[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 134 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 535 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 535

       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. 4422) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 1995 for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill 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 
     Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 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 
     Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
     All points of order against amendments printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 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 Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This resolution waives all points of order against the bill's 
consideration and the committee substitute now printed in the bill as 
original text.
  Under this rule any Member who has a germane amendment may offer that 
amendment at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution also makes in order two amendments. Ms. 
Schenk of California will offer an amendment which is identical to 
language in H.R. 1250 which was adopted under suspension of the rules 
in the House earlier this Congress.
  The second amendment made in order by this resolution will be offered 
by Ms. Long of Indiana. This amendment concerns the regulation of 
animal fats and oils.
  Ms. Long's amendment directs the appropriate agencies to develop a 
method to clearly differentiate between nontoxic animal fats and oils 
and toxic petroleum and nontoxic petroleum oils.
  These two amendments were granted a waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI 
because they are not germane to the bill.
  However, they are noncontroversial and supported by the members of 
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4422 will authorize $3.7 billion for the Coast 
Guard during the next 2 fiscal years.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes funding at a level only slightly 
higher than that of last year's authorization.
  The small increase in the bill is allocated primarily for a cost-of-
living adjustment for Coast Guard personnel. In my view, Mr. Speaker, 
this is money well spent because I believe that the U.S. Coast Guard is 
one of the most effective branches of our military.
  The men and women of the Coast Guard work day in and day out to 
insure that our waterways are safe, that our oceans are protected from 
pollution, and that our coastline is guarded against illegal drug 
traffic.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks we have all seen the massive flood 
of refugees take to the seas on make shift rafts from Cuba and Haiti in 
a quest to reach the shores of America.
  Mr. Speaker, these refugees have been saved in large part thanks to 
the efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard. This rescue effort was no easy 
task and has shown how valuable the Coast Guard is to our country's 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, the roughly 37,000 members of the Coast Guard provide 
many other important services for our county.
  These men and women have a role in enforcing a wide variety of laws 
which range from the Abandoned Barge Act of 1992 to the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990. These laws help insure that our oceans and waterways are 
safe and clean.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to commend Chairman Studds and 
the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Fields, for their hard work on 
this bill.
  Once again the members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee 
have put together bipartisan legislation which should pass the House 
with little opposition. I urge adoption of the rule and adoption of the 
bill.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
has done an outstanding job in bringing forth this bipartisan, fiscally 
responsible, non-controversial Coast Guard authorization bill. I 
commend Chairman Gerry Studds and ranking republican Jack Fields for 
requesting this open rule. The rule does provide germaneness waivers 
for two amendments to be offered to the bill, but I am not aware of any 
opposition to these waivers, and I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard is a vital component of our Armed 
Forces. On Monday three Coast Guard cutters led the U.S. Naval Fleet 
into Port-au-Prince harbor. This is but one of the functions expected 
of our Coast Guard. We need to do all that we can to ensure the future 
military readiness of the Coast Guard, and this bill recognizes and 
addresses that need by authorizing $439.2 million to expand, build and 
improve Coast Guard vessels, aircraft, facilities, and related 
equipment.
  In addition to its responsibility for the promotion and protection of 
safety of life and property at sea, the Coast Guard is a key player in 
U.S. drug interdiction efforts. The committee has wisely authorized $21 
million over the President's request for drug interdiction and I hope 
we continue to see an increase in funding for all efforts to eliminate 
the availability and use of illegal drugs. The war against drugs, in my 
opinion, is becoming the toughest battle this country has ever faced, 
and we must do everything possible to achieve victory.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so we can proceed 
with the consideration of this important legislation.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           94      27         29       67         71 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Sept. 20, 1994.                                                       


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 17, 1994).   
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).      
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.  
                                           Accountability.                                                              10, 1994).                      
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994....  O         H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc.       N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MC        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 532, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4448: Lowell Natl. Park.  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
H. Res. 535, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4422: Coast Guard         N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 536, Sept. 20, 1994...  MC        H.R. 2866: Headwaters Forest   16 (D-5; R-11)..  9 (D-3; R-6)..............  PQ: 245-175 A: 246-174 (Sept. 21,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] has no requests for time, I have no requests for 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 535 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. 4422) 
to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for the Coast Guard, 
and for other purposes.

                              {time}  1414


                     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. 
4422) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for the Coast 
Guard, and for other purposes, with Mr. Darden 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 Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4422, the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 1994. The bill authorizes $3.7 billion for 
the Coast Guard in the coming fiscal year, a figure consistent with the 
President's request, with the addition of $13 million for alteration of 
bridges and $21 million for drug interdiction. The authorization levels 
provide needed resources for the Coast Guard and have generally been 
reflected in the Department of Transportation appropriations bill, 
which passed the House on June 16.
  I wish to highlight three of the more significant new authorities the 
bill provides the Coast Guard. First, the authority to charge foreign 
passenger vessels for the full cost of inspections. Second, the 
authority to pay for childcare services for Coast Guard families in 
areas where other facilities are not available. And, third an increase 
in penalties for documentation violations. These provisions were 
requested by the Coast Guard and will enable the agency to do its job 
better.
  Today, in the Caribbean, the Coast Guard is fully engaged in the 
largest humanitarian rescue mission in its 204-year history. In 1994, 
the Coast Guard has rescued over 38,000 Cuban refugees and over 25,000 
Haitians. In this Herculean effort, the Coast Guard has used more than 
40 cutters, flown over 500 aircraft sorties, and employed more than 
6,000 personnel. Aside from foreign policy questions, no one can fault 
the dedication of the Coast Guard men and women to this heroic 
lifesaving effort.
  At the same time, the Coast Guard elsewhere has saved 4,455 lives, 
responded to over 29,000 search and rescue incidents, serviced more 
than 50,000 aids-to-navigation, issued at least 350 fishing violation 
citations, and seized over 76,000 pounds of marijuana and more than 
56,000 pounds of cocaine. Time after time, the Coast Guard demonstrates 
its ability to carry out multiple missions in response to this 
country's ever changing challenges.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill recognizes that the Coast Guard provides an 
invaluable benefit to the American people by authorizing one of the 
wisest investments of the people's money that we are privileged to 
make. This is a fiscally responsible bill that authorizes needed 
funding levels to sustain vital Coast Guard services which are provided 
to the American people and countless others around the world.
  I urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4422, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1994.
  H.R. 4422 authorizes funds for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 1995 
at the level requested by the President, plus $13 million to fund the 
bridge administration program, and an additional $21 million for drug 
interdiction activities. This bill also contains several important 
provisions to improve vessel and navigation safety and Coast Guard 
personnel management. As I will explain, I have several concerns 
involving the strain placed on Coast Guard drug interdiction resources 
during the last part of this fiscal year. Fortunately, H.R. 4422 
contains my amendments that will prevent these problems from occurring 
again during the next fiscal year.
  I am most concerned about the effect of the President's policy on 
Haiti on Coast Guard drug interdiction operations. Until the Cuban 
refugee situation worsened, the Coast Guard had diverted substantial 
law enforcement resources in the Caribbean to Haitian refugee 
interdiction. Earlier this month, the Coast Guard was unable to respond 
to 11 potential drug incidents in this area. Obviously the Coast 
Guard's law enforcement resources have been strained, and drug 
smugglers are taking advantage of the situation. Fortunately, we will 
not see a repeat of this situation during the next fiscal year, because 
H.R. 4422 contains my amendment to prohibit diversion of drug 
interdiction resources to any other mission in fiscal year 1995.
  Another matter of concern to me is the overall level of funding for 
Coast Guard drug interdiction activities. I am especially concerned 
about the cuts to drug interdiction for the Coast Guard and other 
agencies, especially the Department of Defense, that provide 
information and support to the Coast Guard drug interdiction program.
  The President's national drug control policy increases funds for 
treatment and prevention activities, while cutting funds for drug 
interdiction and other law enforcement efforts. I urge the President to 
change his drug control policy and restore the funds cut from drug 
interdiction. We must not allow even one known drug shipment to enter 
this country.
  H.R. 4422 contains my amendment to authorize an additional $21 
million for drug interdiction for fiscal year 1995. These additional 
funds would build Coast Guard drug interdiction activities back up to 
an acceptable level next year.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4422 addresses the critical problems for the Coast 
Guard for the next fiscal year, and I hope we can send this bill to the 
President for his signature later this fall. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this bill.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and 
commend him, the ranking member, my colleague from Texas, and all the 
members of the committee, for the excellent work they have done under 
very difficult circumstances. I rise also to pay tribute to all of the 
Members of the Coast Guard, from the commandant down to the field.
  Let me say that my concern is that we keep extending or expanding the 
mission of the Coast Guard without the appropriate resources. I wish 
more could have been done in this legislation. But I sympathize with 
the problem, and I commend the chairman and the members of the 
committee. But I think that in the future, we should insist that the 
Coast Guard, for the excellent job they do, they do not have the 
adequate resources, and that should be addressed down the line.
  Again, I commend the chairman and the members of the committee, and 
all of the members of the Coast Guard, for the excellent work that they 
do.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] the 
distinguished ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Coast 
Guard and Navigation.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4422, the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995.
  While I support the bill as a whole, as the ranking Republican member 
of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Coast Guard and 
Navigation, I must express my concerns about the Coast Guard's tight 
operating budget especially at a time when the Coast Guard has been 
forced to spend untold millions of unappropriated dollars in its Cuban 
rescue and Haitian military efforts.
  The very small increase in the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1995 
operating budget is not enough to maintain current Coast Guard 
services. Under the President's budget, the Coast Guard will have to 
eliminate $100 million in Coast Guard services, including over 1,000 
Coast Guard personnel and 14 search and rescue stations. The Coast 
Guard cannot continue to absorb these large operational funding cuts 
without seriously jeopardizing the vital life saving and law 
enforcement services which the Coast Guard provides our country.
  Over the past several months the immensely dedicated men and women of 
the Coast Guard have undoubtedly saved the lives of thousands of 
Haitian and Cubans who have taken to the sea in desperate attempts to 
flee their countries. I am extremely proud of the tireless efforts of 
these public servants. However, this huge operation has not been free. 
The administration has yet to ask for one dime to compensate the Coast 
Guard for what it has spent in the Caribbean. Unfortunately, the Coast 
Guard has had to vastly curtail its important law enforcement missions. 
Without the Coast Guard patrolling our shores, drug smugglers should 
have little trouble in transporting illegal narcotics into our country.
  Our committee did address the troubling drug interdiction issue by 
adopting an amendment to H.R. 4422 offered by Mr. Fields which adds $21 
million to the Coast Guard's operating expense account for drug 
interdiction activities. This amount would restore the Coast Guard's 
drug interdiction funding cuts which were made in 1994 and proposed in 
the administration's fiscal year 1995 budget.
  The committee also adopted my amendment to H.R. 4422 which requires 
the Secretary of Transportation to develop a plan to more fully utilize 
the Coast Guard Selected Reserve. The Coast Guard Selected Reserve has 
been cut from a strength of 13,300 in 1987 to a strength of 8,000 
today. The administration's fiscal year 1995 budget called for a Coast 
Guard Reserve force of 7,000. I strongly believe that the reserve will 
be useless in its important peacetime and military roles if these 
reductions do not stop.
  I would finally like to express my support for the committee 
amendment to H.R. 4422. I am particularly pleased that the amendment 
includes the Towing Vessel Navigational Safety Act, the Recreational 
Boating Safety Improvement Act, and the Coast Guard Regulatory Reform 
Act. The first two bills provide for important new safety standards for 
inland towing and recreational vessels while the third will help 
improve the international competitiveness of the U.S.-flag liner fleet.
  I strongly believe that the Coast Guard provides our Nation with one 
of the best values in the Federal budget, but Congress cannot expect 
the Coast Guard to keep doing more and more while continuing to cut its 
funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4422.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply say to my friend, the 
gentleman from Greensboro, NC, that I am in strong support of his 
statement, and congratulate him on his great effort and his fine work 
on the committee.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from California for congratulating the gentleman from North Carolina, 
and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 4422, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1994. First of all I 
want to thank and commend the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Tauzin and the 
chairman for the committee for their hard work on this very much needed 
legislation.
  I support H.R. 4422 because it authorizes funds needed for the Coast 
Guard to successfully carry out its mission. We must recognize and 
appreciate the performance of the Coast Guard during the Haitian and 
Cuban interdiction and address issues such as adequate funding for its 
operating expenses. This bill addresses this by authorizing $2.7 
billion for search and rescue, marine safety, aids to navigation, 
defense readiness, enforcement of laws and treaties, and drug 
interdiction.
  H.R. 4422 will create more jobs in our American shipyards by 
prohibiting the Coast Guard from having any repair or maintenance work 
done on its vessel in foreign shipyards.
  The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1994 goes beyond authorizing 
funds for operating expenses, acquisition and construction, and 
environmental compliance. H.R. 4422 includes provisions that will 
increase the penalty for violations of U.S. vessel documentation 
requirements.
  The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1994 includes a provision which 
grants the Coast Guard special authority to recruit women and 
minorities for entrance to the Coast Guard Academy. This goal will be 
met by conducting studies and analyses on Coast Guard personnel 
resource and training needs; and employing special programs for 
recruiting women and minorities.
  I want to thank Mr. Tauzin and his staff for working with my staff 
and I when we included a study of implications for vessel safety in 
navigable waters near Houston. This study is important to Houston 
because it will study ways to improve the overall safety of the Port of 
Houston and the Houston Ship Channel and the ramifications for vessel 
safety in these areas due to the increase shipping traffic resulting 
from NAFTA and GATT--if passed.
  I congratulate Mr. Tauzin and the chairman of our full committee, Mr. 
Studds, for their efforts in putting together a very meaningful and 
much needed bill that I believe will allow the Coast Guard to 
productively carry out its programs and operations in the upcoming 
fiscal year.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, in my remarks today on H.R. 4422, I would 
like to focus on one provision dealing with recruiting activities at 
the Coast Guard Academy that has not garnered much attention in the 
context of the overall bill. Section 401 of H.R. 4422 would authorize 
the Coast Guard Academy to undertake special recruiting programs to 
increase the number of women and minorities in the Academy and in 
leadership positions in the service.
  While such an effort may seem benign enough, the specific program at 
the Coast Guard Academy is based on several troublesome findings, also 
included in the legislation, and seems to be part of a broader re-
direction of affirmative action policy throughout the administration. 
The recruiting programs authorized by H.R. 4422 are directed at a goal 
of increasing the number of women and minorities in leadership 
positions in the U.S. Coast Guard to reflect the proportion of women 
and minorities in the total population. I must admit that I am very 
troubled by an affirmative action goal that seeks strict proportional 
representation in the senior ranks of the Coast Guard without any 
regard to the relevant pools of qualified applicants for those 
positions. Comparisons based on raw population statistics run contrary 
to well-settled discrimination law. H.R. 4422 also hints that cultural 
bias in standardized testing has impeded the leadership opportunities 
of women and minorities in the Coast Guard despite that fact that there 
is mixed scientific evidence with regard to such a bias.
  The Coast Guard diversity program follows on the heels of a widely 
reported reversal by the Department of Justice in an affirmative action 
lawsuit which also dealt with the issue of diversity. The Justice 
Department originally argued that diversity as an educational goal was 
not a sufficient justification for a racial preference which had 
resulted in a white teacher being discharged, simply because she is 
white, over a black teacher in a layoff situation. The case involved 
the school system of Piscataway, NJ, where all sides agreed that there 
was no history either of discrimination or of an underrepresentation of 
minorities in the teaching workforce. The school system believed it 
should fire the white teacher in order to maintain what it had 
determined was the proper level of diversity between whites and blacks. 
The Justice Department is now asserting that its earlier stance was too 
narrow and would discourage employers from untertaking voluntary 
efforts to achieve workplace diversity.

  In this case, I believe that the Justice Department is flat out 
wrong. Where there has been no history of discrimination and, in fact, 
the percentage of minorities in the Piscataway school system is greater 
than in the qualified labor pool, it is grossly unfair to rely on 
racial preferences to decide who will and who won't retain their jobs 
in a lay-off situation. When the nature of the burden on innocent third 
parties, specifically the loss of one's livelihood, is so great, the 
courts have held that voluntary affirmative action faces an extremely 
high hurdle in terms of its justification. To my knowledge, no court 
has authorized racial preferences in a situation such as that faced by 
Piscataway Township where the sole justification for the use of racial 
preferences in lay-off decisions was the achievement of a very 
compartmentalized notion of work force diversity, that is, in one job 
category.
  The issue of work force diversity has also surfaced at the Department 
of Defense where DOD agency heads were recently instructed that prior 
approval from the undersecretary for personnel and readiness must be 
obtained before any non-disabled white male is hired or promoted for 
upper level positions. While no intention to employ explicit racial 
preferences was expressed in the Defense Department directive, the 
message to those who do the hiring and firing was very clear.
  I raise these issues collectively simply to wave a yellow flag that 
the area of affirmative action policy is one in which both the 
administration and the Congress should proceed carefully. After all, 
each of the examples I cited involve voluntary affirmative action 
efforts which impact innocent parties on both sides of the decisions at 
issue. While there may be a need for affirmative remedies where there 
is a history of discrimination resulting in a racial or gender 
imbalance in a work force, these recent actions by the administration 
are moving quickly into uncharted territory. This area of civil rights 
law is obviously controversial. Discrimination on the basis of race, 
sex, religion, national origin, or disability runs contrary to the 
fundamental principles of this country, and use of preferences based on 
any of these categories must be carefully thought through and, if used 
at all, be carefully limited. Where these lines are drawn is subject to 
considerable debate, no doubt, on both sides of the aisle, but my sense 
is that this administration has gone too far and is drawing these lines 
differently than would many Members of Congress. I urge caution.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Coast Guard and Navigation.
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the distinguished 
chairman of our full committee for yielding time to me and rise as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation in support 
of the Coast Guard and in support of this bill, the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 1995.
  The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries developed our bill, 
H.R. 4422 in the traditional bipartisan manner that fully authorizes 
the administration's austere budget request to fund the Coast Guard for 
the fiscal year 1995.
  I would like to personally thank again the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], 
our ranking full committee member, and the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Coble], our ranking subcommittee member for the 
extraordinary cooperation we have always had and as we have had on this 
bill again today.
  The fact that we asked for an open rule to the Committee on Rules is 
an indication of the confidence we have in this bill and in the support 
for the Coast Guard on the floor of this House.
  H.R. 4422 fully authorizes the President's relatively austere request 
for $3.7 billion in appropriations for 1995. This is an increase of 
only $133 million over last year; 70 percent of the request will 
support the Coast Guard's operating account.
  H.R. 4422 also authorizes $439 million for the AC&I account, an 
incredibly important section of the bill designed to build and maintain 
the cutters, the boats, the aircraft and the shore stations vital to 
Coast Guard operations.
  Among many other projects, the bill continues the VTS 2000 program, 
an essential program to provide traffic maintenance control in the 
harbors and waterways of our country. It authorizes the construction of 
new buoy tenders to replace the 50-year-old fleet that should have been 
retired some time ago and also 20 new motor lifeboats critical to 
lifesaving efforts which is, I know Members all recognize, one of the 
principal reasons the Coast Guard is present in our districts, to save 
lives and to protect America's boaters.
  Our committee amendment includes several very important bills, 
including one the Towing Vessel Navigational Safety Act of 1994. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] will talk, I am sure, about 
it more, but as Members know, this is the anniversary of the awful 
tragedy in Mobile at Bayou Canot. It is important that on this date 
this Congress recognizes the vital improvements necessary in towing 
vessel safety on America's waterways. The Towing Vessel Navigational 
Safety Act of 1994 is an extraordinary big step forward in improving 
the safety of America's inland waterways, so that another incident like 
the one that occurred a year ago today tragically might be avoided.

