H 4562 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 9, 1995

support of this bill and in support of

the new chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. COBLE]. I do not believe there

is anybody better prepared in the Congress to head the mission of this Congress in deliberating these matters,

save for maybe the gentleman from

Massachusetts [Mr. STUDDS], his vast

knowledge of working with the committee over the years.

However, I have one concern with the

bill. I am going to vote for this bill regardless if the amendment I propose

passes or not, but the Coast Guard,

Congress, has been known for safety.

There is a provision in this bill that allows for the closing of 23 small boat

stations.

The bill gives an opportunity for the

Coast Guard to work out all kinds of

safety parameters here, to ensure that

there will be adequate safety, et cetera,

et cetera, but the truth of the matter

is, ‘‘Scarlett, quite frankly, I don’t buy

it.’’

We have had testimony offered to us

that the last time some of these small

boat stations were closed, there was an

accompanying loss of life. The Coast

Guard has one mission. That is safety.

What the Traficant amendment is

dealing with financially, Congress, is $3

million; $3 million could be taken out

of transportation, taken out of some

expense account. Under the Traficant

amendment, it says they could transfer

everything out of these small boat stations but they must leave one pair of

eyes of a Coast Guard full-time official,

one pair of hands, one pair of eyes.

Let me caution Congress: With all of

these beautiful ideas of these weekend

warriors, be careful, Congress. There

are an awful lot of other good amendments, after the Traficant amendment

is considered, that will put some extenuating circumstances and criteria

that speak to safety.

The truth of the matter is there is

only one amendment today that will

stop these closings. Every one of those

other amendments will get a quickover, fancy report and they will close

those small boat stations.

The Traficant amendment says those

small boat stations will not be closed.

They could transfer everything they

want out of there, but they must leave

one full-time personnel to coordinate

those local efforts.

Congress, that is good sense. We are

here to set policy. We have given the

executive branch so much authority in

so many areas, we are now not even

getting votes on major issues, including bailouts of Mexico.

I am recommending to the Congress

that the policy of the Congress be the

Coast Guard is an excellent, excellent

American service. Its No. 1 mission is

safety. We will retain it and keep its

mission as safety. When you get a

chance, consider that in any regard.

I will support this bill under any circumstances. It is a good bill. I commend the chairman, the gentleman

from North Carolina [Mr. COBLE] for

his outstanding effort.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I also

wanted to commend the Committee on

Rules, as well as the chairman of the

Subcommittee on Coast Guard and

Maritime Transportation, for supporting an open rule on this Coast Guard

authorization bill.

I did want to say, though, that I totally, 100 percent agree with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TRAFICANT], the

ranking member, that his amendment,

the Traficant amendment, if you will,

is the only amendment that will assure

that the 23 small boat unit stations are

not closed.

I remember because when I was first

elected to Congress back in 1988, they

had recently, the Coast Guard had recently proposed closing a number of

stations, Coast Guard stations around

the country, including the one that I

represent at the Shark River Inlet. The

effects of those closures at the time

were widespread.

I think many Members know that

over the years, the Coast Guard committee and this Congress have added

more and more responsibilities to the

Coast Guard, whether it be to enforce

against drug trafficking, to enforce our

environmental laws, to enforce our

fishing laws. More and more work

every year goes to the Coast Guard,

and at the same time we have been providing some additional funds for the

Coast Guard.

b 1500

But to suggest, as this small boat

unit closure plan does, that all of a

sudden now there are this minute 23

stations around the country that are

no longer needed at a time when the

amount of incidents, search and rescue

incidents as well as all of the other jurisdiction the Coast Guard now has,

and that traffic increases every year,

to suggest this is the time to make

these kinds of closures I think makes

no sense.

In addition, although I understand

there are amendments out there and

the rule provides for an open rule

where all of these amendments can be

heard, all of the other amendments, as

the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TRAFICANT] said, will basically allow the

Coast Guard to close these 23 stations

and others and look for some sort of alternative, either the State or locality

or auxiliary, to step in and perform

those functions also, let me assure my

colleagues in the State of New Jersey

it is not possible through our State of

New Jersey through our marine police

or Coast Guard auxiliary or local fire

departments or whatever to step in and

take over the responsibilities that the

Coast Guard has at these various stations. That is why it is very important

we pass the Traficant amendment

today.

I appreciate the fact we have an open

rule, and I also appreciate the fact that

the chairman, Mr. COBLE, has tried

very hard to do what he can to cooperate with those of us who are concerned

about these closures. But I sincerely

believe the only way we can make sure

that the closures do not occur is by

passing the Traficant amendment.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no

other Members in the Chamber requesting time at this point, and I yield

back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we have no

further requests for time, I yield back

the balance of my time, and I move the

previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

The resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF

fH.R. 961, CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on

Rules, submitted a privileged report

(Rept. No. 104–114) on the resolution (H.

