act. We came up with a compromise. Again, I don't know that it is optimal, but we can live with it. It sets strict technological standards for vessel discharges under the Clean Water Act to protect local waters, minimizing the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species to where it was becoming an incredibly expensive and difficult problem. We don't need to spread anymore. It establishes a uniform national standard for ballast water treatment that will be developed both by the EPA and the Coast Guard to aid commercial carriers in movement of goods by providing regulatory certainty throughout the United States. It retains a significant role for individual States and citizens to protect their local waters, which has been a critical sticking point in prior efforts to pass this measure.

So under this proposal, States are guaranteed the ability to co- enforce and oversee implementation of the vessel discharge program, petition the EPA and Coast Guard to strengthen ballast discharge standard, should technologies that are more stringent become commercially available, and call for the establishment of no discharge zones in important and sensitive State waters, similar to those currently available for marine sewage. That, again, was not necessarily optimal, but I think it is workable and protects the interests of the State and our precious resources.

I want to acknowledge the chairman and thank him. This will be the last bill he manages on the floor. He has imposed regular order on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with the water resources development bills, the first long-term FAA bill in three decades, and now an excellent Coast Guard authorization in addition to other products.

I would like to also thank my ranking member--soon, perhaps, depending on where he decides to go--chairman of this subcommittee for his contributions. This is the third time that John Garamendi has worked with the Republicans to deliver a good Coast Guard bill during his tenure. So, all in all, this is a strangely productive day for the House of Representatives, and I am proud to be here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who is the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

I want to thank Dave Jansen for his hard work and again congratulate the chairman on his last bill passing on the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the bill (S. 140) to amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on S. 140.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to come to the floor tonight, not only with another Coast Guard reauthorization bill, but it will be the last bill I will pass and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will pass, as my chairmanship expires and I leave Congress here at the end of the year. So it is a proud moment for me.

I am especially proud that S. 140 was named the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018.

This is a product of bicameral and bipartisan efforts. The Coast Guard is an armed service with a very difficult mission: to enforce all Federal laws on, under, and over the high seas in the jurisdiction of the United States.

This bill supports the Coast Guard and its servicemembers by authorizing funding for fiscal year 2018 and 2019.

The legislation includes three bills reported from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: the Coast Guard Improvement Reform Act of 2017; the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017; and the Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act of 2017.

The bill promotes commercial and recreational vessel safety, protects the environment, modernizes Coast Guard administration laws, and provides protection for American business in regard to foreign shipping alliances.

Once again, it authorizes a heavy icebreaker to be purchased by the Coast Guard. We just hope the appropriators find the funding to do that for a much-needed icebreaker.

The bill is named for our colleague, Frank LoBiondo, who previously served as chairman and ranking member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee during five different Congresses. His leadership on the subcommittee translated into many legislative victories for the Coast Guard and their hardworking Coast Guard members. So it is absolutely fitting to name this after Frank LoBiondo.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Reauthorization Act by voting ``yes'' on S. 140, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), who is the chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), who is the current chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the former chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, and the namesake of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and an advocate for the Coast Guard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support S. 140, the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018. It is a good bipartisan bill. I urge all my colleagues to vote for it.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. On our side, especially, I thank the Coast Guard Subcommittee staff and John Rayfield, who heads up that staff, for his tremendous work. He just informed me that, under the subcommittee's jurisdiction, we will have authorized every single program under that committee's jurisdiction. Great work by John and his team on the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the names of the staff on the committee.

From Chairman Shuster's Staff:

John Rayfield

Bonnie Bruce

Lt. Commander Luke Peterson

Kevin Reig

Maggie Chan

Kathy Loden

Brittany Smith

Hannah Matesic

Fred Miller

Geoff Gosselin

Chris Vieson

From Ranking Member DeFazio's Staff:

Dave Jansen

Kathy Dedrick

Alex Burkett

From the Office of Legislative Counsel:

Hank Savage

Tom Dillon

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank all my members for the great support they have given me on both sides of the aisle to move a lot of bipartisan legislation. I want to thank them for that. I thank my subcommittee chairmen for their leadership in working with me.

Finally, I thank my counterpart, the leader of the Democrats on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, sometimes being a worthy foe, most of the time being a dependable and able ally. I thank him for all his work. I also thank him for the very, very thoughtful small going away gift that he gave me. I appreciate that greatly. Again, I finally thank him for all his effort and work.

I have no say in who is going to be the next chairman of the committee, but I can tell you that nobody is more able and knowledgeable about the transportation and infrastructure world than Peter DeFazio. I wish him the best and look forward to seeing him down the road.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of S. 140, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Shuster for giving me the opportunity to serve for nearly 6 years as the chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, and I would like to thank him for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 140, the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018. Congressman LoBiondo is and has been a tireless advocate for the men and women of the Coast Guard, and there is no other name more fitting for this bill.

