May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4559

(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

SAXTON] for his graciousness. This is,

indeed, an utterly nonpartisan success.

It is bipartisan. In fact, I never expected it to be completely bipartisan in

my life. It has always had majority and

minority support, and I never expected

it to be on both sides, but here we are.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say a word

and supplement what the gentleman

says. This is really a success story, a

decade after the passage of the original

act, an inspiration to fishermen and to

managers that conservation can in fact

work.

Ten years ago striped bass stocks

along the Atlantic coast had declined

to dangerously low levels as a result

both of overfishing and pollution. Fishermen and managers alike were concerned that this fishery would soon become endangered. In an unprecedented

move, Congress passed the Striped Bass

Conservation Act, designed to support

State efforts to reverse this trend. The

management program established

under the act was at the time of its inception in 1984 unique.

It relies upon the States to develop

regulations for their waters that are

consistent with the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission’s management plan for striped bass. If a

State fails in its efforts, a Federal moratorium is imposed.

This partnership was so successful

that in January of this year, the commission declared the striper to be fully

recovered. The implementation of the

Federal-State partnership embodied in

the act has restored the striper to its

former glory as one of the most important sport and commercial fisheries on

the East Coast. Fishermen in my State

from Martha’s Vineyard to

Mattapoisett are celebrating the return of the striper, but are mindful of

the need to continue the conservation

and management programs that have

brought this fishery back from the

crash of the preceding decade. This bill

will ensure this is the case, and I enthusiastically urge Members to support

it today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.

PALLONE.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just

wanted to thank the two gentleman,

my colleague, the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. SAXTON], and my colleague,

the gentleman from Massachusetts

[Mr. STUDDS], for putting together this

legislation. In particular, both of them

have been supportive of language which

was placed in the bill that would ensure public participation on all striped

bass management plans.

Many people who are involved with

striped bass management know that

there is a large and vociferous group of

recreational fishermen out there who

become very concerned about any

changes that are made in the management plan. One of the things that they

continually tell us is that they want to

be involved at every stage in whatever

management plan changes are put forward.

This bill and the language that is in

the bill guarantee that public participation will do what is necessary to

make sure that they have their opportunity to be heard.

I certainly want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON]

and the gentleman from Massachusetts

[Mr. STUDDS] for their cooperation in

putting that language in the bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased to rise in support of the Striped Bass

Conservation Act amendments and I compliment the author of the bill, JIM SAXTON, for

his leadership in moving this important measure.

The Atlantic coast stock of striped bass are

found in waters from North Carolina to Maine.

They are highly migratory but move primarily

along the coast within the 3-mile zone, which

is subject to State fishery management.

While striped bass populations have fluctuated dramatically in the past, the population

suffered a drastic decline in the 1970s. In fact,

striped bass harvests dropped from 15 million

pounds in 1973 to 3.5 million pounds in 1983.

In response to this serious problem, Congress approved an emergency striped bass

study and the Atlantic Striped Bass conservation Act of 1984. This law requires all affected

coastal States to implement management

measures to conserve and protect the remaining stocks of Atlantic striped bass.

While the resurgence of striped bass is a

major fishery management success, H.R.

1139 will ensure that this remarkable recovery

is not compromised in the days ahead.

As reported from my committee, this legislation will reauthorize both the Striped Bass

Conservation Act and section 7 of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, which funds

ongoing striped bass population studies. In addition, the bill focuses attention on stripers in

the Delaware River and encourages greater

public participation in the writing of management plans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ‘‘aye’’ vote on H.R.

1139 and again compliment JIM SAXTON and

GERRY STUDDS for their outstanding leadership

in this major conservation effort. I would hope

more of our fishery management efforts prove

to be this successful in the future.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no

further requests for time, and I yield

back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no

further requests for time, and I yield

back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the motion offered by

the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

SAXTON], that the House suspend the

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1139, as

amended.

The question was taken; and (twothirds having voted in favor thereof)

the rules were suspended and the bill,

as amended, was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to

revise and extend their remarks, and to

include extraneous material, on the

bill just considered and passed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION

There was no objection.

OF H.R. 1361, COAST GUARD AUfTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1996

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction

of the Committee on Rules, I call up

House Resolution 139 and ask for its

immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H.R. 139

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the

House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for

consideration of the bill (H.R. 1361) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for

the Coast Guard, and for other purposes. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed

with. Points of order against consideration

of the bill for failure to comply with section

302(f), section 308(a), or section 401(b) of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure. After

general debate the bill shall be considered

for amendment under the five-minute rule. It

shall be in order to consider as an original

bill for the purpose of amendment under the

five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather

than by section. The first two sections and

each title of the committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute shall be considered

as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute

for failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule

XXI or section 302(f) or section 401(b) of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived.

