[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COHEN:
  S. 2353. A bill to authorize a certificate of documentation for the 
vessel Jan Marie; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


               certification for the vessel ``jan marie''

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill today to direct 
that the vessel Jan Marie, official number 935835, be accorded trading 
privileges with a coastwise endorsement, a Great Lakes endorsement and 
transportation of merchandise endorsement of sections 12106, 12107, and 
12108 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant 
Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883).
  The Jan Marie was built in Michigan in 1977 as a recreational vessel. 
It is 30.1 feet in length, 11.1 feet in breadth and 5.6 feet in depth.
  This vessel was purchased in April, 1993 by Steven Doran of Freeport, 
ME. Mr. Doran bought the boat in order to start a sport fishing 
business. He received the certificate of documentation from the Coast 
Guard, realized the restrictions of the Jones Act and set about trying 
to trace the builder's certificate and first transfer of title in order 
to receive a waiver of these restrictions. Mr. Doran called the 
manufacturer of the boat and was told that they were out of business 
and all of their records had been sent to archives. Mr. Doran tried 
unsuccessfully to trace these records as well as contact the first 
owner, who might have had a copy of these documents. After much 
searching, it was determined that the first owner had passed away and 
there was no address of his family for further inquiry.
  Therefore, Mr. Doran is seeking to have his vessel redocumented, so 
that these Jones Act restrictions may be removed. This will enable him 
to continue his pursuit of starting a sport fishing business in Maine.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2353

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

       Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 
     46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883), the Secretary of Transportation 
     may issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel JAN 
     MARIE, United States official number 935835.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LOTT:
  S. 2355. A bill to authorize a certificate of documentation for the 
vessel Empress; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


        certificate of documentation for the vessel ``empress''

 Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to 
direct the vessel Empress, Official Number 975018, be accorded 
coastwise trading privileges.
  The Empress was constructed in 1925 in the United States. It is 75 
feet in length, 16 feet in width, 5.5 feet in depth, and is self-
propelled. The vessel was owned by the United States until 1960. The 
vessel has been used as a corporate business vessel, private residence, 
and charter vessel. It has also been used by non-profit groups such as 
the Special Olympics, March of Dimes, and the Ronald McDonald House.
  The current owner obtained the boat from his father. The owner has 
all ownership records except for the years 1960-to-1965 when the vessel 
was being used by the Boy Scouts of America.
  The owner of the vessel is seeking a waiver of the existing law so 
that the vessel can be used as a charter vessel.
  Mr. President, I request that the text of the bill and this statement 
be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2355

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
     United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation may 
     issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel EMPRESS, 
     United States official number 975018.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 2356. A bill to establish the Commission on the Advancement of 
Women in the Science and Engineering Work Forces; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human resources.


            ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join forces with my 
colleague in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Connie Morella 
of Maryland, to sponsor the Senate companion to H.R. 467, the 
Commission on the Advancement of Women in Science and Engineering Work 
Forces Act.
  This legislation would establish a bipartisan commission to examine 
the progress women have made in science and engineering professions.
  One of the first Kennedy-Hatch collaborations shortly after I came to 
the Senate was in 1978 when we enacted the ``Women in Science'' bill as 
part of the National Science Foundation authorization for that year. In 
the mid-1980's, as chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
Committee, I authored a provision to the NSF bill that created an 
interagency committee to look at the barriers to women in Federal 
research positions and in Federally supported research.
  The legislation I am now sponsoring with Congresswoman Morella is a 
logical followup to these activities. Not only does this proposal 
broaden the scope of inquiry, but it will provide some indication about 
the progress women have made over the last decade.
  Let me assure my colleagues that, first, this commission will be 
bipartisan. There will be an equal number of Democratic and Republican 
appointments.
  Second, there is a specific due date set for the report 1 year after 
the commission members are appointed. The commission expires 1 year 
after submitting the report. None of us wants to create another 
permanent commission.
  Third, there are explicit assurances that private entities are not 
required to share information that would be considered private to that 
entity and that any information provided to the commission cannot be 
used in employment related litigation.
  Again, Mr. President, I am happy to sponsor this initiative in the 
Senate and urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Riegle):
  S. 2358. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to provide relief for non-
selfgenerating ozone nonattainment areas, and for other purposes.