Let me run through a few of the things that I find extremely great about this bill.

Title 9 contains the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, legislation that I have introduced for three consecutive Congresses. It was compromised a little bit in the Senate but is still getting done.

Mr. Garamendi and I held many, many subcommittee hearings together. He has been known to ask at the appropriate hearings about the backup to GPS. This question is always met with blank stares. This bill makes important progress on a backup GPS system.

Finally, specifically section 514 establishes this backup timing component of the GPS system. That is no doubt thanks to Mr. Garamendi's tireless work.

I am also pleased that the legislation establishes a land-based unmanned aircraft system program for the Coast Guard. They have never had their unmanned aerial vehicle program until now. They have had to rely on other services or agencies for this important capability. These additional UAS assets will strengthen the Coast Guard's ability to interdict contraband and improve search and rescue missions.

During the last 6 years, we have held 46 hearings and five roundtables. We have worked to protect the Jones Act and ensure that our country has a strong maritime industrial base, including a skilled pool of American shipyard workers and mariners who would be critical in a time of conflict.

Earlier this year, Congress enacted legislation coming out of the tragic El Faro accident to improve the safety of those American mariners. We have also worked to reduce burdensome regulations that harm U.S. maritime jobs and the competitiveness of the U.S. flag fleet.

We held joint hearings with the Committee on Homeland Security to shed light on security vulnerabilities at our ports and sought to enhance the screening of cargo entering our country and, with the Armed Services Committee, to look at the shared missions of the Navy and the Coast Guard in carrying out defense missions. We pushed the Coast Guard to act like the military service that they are.

The subcommittee also took massive steps to modernize our Nation's icebreaker fleet and to encourage the Navy and Coast Guard to have a comprehensive plan for the Arctic.

Mr. Speaker, I want to end by thanking a few people. Some of the most fulfilling work serving as the subcommittee chairman was forming strong relationships with the men and women who guard our coasts. The Coast Guard House Liaison Office and the Coast Guard fellows assigned to the subcommittee over the last 6 years have represented their service well. I would like to thank them for their hard work and camaraderie.

I also want to thank Congressman Garamendi for his friendship and being such a strong partner on these issues.

Finally, I want to thank the subcommittee's staff director, John Rayfield, and the exceptional committee staff who have been invaluable as a resource and worked tirelessly to carry out the subcommittee's mission.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1726 is a noncontroversial bill to reorganize the Coast Guard's permanent authorities under title 14 of the U.S. Code in order to improve the clarity and the coherence of the title.

I would like to thank my assistant, and counsel, Dave Jansen, and John Rayfield, on the other side, for recognizing that there is confusion, and so this legislation, while it makes no substantive changes to the Coast Guard's existing authorities and policies under title 14, does save for some conforming changes to create a new chapter for all of the Coast Guard national advisory councils and execute a handful of other minor transfers.

It just simply ends a lot of confusion as people try to figure out where it is in the code that they must look.

Accordingly, I am comfortable with supporting this legislation, although I do note that it will impose some additional administrative costs on the Coast Guard as they set about implementing it.

I want to commend the chairman, Mr. Hunter, for the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, for his initiative and for his staff's initiative, in taking on this important little bit of housekeeping that is going to make all of our lives easier. I will certainly urge all of the Members to support it.

I also appreciate Chairman Hunter's work with me in an effort to try to

solve another problem. This is only one piece of our effort to try to improve the maritime industry. While we are trying to move H.R. 1726 today, we have more work to do.

And to that end, I look forward to working with Chairman Hunter on bringing H.R. 2593 to the floor before the August recess, together with the full committee chairman, Bill Shuster; and ranking Democrat, Peter DeFazio. H.R. 2593 deals with the Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act of 2017.

This legislation would update and strengthen the Shipping Act to address the current upheaval in the global shipping markets that affect U.S. foreign trade.

The formation of three large ocean carrier alliances has raised legitimate concerns among U.S. port service providers, maritime terminal operators, and tug operators. By virtue of the sheer size and volume of trade that these alliances carry, they will have a decided advantage in determining ports of call, negotiating contracts, and shifting costs, all at the expense, possibly, of our domestic port service providers.

I know Chairman Hunter shares my concerns, and neither of us are indifferent. We are going to have to deal with this, and that will be our next piece of legislation on the floor. The chairman is on top of it with his staff, and we look forward to that bill, H.R. 2593, being reported out of the Transportation Committee as it clarifies the Federal Maritime Commission's authority to oversee and aggressively deal with competition.

So what we have today is one of two pieces of legislation that we intend to move forward dealing with the overall well-being of the maritime industry.

I highly recommend H.R. 1726 to the floor. It is noncontroversial and should pass. The other piece of legislation will be here shortly, and we will take that up at that time.

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