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and

report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. Any

Member may demand a separate vote in the

House on any amendment adopted in the

Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the

committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. GOSS] is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the

customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr.

FROST], pending which I yield myself

such time as I may consume. During

consideration of this resolution, all
H 4560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 9, 1995

time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very

pleased to present this wide open rule

for the fiscal year 1996 authorization of

our smallest—but hugely important—

national armed services, the Coast

Guard. I am delighted that our Rules

Committee, by unanimous voice vote,

agreed to bring this important bill to

the House floor under an open rule, allowing all Members the chance to offer

amendments under the standing rules

of this House. I wish to commend

Chairman SHUSTER, Chairman COBLE,

and ranking members MINETA and

TRAFICANT of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee for their efforts in bringing us H.R. 1361.

b 1445

Mr. Speaker, as Members know, this

year marks the first time the Coast

Guard authorization has been moved

through the Transportation Committee

and, by all accounts, the transition has

gone smoothly. This rule provides for 1

hour of general debate, to be equally

divided between the chairman and

ranking member of the Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee. It

makes in order the committee’s

amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides that

the substitute shall be considered as

read by title. Members should be aware

that this rule does provide four specific

waivers, including three technical

budget act waivers related to section

205 of the bill, and a waiver of the rule

that prohibits appropriations within

legislative bills, related to section 201

of the bill. This waiver should not

cause Members any heartache, since it

is necessary to allow the shifting of

funds from pre-existing accounts in

order to pay for damages to homes of

Coast Guard personnel caused by hurricane Andrew. I think that is eminently

fair and makes great good common

sense and I do not think it is particularly precedent-setting, Let us hope

not.

The budget act waivers are necessary

because of a provision in the bill that

allows Coast Guard officers who were

twice passed over for promotion, and

have 18 years of service, to continue in

active duty until they have served 20

years and are eligible for retirement.

Technically this provides new entitlement authority, although subcommittee Chairman COBLE assured

the Rules Committee that this is not in

any way a budget buster. In fact, the

total cost of this provision has been estimated to at less than $500,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Rules Chairman SOLOMON and the committee of jurisdiction for ensuring that Members

have a detailed explanation of the

waivers needed for this bill. I think it

is most important that all committees

take seriously the standing rules of the

House and come to the Rules Committee well prepared to discuss any specific rules violations in their bills—

whether technical or substantive. This

to me is great progress in the 104th

Congress. I think it makes pretty clear

what the issues are and what is being

protected and what is not and what the

justifications may be.

Finally, this rule provides the minority with its traditional right to a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Coast Guard

may be small in size but it is mighty in

missions. It is something of a jack of

all trades—its responsibilities cover a

broad expanse of activity, from drug

interdiction and border control to

search and rescue. At any given time

the Coast Guard might be called upon

to support military deployments—as in

the Persian Gulf—or respond to disasters—as in the midwestern floods of

1993. Especially in coastal areas—but

also across this land—Americans depend on the reliability and efficiency of

the Coast Guard. Because of its reputation for excellence and its unfailing

willingness to tackle new missions, the

Coast Guard has repeatedly been asked

to shoulder more duties. In response to

the Haiti crisis in the past 2 years, the

Coast Guard was asked to become a

floating picket line to deter desperate

Haitians from taking to the seas in unsafe boats. Coast Guard personnel became directly involved in rescue operations and the very difficult process of

repatriation in that Haitian affair as

we know. While the exodus from Haiti

has ebbed momentarily, just last week,

the administration announced a change

in its policy toward Cuban refugees

that once again places the Coast Guard

on the front lines of enforcement upon

the high seas, to turn back Cuban

rafters and enforce a more orderly

process of immigration. That is no

small order for them to undertake

that. But despite its ever expanding

list of missions, the Coast Guard has

not been given corresponding resources

to ensure that its traditional responsibilities do not suffer. In the last Congress, this House adopted language

reaffirming our commitment to providing additional resources to the Coast

Guard if new missions are added to its

plate. That is just common sense. If we

ask them to do more, we are going to

give them the money to pay for it.