Res. 140) providing for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 961) to amend the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act, which

was referred to the House Calendar and

ordered to be printed.

AUTHORIZING 1995 SPECIAL OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY TO BE RUN

fTHROUGH CAPITAL GROUNDS

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent for the immediate

consideration of the concurrent resolution (H.Con. Res. 64) authorizing the

1995 Special Olympics Torch Relay to

be run through the Capitol Grounds.

The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

Mr. WISE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to object, and I yield to the gentleman from

Maryland for an explanation of his request.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I

thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the concurrent resolution before us would authorize the 1995

Special Olympics Torch Relay to be

run through the Capitol Grounds on

May 19, 1995, as part of the journey of

the special olympics torch to the Special Olympics Summer Games at Gallaudet University here in the District.

Under the resolution, the Capitol Police Board will oversee the run and the

Architect of the Capitol is responsible

for establishing the conditions and

making preparations necessary for the

event.

This is an annual event and one

which Congress has approved several

times before. This year approximately

60 local and Federal law enforcement

agencies throughout the region will

participate in this 26-mile relay run
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4563

through the city in support of the Special Olympics. As we all know, this

program gives handicapped children

and adults the opportunity to participate in athletic events.

Because of laws prohibiting open

flames on Capitol Grounds, and because

of safety concerns about activities taking place thereon, this resolution is

necessary to permit the relay to occur.

The resolution authorizes the Capitol

Police Board to take necessary action

to insure the safety of the Capitol, and

the Architect of the Capitol may set

forth conditions on participation in

this event.

Activities will begin on Capitol Hill

where the U.S. Capitol Police will host

opening ceremonies and thereafter over

1,000 law enforcement officials will

relay the torch through the city to

Gallaudet University where the D.C.

Special Olympics Summer Games will

be held.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very worthwhile endeavor and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the resolution which authorizes the event.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I join my

colleague in supporting use of the Capitol Grounds for the Special Olympics

Torch Relay Run. As has been the custom, law enforcement officials from

over 65 Federal and local agencies will

relay the special olympics torch

through the District to Gallaudet University to signal the beginning of the

Special Olympics.

The event is scheduled this year for

May 19. Since this date is a week from

this Friday, we need to act on this legislation expeditiously.

This is a very worthwhile event

which benefits not only the families

and participants but also the volunteers and sponsors who contribute

their time and efforts for handicapped

children and adults.

I ask my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, the Special

Olympics is a program which gives handicapped children and adults the opportunity to

compete in sporting events and thereby enhance their self-esteem and self-image.

The Torch Relay Run through the Capitol

Grounds is an annual event which this committee has traditionally supported and I am

very pleased once again to support the resolution authorizing use of the grounds for this

very worthwhile endeavor.

I commend both the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. GILCHREST], chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic

Development, and the gentleman from West

Virginia [Mr. WISE], the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat for moving this resolution in a

timely fashion. The event is scheduled for May

19.

I join my colleagues in urging passage of

this resolution.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw

my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

H. CON. RES. 64

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the

Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF

SPECIAL OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY

THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

On May 19, 1995, or on such other date as

the Speaker of the House of Representatives

and the President pro tempore of the Senate

may jointly designate, the 1995 Special

Olympics Torch Relay may be run through

the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey

of the Special Olympics torch to the District

of Columbia Special Olympics summer

games at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE

BOARD.

The Capitol Police Board shall take such

action as may be necessary to carry out section 1.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL

PREPARATIONS.

The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe

conditions for physical preparations for the

event authorized by section 1.

The concurrent resolution was agreed

to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask

GENERAL LEAVE

funanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days within

which to revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous

material, on House Concurrent Resolution 64.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

EWING). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER

There was no objection.

AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 743

fMr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to

ask unanimous consent to remove my

name as cosponsor of H.R. 743, the

Teamwork for Employees and Management Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I was unPERSONAL EXPLANATION

favoidably absent from the vote when

rollcall No. 304 and rollcall No. 306 were

taken last week. I would have voted in

the affirmative in both matters if I had

been present.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanGENERAL LEAVE

fimous 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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina?

There was no objection.

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 139 and rule

XXIII, the Chair declares the House in

the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1361.

b 1507

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union for the

consideration of the bill (H.R. 1361) to

authorize appropriations for fiscal year

1996 for the Coast Guard, and for other

purposes, with Mr. DICKEY in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the bill is considered as having

been read the first time.

Under the rule, the gentleman from

North Carolina [Mr. COBLE] and the

gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TRAFICANT]

will each be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from North Carolina [Mr. COBLE].

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 shallowwater 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: