Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman from Ohio. I say to the gentleman from Connecticut that is, indeed, correct.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, many Americans, and for that matter many Members of this body, do not really know the Coast Guard. I want to introduce the Coast Guard that I know to those uninformed about America's oldest continuous seagoing service. The Coast Guard is the butt of many jokes, some submitted good- naturedly, some submitted maliciously. Many refer to the Coast Guard as the shallow water Navy, hooligan Navy, as shallow-water sailors or hooligan sailors. Even Hollywood gets into the act. A recently released movie depicted a military force about to depart on a combat mission. The commander of the force said to his group, ``Be careful, men.'' One of his troops replied, ``If I wanted to be careful, I would have joined the Coast Guard.'' This comment, of course, drew wild laughter from the moviegoers and was yet another example of a joke at the expense of the Coast Guard. Permit me to identify those who do not consider the Coast Guard a joke. The wife whose husband was adrift in a treacherous sea was rescued by the Coast Guard. The husband whose wife was stranded at sea in a disabled vessel rescued by the Coast Guard. Property owners whose property could have been destroyed by oil spills, property protected and saved by the Coast Guard. Seamen who rely upon accurately marked aids to navigation maintained by the Coast Guard. The mama and daddy whose child is hauled from the grasp of an angry sea by a Coast Guard helicopter crew. In the poem, Mr. Chairman, entitled ``The Coast Guard Cutter,'' the poet vividly and emotionally portrays these lifesavers as legitimate heroes: In a wormy, rotten craft, When the sea ahead is mountains With a hell-blown gale abaft; When the mainmast cracks and topples And she's lurchin' in the trough-- Them's the guys that greets the Cutter With the smiles that won't come off. When the old storm signal's flyin' Every vessel seeks a lee, 'Cept the Cutter, which ups anchor And goes ploughin' out to sea. When the hurricane's a-blowin' From the Banks to old Cape Cod, Oh, the Cutter, with her searchlight, Seems the messenger of God. * * * * * She goes thumpin' and a bumpin' When the waters are a hell, Savin' ships. Here's to you, Cutter, For we like you mighty well! This is the Coast Guard, Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce to my colleagues today who may not know her, as we debate and discuss the 1996 authorization bill for the Coast Guard. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1361. Before I discuss this bill, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Shuster, our ranking minority member, Mr. Mineta, and the ranking minority member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, Mr. Traficant, and their staff for their help and cooperation on this legislation. H.R. 1361 was developed in a bipartisan manner, and deserves the support of all the Members. The primary purpose of H.R. 1361 is to authorize funds for the U.S. Coast Guard for fiscal year 1996. H.R. 1361 authorizes the portion of the Coast Guard budget that requires an annual authorization at the level requested by the President, approximately $3.7 billion. This is compared to the fiscal year 1995 appropriated level for these programs of $3.6 billion. Specifically, this legislation includes approximately $2.6 billion for operating expenses, $428 million for acquisition of vessels, aircraft, and shore facilities, and $582 million for retired pay. The bill also authorizes reductions in Coast Guard operations, including personnel reductions and the closure of 23 search and rescue stations. Also included in the bill is a provision to allow us to more closely monitor the Coast Guard drug interdiction mission. In 1989, the Coast Guard spent 24 percent of its operating budget on drug interdiction. Since fiscal year 1994, Coast Guard drug interdiction funding has been reduced by $21 million. Last year, less than 9 percent of the Coast Guard's operating funds were devoted to drug interdiction because the Coast Guard was forced to divert a large amount of its resources to respond to the crises in Haiti and Cuba. I fear that a continuation of this low level of funding will increase the amount of illegal narcotics being smuggled into our country. Admiral Kramek testified before our Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee that the Coast Guard plans to spend about 12 percent of its operating budget on drug interdiction during the next fiscal year. Because this is such an important Coast Guard mission, section 103 of H.R. 1361 requires the Secretary of Transportation to submit to our committee quarterly reports on Coast Guard drug interdiction expenditures. This will give us timely information on this important topic, and allow us to act to prevent a diversion of resources to any other Coast Guard activity. Title II of H.R. 1361 deals with several internal Coast Guard personnel management matters. Title III of the bill addresses issues related to navigation safety and waterway services management. This title renews several important navigation safety advisory committees which advise the Coast Guard on matters relating to marine safety issues. Title IV of this legislation includes several miscellaneous provisions. One of these sections exempts dedicated oilspill response vessels from certain requirements that apply to oil tank vessels. It is not appropriate to regulate oilspill cleanup vessels in the same manner as commercial oil tank vessels. This section in the bill gives the Coast Guard the authority to prescribe appropriate manning requirements for oilspill response vessels by regulation. Title IV also contains several commonsense amendments to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, including a provision which requires the Coast Guard to regulate edible vegetable oils differently than toxic petroleum oils. I strongly support this change which will end an unnecessary and damaging burden on our Nation's farmers. Title V of H.R. 1361, Coast Guard Regulatory Reform, is important in establishing U.S. ship construction and operational standards that are comparable to international standards. These provisions will allow the U.S. maritime industry to be more competitive with foreign ocean carriers. Title VI of the bill contains several provisions related to U.S. vessel documentation, including several limited Jones Act waivers. Title VII of the bill contains many technical and conforming amendments suggested by the Coast Guard, including provisions to implement the new International Tonnage Convention for the measurement of vessels. Finally, title VIII of H.R. 1361 contains amendments to allow the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, a 36,000 member voluntary organization, to provide assistance to the Coast Guard and the boating public that the Commandant finds appropriate. At the appropriate time, I will offer an en bloc amendment which makes several technical corrections and includes several noncontroversial amendments to the bill. I urge the Members to support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I thank him for that. I can pretty well assure the gentleman that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and I and perhaps others on the subcommittee and full committee will meet with the gentleman. And thinking aloud, I say to the gentleman from Louisiana, a hearing might not be a bad course to pursue. In fact, I think it would probably be a good course to pursue.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I think the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] raises a good point. I think the gentleman and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and I can visit this and perhaps bring the appropriate Coast Guard officials to the table. If what the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] says is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, some redress is in order.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Louisiana has offered an amendment that violates rule XXI, clause 5(b), because the increase of fees to foreign cruise vessels is not related to the cost of providing the service of the Coast Guard. It is not related to the cost of providng the service of Coast Guard inspections, and this, therefore, Mr. Chairman, is no longer a fee but a tax.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] would not allow the Coast Guard to close or realign any Coast Guard installation except in accordance with the procedure of the Base Closing Act, and I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Nadler, I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the Base Closing Act extends its jurisdiction to Coast Guard facilities, No. 1, and, No. 2, I want to reiterate again, I favor giving the Coast Guard the flexibility to deal with search and rescue station closures, to reallocate resources appropriately, and I think that what the gentleman from New York is doing now is to, perhaps, attempt to do indirectly what has been failed earlier today.'' I therefore, Mr. Chairman, oppose the amendment.

Mr. COBLE. It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment from the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] violates section 401(b)(1) of the Budget Act of 1974. It provides new entitlement authority for the current fiscal year.

Mr. COBLE. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. COBLE. I apologize to the gentleman for interrupting, but I think I am correct that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], his staff and my staff have signed off on this amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], and we will accept the amendment.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am not sure I follow the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon. Maybe it is very cleverly drafted, or, in any event, I am not with it. But I am going to have to oppose this. Much of this is what we discussed on the last amendment regarding the fact, folks, that I think the Coast Guard needs to have some flexibility as it conducts its self- assessment, streamlining program. Now, some of my Democrat friends earlier were, tongue-in-cheek, and I did not object to this, were admonishing me for signing off on the administration's proposal. know well, and perhaps my friends on the other side may well know him better than I, but he had no problem at all with extending to the Commandant of the Coast Guard the flexibility to determine what stations are to be downsized, and as far as the jet, that obviously is a part of the Coast Guard air fleet. I urge the defeat of the amendment submitted by the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. COBLE. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, that much of what he said I am not in disagreement with, but I do not think this is the proper forum, for this reason: I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act by providing negative budget authority for the fiscal year 1995.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond very briefly to the gentleman from Florida. I am not going to take my 5 minutes, but I feel obliged to at least respond to what he said. I cannot disagree with most of what he said, but since we are now debating the authorization bill for the Coast Guard, I think I need to make it clear to my colleagues that we should not kill the messenger in this case. The Coast Guard after all is the appropriate agency for implementing the President's policy. Whether or not we agree with the President's policy, that may well be another ball game, but I do not think we can be justified in pointing accusatory fingers to the Coast Guard for taking its part in repatriating those Cubans back to Cuba. I am advised that those Cubans who were picked up by the Coast Guard from a cruise ship have been aboard a Coast Guard cutter since that day, which I think was last Thursday, and the repatriation process is going on now. I just want to insert my oars in the water, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Coast Guard. I do not disagree with what the gentleman from Florida said, but I think it needs to be made clear that the Coast Guard is merely implementing the President's policy. amendment offered by mr. roth

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous matter on H.R. 1361.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1361, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, and cross referencing.