Bob Gibbs

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 6865, the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022. The bill represents this Congress' commitment to the men and women serving in the Coast Guard and lays the groundwork for maintaining the Service's mission capability in the future.

It also honors our colleague Don Young, who passed away last week, and is lying in state in Statuary Hall today. Our thoughts go out to his family and staff.

The dean of the House, the Congressman for all Alaska, the former chairman of both the Committee on Natural Resources and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the longest serving Republican Member of the House, the former mayor of Fort Yukon: His titles were many, but they failed to fully capture Don's character and endless enthusiasm for the job he loved, representing the people of Alaska in Congress. He did that job for 49 years, and he did it well. His legislative record is as amazing as his personal legacy of the friendships he made over the last five decades. He was always a stalwart Representative for Alaska and will have a lasting legacy.

It is appropriate that we are naming this Congress' Coast Guard Authorization Act for Don. He served on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation since it was established in 1995 and on its predecessor subcommittee for 20 years before that. He was the only licensed tugboat captain in Congress, and the Coast Guard plays many vital roles in the always vast and beautiful, but often stormy and dangerous, waters of his home State.

The Coast Guard is one of the six United States Armed Forces, and they

help secure our country's borders. As we watch the Ukraine crisis unfold and recognize the apparent lack of readiness in the Russian military, we should be especially aware of the need to provide our Armed Forces with the resources they need.

This bill includes provisions to strengthen the Coast Guard's ability to keep Russian vessels out of U.S. water, a provision Don Young authored. Both sides of the aisle worked together to craft this legislation, recognizing that port and coastal security, drug interdiction, and maritime safety are important bipartisan issues to our Nation rather than Republican or Democrat issues.

The Coast Guard plays an important and unique role in national security and maritime safety. The Service is a critical component in carrying out drug interdiction efforts, keeping our ports and coasts safe, and conducting icebreaking operations. H.R. 6865 helps the Coast Guard better perform these missions and encourages the use of cutting- edge technology to improve operations, while also addressing ongoing issues like how to bring the Service's crumbling IT infrastructure into the modern era.

Despite the administration's failure to seek appropriate capital funding levels, this bill authorizes over $9 billion for the operations and support account and $3 billion for the procurement, construction, and improvement account for fiscal 2022 and provides a 5 percent increase in FY23. We had hoped that would offset earlier budget shortfalls, but given the rise in inflation, it will be needed just to stay even.

As others have noted, this legislation authorizes the purchase of a twelfth National Security Cutter and six Fast Response Cutters, which are necessary for the Coast Guard's future mission capabilities.

Vital to my district, I am also proud of the commitment made to the Great Lakes in this bill. Working with my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), the bill includes an authorization of a new dedicated icebreaker on the Lakes to keep commerce moving as much of the year as possible.

Thank you to Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Sam Graves, and Subcommittee Chair Carbajal for working in a bipartisan fashion to give the Coast Guard the resources it needs to accomplish its missions. I urge support of this bill.

On a side note, my first year as a freshman, I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and I inadvertently overlooked Don Young in the questioning order. That was not a smart thing for a freshman Member to do. I realized my mistake, and I apologized to him, and we became the best of friends. He also invited all of us to go to his king salmon barbecue here in D.C. I am really going to miss Don Young. He was really an American patriot.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of amendment No. 8 in the en bloc. This amendment helps veterans and their families navigate a bureaucratic maze at VA. It is very frustrating a lot of times when they receive medical treatment at a non-VA facility.

When a veteran is admitted to a hospital or emergency department they currently only have 3 days to notify the VA. If they fail to notify the VA in that 3-day window, any claim associated with that visit will be automatically denied.

There are circumstances when getting immediate medical care outside of the VA system is the veteran's only option, especially during a medical emergency. They and their family should not have to worry about paperwork and the bureaucracy if the veteran is facing a life- threatening condition or is unable to make his or her own healthcare decisions.

My amendment simply just lengthens that window and adds another day onto that window to report the claim. When you think about this, if you are going in on an emergency basis and after you get stabilized--it might take a couple days in the hospital to get stabilized--that extra day doesn't seem like much, but it is really important because they get stabilized and they get time to sort through where they are at. That is so important. We have helped hundreds and maybe thousands of veterans back in Ohio, and this comes up all the time, and they have to fight to get their claim.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important, just a little bit of extra time. It is a no-brainer issue. I appreciate the chair putting it in the en bloc because it is really important because veterans, especially when they are in a non-veteran facility and have emergency care, they shouldn't have to worry about that deadline, and it just gives them a little extra time.

Mr. Speaker, I support amendment No. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Dusty Johnson and John Garamendi for their work on this bill.

While I support this bill, I do have concerns about the process under which it has been brought to the floor, and whether, by itself, it will have much impact on the supply difficulties we are currently facing.

Neither a hearing nor a markup was held on this bill. Given its complexity, I believe a hearing and a markup would have given Members a better opportunity to fully understand and perhaps improve the bill.

The bill gives the Federal Maritime Commission, the FMC, enhanced authorities to prevent ocean carriers, who operate ships in the container trade, from engaging in anticompetitive activities in regards to shippers, and give shippers enhanced input into the FMC complaint process.

I have concerns about giving bureaucrats at the Federal Maritime Commission more authority to insert themselves into privately held contractual agreements. However, it appears to a great extent, the delays, port congestion, and higher shipping prices are due primarily to short-term contracts, unwillingness or inability to share data by all parties to operate efficiently, equipment shortages, lack of warehouse space, chassis truck and train capacity, and labor issues, rather than anticompetitive practices by ocean shippers.

If ocean carriers were the sole problem, we would not see container ships waiting for weeks to unload. Ag exports are at record highs for some commodities, and it is unfortunate that some of the ag shipments have not been able to make it on ships in a timely and efficient manner. However, it is not clear to me that the decision that led to these products from being stranded are due to practices that are anticompetitive under U.S. law.

This bill would prohibit carriers from unreasonably declining cargo that can be safely and timely loaded and is going to a port on the ship's itinerary. It will be curious to see how often this provision is used.

As I said, I am willing to support this bill to assure that detention and demurrage is used as an incentive to move cargo efficiently, not-- as some have claimed--as an indiscriminate corporate profit center, and to provide shippers additional protections.

However, as has been said by the sponsor, this bill isn't perfect and there is still more work to be done. I expect it to address the supply chain more broadly and not assume that alleged anticompetitive behavior by ocean carriers is the sole cause of the current supply chain disruption.

The legislation needed must, number one, be comprehensive and look at long-term port truck chassis, train, intermodal connection, and warehouse capacity needs.

Two, assure the availability of transparent, enforceable contracts to assure goods can be shipped at the agreed time and cost;

And three, improve data sharing among the parties in the supply to assure that everyone knows where and when they must have equipment to move containers efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation and ask that we continue to work to address the whole supply chain crisis.