Today, I am pleased that the committee has agreed to include that language in its amendment, so we will

have that again this year. On a more

parochial note, Mr. Speaker, under this

open rule all of our colleagues will

have the opportunity to assist our

local communities and private citizens

who are involved in seeking to navigate the confusing bureaucracy of the

Jones Act. In my district, we have one

city and four private citizens who find

themselves wound up in redtape as

they seek to use vessels for legitimate

municipal or commercial purposes.

H.R. 1361 already includes a provision

that covers one of the southwest Florida victims of the Jones Act redtape in

my case, and I am pleased that the

committee amendment will include

waivers to address the other three

cases I know about, and perhaps the

bulk of my colleagues’ concerns as well

will be included in that amendment. If

not, if there is still more to be done in

this area, this open rule allows Members the chance to bring their amendments forward. I hope all Members will

support this open rule, and this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following

for the RECORD:

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,1 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS

[As of May 5, 1995]

Rule type

103d Congress 104th Congress

Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total

Open/Modified-open 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 44 23 74

Modified Closed 3 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 47 8 26

Closed 4 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 9 0 0

Totals: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 104 100 31 100

1 This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only waive points of

order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an open amendment process under House rules. 2 An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule subject only

to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be preprinted in the Congressional Record. 3 A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which preclude

amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open to amendment. 4 A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the committee in reporting the bill).
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4561

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS

[As of May 5, 1995]

H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule

H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 5 ............................... Unfunded Mandate Reform ................................................................................................ A: 350–71 (1/19/95).

H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H. Con. Res. 17 ...............

H.J. Res. 1. Social Security ....................................................................................................................Balanced Budget Amdt. A: 255–172 (1/25/95).

H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 101 ........................... Land Transfer, Taos Pueblo Indians .................................................................................. A: voice vote (2/1/95).

H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 400 ........................... Land Exchange, Arctic Nat’l. Park and Preserve ............................................................... A: voice vote (2/1/95).

H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 440 ........................... Land Conveyance, Butte County, Calif .............................................................................. A: voice vote (2/1/95).

H. Res. 55 (2/1/95) ......................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2 ............................... Line Item Veto .................................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/2/95).

H. Res. 60 (2/6/95) ......................................... O ...................................... H.R. 665 ........................... Victim Restitution ............................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/7/95).

H. Res. 61 (2/6/95) ......................................... O ...................................... H.R. 666 ........................... Exclusionary Rule Reform ................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/7/95).

H. Res. 63 (2/8/95) ......................................... MO .................................... H.R. 667 ........................... Violent Criminal Incarceration ........................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/9/95).

H. Res. 69 (2/9/95) ......................................... O ...................................... H.R. 668 ........................... Criminal Alien Deportation ................................................................................................. A: voice vote (2/10/95).

H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 728 ........................... Law Enforcement Block Grants .......................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/10/95).

H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 7 ............................... National Security Revitalization ......................................................................................... PQ: 229–100; A: 227–127 (2/15/95).

H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H.R. 831 ........................... Health Insurance Deductibility ........................................................................................... PQ: 230–191; A: 229–188 (2/21/95).

H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 830 ........................... Paperwork Reduction Act ................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/2/95).

H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H.R. 889 ........................... Defense Supplemental ........................................................................................................ A: 282–144 (2/22/95).

H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 450 ........................... Regulatory Transition Act ................................................................................................... A: 252–175 (2/23/95).

H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 1022 ......................... Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................ A: 253–165 (2/27/95).

H. Res. 100 (2/27/95) ..................................... O ...................................... H.R. 926 ........................... Regulatory Reform and Relief Act ..................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/28/95).

H. Res. 101 (2/28/95) ..................................... MO .................................... H.R. 925 ........................... Private Property Protection Act .......................................................................................... A: 271–151 (3/1/95)

H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 988 ........................... Attorney Accountability Act ................................................................................................ A: voice vote (3/6/95)

H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 1058 ......................... Securities Litigation Reform ...............................................................................................

H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) ....................................... MO .................................... .......................................... .............................................................................................................................................

H. Res. 108 (3/6/95) ....................................... Debate .............................. H.R. 956 ........................... Product Liability Reform ..................................................................................................... A: voice vote (3/8/95)

H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) ....................................... MC .................................... .......................................... ............................................................................................................................................. PQ: 234–191 A: 247–181 (3/9/95)

H. Res. 115 (3/14/95) ..................................... MO .................................... H.R. 1159 ......................... Making Emergency Supp. Approps. .................................................................................... A: 242–190 (3/15/95)

H. Res. 116 (3/15/95) ..................................... MC .................................... H.J. Res. 73 ..................... Term Limits Const. Amdt ................................................................................................... A: voice vote (3/28/95)

H. Res. 117 (3/16/95) ..................................... Debate .............................. H.R. 4 ............................... Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 .................................................................................. A: voice vote (3/16/95)

H. Res. 119 (3/21/95) ..................................... MC .................................... .......................................... ............................................................................................................................................. A: 217–211 (3/22/95)

H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1271 ......................... Family Privacy Protection Act ............................................................................................. A: 423–1 (4/4/95)

H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 660 ........................... Older Persons Housing Act ................................................................................................. voice vote (4/6/95).

H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H.R. 1215 ......................... Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995 ................................................................. A: 228–204 (4/5/95)

H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H.R. 483 ........................... Medicare Select Expansion ................................................................................................. A: 253–172 (4/6/95)

H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 655 ........................... Hydrogen Future Act of 1995 ............................................................................................. A: voice vote (5/2/95)

H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1361 ......................... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 ...............................................................................................

Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the

balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my

Republican colleagues for the rule they

are recommending today. So far this

year, the rules they have recommended

have been 70 percent closed. This is in

spite of their promises to open the

process in the House.

However, since the rule before us

today is an open rule, I must commend

the Republican majority.

As my colleague described, this rule

provides for the consideration of a relatively noncontroversial Coast Guard

authorization.

It authorizes $3.7 billion for the Coast

Guard—exactly the amount requested

by the administration and only slightly more than last year’s authorization.

The 37,000 members of the Coast

Guard provide this Nation with invaluable maritime service for everything

from search and rescue to drug interdiction and this $3.7 billion will support their good work.

I would like to commend Chairman

SHUSTER and ranking member MINETA

for putting together a truly bipartisan

bill which should pass the House with

little opposition.

I urge my colleagues to support this

rare open rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of

my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to my

colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. ROSLEHTINEN].

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I

rise today to denounce the Clinton administration’s decision to use this

great American institution, the U.S.

Coast Guard, to serve the purposes of a

tyrant.

We in south Florida are very knowledgeable about the Coast Guard because of the wonderful work they perform during periods of natural disasters such as during Hurricane Andrew

where they played a crucial role in the

rescue operations.

Those of us who are residents of

south Florida also know the Coast

Guard as a humanitarian institution

because, for years, the Coast Guard has

rescued freedom-seeking Cubans from

the waters of the Florida Straits while

on their journey to freedom.

This humanitarian aspect of the

Coast Guard, for which all of America

should be proud, was surprisingly reversed last week when the Clinton administration announced the United

Stated will now repatriate freedomseeking Cubans back to the island prison they risked their lives to escape.

The President has now made the

Coast Guard an extension of the Cuban

authorities, in order to keep the Cuban

people under the Castro repression.

Just this afternoon, the first victims

of the President’s latest flipflop were

turned over to the bloody henchmen of

Castro.

Mr. Speaker, this change of policy is

an embarrassment to the longstanding

record of the United States as the beacon of hope and freedom for the oppressed of the world.

With one swift and misguided decision, the Clinton administration has

successfully allied itself with the

bloodiest tyrant the Americas has ever

known, and has crushed the aspirations

of freedom for millions of Cubans.

The administration has once again

proven that it does not comprehend

how to deal with Cuba.

Instead of attacking the root of the

problem, Fidel Castro, the President

continues to treat Cuba as an immigration problem, not as legitimate foreign

policy matter.

Most disturbing is that the President

is using the Coast Guard to help maintain Cubans under the oppressive hand

of Castro.

This accord, Mr. Speaker, was

reached in secret negotiations led by

Assistant Secretary of State, Peter

Tarnoff.

Not even the head of the Cuban Affairs desk of the U.S. Department of

State knew about these dealings, nor

the Assistant Secretary for

Interamerican Affairs at State.

Moreover, Congress was never consulted on the matter and the administration has been stalling on details

about the talks.

Many questions still remain unanswered such as what concessions were

given to Castro, and whether it is just

a simple coincidence that, just few

days before the new policy announcement, the administration publicly declared its opposition to the Helms-Burton bill.

The administration must come forth

with answers to these and other questions which are critical to untangling

the purpose of this new policy.

Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard has

been an exemplary institution of this

country for decades.

We should not allow the administration to use it as a tool to aid a totalitarian tyrant.

I urge my colleagues to raise their

voices against this distortion of the

Coast Guard’s mission.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. TRAFICANT].

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise

in support of this rule, and I rise in
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