The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1038-E1039 on June 19, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
______
HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Monday, June 19, 2000
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, where I come from, generations of otherwise well-adjusted people have suffered the ill effects of the well-known ``Curse of the Bambino.'' Since the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth, life has never quite been the same, although I am one of those with deep, quite faith that the Curse of the Bambino officially expires as we enter the new millennium.
But I would like to discuss with you a different kind of curse. Call it the ``Curse of the Can-Do''. This curse afflicts the United States Coast Guard, and its long, proud tradition of never turning down a call for help. Of never shirking new responsibility. Even when the gas tank is literally on empty.
It's too late for the Red Sox to get Babe Ruth back. But we still have an opportunity to ensure the readiness of the Coast Guard to discharge its lifesaving mission. I take the House floor tonight to thank my colleagues who in the last few days have helped lead us in that direction--but also to warn that we're still sailing into a very stiff wind.
Last month, this House took historic steps to shore up Coast Guard resources to save lives, prevent pollution, fight drugs, help the economy, respond to natural disasters, and enhance national security. It's up to us to see these efforts through.
The FY2000 Transportation Department appropriations bill passed recently by the full House would reverse more than a decade of chronic underfunding that has made it nearly impossible for the Coast Guard to do the work the Congress has assigned it. For the first time in recent memory, there is now genuine hope that we can adequately safeguard the lives and livelihoods of those who live and work on or near the water.
From the small harbors of New England to the ice floes of Alaska; from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast to the banks of the Mississippi; I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey of the Appropriations Committee, and Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Sabo of the Transportation Subcommittee.
Their leadership has underscored the stark fact that the demands on the Coast Guard has vastly outpaced its resources. That there is no longer margin for error. And that the consequences of any such error is literally a life-and-death matter.
Despite the fact that there are no more Coast Guard personnel today than there were in 1967, it is indisputable that--day in and day out--
no public agency works harder. Or smarter.
During the 1990s, the Coast Guard reduced its workforce by nearly 10 percent--and operated within a budget that rose by only one percent in actual dollars. Over this period, it also has responded to a half-
million SOS calls, an average of 65,000 each year--and in the process, has saved 50,000 lives. Every year, the Coast Guard performs 40,000 inspections of U.S. and foreign merchant vessels; ensures the safe passage of a million commercial vessels through our ports and waterways; responds to 13,000 reports of water pollution; inspects a thousand offshore drilling platforms, conducts 12,000 fisheries enforcement boardings, and prevents 100,000 pounds of cocaine from reaching America's shores.
Two centuries of experience have taught us to rely on the professionalism, judgment, compassion, commitment and courage of the U.S. Coast Guard. From hurricanes to airplace crashes, from drug smugglers to foreign factory trawlers, the Coast Guard is always on call--just as it has been for 200 years.
We have learned to trust the Coast Guard with all we hold dear--our property, our natural resources and our lives. In Washington, a long way from the winds and the whitecaps, it has been tempting to task the Coast Guard with new and burdensome missions. Far too tempting.
Historically, the Coast Guard has discharged whatever duties it was assigned. As a Service originally created in 1790 to regulate maritime duties, its responsibilities have--appropriately--grown with the changing needs and technology of the times.
As co-chair of the House Coast Guard Caucus, along with Representatives Howard Coble and Gene Taylor, I have had grave doubts for a long time.
Most recently, much has been made of the demands on the Coast Guard for work in the area of illegal drug interdiction. As a former prosecutor, I'm all for fighting the drug war and have fully supported calling upon the Coast Guard to step up its interdiction efforts--but not at the expense of its core mission, the saving of human life.
We can't just wish away the costs, and I'm not ready to start treating search-and-rescue like a luxury we can do without--any more than you can move cops off the beat, then complain about street crime.
We have stretched the Cost Guard so thin for so long that it can barely be expected to fulfill its credo, Semper Paratus--``always prepared''. And there are scores of new missions in the wings.
This year, the Coast Guard was the only federal agency to earn an
``A'' from the independent Government Performance Project for operating with unusual efficiency and effectiveness. That assessment placed the Coast Guard at the very top of 20 Executive Branch agencies because its
``top-notch planning and performance budgeting overcame short staffing and fraying equipment.''
It all came down, they concluded, to that Curse of Can-Do. ``The Coast Guard,'' they said, ``is a CAN-DO organization whose `CAN' is dwindling while its `DO' is growing''
This can't continue. Not when the average age of its deepwater cutters is 27 years old, making this force the second oldest major naval fleet on the globe. Not when fixed-wing aircraft deployments have more than doubled, and helicopter deployments are up more than 25 percent--without any increase in the number of aircraft, pilots or crews.
Not when duty officers suffer chronic fatigue because staffing constraints permit only four hours of sleep at night. Not when the Commandant testifies before Congress that there's not enough fuel to power his boats and planes.
And not when Coast Guard radio communications units are 30 years old, like the one described in a recent news account that began this way:
If you dial 911, say the word `fire' and run outside, a fire engine will show up at your driveway. If you pick up the handset on your VHF-FM radio, say the work `Mayday' and jump overboard, you could very well drown or die of hypothermia.
Study after study has documented these hazards. A recent Interagency Task Force concluded that ``block obsolescence . . . presents a threat that [the Coast Guard] could soon be overwhelmed by a mismatch between its missions and the quantity and quality of the assets to carry them out.''
A 1997 General Accounting Office review was even more blunt. It projected $90 million annual reductions in operating expenses just to bridge the gap. GAO was alarmed by ``the sheer size of the gap and the dwindling number of available efficiency-related options.''
Where I'm from, a marine distress call is an urgent plea for emergency law enforcement and rescue personnel. When oil spills jeopardize economic as well as environmental resources; when frozen rivers trap heating oil barges; when the well-being of both fish and fishermen are threatened; when offshore danger strikes, we know were to turn.
That's why when the ink dried on the House DOT appropriation, there was reason for new and genuine hope. Like having Pedro Martinez in the starting rotation, it felt like this really could be the year.
The DOT bill approved recently for next year increases Coast Guard accounts by nearly $600 million, a 15 percent boost. It also includes
$125 million to help modernize aging airplanes, helicopters and motor lifeboats--and upgrade, rather than abandon, Coast Guard stations and the communities they serve.
Years from now, the 395 House colleagues who voted for the DOT bill can look back and take satisfaction from the knowledge that they helped saved a life, a coastal community, an international alliance--or maybe even a marine species or two.
But that old curse still hovers over the Coast Guard. Just this week, the Senate Subcommittee came in $200 million lower.
The timing could not be worse. The Senate action followed two rounds of Coast Guard cutbacks for the current fiscal year, reducing cutter days and flight hours by 10 percent.
Why? Because the Coast Guard responded to natural disasters, but the Congress failed to pass emergency supplemental funding. And because a variety of overdue personnel benefits, for everything from housing to health care, were mandated by the 2000 Defense Authorization--but with no money to pay for them.
There's more. The good news is a new effort, through the pending Military Construction bill, to restore $800 million in supplemental funding. But since only a third of that is designated as ``emergency expenses,'' the baseline for future Coast Guard budgets, next year and beyond, would be seriously compromised.
So I express gratitude for the progress made in this chamber thus far. But also to raise a warning flag about the two challenges immediately ahead.
Specifically, I urge my colleagues to hold firm in conference on the House-approved allocation in the Transportation Appropriation bill. And then to recede to Senate conferees regarding the $800 million in the MilCon measure.
That's what it will take for the Coast Guard to do the job we have assigned it to do. To contain oil spills. To catch smugglers. And, most important of all, to save lives.
____________________