                  OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA LEGISLATION

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a serious problem of unfairness with 
respect to implementation of the Clean Air Act has developed in three 
counties in west Michigan, and may be occurring elsewhere in the 
country too. I am introducing a bill today to correct this problem.
  Let me explain the situation. Three west Michigan counties have been 
designated as two separate moderate ozone nonattainment areas by the 
EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act; Kent and Ottawa counties are one, 
and Muskegon County is the other. Because of their classification as 
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment areas, the State of Michigan was 
required by law to pass legislation imposing mandatory vehicle 
inspection and maintenance testing in these two areas starting in 
January 1995. This requirement would make sense were these three 
counties the cause of either their own nonattainment or the 
nonattainment of other areas. But they are not.
  EPA has acknowledged that the three counties ``are essentially 
overwhelmed by emissions coming from Chicago and northern Indiana.'' In 
a recent letter to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, EPA 
Administrator Carol Browner said,

       ``* * * the USEPA recognizes that ozone transport may make 
     it very difficult, if not impossible, for Muskegon and Grand 
     Rapids, themselves, to achieve the NAAQS for ozone by 
     deadlines prescribed by the CAA.

  In a hearing held on Monday, July 25, before my Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, EPA agreed ``that Muskegon County 
would be in attainment but for ozone transport.'' EPA also confirmed 
that Muskegon and Grand Rapids ``are not the cause of Chicago and 
northern Indiana being in nonattainment * * *''.
  In short, these three counties are not the cause of their own or any 
other area's ozone nonattainment problem and no matter what these 
counties do for themselves, it is very unlikely that they will be able 
to achieve nonattainment. Yet, because of ozone blown their way and 
their resultant classification as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, 
they are being forced to implement a burdensome vehicle inspection 
program that won't make a significant difference. As stated succinctly 
in the Senate Environment Committee's report to accompany S. 1630, the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989, ``Because ozone is not a local 
phenomenon but is formed and transported over hundreds of miles and 
several days, localized control strategies will not be effective in 
reducing ozone levels.'' Unfortunately, this sentiment did not 
translate into the act's requirements and implementation. The 
inflexibility and inequity of the ``localized'' mandate undermines 
public support for the Clean Air Act and environmental laws, in an area 
of the country that is generally supportive of both.
  At the hearing, I asked Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air, if these three counties were designated as rural, would they 
qualify for an exemption from the Clean Air Act requirements. Ms. 
Nichols replied, ``I believe that is correct.'' She's right and that is 
at the heart of the unfairness of the Clean Air Act and EPA's 
implementation and that's what the legislation I am offering 
specifically addresses. Whether such an area is ``rural'' or contains a 
city shouldn't make any difference in the application. The principle is 
the same.
  My bill applies that principle and eliminates the disparate treatment 
between rural and nonrural areas. EPA would be authorized to designate 
any ozone nonattainment area as a ``rural transport area,'' if EPA 
finds that sources of ozone-causing emissions in that area do not make 
a significant contribution to the ozone concentrations measured in the 
area or in other areas. So, rather than rendering a metropolitan 
statistical area ineligible for the regulatory relief available to a 
rural transport area, the act would be made to apply equally for rural 
and nonrural areas and the burden would be fixed to place the burden 
more squarely on the shoulders of the ``significant contributers.''
  By the end of the summer, EPA plans to issue a new policy on ozone 
transport that will hold ``areas responsible only for that portion of 
the ozone problem which they cause.'' However, this new policy is 
expected to only correct another inequity in the act, the fact that 
downwind areas suffering from significant ozone and other pollution 
transported from more severely polluted areas have less time to achieve 
attainment. The change in attainment deadlines will not address the 
problem of areas inappropriately designated in the first place.
  Mr. President, there appear to be a number of States that contain 
``victim of transport'' areas in situations similar to west Michigan. 
Yet, there is great reluctance to attempt even minor changes in the act 
because of problems associated with ``opening up'' the statute. But, I 
say to my colleagues, the act is not flawless and it needs fixing. To 
stand by and watch our constituents spend time and money to correct a 
problem which they did not cause and cannot cure is wrong. We should 
right that wrong.
  Mr. President, I strongly support the goals of the Clean Air Act. 
But, it needs to be applied with common sense, if it is to retain the 
support of the American people.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record following my statement.

                                S. 2358

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS.

       Section 182(h)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7511a(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``that does not'' and all 
     that follows through ``Census)''.

                          ____________________