Amending the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source