                              {time}  1440

  The Coast Guard Regulatory Reform Act is included. I want to 
highlight it just a second. It is an initiative of the White House, the 
administration, part of the effort to reconstruct the way government 
does business. It is an extraordinary cooperative effort between the 
industry and the Coast Guard in streamlining and making regulations 
more effective and more efficient in today's modern world. I commend it 
to your attention, because it is an extraordinary bill that will not 
get a lot of attention, but moves a lot of things forward in terms of 
making our marine industry competitive and making government work more 
efficiently and effectively with the industry.
  Finally, the Boating Improvement Act is an act designed to improve 
boating safety, particularly for young children. More and more 
Americans are on the waterways entertaining themselves. More and more 
Americans want to live near the shoreline. This bill dramatically 
improves the safety conditions by which young children particularly 
will enjoy the waterways and shorelines of America.
  As we know, the Coast Guard is a ``can do'' outfit. In recent months 
it has been literally asked to save thousands of Haitian and Cuban 
lives, and it has risen to that occasion. Today the Coast Guard is 
present in the straits rescuing boaters and saving lives today, as it 
has customarily done throughout its proud history.
  The Coast Guard is a vital player in Operation Restore Democracy. On 
Monday three cutters of our U.S. Coast Guard led the U.S. naval fleet 
into Port-au-Prince harbor. Today the Coast Guard has over 6,000 
personnel conducting in-theater operations.
  The Nation owes its Coast Guard and its members a great debt of 
gratitude for the selfless dedication of these extraordinary men and 
women to their obligation and their fulfillment of their duty and 
responsibility to their country, and the extreme professionalism by 
which they engage in their duty to America.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our Coast Guard, its men and women around 
the world, I ask my colleagues to support the Coast Guard Authorization 
Act of 1994, and more importantly, to support the Coast Guard in its 
day-to-day activities, to lend to our Coast Guard the same kind of 
support that the Coast Guard lends to Americans and to the world when 
it engages in lifesaving operations such as we see it in today.
  Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman of the committee for his 
great help in bringing this bill forward. It is my hope we will see 
this bill on the President's desk before we adjourn.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following document:

                   Section 305, Florida Avenue Bridge

       Section 305 of the bill would deem the drainage siphon, or 
     pipeline, adjacent to the Florida Avenue Bridge in New 
     Orleans, Louisiana, to be an appurtenance of the bridge for 
     purposes of the Truman-Hobbs Act (the Act). In 1992, the 
     Coast Guard declared the Florida Avenue Bridge to be an 
     ``unreasonable obstruction to navigation'' under the Act. The 
     Coast Guard has determined that the drainage siphon, which is 
     connected to the bridge's southern fender, must be removed in 
     order to restore the necessary navigability for commercial 
     vessels on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Unfortunately, 
     under existing Coast Guard guidelines and absent the 
     provisions of Section 305, the cost of the removal of the 
     siphon could not be paid for with Truman-Hobbs funds. As an 
     appurtenance, the siphon will qualify for alteration under 
     the Act. The express intent of Section 305 is to authorize 
     the Coast Guard to utilize Truman-Hobbs funding to pay for 
     the removal of the entire siphon, including (i) the three 
     chamber structure 378 feet long and 45 feet wide which slopes 
     down from ground elevation (approximately plus (+) 1.0 foot 
     M.S.L.) on each side of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to a 
     point where the sill elevation of minus (-) 30.9 feet M.S.L. 
     spans the Waterway bottom for a 105 foot clear shipping 
     channel and (ii) the two concrete towers which extend upward 
     from the siphon bottom on each side of the Waterway to an 
     elevation of (+) 8.5 feet M.S.L., also defining the clear 
     span of 105 feet at the water surface (or top) of the 
     Waterway. The end result will be 150 foot bottom width at 
     minus (-) 36 feet M.S.L. sloping up to a top width of 300 
     feet.

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, and also to 
commend the chairmen of the full committee and subcommittee--along with 
the ranking minority members--for their continued bipartisan 
leadership.
  I also want to thank them for including in this bill my proposal to 
promote a U.S.-flag cruise ship industry. This legislative effort 
represents the work of many diverse interests--from shipyards to 
shippers and from labor to industry. Together we have developed a 
proposal to allow U.S. maritime interests to engage in and effectively 
capture a portion of the rapidly expanding and highly lucrative cruise 
ship market.
  But most important, this bill is all about jobs, jobs for our ports, 
jobs for our shipyards, jobs for our seamen, and jobs in the downtown 
cores of our port cities. It is time we find different ways to revive 
our ports and our cities without using taxpayer dollars and I think we 
have found a great way to do it.
  As the bill has worked through the legislative process, a number of 
refinements have been made. As it now stands, key features include:
  Allowing a foreign cruise ship to reflag to the U.S. registry--
providing full access to U.S. trades--if a second ship is built in a 
U.S. yard;
  Standardizing the percentage of foreign ownership for U.S. passenger 
vessels in domestic trades at 49 percent, an increase from the current 
25 percent requirement for cruise ships;
  Providing title XI loan guarantees to U.S. passenger vessels; and
  Giving U.S.-flag preference for permits to enter Glacier Bay and 
other National Park Service sites.
  Mr. Chairman, the need for this legislation stems from the lack of a 
U.S. cruise industry. Currently, 85 percent of all cruise ship 
passengers worldwide are American, but the U.S.-flag cruise registry 
has decreased to a mere two vessels, both built in 1951, both in use in 
Hawaii. U.S. law--specifically the Passenger Service Act--prohibits 
foreign-owned ships from transporting passengers between two U.S. 
ports, so cruises between cities like Seattle and San Francisco, or New 
York and Miami, in essence are nonexistent. Therefore, an individual 
wishing to sail the North Pacific to the wonders of Alaska must embark 
to Alaska from a foreign port, namely Vancouver, BC. Meanwhile, nearby 
Seattle loses millions of dollars in potential tourist dollars and tax 
revenues as passengers are forced to depart from a city just a short 
drive north.

  A study conducted by the Port of Seattle and Maryland Port 
Administration estimates $300 to $500,000 to local restaurants, shops, 
hotels and other businesses is generated from just one port visit by a 
home-ported cruise vessel. And 5 months of weekly sailings by a single 
ship will infuse approximately $7 million into the local economy, 
create 100 jobs, generate $2.5 million in personal income, and provide 
$300,000 in local tax revenues. Furthermore, each $1 spent on 
shipbuilding and repair in a city provides an additional $3 to the 
local economy.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot at stake here. With the booming foreign 
cruise ship industry we're seeing thousands of jobs and about $6 
billion from our economy literally sailing overseas every year. This 
bill is about promoting U.S. interests and leveling the international 
playing field. It's about retaining a portion of the economic benefits 
here in the United States. It's a ``make-it-American'' bill. Straight 
to the point, its about creating U.S. jobs, jobs, and more jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this proposal and to 
approve the Coast Guard authorization bill now before us.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation. I support the U.S. Coast 
Guard. I would like to extend my thanks, Mr. Chairman, to the committee 
for incorporating into this bill my proposal, the Shipbuilding Jobs 
Promotion Act, which is now part of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this portion of the bill, the Shipbuilding Jobs 
Promotion Act, requires the U.S. Coast Guard to repair, to maintain, 
and to overhaul its vessels and equipment in U.S. shipyards by U.S. 
shipbuilders, just as the Department of Defense is now required to do.
  The reason I introduced this legislation, Mr. Chairman, was because I 
found out that earlier this year the Coast Guard had awarded repair 
work to a foreign yard. It claimed that it did not have to do this work 
in an American yard because it was exempt from the provisions that 
required the Department of Defense to repair its vessels in an American 
yard.
  Mr. Chairman, this law makes it very clear that the U.S. Coast Guard 
must repair, maintain, and overhaul its vessels in American shipyards. 
The reason for this, Mr. Chairman, is this: We have lost 120,000 good 
paying shipbuilding and shipbuilding-related jobs over the last 10 
years. We are being told that if this Government does nothing, we stand 
to lose an additional 180,000 good paying jobs in this vital sector.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries has done 
extremely good work in turning this around and providing the 
shipbuilders of this country a government that is on their side, by 
taking away the unfair, unlevel playing field that they have been 
forced to compete on with foreign yards who are subsidized to the tune 
of billions and billions of dollars by their foreign governments.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are saying in this bill is that when it comes 
time for repair work and maintenance work and overhaul work, that we 
give our shipworkers, our shipbuilders, and our shipyards that 
opportunity. That is important, not only for the economy of those 
regions of the country like the State of Maine who do this kind of work 
but, Mr. Chairman, it is also important for the national security of 
this Nation and the safety of our people.
  If we allow our Nation to become dependent upon foreign yards to do 
this basic work, then we are undermining the capacity of this country 
to provide for its own security, its own defense, and the safety of its 
citizens. We cannot allow this vital industrial capacity to be exported 
overseas. We must maintain it in this country as we provide these 
important jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, our shipbuilders do not ask for an awful lot. However, 
I believe that they should be able to expect a government that is on 
their side and is willing to give them the opportunity to be all that 
they can be, and to take advantage of the skills that they provide this 
Nation. I support this legislation, I thank the chairman for his 
support of my bill, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, first of all to applaud the 
distinguished chairman of our committee and the ranking member of the 
full committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Coast Guard and Navigation, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] and the ranking member, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Coble], for the fine work they have done in bringing this important 
piece of legislation to the floor for our consideration today.
  Mr. Chairman, we sometimes take for granted some of the Federal 
agencies that we fund. Perhaps no agency is more taken for granted than 
the U.S. Coast Guard. Because of the funding mechanism and the way we 
provide the funds and dollars for the Coast Guard, they never seem to 
get enough money to do the myriad of tasks we keep imposing on them.
  If you look at any of the agencies we have in the Federal Government, 
that one agency that continually seems to get new assignments is in 
fact our Coast Guard. Whether it is putting on new environmental 
regulations or whether it is trying to force them to do new coastal 
compliance requirements that we impose on them, the Coast Guard is 
always able to meet the needs. The pollution act we passed in the last 
session has put additional requirements on the Coast Guard.
  Perhaps nothing has taxed the Coast Guard more than the current 
mission they are performing in and around Haiti. They have just done a 
fantastic job on behalf of the people of this country and those people 
who have been impacted by the unrest in that country.
  I want to pay particular acknowledgment to our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] for holding a briefing for us with 
the Commandant of the Coast Guard just 1 short month ago, where he 
talked with us and briefed us on all the operations the Coast Guard is 
involved in in terms of returning these people who are going out to sea 
and yet who are risking their lives, and who in fact need to be 
returned to their homeland, whether it be Cuba or Haiti.
  Despite the tremendous pressure on the Coast Guard to perform that 
function, they still have been able to address the need as it relates 
to drug interdiction and drug enforcement. It has been very taxing on 
the Coast Guard, and one of the concerns we are always hoping to 
address is to provide additional resources for the major issue of the 
Coast Guard right now involving drug interdiction, and trying to make 
sure they have adequate equipment and manpower to do the job that they 
are being asked to do.

                              {time}  1450

  This past summer I had occasion to visit the Coast Guard station at 
Cape May and had a chance to talk to the leadership there, specifically 
about their role in the coast of Florida involving Cuba and Haiti, to 
talk about the kinds of requirements that are being placed on them, not 
just from the standpoint of drug interdiction but also from their other 
responsibilities, be they environment or public safety. Again the Coast 
Guard has measured up to the job and I was totally impressed with what 
I heard from the officials at the Cape May facility.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that we in this Congress understand 
that while the Coast Guard is in fact providing a very valuable service 
for us in a number of different capacities, we have to provide the 
dollar support. This legislation lays that foundation. I think perhaps 
it does not go far enough. Perhaps there are more dollars we should be 
committing to the Coast Guard. But I hope that all of our colleagues 
today would renew their commitment with a vote in support of this 
legislation to fully fund the Coast Guard's operations. Once again I 
thank the leadership of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
for the exemplary way they have put a bipartisan team together to 
provide support for this vital service.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill shall be considered by titles as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each title is 
considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4422

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Coast Guard Authorization 
     Act of 1994''.

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order 
as original text by the rule be printed in the Record and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:
                        TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Funds are authorized to be appropriated for necessary 
     expenses of the Coast Guard for fiscal year 1995, as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $2,630,505,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $439,200,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $32,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
       (3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of 
     technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating 
     to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in 
     support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine 
     safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws 
     and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and 
     defense readiness, $20,310,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which--
       (A) $3,150,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund; and
       (B) $1,500,000 is authorized to conduct, in cooperation 
     with appropriate Federal and State agencies, local maritime 
     education organizations, and local marine industry 
     representatives, a demonstration project on the lower 
     Mississippi River and in the Houston Ship Channel to study 
     the effectiveness of currently available Electronic Chart 
     Display and Information Systems (ECDIS) and Electronic Chart 
     Systems (ECS) for use on commercial vessels.
       (4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for 
     medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $562,585,000.
       (5) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable 
     waters of the United States constituting obstructions to 
     navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs 
     associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $13,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
       (6) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities, $25,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND 
                   TRAINING.

       (a) Active Duty Strength.--The Coast Guard is authorized an 
     end-of-year strength for active duty personnel of 39,000 as 
     of September 30, 1995. The authorized strength does not 
     include members of the Ready Reserve called to active duty 
     for special or emergency augmentation of regular Coast Guard 
     forces for periods of 180 days or less.
       (b) Military Training Student Loads.--For fiscal year 1995, 
     the Coast Guard is authorized average military training 
     student loads as follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training, 2,000 student years.
       (2) For flight training, 133 student years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, 344 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition, 955 student years.

     SEC. 103. DRUG INTERDICTION ACTIVITIES.

       In addition to amounts otherwise authorized by this Act, 
     there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for operation and maintenance expenses of 
     Coast Guard drug interdiction activities $21,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1995.
               TITLE II--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT

     SEC. 201. HURRICANE ANDREW RELIEF.

       Section 2856 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484) applies to the military 
     personnel of the Coast Guard who were assigned to, or 
     employed at or in connection with, any Federal facility or 
     installation in the vicinity of Homestead Air Force Base, 
     Florida, including the areas of Broward, Collier, Dade, and 
     Monroe Counties, on or before August 24, 1992, except that--
       (1) funds available to the Coast Guard, not to exceed a 
     total of $25,000, shall be used; and
       (2) the Secretary of Transportation shall administer that 
     section with respect to such personnel.

     SEC. 202. DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS OF 0-6 CONTINUATION 
                   BOARDS.

       Section 289(f) of title 14, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``Upon approval by the President, the names of 
     the officers selected for continuation on active duty by the 
     board shall be promptly disseminated to the service at 
     large.''.

     SEC. 203. EXCLUDE CERTAIN RESERVES FROM END-OF-YEAR STRENGTH.

       Section 712 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Reserve members ordered to active duty under this 
     section shall not be counted in computing authorized strength 
     of members on active duty or members in grade under this 
     title or under any other law.''.

     SEC. 204. MARINE CASUALTY INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) Informal Marine Casualty Investigations.--Title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     6301 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 6301a. Informal marine casualty investigations

       ``(a) The Secretary may conduct informal investigations of 
     marine casualties.
       ``(b) Notwithstanding section 6302 of this title, the 
     Secretary is not required to hold an informal investigation 
     open to the public.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 63 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item related to section 6301 
     the following:

``6301a. Informal marine casualty investigations.''.

     SEC. 205. PROVISION OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Title 14, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after section 514 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 515. Child development services

       ``(a) The Commandant may make child development services 
     available for members and civilian employees of the Coast 
     Guard, and thereafter as space is available for members of 
     the Armed Forces and Federal civilian employees. Child 
     development services benefits provided under this section 
     shall be in addition to benefits provided under other laws.
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Commandant may require that amounts received as fees for the 
     provision of child development services under this section at 
     Coast Guard child development centers be used only for 
     compensation of Coast Guard child development center 
     employees who are directly involved in providing child care.
       ``(2) If the Commandant determines that compliance with the 
     limitation in paragraph (1) would result in an uneconomical 
     and inefficient use of amounts received as such fees, the 
     Commandant may (to the extent that such compliance would be 
     uneconomical and inefficient) use such amounts--
       ``(A) for the purchase of consumable or disposable items 
     for Coast Guard child development centers; and
       ``(B) if the requirements of such centers for consumable or 
     disposable items for a given fiscal year have been met, for 
     other expenses of those centers.
       ``(c) The Commandant may use Department of Defense or other 
     training programs to insure that all child development 
     services providers under this section meet minimum standards.
       ``(d) The Commandant may provide assistance to members and 
     civilian employees of the Coast Guard for obtaining services 
     of qualified family home child development services 
     providers. The cost per child to the Coast Guard of obtaining 
     those services may not exceed the average of the cost per 
     child incurred by the Coast Guard for child development 
     services provided at all Coast Guard child development 
     centers.
       ``(e)(1) Of the amounts available to the Coast Guard each 
     fiscal year for operating expenses (and in addition to 
     amounts received as fees), the Secretary shall use for child 
     development services under this section an amount equal to 
     the total amount the Commandant estimates will be received by 
     the Coast Guard in the fiscal year as fees for the provision 
     of those services.
       ``(2) The amount of funds used under paragraph (1) each 
     fiscal year shall not exceed $1,000,000.
       ``(f) For purposes of this section, the term `Coast Guard 
     child development center' does not include a child care 
     services facility for which space is allotted under section 
     616 of the Act of December 22, 1987 (40 U.S.C. 490b).
       ``(g) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to 
     implement this section. The regulations shall establish fees 
     to be charged for child development services provided under 
     this section which are based on total family income.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 13 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item related to section 514 
     the following:

``515. Child development services.''.
     TITLE III--NAVIGATION SAFETY AND WATERWAY SERVICES MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 301. FOREIGN PASSENGER VESSEL USER FEES.

       Section 3303 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``(a) Except as'' and 
     inserting ``Except as''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 302. DOCUMENTATION VIOLATIONS.

       (a) Civil Penalties.--Section 12122(a) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``$500'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000''.
       (b) Seizure and Forfeiture.--
       (1) In general.--Section 12122(b) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) A vessel and its equipment are liable to seizure by 
     and forfeiture to the United States Government, if--
       ``(1) the owner of the vessel or a representative or agent 
     of the owner knowingly falsifies or conceals a material fact, 
     or makes a false statement or representation about the 
     documentation or in applying for documentation of the vessel;
       ``(2) a certificate of documentation is knowingly and 
     fraudulently used for the vessel;
       ``(3) the vessel is operated after its endorsement has been 
     denied or revoked under section 12123 of this title;
       ``(4) the vessel is employed in a trade without an 
     appropriate trade endorsement; or
       ``(5) in the case of a documented vessel with only a 
     recreational endorsement, the vessel is operated other than 
     for pleasure.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 12122(c) of title 46, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (c) Limitation on Operation of Vessel With Only 
     Recreational Endorsement.--Section 12110(c) of title 46, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (d) Termination of Restriction on Command of Recreational 
     Vessels.--
       (1) Termination of restriction.--Subsection (d) of section 
     12110 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``, other than a vessel with only a 
     recreational endorsement operating within the territorial 
     waters of the United States,'' after ``A documented vessel''; 
     and
       (B) by redesignating that subsection as subsection (c).
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 12111(a)(2) of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``in violation of section 12110(c) of this 
     title''.

     SEC. 303. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

       Chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the first section 12123; and
       (2) in the table of sections at the beginning of the 
     chapter by striking the first item relating to section 12123.

     SEC. 304. BATON ROUGE RESCUE AND PATROL VESSEL.

       Beginning not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall operate a rescue and patrol vessel on the Mississippi 
     River in the vicinity of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to support 
     Coast Guard rescue, law enforcement, marine safety, marine 
     environmental protection, and port security missions.

     SEC. 305. FLORIDA AVENUE BRIDGE.

       For purposes of the alteration of the Florida Avenue Bridge 
     (located approximately 1.63 miles east of the Mississippi 
     River on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Orleans Parish, 
     Louisiana) ordered by the Secretary of Transportation under 
     the Act of June 21, 1940 (33 U.S.C. 511 et seq.; popularly 
     known as the Truman-Hobbs Act), the Secretary shall treat the 
     drainage siphon that is adjacent to the bridge as an 
     appurtenance of the bridge, including with respect to 
     apportionment and payment of costs for the removal of the 
     drainage siphon in accordance with that Act.

     SEC. 306. RENEWAL OF HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION SAFETY 
                   ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 
                   WATERWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-
     241, 105 Stat. 2208-2235) is amended--
       (1) in section 18 by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) The Committee shall terminate on October 1, 1999.''; 
     and
       (2) in section 19 by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) The Committee shall terminate on October 1, 1999.''.

     SEC. 307. LIMITATION ON CONSOLIDATION OF HOUSTON AND 
                   GALVESTON MARINE SAFETY OFFICES.

       The Secretary of Transportation may not consolidate the 
     Coast Guard Marine Safety Offices in Galveston, Texas, and 
     Houston, Texas.

     SEC. 308. RESPONSE EXERCISE PROGRAM AT MASSACHUSETTS MARITIME 
                   ACADEMY.

       (a) Transfer.--Within 30 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Coast Guard shall transfer to the 
     Massachusetts Maritime Academy $500,000 to continue the oil 
     spill simulator activities at the Academy.
       (b) Designation of Center as Regional Facility.--The Coast 
     Guard shall designate the Center for Marine Environmental 
     Protection and Safety at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy 
     as a regional facility for the conduct and evaluation of 
     annual response area management team exercises for two 
     response areas in the East Coast in accordance with the 
     Preparedness for Response Exercise Program established by the 
     Coast Guard.

     SEC. 309. PROHIBITION ON DECOMMISSIONING ICEBREAKER MACKINAW.

       (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Transportation may not 
     decommission the Coast Guard cutter MACKINAW until the later 
     of--
       (1) 1 year after transmitting to the Congress the report 
     required under subsection (d); or
       (2) October 1, 1995.
       (b) Requirement To Maintain Billets.--The Secretary shall 
     during fiscal year 1995 maintain on the Coast Guard cutter 
     MACKINAW the same number of billets as were maintained on 
     that vessel during fiscal year 1994.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation 
     $4,500,000 for fiscal year 1995, to remain available until 
     expended, for operations and maintenance of the Coast Guard 
     cutter MACKINAW.
       (d) Study and Report.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall conduct a study and submit a report to 
     the Congress containing findings and recommendations on the 
     icebreaking needs of the Great Lakes and the appropriate size 
     and type of vessel or vessels to meet those needs. In 
     conducting the study, the Secretary shall--
       (1) consult with--
       (A) Great Lakes carriers, shippers, and port authorities, 
     including the Lake Carriers Association;
       (B) the Great Lakes Commission;
       (C) the Governors of States bordering the Great Lakes;
       (D) local governments in States bordering the Great Lakes; 
     and
       (E) interested private persons;
       (2) determine the average and maximum ice conditions in the 
     Great Lakes over the past 10 years;
       (3) determine the size and type of vessel or vessels 
     necessary to clear shipping channels in the average and 
     maximum ice conditions determined under paragraph (2);
       (4) evaluate whether any Coast Guard vessel stationed on 
     the Great Lakes, other than the MACKINAW, can safely conduct 
     search and rescue missions in 25-foot seas;
       (5) evaluate the feasibility of operating the Coast Guard 
     icebreaker MACKINAW on a seasonal basis;
       (6) evaluate the feasibility of building an ice-
     strengthened Juniper Class buoy tender to replace the 
     icebreaking services performed by the MACKINAW; and
       (7) evaluate the feasibility of entering into a long-term 
     contract for icebreaking services to replace the icebreaking 
     services performed by the MACKINAW.
       (e) Authorization for Recommendations.--If, after 
     transmitting the report required in subsection (d), the 
     Secretary determines that--
       (1) in addition to previously authorized Juniper Class buoy 
     tenders, building an ice-strengthened Juniper Class buoy 
     tender is the most feasible means of providing icebreaking 
     service on the Great Lakes, the Secretary may, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, enter into a contract for the 
     construction of an ice-strengthened Juniper Class buoy 
     tender; or
       (2) entering into a long-term contract for icebreaking 
     services is the most feasible means of providing icebreaking 
     services on the Great Lakes, the Secretary may, subject to 
     the availability of appropriations, enter into such a long-
     term contract.

     SEC. 310. REQUIREMENT TO OPERATE USCGC TACKLE IN CRISFIELD, 
                   MARYLAND.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall continue to operate 
     the USCGC TACKLE (WYTL 65604) in the vicinity of Crisfield, 
     Maryland, until October 1, 1995.

     SEC. 311. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT FOR SURFACE SEARCH RADAR 
                   SYSTEMS.

       Notwithstanding any other law, at least 51 percent of the 
     components of surface search radar systems for Coast Guard 
     vessels shall be manufactured in the United States, provided 
     the United States manufacturer offers the Coast Guard a 
     competitive price.

     SEC. 312. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Transportation (or any 
     other official having control over the property described in 
     subsection (b)) shall expeditiously convey to the Traverse 
     City Area Public School District in Traverse City, Michigan, 
     without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the property described in subsection 
     (b), subject to all easements and other interests in the 
     property held by any other person.
       (b) Property Described.--The property referred to in 
     subsection (a) is a parcel of land consisting of 
     approximately 27.10 acres identified by the Traverse City 
     School District in the northwest corner of the Coast Guard 
     Air Station at Traverse City, Michigan.
       (c) Reversionary Interest.--In addition to any term or 
     condition established pursuant to subsection (a), any 
     conveyance of property described in subsection (b) shall be 
     subject to the condition that all right, title, and interest 
     in and to the property so conveyed shall immediately revert 
     to the United States if the property, or any part thereof, 
     ceases to be used by the Traverse City School District.
                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. SPECIAL RECRUITING AUTHORITY TO ACHIEVE DIVERSITY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Women and minorities have historically been 
     underrepresented in the Coast Guard officer corps and at the 
     United States Coast Guard Academy.
       (2) The number of women and minorities occupying leadership 
     positions in the United States Coast Guard should reflect the 
     proportion of women and minorities in the total population.
       (3) Notwithstanding application of traditional recruiting 
     programs, the Coast Guard has not been able to rectify the 
     historic underrepresentation of women and minorities in the 
     service and at the Academy.
       (4) Cultural bias in standardized testing or grading 
     procedures may adversely affect the ability of minorities to 
     compete successfully for admission to the United States Coast 
     Guard Academy.
       (5) The education and professional training provided at the 
     United States Coast Guard Academy will be enhanced by the 
     benefits that flow from a diverse student body.
       (b) New Authority.--Section 93 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (t)(2) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (u) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) for the purposes of rectifying underrepresentation or 
     underutilization of women and minorities in the Coast Guard 
     and meeting identified personnel resource requirements and 
     training needs--
       ``(1) conduct studies and analyses on Coast Guard personnel 
     resource and training needs; and
       ``(2) employ special programs for recruiting women and 
     minorities, including, subject to appropriations, provision 
     of financial assistance by grant, cooperative agreement, 
     contract, or otherwise, to public or private associations, 
     organizations, or individuals to implement national or local 
     outreach programs.''.

     SEC. 402. OFFICER RETENTION UNTIL RETIREMENT ELIGIBLE.

       Section 283(b) of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
       (2) by striking the last sentence; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Upon the completion of a term under paragraph (1), an 
     officer shall, unless selected for further continuation--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), be honorably 
     discharged with severance pay computed under section 286 of 
     this title;
       ``(B) in the case of an officer who has completed at least 
     18 years of active service on the date of discharge under 
     subparagraph (A), be retained on active duty and retired on 
     the last day of the month in which the officer completes 20 
     years of active service, unless earlier removed under another 
     provision of law; or
       ``(C) if eligible for retirement under any law, be 
     retired.''.

     SEC. 403. REPORT RECOMMENDING ACTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF 
                   THE ENDANGERED NORTHERN RIGHT WHALE.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Commerce, shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate recommending actions to prevent 
     mortalities of the northern right whale from vessel 
     collisions in the Great South Channel off Cape Cod, 
     Massachusetts. The report shall include--
       (1) recommendations for actions that could be undertaken by 
     the Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organization, 
     including--
       (A) the designation of 1 or more areas to be avoided;
       (B) the shifting of the traffic separation scheme in the 
     Great South Channel; or
       (C) other measures the Secretary considers appropriate; and
       (2) if appropriate, a schedule for submitting those 
     recommendations to the International Maritime Organization.

     SEC. 404. CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION 
                   INFORMATION AT EXISTING LOCATIONS.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall, until October 1, 
     1999, maintain an ability, at Coast Guard offices that are 
     located in the immediate vicinity of former regional vessel 
     documentation offices, to assist the public with information 
     on obtaining, altering, and renewing the documentation of a 
     vessel and on vessel documentation laws and regulations 
     generally.

     SEC. 405. PROHIBITION ON STATION CLOSURES AND VESSEL AND 
                   AIRCRAFT DECOMMISSIONINGS IN FY 1995.

       In fiscal year 1995, the Secretary of Transportation may 
     not close or consolidate any shore unit, including any 
     multimission small boat station, and may not decommission any 
     vessel or aircraft, based in whole or in part on the 
     increased costs resulting from inclusion of the Coast Guard 
     in the military pay raise for fiscal year 1995 or the cost-
     of-living allowance for members of the uniformed services 
     assigned to high cost areas in the continental United States 
     under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1995.

     SEC. 406. CONTINUATION OF THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY 
                   VESSEL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       Subsection (e)(1) of section 4508 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``September 30, 1994'' 
     and inserting ``October 1, 1999''.

     SEC. 407. PROHIBITION ON DIVERSION OF DRUG INTERDICTION 
                   FUNDS.

       The Secretary of Transportation may not reduce the level of 
     Coast Guard drug interdiction below the level proposed by the 
     President in the Fiscal Year 1995 budget.

     SEC. 408. PROHIBITION ON STATION CLOSURES.

       (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Transportation may not 
     close or consolidate any multimission small boat station in 
     fiscal year 1995 until the Secretary has submitted a list of 
     proposed station closures to the Committee on Merchant Marine 
     and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate.
       (b) Deadline for Submission.--The Secretary shall submit 
     such list at least 60 days prior to any such closure or 
     consolidation.

     SEC. 409. RENEWAL OF THE NAVIGATION SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       Section 5 of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33 
     U.S.C. 2073) is amended in subsection (d) by striking 
     ``September 30, 1995'' and inserting ``September 30, 2000''.

     SEC. 410. 47-FOOT MOTOR LIFEBOAT ACQUISITION PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall ensure that the Coast 
     Guard 47-foot Motor Lifeboat acquisition is accomplished in 
     accordance with the laws and regulations applicable to small 
     business set asides.

     SEC. 411. COAST GUARD RESERVE PEACETIME REQUIREMENTS PLAN.

       No later than February 1, 1995, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall submit to the Committee on Merchant 
     Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a plan to more fully utilize the Coast Guard Selected 
     Reserve to augment peacetime operations. As part of the plan, 
     the Secretary shall include--
       (1) methods to deliver more cost-effective Coast Guard 
     services by supplementing active duty personnel with Coast 
     Guard reservists while preserving the current level of 
     service to the public;
       (2) methods to more fully integrate the Coast Guard Reserve 
     in peacetime Coast Guard programs, including, but not limited 
     to, search and rescue, marine safety, and marine 
     environmental protection;
       (3) the most effective command structure for the Coast 
     Guard Reserve; and
       (4) a specific estimate of the number of reservists needed 
     to augment peacetime Coast Guard missions under the plan.

     SEC. 412. TRANSFER OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY.

       (a) Conveyance Requirement.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall convey to the Ketchikan Indian 
     Corporation in Ketchikan, Alaska, without reimbursement and 
     by no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
     and to the property known as the ``Former Marine Safety 
     Detachment'' as identified in Report of Excess Number CG-689 
     (GSA Control Number 9-U-AK-0747) and described in subsection 
     (b), for use by the Ketchikan Indian Corporation as a Native 
     health clinic.
       (b) Property Described.--The property referred to in 
     subsection (a) is real property located in the city of 
     Ketchikan, Township 75 south, range 90 east, Copper River 
     Meridian, First Judicial District, State of Alaska, and 
     commencing at corner numbered 10, United States Survey 
     numbered 1079, the true point of beginning for this 
     description: Thence north 24 degrees 04 minutes east, along 
     the 10-11 line of said survey a distance of 89.76 feet to 
     corner numbered 1 of lot 5B; thence south 65 degrees 56 
     minutes east a distance of 345.18 feet to corner numbered 2 
     of lot 5B; thence south 24 degrees 04 minutes west a distance 
     of 101.64 feet to corner numbered 3 of lot 5B; thence north 
     64 degrees 01 minute west a distance of 346.47 feet to corner 
     numbered 10 of said survey, to the true point of beginning, 
     consisting of 0.76 acres (more or less), and all improvements 
     located on that property, including buildings, structures, 
     and equipment.
       (c) Reversionary Interest.--In addition to any term or 
     condition established pursuant to subsection (a), any 
     conveyance of property described in subsection (b) shall be 
     subject to the condition that all right, title, and interest 
     in and to the property so conveyed shall immediately revert 
     to the United States if the property, or any part thereof, 
     ceases to be used by the Ketchikan Indian Corporation as a 
     Native health clinic.

     SEC. 413. REPORT ON COSTS OF VESSEL INSPECTIONS OUTSIDE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) Report Requirement.--Not later than January 1, 1995, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the Committee 
     on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report describing in detail 
     the costs incurred by the United States in fiscal year 1994 
     for the performance by Coast Guard personnel of vessel 
     inspections outside the 50 States and the District of 
     Columbia, including travel expenses, subsistence pay, 
     compensation, and all other costs associated with those 
     inspections.
       (b) Itemization of Costs.--The report required by 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) a description and the costs of the various types of 
     activities in which Coast Guard inspectors engaged outside 
     the United States in fiscal year 1994 with respect to repair 
     and construction of vessels in foreign countries;
       (2) the number and costs of inspections of vessels 
     documented in the United States that did not visit ports in 
     the United States in fiscal year 1994 (including the number 
     of such vessels inspected);
       (3) the number and costs of inspections of mobile offshore 
     drilling units (as that term is defined in section 2101 of 
     title 46, United States Code) that are documented in the 
     United States and that did not operate in waters of the 
     United States in fiscal year 1994; and
       (4) the number and cost of Coast Guard inspectors 
     permanently stationed in foreign countries.

     SEC. 414. CONVEYANCE OF LIGHT STATION MONTAUK POINT, NEW 
                   YORK.

       (a) Conveyance Requirement.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     convey to the Montauk Historical Association in Montauk, New 
     York, by an appropriate means of conveyance, all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to property 
     comprising Light Station Montauk Point, located at Montauk, 
     New York.
       (2) Determination of property.--The Secretary may identify, 
     describe, and determine the property to be conveyed pursuant 
     to this section.
       (b) Terms of Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--A conveyance of property pursuant to this 
     section shall be made--
       (A) without the payment of consideration; and
       (B) subject to the conditions required by paragraphs (3) 
     and (4) and such other terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     may consider appropriate.
       (2) Reversionary interest.--In addition to any term or 
     condition established pursuant to paragraph (1), any 
     conveyance of property comprising the Montauk Light Station 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition 
     that all right, title, and interest in and to the property so 
     conveyed shall immediately revert to the United States if the 
     property, or any part thereof--
       (A) ceases to be maintained as a nonprofit center for 
     public benefit for the interpretation and preservation of the 
     material culture of the United States Coast Guard, the 
     maritime history of Montauk, New York, and Native American 
     and colonial history;
       (B) ceases to be maintained in a manner that ensures its 
     present or future use as a Coast Guard aid to navigation; or
       (C) ceases to be maintained in a manner consistent with the 
     provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
       (3) Maintenance of navigation and functions.--Any 
     conveyance of property pursuant to this section shall be 
     subject to such conditions as the Secretary considers to be 
     necessary to assure that--
       (A) the light, antennas, sound signal, and associated 
     lighthouse equipment located on the property conveyed, which 
     are active aids to navigation, shall continue to be operated 
     and maintained by the United States for as long as they are 
     needed for this purpose;
       (B) the Montauk Historical Association may not interfere or 
     allow interference in any manner with such aids to navigation 
     without express written permission from the United States;
       (C) there is reserved to the United States the right to 
     replace, or add any aids to navigation, or make any changes 
     to the Montauk Lighthouse as may be necessary for navigation 
     purposes;
       (D) the United States shall have the right, at any time, to 
     enter the property conveyed without notice for the purpose of 
     maintaining navigation aids;
       (E) the United States shall have an easement of access to 
     such property for the purpose of maintaining the navigational 
     aids in use on the property; and
       (F) the Montauk Light Station shall revert to the United 
     States at the end of the 30-day period beginning on any date 
     on which the Secretary of Transportation provides written 
     notice to the Montauk Historical Association that the Montauk 
     Light Station is needed for national security purposes.
       (4) Maintenance of light station.--Any conveyance of 
     property under this section shall be subject to the condition 
     that the Montauk Historical Association shall maintain the 
     Montauk Light Station in accordance with the provisions of 
     the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et 
     seq.) and other applicable laws.
       (5) Limitation on obligations of montauk historical 
     association.--The Montauk Historical Association shall not 
     have any obligation to maintain any active aid to navigation 
     equipment on property conveyed pursuant to this section.
       (c) For purposes of this section--
       (1) The term ``Montauk Light Station'' means the Coast 
     Guard light station known as Light Station Montauk Point, 
     located at Montauk, New York, including the keeper's 
     dwellings, adjacent Coast Guard rights of way, the World War 
     II submarine spotting tower, the lighthouse tower, and the 
     paint locker; and
       (2) the term ``Montauk Lighthouse'' means the Coast Guard 
     lighthouse located at the Montauk Light Station.

     SEC. 415. CAPE ANN LIGHTHOUSE.

       (a) Authority To Convey.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     convey to the town of Rockport, Massachusetts, by an 
     appropriate means of conveyance, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the property 
     comprising the Cape Ann Lighthouse, located on Thachers 
     Island, Massachusetts.
       (2) Identification of property.--The Secretary may 
     identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed 
     pursuant to this subsection.
       (b) Terms of Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--The conveyance of property pursuant to 
     this section shall be made--
       (A) without payment of consideration; and
       (B) subject to the conditions required by paragraphs (3) 
     and (4) and other terms and conditions the Secretary may 
     consider appropriate.
       (2) Reversionary interest.--In addition to any term or 
     condition established pursuant to paragraph (1), the 
     conveyance of property pursuant to this section shall be 
     subject to the condition that all right, title, and interest 
     in the Cape Ann Lighthouse shall immediately revert to the 
     United States if the Cape Ann Lighthouse, or any part of the 
     property--
       (A) ceases to be used as a nonprofit center for the 
     interpretation and preservation of maritime history;
       (B) ceases to be maintained in a manner that ensures its 
     present or future use as a Coast Guard aid to navigation; or
       (C) ceases to be maintained in a manner consistent with the 
     provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 
     (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
       (3) Maintenance and navigation functions.--The conveyance 
     of property pursuant to this section shall be made subject to 
     the conditions that the Secretary considers to be necessary 
     to assure that--
       (A) the lights, antennas, and associated equipment located 
     on the property conveyed, which are active aids to 
     navigation, shall continue to be operated and maintained by 
     the United States;
       (B) the town of Rockport may not interfere or allow 
     interference in any manner with aids to navigation without 
     express written permission from the Secretary of 
     Transportation;
       (C) there is reserved to the United States the right to 
     relocate, replace, or add any aid to navigation or make any 
     changes to the Cape Ann Lighthouse as may be necessary for 
     navigational purposes;
       (D) the United States shall have the right, at any time, to 
     enter the property without notice for the purpose of 
     maintaining aids to navigation; and
       (E) the United States shall have an easement of access to 
     the property for the purpose of maintaining the aids to 
     navigation in use on the property.
       (4) Obligation limitation.--The town of Rockport is not 
     required to maintain any active aid to navigation equipment 
     on property conveyed pursuant to this section.
       (5) Property to be maintained in accordance with certain 
     laws.--The town of Rockport shall maintain the Cape Ann 
     Lighthouse in accordance with the National Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and other 
     applicable laws.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Cape Ann Lighthouse'' means the Coast Guard property 
     located on Thachers Island, Massachusetts, except any 
     historical artifact, including any lens or lantern, located 
     on the property at or before the time of the conveyance.

     SEC. 416. TRANSFER OF OCRACOKE LIGHT STATION TO SECRETARY OF 
                   THE INTERIOR.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall transfer 
     administrative jurisdiction over the Federal property, 
     consisting of approximately 2 acres, known as the Ocracoke 
     Light Station, to the Secretary of the Interior, subject to 
     such reservations, terms, and conditions as may be necessary 
     for Coast Guard purposes. All property so transferred shall 
     be included in and administered as part of the Cape Hatteras 
     National Seashore.

     SEC. 417. PROHIBITION ON OVERHAUL, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE OF 
                   COAST GUARD VESSELS IN FOREIGN SHIPYARDS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Chapter 5 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 96. Prohibition on overhaul, repair, and maintenance 
       of Coast Guard vessels in foreign shipyards

       ``A Coast Guard vessel may not be overhauled, repaired, or 
     maintained in any shipyard located outside the United States, 
     except that this section does not apply to emergency 
     repairs.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--Title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended in the analysis at the beginning of chapter 5 by 
     adding at the end the following:

``96. Prohibition on overhaul, repair, and maintenance of Coast Guard 
              vessels in foreign shipyards.''.

     SEC. 418. STUDY OF IMPLICATIONS FOR VESSEL SAFETY IN 
                   NAVIGABLE WATERS NEAR HOUSTON, TEXAS, OF TRADE 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Study.--Not later than July 1, 1996, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, acting through the Coast Guard office in 
     Houston, Texas, and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, shall conduct a study of the implications for 
     vessel safety in the navigable waters near Houston, Texas, of 
     increased shipping traffic resulting from--
       (1) the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
     Act; and
       (2) legislation necessary to implement the Uruguay Round of 
     the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
       (b) Content.--The study under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) examination of implications for vessel safety in the 
     Port of Houston and the Houston ship channel; and
       (2) development of recommendations for--
       (A) responding to vessel accidents in those waterways,
       (B) removal of vessels damaged in those accidents, and
       (C) ways to improve the overall safety of the Port of 
     Houston and the Houston ship channel, including 
     recommendations of restrictions on vessel movements within 
     that Port or channel if necessary to ensure safety.
       (c) Report.--Not later than July 1, 1996, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall submit to the Congress a report on the 
     findings and recommendations developed by the study under 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For carrying out the 
     study and preparing the report required by this section, 
     there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation $300,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal year 1996.


                     amendment offered by ms. long

  Ms. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Long:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . IMPLEMENTATION OF OIL POLLUTION ACT WITH RESPECT TO 
                   VEGETABLE OIL.

       In implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 
     101-380), the Coast Guard and other agencies shall 
     differentiate between animal fats or oils of vegetable origin 
     and other oils, including petroleum oils, on the basis of 
     their physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, 
     and their environmental effects.

  (Ms. LONG asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LONG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will direct Federal agencies 
charged with implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to 
differentiate between nontoxic agricultural products and toxic 
petroleum oils.
  Several agencies have been working on these regulations for many 
months. Unfortunately, they have produced a hodge-podge and often 
troubling set of procedures which really don't make any sense.
  Over 50 Members of the House have written to Department heads to 
rectify and harmonize--to the extent they can--the various regulations. 
Unfortunately, the regulations have not been harmonized in an 
appropriate fashion and vegetable oils and animal fats are still--in 
some cases--being regulated like other toxic oils such as petroleum 
oils.
  The amendment Mr. Ewing and I offer will simply require that 
regulations shall differentiate between animal fats and vegetable oils 
and other oils. The amendment does not limit the regulation of any 
oils; it only requires that they be differentiated.
  Amazingly, the final regulations at EPA do not provide appropriate 
differentiation between these products. They do not provide a separate 
category for animal fats and vegetable oils, and they adopt the same 
criteria for determining appropriate response techniques that are used 
for toxic oils. As a result, nontoxic agricultural products are grouped 
with such toxic oils as camphor oil, carbolic oil, mineral oil and PCB-
type transformer oil.
  For example, the EPA final rule provides no specific guidance to 
facilities that store vegetable oil on how to plan for an oil spill. 
Thus, each facility must individually petition EPA to approve its plan. 
And the EPA rule is the only one of seven regulatory actions involving 
four agencies that would affect the treatment of animal fats and 
vegetable oils under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. These regulations 
place a burden on facilities and transporters that is simply not 
justified by agricultural products that are nontoxic, readily 
biodegradable, not persistent in the environment, and are essential 
components of human and wildlife diets.
  Again, this amendment would not exempt the animal fats and vegetable 
oil industries from oil response regulations. It would merely require 
Federal agencies to take account of the unique differences between 
animal fats and vegetable oils and toxic substances.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LONG. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Congresswoman for her work on 
this amendment and we are prepared on this side to accept it.
  The amendment does not exempt vegetable oils and animal fats from the 
Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Rather, it simply directs the Coast Guard 
and other agencies to make reasonable distinctions between vegetable 
oils and petroleum oils based on the different effects these oils may 
have when spilled into the marine environment. While it is true that 
even the most benign oil in large quantities may harm the environment, 
there may be different responses needed to clean up vegetable as 
opposed to petroleum oil.
  I expect the Coast Guard, EPA, and NOAA to work with representatives 
of the vegetable oil industry and other interested persons in 
developing appropriate requirements for response plans for spills from 
these oils.
  Again, I appreciate the diligence of the gentlelady from Indiana. I 
support her amendment.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LONG. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of her amendment. I am sorry that the 
amendment is necessary because this is a matter that should have been 
resolved through the regulatory process by the Coast Guard and the 
Environmental Protection Agency. There is no question that animal fats 
and vegetable oils should be regulated differently than petroleum oils 
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LONG. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentlewoman for her excellent 
work here. This matter as the chairman and ranking member said should 
have been resolved within the regulatory context. It obviously was not. 
It required a legislative solution.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for coming up with one. Everyone 
thought it was reasonable to assume that within our regulations, we 
could differentiate between the toxic conditions of crude oils and the 
more natural conditions of vegetable oils. I am delighted the 
gentlewoman was able to find that solution. I am anxious to support her 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to join with her in this good effort.
  Ms. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Indiana [Ms. Long].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by ms. schenk

  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Schenk: Page 37, after line 18, 
     add the following:

     SEC.  . LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF STATES TO REGULATE 
                   GAMBLING DEVICES ON VESSELS.

       Section 5(b)(2) of the Act of January 2, 1951 (15 U.S.C. 
     1175(b)(2)), commonly referred to as the ``Johnson Act'', is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Exclusion of certain voyages and segments.--A voyage 
     or segment of a voyage is not described in subparagraph (B) 
     if it includes or consists of a segment--
       ``(i) that begins and ends in the same State;
       ``(ii) that is part of a voyage to another State or to a 
     foreign country;
       ``(iii) that does not begin and does not end in Hawaii; and
       ``(iv) in which the vessel reaches the other State or 
     foreign country within 3 days after leaving the State in 
     which it begins.''.

  Ms. SCHENK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.


            modification to amendment offered by ms. schenk

  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
language of my amendment. The modification is minimal and not 
substantive and merely conforms to the language being considered in the 
other body.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Schenk, as modified: At the end of 
     title IV (page 37, after line 18), add the following:

     SEC.  . LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF STATES TO REGULATE 
                   GAMBLING DEVICES ON VESSELS.

       Section 5(b)(2) of the Act of January 2, 1951 (15 U.S.C. 
     1175(b)(2)), commonly referred to as the ``Johnson Act'', is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Exclusion of certain voyages and segments.--Except 
     for a voyage or segment of a voyage that occurs within the 
     boundaries of the State of Hawaii, a voyage or segment of a 
     voyage is not described in subparagraph (B) if it includes or 
     consists of a segment--
       (i) that begins and ends in the same State;
       (ii) that is part of a voyage to another State or to a 
     foreign country; and
       (iii) in which the vessel reaches the other State or 
     foreign country within 3 days after leaving the State in 
     which it begins.''.

  Ms. SCHENK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the chairman of 
our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of 
our subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and the 
ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Coble], for their support and their cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to H.R. 4422 to resolve a 
problem which has resulted from the passage in 1992 of Public Law 102-
251. That legislation permitted gambling aboard U.S.-flag cruise 
vessels and was a great boon to our domestic cruise industry. 
Unfortunately an unintended consequence of that law has been a 
disastrous loss of business for the cruise industry in California, 
resulting in a loss of jobs in my district of San Diego and indeed 
throughout the State of California.
  Many California cruises embark from one port and then make port at 
one or two other cities in the State on their way to a final 
destination in Mexico, Canada, or Alaska. California's Legislature 
became concerned that allowing gaming on these cruises might result in 
the State being forced to also allow gaming under the Indian gaming 
law. Consequently, the legislature took advantage of their right under 
the law to prohibit gambling on the intrastate segments of these 
cruises.
  As a result, many California cruise ship companies have bypassed 
these second and third ports of call within our State. For instance, 
ships which once departed Los Angeles and called at Catalina or San 
Diego on their way to Mexico would no longer visit these other cities. 
Today we stand and watch these cruise ships sailing past this facility.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment alleviates California's problem and will 
allow our west coast cruise industry to resume. It is a carefully 
crafted amendment and I believe noncontroversial. It has the support of 
the Governor's office and the legislature and we have worked with the 
attorney general's office in crafting it. The amendment would extend 
the coverage of Public Law 102-251 to a voyage that, first, begins and 
ends in the same State or U.S. possession; second, is part of a voyage 
to another State or foreign country; and third, reaches that 
destination within 3 days of embarkation.
  By establishing Federal regulation of these intrastate voyage 
segments, the amendment relieves California at its request of the 
jurisdiction to permit or prohibit gambling in international waters 
when a ship ultimately arrives at a foreign or out-of-State port within 
72 hours. This will permit a California cruise vessel to resume 
multiple ports of call.

                              {time}  1500

  Some concern has been expressed about the impact of the amendment on 
ability of States to regulate gambling in State waters. Let me assure 
my colleagues that this legislation deals solely with the jurisdiction 
over gambling in international waters. It will no way affect any 
State's right to regulate gambling in State waters or on voyages to 
nowhere or on other intrastate cruises. The amendment has been 
carefully drawn to address a specific problem. It has no effect on 
riverboat gambling or other such issues.
  This language was passed by the House last year as an amendment to 
H.R. 1250. The other body, however, has failed to act on that bill and 
so I must offer this amendment again to facilitate its passage.
  The amendment was noncontroversial when it passed the House 
previously, and I hope it is noncontroversial still.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have examined this amendment and are prepared to 
accept it.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California and author of the amendment. 
As she knows, I have some concerns about this amendment.
  As a little boy growing up in California I remember the gambling 
ships sitting 4 miles from the shore--outside of the State territorial 
waters--violating every law on the book, and a rather courageous 
attorney general, Earl Warren, went over the side and nailed them all, 
and the Johnson Act, I assume, is named for Hiram Johnson, one of 
California's two greatest governors. is that correct?
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I do not know. The gentleman is the 
professor and I yield to him.
  Mr. HORN. I want to ask a few questions because I realize a lot of 
money is at stake here, and I realize there are big bucks. I am not 
interested in the big bucks. I am interested in who administers the law 
under certain conditions.
  The first condition is obviously within the 3-mile limit, and as the 
gentlewoman has stated, am I correct in understanding the State would 
have jurisdiction there?
  Ms. SCHENK. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HORN. Beyond the 3-mile limit, assuming a cruise ship on which 
gambling took place left the port of Los Angeles or the port of Long 
Beach and went to perhaps San Diego, and then on to Ensenada in Mexican 
territory, that would be under Federal law beyond the 3-mile limit?
  Ms. SCHENK. The gentleman is correct. The jurisdiction belongs at the 
Federal, administered by the Department of Justice. It would be 
investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by the relevant U.S. attorney.
  Mr. HORN. So the Coast Guard's role in this is what?
  Ms. SCHENK. The Coast Guard would I assume provide some support in 
this. They enforce the laws on the high seas. They enforce all of the 
U.S. laws on the high seas.
  Mr. HORN. So in essence, would the Coast Guard be asked to enforce 
the gambling laws if the mob infiltrated these cruise ships?
  Ms. SCHENK. I am assuming that they do that now and that they would 
continue to do that. This does not change the jurisdiction of the 
Federal-level agencies or of the State-level agencies except to the 
point that within the international waters where a ship is going from 
let us say the port of Los Angeles or the port of Long Beach to Mexico 
and wishes to stop at Catalina or San Diego or some other port, that 
intrastate portion, that it would now revert to what was the status 
under the Johnson Act, which is that the Federal Government would have 
jurisdiction. And I am assuming the Coast Guard would enforce it, just 
as they have in the past.
  Mr. HORN. Is the gentlewoman assuming or does she know that the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation would have jurisdiction?
  Ms. SCHENK. They do have jurisdiction.
  Mr. HORN. So the enforcing authority which investigates and brings 
the information to the United States Attorney for an indictment, is the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation?
  Ms. SCHENK. That is correct.
  Mr. HORN. And the Coast Guard might be supportive in getting them to 
the ship or whatever?
  Ms. SCHENK. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HORN. But the Coast Guard does not have its own investigators, I 
take it?
  Ms. SCHENK. I am not a Coast Guard expert, and as Members knows, he 
just brought this question to me in the past 5 minutes and I have been 
unable to give that kind of extensive research to it. We have been 
working on this issue for a year and a half. I will be happy to provide 
the gentleman with this information at the end of this session.
  Mr. HORN. I would like it provided for the record so we have a clear 
understanding of who is responsible should criminal activity occur.
  Ms. SCHENK. Again, as I say, we are not creating any new bureaucracy 
here, we are not making any changes. When the Federal Government has 
jurisdiction it would be the Coast Guard, the FBI, the Department of 
Justice, the U.S. Attorney.
  Mr. HORN. Let us posit the second example. If we have a cruise ship 
leaving either the port of Los Angeles or the port of Long Beach and 
going to San Diego, perhaps dropping by Catalina on the way or other 
islands in that coastal zone, and they did not go to a foreign country 
or another State, that remains under State jurisdiction?
  Ms. SCHENK. Absolutely. This amendment does not at all apply to 
purely intrastate voyages. The amendment is very clear that the ship 
must reach either a foreign port or another State within 72 hours.
  Mr. HORN. Last question. As I understand it, one of the motives for 
this amendment is the fear of some that if that area remains under 
State jurisdiction and not Federal, various Indian tribes might have an 
opportunity to assert rights that they have received under the 
Constitution and Federal courts and engage in gambling?
  Ms. SCHENK. The gentleman is correct. It is my understanding under 
the Indian gambling law, in fact some of the tribes went to court when 
this law was amended in 1992 to seek the same kind of gambling rights 
on their reservations as the cruise ships allowed on those intrastate 
portions of the voyage.
  Mr. HORN. I believe the gentlewoman or her staff has provided me with 
a letter from Governor Wilson which was sent to Senator Feinstein on 
this. Is there objection if we put this letter in the Record?
  Ms. SCHENK. I have no objection. We will have to asked the chairman 
if he has an objection.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I include my letter from Gov. Pete Wilson to 
Senator Dianne Feinstein dated August 26, 1994, as follows:
                                                  August 26, 1994.
     Hon. Dianna Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: This letter is in response to 
     inquiries from your office regarding my position in support 
     of the Schenk Amendment on cruise ship gambling.
       As you know, federal law was changed in 1992 (H.R. 3866) to 
     give states the authority to ban gambling on the high seas 
     during interstate voyages. Indian tribes seeking to expand 
     the scope of permissible gaming under the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (IGRA) immediately went to court arguing that 
     state acquiesence to casino gaming on intrastate voyages 
     amounted to tacit agreement for tribes to conduct full-scale 
     casino gaming within the state's territories.
       I believe the IGRA should be amended to clarify that the 
     scope of permissible Indian gaming within a state's 
     territorial boundaries is game specific, i.e., only those 
     forms of gaming the state permits played in the same fashion. 
     Without such an amendment, any relaxation of the state's ban 
     on cruise ship gambling could be used by a court to justify 
     the expansion of gambling activities under the IGRA.
       Alternatively, the Johnson Act (Anti-Gambling Devices Act) 
     could be amended, as the Schenk language, attempts to do, to 
     return the task of regulating casino gambling on legitimate 
     cruise ships in intrestate travel to the federal government. 
     This approach would reduce the risk that gambling activity 
     that occurs outside California's borders will dictate the 
     scope of gambling within its borders. Of course, any such 
     amendment should be accompanied by measures to ensure 
     sufficient federal regulatory control over shipboard gaming.
       I trust this clarifies my position with regard to the need 
     for changes in federal law in order to allow gambling on 
     legitimate cruise ships operating out of California ports.
           Sincerely,
                                            Pete Wilson, Governor.

  Mr. HORN. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the 
gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Schenk] for working with the 
committee, and I appreciate clarifying questions of my good friend, the 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Horn].
  As I understand, this particular amendment really makes technical 
changes, and it is supported by the Governor. Once again, I want to say 
to the gentlewoman we appreciate her working with both sides of the 
aisle in structuring what is a technical amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk], as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. hughes

  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hughes:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.    . POLLUTION FROM SHIPS.

       (a) Prevention of Pollution From Ships.--Section 6 of the 
     Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1905) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``(2) If'' and inserting the following: 
     ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), if''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) The Secretary may issue a certificate attesting to 
     the adequacy of reception facilities under this paragraph 
     only if, prior to the issuance of the certificate, the 
     Secretary conducts an inspection of the reception facilities 
     of the port or terminal that is the subject of the 
     certificate.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) is valid for the 5-year period beginning on the date 
     of issuance of the certificate, except that if--
       ``(i) the charge for operation of the port or terminal is 
     transferred to a person or entity other than the person or 
     entity that is the operator on the date of issuance of the 
     certificate--
       ``(I) the certificate shall expire on the date that is 30 
     days after the date of the transfer; and
       ``(II) the new operator shall be required to submit an 
     application for a certificate before a certificate may be 
     issued for the port or terminal; or
       ``(ii) the certificate is suspended or revoked by the 
     Secretary, the certificate shall cease to be valid; and''; 
     and
       (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary shall maintain a list of ports or 
     terminals with respect to which a certificate issued under 
     this section--
       ``(A) is in effect; or
       ``(B) has been revoked or suspended.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall make the list referred to in 
     paragraph (1) available to the general public.''.
       (b) Reception Facility Placards.--Section 6(f) of the Act 
     to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1905(f)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that require the operator of each port or 
     terminal that is subject to any requirement of the MARPOL 
     Protocol relating to reception facilities to post a placard 
     in a location that can easily be seen by port and terminal 
     users. The placard shall state, at a minimum, that a user of 
     a reception facility of the port or terminal should report to 
     the Secretary any inadequacy of the reception facility.''.
       (c) Application to Vessels.--
       (1) Notice of arrival.--The owner, master, agent, or person 
     in charge of a vessel shall include in the notice of arrival 
     required to be submitted to the Captain of the Port of the 
     port or place of destination pursuant to the Ports and 
     Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) information 
     concerning the intention of the owner, master, or person in 
     charge of the vessel with respect to the disposal of onboard 
     waste at the port or place of destination.
       (2) Compliance reports.--Section 2201(a) of the Marine 
     Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (Public 
     Law 100-220; 33 U.S.C. 1902 note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``for a period of 6 years''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``and, not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and 
     Control Act of 1994, and annually thereafter, shall publish 
     in the Federal Register a list of the enforcement actions 
     taken against any domestic or foreign ship (including any 
     commercial or recreational ship) pursuant to the Act to 
     Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.)''.
       (d) Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Public 
     Outreach Program.--Section 2204(a) of the Marine Plastic 
     Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-
     220; 42 U.S.C. 6981 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``for a period of at least 3 years,'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) the requirements under this Act and the Act to 
     Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) with 
     respect to ships and ports, and the authority of citizens to 
     report violations of this Act and the Act to Prevent 
     Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--
       ``(A) Public outreach program.--A public outreach program 
     under paragraph (1) may include--
       ``(i) developing and implementing a voluntary boaters' 
     pledge program;
       ``(ii) workshops with interested groups;
       ``(iii) public service announcements;
       ``(iv) distribution of leaflets and posters; and
       ``(v) any other means appropriate to educating the public.
       ``(B) Grants and cooperative agreements.--To carry out this 
     section, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating, the Secretary of Commerce, and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency are 
     authorized to award grants, enter into cooperative agreements 
     with appropriate officials of other Federal agencies and 
     agencies of States and political subdivisions of States, and 
     provide other financial assistance to eligible recipients.
       ``(C) Consultation.--In developing outreach initiatives 
     targeted at the interested groups that are subject to the 
     requirements of this title and the Act to Prevent Pollution 
     from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, acting through 
     the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall consult with--
       ``(i) the heads of State agencies responsible for 
     implementing State boating laws; and
       ``(ii) the heads of other enforcement agencies that 
     regulate boaters or commercial fishermen.''.
       (e) Coordination.--
       (1) Establishment of marine debris coordinating 
     committee.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency shall establish a Marine Debris Coordinating Committee 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Committee'').
       (2) Membership.--The Committee shall include a senior 
     official from--
       (A) the Environmental Protection Agency, who shall serve as 
     the Chairperson of the Committee;
       (B) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
       (C) the United States Coast Guard;
       (D) the United States Navy; and
       (E) such other Federal agencies that have an interest in 
     ocean issues or water pollution prevention and control as the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     determines appropriate.
       (3) Meetings.--The Committee shall meet at least twice a 
     year to provide a forum to ensure the coordination of 
     national and international research, monitoring, education, 
     and regulatory actions addressing the persistent marine 
     debris problem.
       (f) Monitoring.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall utilize the 
     marine debris data derived under title V of the Marine 
     Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 
     2801 et seq.) to assist the United States Coast Guard in 
     assessing the effectiveness of this Act.

  Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment, on behalf of 
myself, Mr. Saxton, and Mr. Pallone, that would improve implementation 
of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987. This 
amendment represents an abridged version of legislation I have 
introduced, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act 
Amendments of 1994 and is similar to legislation introduced in the 
other body by Senator Frank Lautenberg.
  I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries Committee, Gerry Studds, and the distinguished 
ranking minority member, Jack Fields, for their assistance and support 
for this amendment. I would also like to thank Billy Tauzin, the 
chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, and his ranking member Howard 
Coble for theirs. I am also grateful to my New Jersey colleagues on the 
committee, Frank Pallone and Jim Saxton, for their help and 
cosponsorship. Finally, I want to thank our colleague from Virginia, 
Herb Bateman and our colleague from Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon for their 
support with this amendment.

                              {time}  1510

  As you know I have been deeply involved during my almost two decades 
of service as a member of the Merchant Marine Committee with efforts to 
improve the quality of our coastal waters and beaches. I have worked 
closely with members like Jim Saxton, Frank Pallone, Bob Roe, the late 
Jim Howard, and Ed Forsythe and many others to improve our ocean 
policy. Together, we have worked hard to develop and pass legislation 
to end ocean dumping of sewerage sludge, track medical waste, and 
improve the monitoring of coastal recreational waters. I was also one 
of the prime sponsors of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and 
Control Act Amendments of 1987--the very legislation that this 
amendment is aimed at improving. But we can and should do more.
  The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act Amendments of 
1994 is a natural counterpart to that legislation, because it seeks to 
improve the quality of our coastal waters through enhanced procedures 
for plastic pollution monitoring. The legislation provides the Coast 
Guard with additional authority and imposes stricter requirements on 
it--all aimed at improving compliance and enforcement of waste disposal 
practices at ports and aboard vessels.
  The first part of our amendment would attack the ocean dumping 
problem by ensuring the presence of adequate waste reception facilities 
at all ports and terminals. It does this by requiring on site 
inspection of reception facilities by the Coast Guard prior to issuance 
of a certificate of adequacy. Under current law, ports are required to 
provide facilities capable of receiving waste from ships. However, 
certification of these facilities occurs without any type of regular 
inspection. Our amendment ensures that these facilities will be 
inspected regularly by providing for automatic expiration of 
certificates after 5 years, or sooner if there is a change in operator 
or if the certificate is suspended or revoked. In addition, the 
amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to maintain and 
publicize a list of ports or terminals which have either active or 
revoked certificates of adequacy.

  The amendment would also compel the Secretary to promulgate 
regulations that require the operator of a port or terminal to post a 
placard stating that users should report to the Secretary any 
inadequacy in that port's waste reception facility.
  Subsection C of this amendment relates to the responsibility of 
vessels in preventing plastic pollution. The first part addresses a 
particular weakness that exists in current law. Under a contract with a 
shipowner, a shipping agent is charged with facilitating all shipping 
arrangements for a vessel. However, the Coast Guard has reported that 
the operator of a port reception facility often does not know that 
there was a request by the vessel master to deposit waste. This creates 
a loophole in responsibility, making it difficult for the Coast Guard 
to enforce the law. This amendment would remove that loophole by 
requiring the person in charge of a vessel to include in the notice of 
arrival to a port information about his or her intent with respect to 
waste disposal at that port, making the vessel operator the responsible 
party.
  Subsection C will require that a list of enforcement actions taken 
against any domestic or foreign vessel pursuant to the act to prevent 
pollution from ships be published in the Federal Register on an annual 
basis.
  The fourth part of my amendment would fight pollution through public 
education. This subsection would extend and expand public outreach, and 
require that such programs teach citizens about their authority to 
report violations of the act. Additionally, the amendment would require 
that Federal agencies consult with state or local agencies that have 
direct contact with recreational and commercial boaters to assist them 
in developing programs and would authorize USCG, EPA, and NOAA to award 
grants in order to carry out this subsection.
  My amendment also seeks to improve the implementation of current law 
through enhanced coordination between Government entities. The 
amendment directs the EPA to establish a marine debris coordinating 
committee which includes NOAA, the Coast Guard, the Navy, and other 
Federal agencies. That committee is tasked with ensuring the 
coordination of national and international research, monitoring, 
education, and regulatory actions addressing persistent marine debris 
problems.
  Finally, the amendment requires the EPA Administrator, in cooperation 
with NOAA, to assist the Coast Guard with monitoring by providing 
marine debris data collected pursuant to title V of the Marine 
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, in testimony before the Coast Guard 
Subcommittee, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Kramek, said 
that he wanted the Coast Guard to become world leaders in environmental 
protection. I applaud his forward-looking thinking. I think the Coast 
Guard is well on the way to achieving that goal. This amendment fits in 
well with Admiral Kramek's vision because it will help the Coast Guard 
to ensure that our coastal waters are free of plastic debris and other 
garbage. Perhaps, that is why the Coast Guard, as well as the Center 
for Marine Conservation and the American Association of Port 
Authorities, supports this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the marine environment and our coastal tourist industry 
is jeopardized every time a beach becomes littered with bottles, cans, 
and other kinds of trash. Most of you remember the impact that washups 
of trash and medical waste had on shore economies in 1988. I am sure 
all of you share my hope that we never see a summer like that again.
  I am hopeful that this amendment will give the Coast Guard and other 
agencies the tools they need to prevent another summer of 1988. It is a 
simple and, I think, sensible measure, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say that 
on the minority side of the aisle we have had an opportunity to review 
this. We appreciate the gentleman working with us over a period of 
weeks to work this particular compromise, and I am glad to report to my 
colleagues that this is an amendment that should be supported.
  But more importantly, I want to point out to the House this may be 
the last time that the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries is on 
the floor this session. Consequently, it may be the last time the 
gentleman is on the floor as a member of this committee, and I just 
want to say publicly that in the 14 years that I have served with the 
gentleman from New Jersey, he has conducted himself in the way that he 
conducted himself on this particular amendment, and that is with grace 
and with dignity, and we appreciate the service that you have rendered 
not only in the 14 years that I have been in the House but the 20 years 
that you have been in the House of Representatives.
  The last two nights I have been at events that have honored the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], and a number of very fine things 
have been said about our Republican leader. I would just say to the 
House and suggest that the things that have been said about the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], his ability to work with others, 
his honor, could also be said about the gentleman from New Jersey.
  I think from my perspective you have been an exemplary Member, a 
model, and you will be sorely missed.
  Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate that. I 
have enjoyed working with the gentleman from Texas over the years.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleague, the ranking 
member, in paying tribute to the gentleman. We have served together on 
this committee for more years then either of us cares publicly to 
admit.
  I must confess that I am a bit envious of where he is headed, 
wherever it may be. At least we know where it is not. He has shown 
extraordinary wisdom in his choices throughout his career here. He has 
been an enormous addition to this committee. He has been a leader in 
this field from the moment he arrived.
  I am going to miss very much having him at my right hand, and I know 
he has served his district and his State with great distinction for 
many, many years.
  He will be sorely missed here. This is a field in which he has taken 
leadership from day 1, and it is a privilege and a pleasure, as one of 
our last formal acts here, to accept his amendment.
  Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I would just like to associate myself with the remarks 
of the ranking member and the chairman.
  I do not serve on this committee, but I have worked with you for 10 
years, and I would like to say that I know of no one else who has been 
as fair and helpful to every Member regardless of their rank and power 
within the House. You always are very fair. You are going to be deeply 
missed. Your district is going to miss you as a great Member.
  I want to join in these remarks and support your amendment.
  Mr. HUGHES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, my friend.
  Let me say, before I sit down, I support the overall bill. It is a 
good authorization bill, and it is worthy of support.
  Finally, as I said to the gentleman from Texas yesterday, as we 
walked the corridors, if every committee of the House worked in as 
bipartisan and effective a fashion as does the Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries, this place would be a better place. It is goal-
oriented, and I think of all the things I have done over the years, the 
most I am proud of is the good policy that emanates from this 
committee. It is a good reflection on the members and professional 
staff.
  It is my honor to have worked with you, I say, Gary and Jack and 
others and Jim and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], who I 
see standing, in developing good ocean policy, better maritime policy, 
which we need to build upon in the years ahead, and outstanding 
environmental policy overall.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I cannot let this moment go by without 
coming by and paying my respects to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Being a property owner in his district and knowing the real feelings 
of the people of south Jersey, there is no person more respected in New 
Jersey than Bill Hughes. Bill, you have done a fantastic job. It has 
been a pleasure working with you.
  Being here 8 years and serving on the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries, you have been someone we always look up to as a leader, 
someone who is always fair, always works in a bipartisan manner.
  Having spent some time this summer at the Cape May facility, your 
Coast Guard people love you, as they should.
  I just think you are a model of what an effective Representative 
should be. It has been a honor to serve with you, with your leadership.
  Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman.
  What started out as an effort to offer an amendment, it has turned 
out to sound like something like a wake.
  I want to tell my colleagues I have enjoyed service on the committee. 
It is a wonderful committee. I am going to miss you all.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously I rise in support of the Hughes amendment.
  Let me say, before I offer my remarks on the amendment, that I, too, 
have had the privilege of serving with Bill Hughes now for half the 
time that he has been here and the decade that I have been here, and it 
has certainly been a pleasure to share 150 miles of coastline, of 
oceanfront, with Bill Hughes.
  We have done much work together, and as the gentleman was recognizing 
those of us who have worked on the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, on ocean issues, he gave us a lot of credit when, in fact, 
on most of these issues involving getting chemical dumping out of the 
ocean, getting sludge out of the ocean, getting medical waste out of 
the ocean, and, of course, plastics, it has been Bill Hughes who has 
always been in the forefront as a member of this committee.
  In addition to that, I could not have asked for a better neighbor at 
home with contiguous districts, with many issues the same. I have 
appreciated the cooperation and the congeniality that Bill and I have 
been able to share, going up and down the coastline, hearings in each 
other's districts, sharing information and trying to deal with issues, 
and I have benefited greatly from the experience and the cooperation 
that Bill Hughes has shard with me on these issues.
  And so it is a pleasure for me to rise in support of this issue.
  Let me say, while I am on my feet, as well, that there are a number 
of people on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries who share 
coastal areas, and this committee has worked, as Bill Hughes is 
evidence of, in a very bipartisan way to try to solve problems that are 
very unique in nature and that take a great deal of dedication and 
working together to fashion answers to very, very difficult problems 
that have to do with contentious groups of people, different fishing 
groups, for example, international issues that we have to deal with.

                              {time}  1520

  So I am very pleased that Chairman Studds has been able to lead us 
over these last few years and that people like Bill Hughes have been 
there to work with us to bring these issues together.
  I will miss Bill Hughes as he leaves this House. I offer my thanks 
and gratitude for all that he has helped me do.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hughes-Saxton-Pallone 
amendment to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill and I thank my 
colleague, Mr. Hughes, for his tireless work on this and other 
legislation aimed at protecting our ocean waters.
  As you may know, current law prohibits the disposal of all plastics 
and other garbage from ships into the sea. It also requires that ports 
provide facilities capable of receiving waste from ships.
  The Hughes-Saxton-Pallone amendment improves the Marine Plastic 
Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987. It does so by requiring the 
inspection of garbage disposal facilities at ports prior to issuing a 
certificate of adequacy. Currently, a port can obtain the required 
certificate without having an inspection.
  The port may not be capable of handling plastic and other waste from 
ships. This amendment will ensure that the ports can handle waste, so 
it does not wash up on our shores.
  The amendment also places the onus of garbage disposal on vessel 
operators. It requires the vessel operator to inform the port what the 
ship's garbage needs are so the port can accommodate it. Further, it 
expands public outreach so that the public knows to whom and how to 
report violations of the act. Finally, I am pleased to report that this 
amendment has the support of the Center for Marine Conservation, the 
American Association of Port Authorities, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
  Plastic pollution in our oceans is a persistent problem. The 
environmental groups in my district, such as Alliance for a Living 
Ocean and Clean Ocean Action, are diligent in removing marine debris 
from ocean beaches. But they cannot do it alone. I ask for your support 
of the Hughes-Saxton-Pallone amendment, so they will not have to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                amendment offered by mr. fields of texas

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Texas:
       At the end of title IV, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . MERCHANT MARINER BENEFITS.

       (a) Part G of Subtitle II, title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding the following new chapter:

                ``CHAPTER 112--MERCHANT MARINER BENEFITS

Sec.
11201. Qualified services.
11202. Qualified service benefits.

     11201. QUALIFIED SERVICE

       An individual who was in training for or who served as a 
     member of the United States merchant marine, including the 
     Army Transport Service and the Naval Transportation Service, 
     or who received a letter of induction, before August 16, 
     1945, is deemed to have been engaged in qualified service for 
     purposes of this chapter.

     11202. QUALIFIED SERVICE BENEFITS

       (a) An individual who believes that individual performed 
     qualified service under section 11201 of this chapter may 
     apply to the Secretary. Not later than 180 days after the 
     Secretary receives an application under this section, the 
     Secretary shall determine whether the individual performed 
     qualified service.
       (b) The Secretary shall issue an honorable discharge to an 
     individual who performed qualified service as determined by 
     the Secretary under subsection (a). The Secretary shall issue 
     the discharge subject to the standards that apply to the 
     honorable discharges issued under section 401(a)(1)(b) of the 
     GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (38 U.S.C. 106 note).
       (c) The qualified service of an individual who--
       (1) receives an honorable discharge under subsection (b); 
     and
       (2) is not eligible for benefits under a law administered 
     by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs--

     shall be treated as active duty for purposes of eligibility 
     for benefits under chapters 23 and 24 of title 38, United 
     States Code.
       (d) The Secretary shall reimburse the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs for the value of benefits provided to an individual 
     by reason of eligibility under this chapter.
       (e) An individual is not entitled to, and may not receive, 
     benefits under this chapter for any period before the date of 
     enactment of this chapter.''.
       (b) The analysis at the beginning of subtitle II of title 
     46, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to chapter 111 following:

112. Merchant mariners benefits...............................11201....

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. This is 
something we considered last year. It is a modified version of a 
proposal I offered to last year's Coast Guard authorization bill, which 
was adopted without opposition.
  The purpose of this amendment is to try to correct a 48-year-old 
injustice that has been perpetrated on about 2,500 Americans who served 
this country with both honor and distinction during World War II.
  Under my amendment, our Government would be directed to carefully 
review the records of those who served in our merchant marine during 
World War II and to determine whether they qualify for veterans status.
  While I believe this administrative review is long overdue, this 
amendment will mandate a fresh look at this issue and require that 
these brave Americans at least have an opportunity to make their case.
  Under my amendment last year, any merchant mariner who qualified for 
veterans status would have been eligible for the full range of veterans 
benefits. Under this amendment, the only benefits provided are a 
discharge certificate indicating that an individual is a World War II 
veteran, a flag for their coffin, and a headstone for their grave.
  The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed my amendment and has 
concluded that its costs are de minimis. In short, there is no budget 
impact and little, if any, cost to the Federal Government.
  Having said that, I want to make it clear that this is an extremely 
important amendment for these 2,500 Americans. They have spent many 
years writing and contacting their elected representatives and they 
remain hopeful that justice will finally prevail.
  During the past 5 years, I have heard the compelling stories of many 
of these Americans. Each of these individuals--like George Searle, Joe 
Katusa, Frank Ford, George Lewis, Richard Page, Fred Hicks, Burt Young, 
Don Miller, Ralph Taylor, Frank Coughlin, Herb Bauman, and E.J. Heins--
share the common characteristics of love of country and the commitment 
to serve during one of the most difficult periods in our Nation's 
history.
  Unlike their brothers in uniform, America's merchant seamen came home 
to no tickertape parades or celebrations. Little, if anything, was said 
about the contributions they made to defeating the Axis Powers and to 
preserving the freedoms and liberties we Americans cherish.
  As Gen. Douglas MacArthur stated, ``The merchant seamen shared the 
heaviest enemy fire. They contributed tremendously to our success.''
  Today, by approving this amendment, we can finally complete the job 
of providing fairness to those distinguished Americans who served in 
our merchant marine during World War II.
  While the hour is late, we must not forget these proud Americans who 
made such invaluable contributions to our country's successful war 
effort. These men have waited a long time to tell their grandchildren 
that they are World War II veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to sincerely thank the 241 Members, most notably 
Lane Evens and Gerry Studds, who have joined with me in this noble 
effort. While this amendment affects only a handful of people, it is a 
just remedy and it will stop treating these Americans as second-class 
citizens.
  I urge adoption of the Fields amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. STUDDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a chance to review the gentleman's 
amendment, and we are fully in support of it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
  The amendment was agreed to.


             amendment offered by mr. taylor of mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       At the end of the bill add the following new title:
       TITLE XI--UNITED STATES PASSENGER VESSEL FLAG ACT OF 1994

     SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``United States-Flag 
     Passenger Vessel Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 1102. COASTWISE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 
     App. U.S.C. 289), is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 8.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(b) Voyages-To-Nowhere.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law, a vessel 
     may transport passengers on a covered voyage from a place in 
     the United States subject to the coastwise trade laws only 
     if--
       ``(A) the vessel is owned by a person that is--

  ``(i) an individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

  ``(ii) a corporation, partnership, or association that is a citizen of 
the United States under section 2(a) of the Shipping Act, 1916; and

       ``(B) for a vessel that is at least 5 net tons, the vessel 
     is documented under chapter 121 of title 46, United States 
     Code, with a coastwise endorsement.
       ``(2) Penalties.--
       ``(A) Civil penalty.--A person operating a vessel in 
     violation of this subsection is liable to the United States 
     Government for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each passenger 
     transported in violation of this subsection.
       ``(B) Forfeiture.--A vessel operated in knowing violation 
     of this subsection, and its equipment, are liable to seizure 
     by and forfeiture to the United States Government.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `covered voyage' means transportation of a 
     passenger from a place in any State or possession of the 
     United States and returning to that place, if during that 
     transportation no passenger departs from the vessel in a 
     foreign country; and
       ``(2) the term `passenger' does not include a travel agent 
     on a voyage if--
       ``(A) the purpose of the voyage is to promote future trips 
     on the vessel;
       ``(B) money is not paid to the vessel owner or charterer 
     for the voyage; and
       ``(C) the voyage goes beyond the territorial sea of the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Exception.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the amendments made by 
     subsection (a), an ineligible vessel may engage in transport 
     of passengers in coastwise trade (as those terms are defined 
     in those amendments) on a trade route, if--
       (A) the vessel engaged, in the period beginning January 1, 
     1990, and ending March 9, 1993, in transport of passengers in 
     coastwise trade on that trade route; and
       (B) within one year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the owner files with the Secretary of Transportation an 
     affidavit certifying compliance with subparagraph (A) and 
     listing each trade route on which the vessel engaged in 
     transport of passengers in coastwise trade in the period 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Scheduled expiration of exception.--Paragraph (1) does 
     not apply to an ineligible vessel after the later of--
       (A) January 1, 2000,
       (B) the date that is 15 years after the date of completion 
     of construction of the vessel, or
       (C) the date that is 15 years after the date of completion 
     of any major conversion of the vessel that is begun before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Expiration of exception for failure to recrew.--
     Paragraph (1) does not apply to an ineligible vessel after 
     the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, unless--
       (A) each individual employed on the vessel after the one-
     year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act is either a citizen of the United States or an alien 
     lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence; and
       (B) not more than 25 percent of the total number of 
     individuals employed on the vessel after the one-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act are aliens 
     lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence.
       (4) Termination of exception upon entry of replacement.--
     Paragraph (1) does not apply to an ineligible vessel with 
     respect to a trade route after the date of the entry into 
     service on that trade route of an eligible vessel, if--
       (A) the eligible vessel has a passenger carrying capacity 
     that is equal to at least 75 percent of the passenger 
     carrying capacity of the ineligible vessel, as determined by 
     the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating;
       (B) the person that is the owner or charterer of the 
     eligible vessel submits to the Secretary of Transportation, 
     by not later than 270 days before the date of that entry into 
     service--

  (i) a notice of the intent of the person to enter into that service; and

  (ii) such evidence as the Secretary may require that the person is 
offering and advertising that service;

       (C) any individual employed on the ineligible vessel after 
     the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act--

  (i) is not a citizen of the United States; and

  (ii) is not an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
residence; and

       (D) more than 25 percent of the total number of individuals 
     employed on the ineligible vessel after the one-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act are aliens 
     lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence.
       (5) Termination of exception upon sale of vessel.--
     Paragraph (1) does not apply to an ineligible vessel after 
     any date on which the vessel is sold after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (6) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       (A) the term ``eligible vessel'' means a vessel that is 
     eligible under chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, 
     for a certificate of documentation authorizing the vessel to 
     engage in coastwise trade;
       (B) the term ``ineligible vessel'' means a vessel that is 
     not eligible under chapter 121 of title 46, United States 
     Code, for a certificate of documentation authorizing the 
     vessel to engage in coastwise trade; and
       (C) the term ``major conversion'' has the meaning that term 
     has under section 2101 of title 46, United States Code.

     SEC. 1103. DOCUMENTATION OF VESSELS.

       (a) Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. 
     U.S.C. 289), and sections 12106 and 12107 of title 46, United 
     States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue 
     certificates of documentation with appropriate endorsement 
     for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel M/V 
     Helton Voyager (Spanish registration lista 2A-Folio-592) if--
       (1) the person documenting the vessel entered a contract 
     before May 21, 1992, to purchase the vessel;
       (2) the vessel undergoes a major conversion (as defined in 
     section 2101 of title 46, United States Code) in a United 
     States shipyard under a contract signed before January 1, 
     1994;
       (3) the cost of the major conversion is more than the value 
     of the vessel before the major conversion; and
       (4) the major conversion is completed and the vessel is 
     documented under chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, 
     with a coastwise endorsement before January 1, 1995.
       (b)(1) The vessel Star of Texas (Lloyds register number 
     L5103936) may engage in coastwise trade out of the Port of 
     Galveston during the 5-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, if during the period beginning 30 
     days after that date of enactment and ending 5 years after 
     that date of enactment--
       (A) at least 60 employees engaged on the vessel are United 
     States citizens;
       (B) of the employees engaged on the vessel who are United 
     States citizens, at least 60 are proficient in lifeboat 
     training, firefighting, and vessel evacuation under standards 
     certified by the United States Coast Guard;
       (C) all repairs and alterations to the vessel are done in 
     United States shipyards;
       (D) the vessel is a United States documented vessel before 
     the end of that period; and
       (E) all other employees are instructed in basic safety 
     techniques.
       (2) Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and section 12106 of title 46, 
     United States Code, and subject to paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
     documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in 
     the coastwise trade in the period described in paragraph (1) 
     for a vessel described in that paragraph.

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today 
is virtually identical to a bill passed in this body by a very large 
vote on November 20 of last year. That bill would close a loophole in 
our maritime law which gives an unfair advantage to our foreign-flag 
competitors.
  Under the present law, if a foreign-made, foreign-flag, foreign-owned 
vessel which operates out of the United States of America sails a mere 
3 miles out to sea, turns around and comes back, it is considered a 
foreign voyage. In doing that, they are able to get around some of the 
oldest laws in our country, called the cabotage laws, which reserved 
coastlines for American vessels, American crews, and American-owned 
vessels. The amendment today would close this loophole. I think it is 
something both Democrats and Republicans can agree on.
  I think Republicans in particular are always keenly aware of the 
mandates we put on American businesses. It is not fair to have a 
mandate on American businesses and yet allow people to operate out of 
the same areas not to live by those mandates.
  The Democrats in this body can certainly approve of the jobs that 
will be created by insuring that in the future these vessels are made 
in America and preserve our very important national shipbuilding base 
for America in times of military use.
  Mr. Chairman, I know of no opposition to the bill.
  I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] 
and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], 
for allowing the amendment to come to the floor, and I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Mississippi, Gene Taylor, a member of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
  This amendment is a revised version of a bill that has been passed 
twice by the House of Representatives--once in the previous Congress 
and last November--but, due to matters beyond our control, has not been 
enacted.
  This amendment will provide American companies the opportunity to 
become involved in the extremely lucrative cruise-to-nowhere trade. 
These voyages, which are currently conducted exclusively by foreign-
owned, foreign-flagged, and foreign-manned cruise ships, represent a 
significant economic growth potential for American businesses. In 
addition, hundreds of jobs for American merchant mariners would be 
created.
  As a result of administrative determinations--that the members of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries strenuously disagree with--
the U.S. Customs Service has allowed these foreign ships to continue to 
operate.
  This has led to the absurd situation that if someone goes on a 
saltwater fishing trip and returns to the port of departure, that 
fishing boat has to be U.S.-built and U.S.-owned. But if that same 
person gets on a cruise ship and spends the day eating, drinking, and 
gambling--rather than fishing--and the vessel returns to the same port, 
then the cruise ship can be foreign-built and foreign-owned.
  This amendment would allow foreign-flag cruise operators to continue 
their activities until January 1, 2000, or for 15 years after 
construction or a major conversion of a ship, if they crew their ships 
with American merchant seamen. However, if they choose not to re-crew 
the ships, their operations would have to cease after 5 years.
  The amendment would also allow a U.S.-cruise operator to enter a 
cruise-to-nowhere trade and bump-out an existing foreign operator 
sooner than 5 years, if the foreign operator elects not to hire an 
American crew.
  This amendment will eliminate a major loophole in our coastwise trade 
law. I urge the adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. STUDDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, this is a subject upon which he has assumed leadership for 
some time. The concept of a cruise to nowhere is sort of appealing to 
most of your colleagues. The gentleman has done a superb job.
  We agree with the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. bilirakis

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bilirakis: At the end of Title IV 
     (Page 37, after line 18), add the following:

     SEC.  . ANNUAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF VESSEL TRAFFIC 
                   SERVICE.

       Not later than April 1 of each year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     submit to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report describing 
     in detail the status of implementation of the Vessel Traffic 
     Service in all the ports ranked in the Port Needs Study 
     issued by the Coast Guard in 1991.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple one. It directs 
the Secretary of Transportation to submit an annual report to the House 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation no later than April 1. This report 
should describe in detail the status of implementation of the vessel 
traffic service in all ports ranked in the port needs study issued by 
the Coast Guard in 1991.
  On August 10, 1993, a collision occurred in a navigation channel 
outside the entrance to Tampa Bay between two tug/barges and a 357-foot 
freighter. This accident resulted in a thunderous explosion that shot a 
fireball hundreds of feet into the air. In addition, approximately 
380,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. The cost of the 
cleanup of this spill was enormous--several million dollars, at least.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the first accident to occur at the mouth of 
Tampa Bay. Most of us in this chamber remember the disaster that 
occurred in May 1980, when a freighter ran into the Sunshine Skyway 
Bridge causing one of its spans to collapse. Some 40 people were 
killed.
  In fact, the Tampa Bay area has been prominently listed by the Coast 
Guard as a danger area for cargo ships carrying hazardous material. In 
1991, the U.S. Coast Guard conducted a port needs study on 23 ports 
across the United States. The goal of this study was to recognize the 
ports that are most prone to accidents. The study ranked Tampa Bay as 
one of the top 10 most dangerous ports.
  The Coast Guard has developed a system designed to prevent these 
types of accidents, and this system--the Vessel Traffic Service or 
VTS--has been successfully implemented by the Coast Guard in four major 
port areas.
  VTS functions like an air traffic control system. It tracks vessels 
by radar and assists them in navigating through hazardous areas.
  Unfortunately, however, under the fiscal year 1995 transportation 
appropriation bill that we considered in June of this year, further 
implementation of the vessel traffic service was pushed back yet 
another year because, and I quote from the report language from the 
fiscal year 1995 transportation appropriations bill:

       Subsequent to the transmittal of the budget, the committee 
     was advised by the Coast Guard that the schedule for the VTS 
     2000 Program had slipped.

  The report goes on further to say:

       Review of the program's operational requirements and 
     associated cost estimates took the Coast Guard much longer 
     than anticipated.

  Mr. Chairman, VTS is a vital program that can potentially save lives 
and save money. Therefore, we cannot afford vague promises and further 
delays due to undetermined slippage. The Congress must send a clear 
message to the Coast Guard, as well as to the Department of 
Transportation that VTS should be implemented as soon as possible.
  Yet another benefit of VTS is its cost-effective answer to 
environmental disasters, such as the one that took place in Tampa Bay 
last year. Nationally, the cost to clean up these types of accidents 
far exceeds the funding requested by the Department of Transportation 
to operate the VTS Program.
  The Coast Guard provides Congress with a quarterly fiscal report on 
how funds are spent for the VTS. However, it does not tell Congress how 
the Coast Guard is progressing in implementing the system in what it 
classifies in its port needs study as danger areas for cargo ships 
carrying hazardous materials. This is the information we need.
  This year, I took the liberty of asking the Coast Guard when VTS 
would be implemented in Tampa Bay. I was told that it would request 
funds to install VTS in Tampa Bay by fiscal year 2000. This is too long 
to wait for a system that can save lives.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that the committee will adopt my 
amendment in order to better ensure that the Coast Guard, whom I have 
supported over the years, does everything within its power to implement 
this life and environment-saving technology on a more timely basis--not 
only for Tampa Bay, but for other areas scheduled to receive the VTS.
  I express this hope, not only in memory of the lives that have been 
lost in accidents such as those that I have described, but for the sake 
of the lives we will save through the VTS program.
  My thanks to Chairmen Studds and Tauzin and Mr. Fields and to the 
majority and minority staffs for their open-mindedness and cooperation. 
I encourage an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. STUDDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a chance to review the gentleman's 
amendment, and we are prepared to support it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have considered this amendment. It is a very good 
amendment, it is needed, and we support it.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentleman for their 
comments, and I want to thank particularly Chairman Studds, the 
gentleman from Lousiana [Mr. Tauzin], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields], and the staffs of both the majority and minority.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendments Offered by Mr. Studds

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Studds.
       Page 6, beginning at line 9, strike section 204 (and 
     redesignate the subsequent section accordingly).
       Page 13, strike lines 14 through 17.
       Page 13, beginning at line 18, strike ``(b) Designation of 
     Center as Regional Facility.--''.
       Page 17, line 2, before the period insert the following: 
     ``AND MULTIBEAM SONAR''.
       Page 17, line 4, insert ``systems and multibeam sonar'' 
     after ``radar''.
       Page 17, strike lines 17 through 21, and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Property Described.--The property referred to in 
     subsection (a) is real property located in the city of 
     Traverse City, Grand Traverse County, Michigan, and 
     consisting of that part of the southeast \1/4\ of Section 12, 
     Township 27 North, Range 11 West, described as: Commencing at 
     the southeast \1/4\ corner of said Section 12, thence north 
     03 degrees 05 minutes 25 seconds east along the East line of 
     said Section, 1074.04 feet, thence north 86 degrees 36 
     minutes 50 seconds west 207.66 feet, thence north 03 degrees 
     06 minutes 00 seconds east 572.83 feet to the point of 
     beginning, thence north 86 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds west 
     1,751.04 feet, thence north 03 degrees 02 minutes 38 seconds 
     east 330.09 feet, thence north 24 degrees 04 minutes 40 
     seconds east 439.86 feet, thence south 86 degrees 56 minutes 
     15 seconds east 116.62 feet, thence north 03 degrees 08 
     minutes 45 seconds east 200.00 feet, thence south 87 degrees 
     08 minutes 20 seconds east 68.52 feet, to the southerly 
     right-of-way of the C & O Railroad, thence south 65 degrees 
     54 minutes 20 seconds east along said right-of-way 1508.75 
     feet, thence south 03 degrees 06 minutes 00 seconds west 
     400.61 to the point of beginning, consisting of 27.10 acres 
     of land, and all improvements located on that property 
     including buildings, structures, and equipment.
       Page 37, after line 18, add the following:

     SEC. 419. ELECTRONIC FILING OF COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENTS.

       Section 31321(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) A bill of sale, conveyance, mortgage, assignment, 
     or related instrument may be filed electronically under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(B) A filing made electronically under subparagraph (A) 
     shall not be effective after the 10-day period beginning on 
     the date of the filing unless the original instrument is 
     provided to the Secretary within that 10-day period.''.
                  Title V--RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Recreational Boating 
     Safety Improvement Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 502. PERSONAL FLOTATION DEVICES REQUIRED FOR CHILDREN.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 4307(a) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon 
     at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) operate a recreational vessel under 26 feet in length 
     unless each individual 12 years of age or younger wears a 
     Coast Guard approved personal flotation device when the 
     individual is on an open deck of the vessel.''.
       (b) State Authority Preserved.--Section 4307 of title 46, 
     United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(c) Subsection (a)(4) shall not be construed to limit the 
     authority of a State to establish requirements relating to 
     the wearing of personal flotation devices on recreational 
     vessels that are more stringent than that subsection.''.

     SEC. 503. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS BASED ON STATE ADOPTION OF LAWS 
                   REGARDING BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED.

       Section 13103 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), and (c) in order 
     as subsections (b), (c), and (d);
       (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(a)(1) Beginning in fiscal year 1998, of the amounts 
     transferred to the Secretary each fiscal year pursuant to 
     section 4(b) of the Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 
     777c(b)), the Secretary shall allocate for State recreational 
     boating safety programs $10,000,000 as follows:
       ``(A) One-half shall be allocated in accordance with 
     paragraph (2) among eligible States that--
       ``(i) prohibit operation of a recreational vessel by an 
     individual who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs; 
     and
       ``(ii) establish a blood alcohol concentration limit of .10 
     percent or less.
       ``(B) One-half shall be allocated in accordance with 
     paragraph (2) among eligible States that--
       ``(i) prohibit operation of a recreational vessel by an 
     individual who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs; 
     and
       ``(ii) establish an implied consent requirement that 
     specifies that an individual is deemed to have given their 
     consent to evidentiary testing for their blood alcohol 
     concentration or presence of other intoxicating substances.
       ``(2) Of the amount allocated under subparagraph (A) or (B) 
     of paragraph (1) each fiscal year--
       ``(A) one-half shall be allocated equally among all 
     eligible States receiving an allocation under that 
     subparagraph for the fiscal year; and
       ``(B) one-half shall be allocated among those eligible 
     States so that each such State receives an amount bearing the 
     same ratio to the total amount allocated under that 
     subparagraph for the fiscal year as the number of vessels 
     numbered in that State under a system approved under chapter 
     123 of this title bears to the total number of vessels 
     numbered under approved systems of all States receiving an 
     allocation under that subparagraph for the fiscal year.'';
       (3) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated) in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``the balance of 
     remaining'' after ``allocate''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) A State shall not be ineligible for an allocation 
     under subsection (a) because of the adoption by the State of 
     any requirement relating to the operation of a recreational 
     vessel while under the influence of alcohol or drugs that is 
     more stringent than the requirements for receiving the 
     allocation.''.

     SEC. 504. MARINE CASUALTY REPORTING.

       (a) Submission of Plan.--Not later than one year after 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall, 
     in consultation with appropriate State agencies, submit to 
     the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a plan to increase reporting 
     of vessel accidents to appropriate State law enforcement 
     officials.
       (b) Penalties for Violating Reporting Requirements.--
     Section 6103(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``or 6102'' after ``6101'' the second place it 
     appears.

     SEC. 505. REQUIRING VIOLATORS TO TAKE RECREATIONAL BOATING 
                   SAFETY COURSE.

       (a) Negligent Operation.--Section 2302 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) An individual operating a recreational vessel in 
     violation of this section shall complete a boating safety 
     course approved by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Other Violations.--Section 4311 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) A person who operates a recreational vessel in 
     violation of this chapter or a regulation prescribed under 
     this chapter may be ordered to complete a recreational 
     boating safety course approved by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 506. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       Section 13108(a)(1) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking ``proceeding'' and inserting ``preceding''; 
     and
       (2) striking ``Secertary'' and inserting ``Secretary''.
              TITLE VI--TOWING VESSEL NAVIGATIONAL SAFETY

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Towing Vessel Navigational 
     Safety Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 602. MINIMUM NAVIGATIONAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT FOR TOWING 
                   VESSELS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4102 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) In prescribing regulations for towing vessels, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) consider the characteristics, methods of operation, 
     and nature of the service of towing vessels;
       ``(B) consult with the Towing Safety Advisory Committee; 
     and
       ``(C) require, to the extent appropriate, the installation, 
     maintenance, and use of and familiarity with the following 
     equipment on each towing vessel, other than a towing vessel 
     that is used only for towing disabled vessels:
       ``(i) A radar system.
       ``(ii) An electronic position-fixing device.
       ``(iii) A sonic depth finder.
       ``(iv) A compass or swing meter.
       ``(v) Adequate towing wire and associated equipment.
       ``(vi) Up-to-date navigational charts and publications for 
     the areas normally transited by the vessel.
       ``(vii) Other safety equipment the Secretary determines to 
     be necessary.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall establish in regulations under 
     this chapter requirements that--
       ``(A) any equipment required on a towing vessel under 
     paragraph (1) shall be maintained in effective operating 
     condition; and
       ``(B) if such equipment on a vessel ceases to operate, the 
     master of the vessel shall exercise due diligence to restore 
     the equipment to effective operating condition, or cause it 
     to be restored to that condition, at the earliest practicable 
     date.''.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     issue regulations by not later than 12 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, prescribing navigational 
     publication and equipment requirements under subsection (f) 
     of section 4102 of title 46, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a) of this section.

     SEC. 603. REPORTING MARINE CASUALTIES.

       (a) Expedited Reporting Required.--Section 6101(b) of title 
     46, United States Code, is amended by striking ``within 5 
     days'' and inserting ``by as soon as practicable, but in no 
     case later than within 5 days,''.
       (b) Penalty for Failure To Report a Casualty.--Section 
     6103(a) of title 46, United States Code is amended by 
     striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``not more than $25,000''.

     SEC. 604. REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A 
                   DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITE 
                   NAVIGATION SYSTEM AND ELECTRONIC CHARTS FOR 
                   INLAND WATERWAYS.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit a 
     report to the Congress on the feasibility of establishing a 
     differential global positioning satellite navigation system 
     and creating electronic charts for the inland waterways of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 605. PROTECTION OF SEAMEN AGAINST DISCRIMINATION.

       Section 2114 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) An owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, 
     master, or individual in charge of a vessel may not 
     discharge, temporarily remove, or in any manner discriminate 
     against a seaman because the seaman--
       ``(1) in good faith has reported or is about to report to 
     the Coast Guard that the seaman believes that a violation of 
     this subtitle, or a regulation issued under this subtitle, 
     has occurred; or
       ``(2) refuses to violate this subtitle or a regulation 
     issued under this subtitle.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (2) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) an award of cost and reasonable attorney's fees to 
     the prevailing plaintiff.''.

     SEC. 606. MANNING AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWING 
                   VESSELS.

       (a) Manning Requirements.--Section 8904 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) A towing vessel, other than a vessel referred to in 
     subsection (b), shall--
       ``(1) while being operated, have on board an individual 
     licensed by the Secretary as a master of that type of towing 
     vessel; and
       ``(2) be operated by an individual licensed by the 
     Secretary to operate that type of towing vessel.''.
       (b) Regulations Establishing Licenses for Masters and 
     Operators.--Section 7101 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j)(1) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations which 
     establish licenses for masters and mates of towing vessels.
       ``(2) Regulations under this subsection shall provide that 
     an individual may be issued a license as a master or mate of 
     a towing vessel only if the individual--
       ``(A) demonstrates proficiency in the use of the equipment 
     required pursuant to section 4102(f)(1)(C) of this title; and
       ``(B) demonstrates proficiency in operating a towing 
     vessel.
       ``(3) Regulations under this subsection may establish 
     standards and procedures under which the Secretary may 
     delegate, to individuals who have experience in the operation 
     of towing vessels and to other qualified persons, the 
     authority to conduct examinations required for the issuance 
     of a license as a master or mate of a towing vessel.''.
       (c) Existing Uninspected Towing Vessel Operator License 
     Holders.--An uninspected towing vessel operator license that 
     is valid on the date of enactment of this Act shall be valid 
     as a master or mate license required by section 8904 of title 
     46, United States Code, as amended by this section, until 
     otherwise required to be renewed. The Secretary shall require 
     that an individual applying for a first renewal of such a 
     license as a master or mate license under that section 
     demonstrate proficiency under the requirements of section 
     7101(j) of title 46, United States Code, as added by this 
     section.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (e) Deadline for Regulations.--The Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue 
     regulations under the amendments made by this section by not 
     later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 607. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       (a) Prohibited Operation of Uninspected Towing Vessel, 
     Generally.--Section 4106 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$25,000''.
       (b) Operation of Uninspected Towing Vessel in Violation of 
     Manning Requirements.--Section 8906 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting 
     ``not more than $25,000''.

     SEC. 608. MODEL TOWING VESSEL COMPANY INSPECTION PROGRAM.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating, in consultation with the Towing Safety 
     Advisory Committee, shall--
       (1) develop a model towing vessel company inspection 
     program, including a Coast Guard boarding program to 
     determine compliance with the model program; and
       (2) submit to the Congress for its approval the model 
     program and a description of the statutory changes necessary 
     to implement the model program.

     SEC. 609. MERCHANT MARINERS' DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.

       (a) Requirement.--Section 8701(a) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``100'' and inserting ``5'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a vessel operating only 
     on rivers and lakes (except the Great Lakes);'' and inserting 
     ``a small passenger vessel, or an uninspected passenger 
     vessel;'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (2), and redesignating the 
     subsequent paragraphs accordingly; and
       (4) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     ``clause (6)'' and inserting ``paragraph (5)''.
       (b) Exceptions.--Section 8701(b) of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A person'' and inserting ``(1) Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), a person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations which 
     exempt from paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) engagement or employment of an individual in any 
     position, on a passenger vessel, that is not listed in the 
     Certificate of Inspection for the vessel;
       ``(B) engagement or employment of an individual in any 
     position, on a vessel of a type to which this section did not 
     apply on the day before the date of enactment of the Towing 
     Vessel Navigational Safety Act of 1994, for which the 
     individual is required to hold a license issued by the 
     Secretary under this title; and
       ``(C) service by an individual in a position described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B).''.
       (c) User Fee Exemption and Privacy of Information.--
       (1) User fee exemption.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may not collect a fee or charge under section 2110 of title 
     46, United States Code, for any service related to a merchant 
     mariner's document required to be obtained under this title.
       (2) Privacy of information.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation may not make available to a member of the 
     public any personal information concerning an individual 
     required to obtain a merchant mariner's document under this 
     title.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
                TITLE VII--COAST GUARD REGULATORY REFORM

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Coast Guard Regulatory 
     Reform Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 702. SAFETY MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Management of Vessels.--Title 46, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after chapter 31 the following new 
     chapter:

                  ``CHAPTER 32--MANAGEMENT OF VESSELS

``Sec.
``3201. Definitions.
``3202. Application.
``3203. Safety management system.
``3204. Implementation of safety management system.
``3205. Certification.

     ``Sec. 3201. Definitions

       ``In this chapter--
       ``(1) `International Safety Management Code' has the same 
     meaning given that term in chapter IX of the Annex to the 
     International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.
       ``(2) `responsible person' means--
       ``(A) the owner of a vessel to which this chapter applies; 
     or
       ``(B) any other person that has--
       ``(i) assumed the responsibility for operation of a vessel 
     to which this chapter applies from the owner; and
       ``(ii) agreed to assume with respect to the vessel 
     responsibility for complying with all the requirements of 
     this chapter and the regulations prescribed under this 
     chapter.
       ``(3) `vessel engaged on a foreign voyage' means a vessel 
     to which this chapter applies--
       ``(A) arriving at a place under the jurisdiction of the 
     United States from a place in a foreign country;
       ``(B) making a voyage between places outside the United 
     States; or
       ``(C) departing from a place under the jurisdiction of the 
     United States for a place in a foreign country.

     ``Sec. 3202. Application

       ``(a) Mandatory Application.--This chapter applies to the 
     following vessels engaged on a foreign voyage:
       ``(1) Beginning July 1, 1998--
       ``(A) a vessel transporting more than 12 passengers 
     described in section 2101(21)(A) of this title; and
       ``(B) a tanker, bulk freight vessel, or high-speed freight 
     vessel, of at least 500 gross tons.
       ``(2) Beginning July 1, 2002, a freight vessel and a mobile 
     offshore drilling unit of at least 500 gross tons.
       ``(b) Voluntary Application.--This chapter applies to a 
     vessel not described in subsection (a) of this section if the 
     owner of the vessel requests the Secretary to apply this 
     chapter to the vessel.
       ``(c) Exception.--Except as provided in subsection (b) of 
     this section, this chapter does not apply to--
       ``(1) a barge;
       ``(2) a recreational vessel not engaged in commercial 
     service;
       ``(3) a fishing vessel;
       ``(4) a vessel operating on the Great Lakes or its 
     tributary and connecting waters; or
       ``(5) a public vessel.

     ``Sec. 3203. Safety management systems

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations which establish a safety management system for 
     responsible persons and vessels to which this chapter 
     applies, including--
       ``(1) a safety and environmental protection policy;
       ``(2) instructions and procedures to ensure safe operation 
     of those vessels and protection of the environment in 
     compliance with international and United States law;
       ``(3) defined levels of authority and lines of 
     communications between, and among, personnel on shore and on 
     the vessel;
       ``(4) procedures for reporting accidents and 
     nonconformities with this chapter;
       ``(5) procedures for preparing for and responding to 
     emergency situations; and
       ``(6) procedures for internal audits and management reviews 
     of the system.
       ``(b) Compliance With Code.--Regulations prescribed under 
     this section shall be consistent with the International 
     Safety Management Code with respect to vessels engaged on a 
     foreign voyage.

     ``Sec. 3204. Implementation of safety management system

       ``(a) Safety Management Plan.--Each responsible person 
     shall establish and submit to the Secretary for approval a 
     safety management plan describing how that person and vessels 
     of the person to which this chapter applies will comply with 
     the regulations prescribed under section 3203(a) of this 
     title.
       ``(b) Approval.--Upon receipt of a safety management plan 
     submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall review 
     the plan and approve it if the Secretary determines that it 
     is consistent with and will assist in implementing the safety 
     management system established under section 3203.
       ``(c) Prohibition on Vessel Operation.--A vessel to which 
     this chapter applies under section 3202(a) may not be 
     operated without having on board a Safety Management 
     Certificate and a copy of a Document of Compliance issued for 
     the vessel under section 3205 of this title.

     ``Sec. 3205. Certification

       ``(a) Issuance of Certificate and Document.--After 
     verifying that the responsible person for a vessel to which 
     this chapter applies and the vessel comply with the 
     applicable requirements under this chapter, the Secretary 
     shall issue for the vessel, on request of the responsible 
     person, a Safety Management Certificate and a Document of 
     Compliance.
       ``(b) Maintenance of Certificate and Document.--A Safety 
     Management Certificate and a Document of Compliance issued 
     for a vessel under this section shall be maintained by the 
     responsible person for the vessel as required by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(c) Verification of Compliance.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) periodically review whether a responsible person 
     having a safety management plan approved under section 
     3204(b) and each vessel to which the plan applies is 
     complying with the plan; and
       ``(2) revoke the Secretary's approval of the plan and each 
     Safety Management Certificate and Document of Compliance 
     issued to the person for a vessel to which the plan applies, 
     if the Secretary determines that the person or a vessel to 
     which the plan applies has not complied with the plan.
       ``(d) Enforcement.--At the request of the Secretary, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall withhold or revoke the 
     clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised Statutes 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 91) of a vessel that is subject to this 
     chapter under section 3202(a) of this title or to the 
     International Safety Management Code, if the vessel does not 
     have on board a Safety Management Certificate and a copy of a 
     Document of Compliance for the vessel. Clearance may be 
     granted on filing a bond or other surety satisfactory to the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of subtitle II of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 31 
     the following:

``32. Management of vessels.................................3201''.....

       (c) Study.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary of the department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating shall conduct, in cooperation with 
     the owners, charterers, and managing operators of vessels 
     documented under chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, 
     and other interested persons, a study of the methods that may 
     be used to implement and enforce the International Management 
     Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution 
     Prevention under chapter IX of the Annex to the International 
     Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a 
     report of the results of the study required under paragraph 
     (1) before the earlier of--
       (A) the date that final regulations are prescribed under 
     section 3203 of title 46, United States Code (as enacted by 
     subsection (a); or
       (B) the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 703. USE OF REPORTS, DOCUMENTS, RECORDS, AND 
                   EXAMINATIONS OF OTHER PERSONS.

       (a) Reports, Documents, and Records.--Chapter 31 of title 
     46, United States Code, is amended by adding the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 3103. Use of reports, documents, and records

       ``The Secretary may rely, as evidence of compliance with 
     this subtitle, on--
       ``(1) reports, documents, and records of other persons who 
     have been determined by the Secretary to be reliable; and
       ``(2) other methods the Secretary has determined to be 
     reliable.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     31 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``3103. Use of reports, documents, and records.''.

       (c) Examinations.--Section 3308 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``or have examined'' after 
     ``examine''.

     SEC. 704. EQUIPMENT APPROVAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 3306(b) of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Equipment and material subject to regulation under 
     this section may not be used on any vessel without prior 
     approval of the Secretary.
       ``(2) Except with respect to use on a public vessel, the 
     Secretary may treat an approval of equipment or materials by 
     a foreign government as approval by the Secretary for 
     purposes of paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) the design standards and testing procedures used by 
     that government meet the requirements of the International 
     Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974;
       ``(B) the approval of the equipment or material by the 
     foreign government will secure the safety of individuals and 
     property on board vessels subject to inspection; and
       ``(C) for lifesaving equipment, the foreign government--
       ``(i) has given equivalent treatment to approvals of 
     lifesaving equipment by the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) otherwise ensures that lifesaving equipment approved 
     by the Secretary may be used on vessels that are documented 
     and subject to inspection under the laws of that country.''.
       (b) Foreign Approvals.--The Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with other interested Federal agencies, shall 
     work with foreign governments to have those governments 
     approve the use of the same equipment and materials on 
     vessels documented under the laws of those countries that the 
     Secretary requires on United States documented vessels.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 3306(a)(4) of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``clauses (1)-
     (3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)''.

     SEC. 705. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION.

       (a) Frequency of Inspection, Generally.--Section 3307 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``nautical school vessel'' and inserting 
     ``, nautical school vessel, and small passenger vessel 
     allowed to carry more than 12 passengers on a foreign 
     voyage''; and
       (B) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon at the end;
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph 
     (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (3) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated), by striking ``2 
     years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3710(b) of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``24 months'' and 
     inserting ``5 years''.

     SEC. 706. CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION.

       Section 3309(c) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``(but not more than 60 days)''.

     SEC. 707. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY TO 
                   CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES.

       (a) Authority To Delegate.--Section 3316 of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) and (d);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (a) and (b), respectively; and
       (3) in subsection (b), as so redesignated, by--
       (A) redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (B) striking so much of the subsection as precedes 
     paragraph (3), as so redesignated, and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b)(1) The Secretary may delegate to the American Bureau 
     of Shipping or another classification society recognized by 
     the Secretary as meeting acceptable standards for such a 
     society, for a vessel documented or to be documented under 
     chapter 121 of this title, the authority to--
       ``(A) review and approve plans required for issuing a 
     certificate of inspection required by this part;
       ``(B) conduct inspections and examinations; and
       ``(C) issue a certificate of inspection required by this 
     part and other related documents.
       ``(2) The Secretary may make a delegation under paragraph 
     (1) to a foreign classification society only--
       ``(A) to the extent that the government of the foreign 
     country in which the society is headquartered delegates 
     authority and provides access to the American Bureau of 
     Shipping to inspect, certify, and provide related services to 
     vessels documented in that country; and
       ``(B) if the foreign classification society has offices and 
     maintains records in the United States.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) The heading for section 
     3316 of title 46, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 3316. Classification societies''.

       (2) The table of sections for chapter 33 of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating 
     to section 3316 and inserting the following:

``3316. Classification societies.''.

     SEC. 708. STUDY OF MARINE CASUALTY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       The Coast Guard shall, within 9 months after the effective 
     date of this title, conduct a study of current regulatory 
     requirements regarding the reporting of marine casualties 
     under section 6101 of title 46, United States Code, to 
     determine whether--
       (1) marine casualties should be classified according to the 
     seriousness of nonfatal casualties;
       (2) further regulations pertaining to the necessity for 
     alcohol and drug testing for each classification need to be 
     proposed;
       (3) the regulations may exclude certain non-serious 
     casualties from the requirement that drug or alcohol testing 
     be performed; and
       (4) the reporting of certain marine casualties that may be 
     classified as minor may be done on a quarterly basis.
          TITLE VIII--UNITED STATES CRUISE VESSEL DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``United States Cruise 
     Vessel Development Act''.

     SEC. 802. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to promote construction and 
     operation of United States flag cruise vessels in the United 
     States.

     SEC. 803. COASTWISE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS.

       Section 8 of the Act entitled ``An Act to abolish certain 
     fees for official services to American vessels, and to amend 
     the laws relating to shipping commissioners, seamen, and 
     owners of vessels, and for other purposes'', approved June 
     19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 8. COASTWISE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by law, a 
     vessel may transport passengers in coastwise trade only if--
       ``(1) the vessel is owned by a person that is--
       ``(A) an individual who is a citizen of the United States; 
     or
       ``(B) a corporation, partnership, or association that is a 
     citizen of the United States under section 2(a) of the 
     Shipping Act, 1916;
       ``(2) the vessel meets the requirements of section 27 of 
     the Merchant Marine Act, 1920; and
       ``(3) for a vessel that is at least 5 net tons, the vessel 
     is issued a certificate of documentation under chapter 121 of 
     title 46, United States Code, with a coastwise endorsement.
       ``(b) Exception for Vessel Under Demise Charter.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(1) does not apply to a 
     cruise vessel operating under a demise charter that--
       ``(A) has a term of at least 18 months; and
       ``(B) is to a person described in subsection (a)(1).
       ``(2) Extension of period for operation.--A cruise vessel 
     authorized to operate in coastwise trade under paragraph (1) 
     based on a demise charter described in paragraph (1) may 
     operate in that coastwise trade during a period following the 
     termination of the charter of not more than 6 months, if the 
     operation--
       ``(A) is approved by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) in accordance with such terms as may be prescribed by 
     the Secretary for that approval.
       ``(c) Exception for Vessel To Be Reflagged.--
       ``(1) Exception.--Subsection (a)(2) and section 
     12106(a)(2)(A) of title 46, United States Code, do not apply 
     to a cruise vessel if--
       ``(A) the vessel--
       ``(i) is not documented under chapter 121 of title 46, 
     United States Code, on the date of enactment of the United 
     States Cruise Vessel Development Act; and
       ``(ii) is not less than 5 years old and not more than 15 
     years old on the first date that the vessel is documented 
     under that chapter after that date of enactment; and
       ``(B) the owner or charterer of the vessel has entered into 
     a contract for the construction in the United States of 
     another cruise vessel that has a total berth or stateroom 
     capacity that is at least 80 percent of the capacity of the 
     cruise vessel.
       ``(2) Termination of authority to operate.--Paragraph (1) 
     does not apply to a vessel after the date that is 18 months 
     after the date on which a certificate of documentation with a 
     coastwise endorsement is first issued for the vessel after 
     the date of enactment of the United States Cruise Vessel 
     Development Act if, before the end of that 18-month period, 
     the keel of another vessel has not been laid, or another 
     vessel is not at a similar stage of construction, under a 
     contract required for the vessel under paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(3) Extension of period before termination.--The 
     Secretary of Transportation may extend the period under 
     paragraph (2) for not more than 6 months for good cause 
     shown.
       ``(d) Limitation on Operations.--A person (including a 
     related person with respect to that person) that owns or 
     charters a cruise vessel operating in coastwise trade under 
     subsection (b) or (c) under a coastwise endorsement may not 
     operate any vessel between--
       ``(1) any 2 ports served by another cruise vessel that 
     transports passengers in coastwise trade under subsection (a) 
     on the date the Secretary issues the coastwise endorsement; 
     or
       ``(2) the islands of Hawaii.
       ``(e) Penalties.--
       ``(1) Civil penalty.--A person operating a vessel in 
     violation of this section is liable to the United States 
     Government for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each passenger 
     transported in violation of this section.
       ``(2) Forfeiture.--A vessel operated in knowing violation 
     of this section, and its equipment, are liable to seizure by 
     and forfeiture to the United States Government.
       ``(3) Disqualification from coastwise trade.--A person that 
     is required to enter into a construction contract under 
     subsection (c)(1)(B) with respect to a cruise vessel 
     (including any related person with respect to that person) 
     may not own or operate any vessel in coastwise trade after 
     the period applicable under subsection (c)(2) with respect to 
     the cruise vessel, if before the end of that period a keel is 
     not laid and a similar stage of construction is not reached 
     under such a contract.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `coastwise trade' includes transportation of 
     a passenger between points in the United States, either 
     directly or by way of a foreign port;
       ``(2) the term `cruise vessel' means a vessel that--
       ``(A) is at least 10,000 gross tons (as measured under 
     chapter 143 of title 46, United States Code);
       ``(B) has berth or stateroom accommodations for at least 
     200 passengers; and
       ``(C) is not a ferry; and
       ``(3) the term `related person' means, with respect to a 
     person--
       ``(A) a holding company, subsidiary, affiliate, or 
     association of the person; and
       ``(B) an officer, director, or agent of the person or of an 
     entity referred to in subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 804. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.

       Section 3309 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d)(1) A vessel described in paragraph (3) is deemed to 
     comply with parts B and C of this subtitle.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall issue a certificate of inspection 
     under subsection (a) to a vessel described in paragraph (3).
       ``(3) A vessel is described in this paragraph if--
       ``(A) it meets the standards and conditions for the 
     issuance of a control verification certificate to a foreign 
     vessel embarking passengers in the United States;
       ``(B) a coastwise endorsement is issued for the vessel 
     under section 12106 of this title after the date of enactment 
     of the United States Cruise Vessel Development Act; and
       ``(C) the vessel is authorized to engage in coastwise trade 
     by reason of section 8(c) of the Act entitled `An Act to 
     abolish certain fees for official services to American 
     vessels, and to amend the laws relating to shipping 
     commissioners, seamen, and owners of vessels, and for other 
     purposes', approved of June 19, 1886.''.

     SEC. 805. CITIZENSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF DOCUMENTATION.

       Section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 App. U.S.C. 802), 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``other than primarily 
     in the transport of passengers,'' after ``the coastwise 
     trade''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) For purposes of determining citizenship under 
     subsection (a) with respect to operation of a vessel 
     primarily in the transport of passengers in coastwise trade, 
     the controlling interest in a partnership or association that 
     owns the vessel shall not be deemed to be owned by citizens 
     of the United States unless a majority interest in the 
     partnership or association is owned by citizens of the United 
     States free from any trust or fiduciary obligation in favor 
     of any person that is not a citizen of the United States.''.

     SEC. 806. AMENDMENT TO TITLE XI OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 
                   1936.

       Section 1101(b) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. 
     U.S.C. 1271(b)) is amended by striking ``passenger cargo'' 
     and inserting ``passenger, cargo,''.

     SEC. 807. PERMITS FOR VESSELS ENTERING UNITS OF NATIONAL PARK 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Priority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of the Interior may not permit a person to 
     operate a vessel in any unit of the National Park System 
     except in accordance with the following priority:
       (1) First, any person that--
       (A) will operate a vessel that is documented under the laws 
     of, and the home port of which is located in, the United 
     States; or
       (B) holds rights to provide visitor services under section 
     1307(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3197(A)).
       (2) Second, any person that will operate a vessel that--
       (A) is documented under the laws of a foreign country, and
       (B) on the date of the enactment of this Act is permitted 
     to be operated by the person in the unit.
       (3) Third, any person that will operate a vessel other than 
     a vessel described in paragraph (1) or (2).
       (b) Revocation of Permits for Foreign-Documented Vessels.--
     The Secretary of the Interior shall revoke or refuse to renew 
     permission granted by the Secretary for the operation of a 
     vessel documented under the laws of a foreign country in a 
     unit of the National Park System, if--
       (1) a person requests permission to operate a vessel 
     documented under the laws of the United States in that unit; 
     and
       (2) the permission may not be granted because of a limit on 
     the number of permits that may be issued for that operation.
       (c) Restrictions on Revocation of Permits.--The Secretary 
     of the Interior may not revoke or refuse to renew permission 
     under subsection (b) for any person holding rights to provide 
     visitor services under section 1307(a) of the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3197(a)).
       (d) Return of Permits.--Any person whose permission to 
     provide visitors services in a unit of the National Park 
     System has been revoked or not renewed under subsection (b) 
     shall have the right of first refusal to a permit to provide 
     visitors services in that unit of the National Park System 
     that becomes available when the conditions described in 
     subsection (b) no longer apply. Such right shall be limited 
     to the number of permits which are revoked or not renewed.
                     TITLE IX--BOATING IMPROVEMENT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Boating Improvement Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 902. BOATING SAFETY GRANTS.

       (a) Transfer of Amounts for State Boating Safety 
     Programs.--
       (1) Transfers.--Section 4(b) of the Act of August 9, 1950 
     (16 U.S.C. 777c(b)), is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Of the balance of each annual appropriation 
     remaining after making the distribution under subsection (a), 
     an amount equal to $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1995, 
     $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $55,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1997, and $69,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 
     shall, subject to paragraph (2), be used as follows:
       ``(A) A sum equal to $7,500,000 of the amount available for 
     fiscal year 1995, and a sum equal to $10,000,000 of the 
     amount available for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 
     shall be available for use by the Secretary of the Interior 
     for grants under section 5604(c) of the Clean Vessel Act of 
     1992. Any portion of such a sum available for a fiscal year 
     that is not obligated for those grants before the end of the 
     following fiscal year shall be transferred to the Secretary 
     of Transportation and shall be expended by the Secretary of 
     Transportation for State recreational boating safety programs 
     under section 13106 of title 46, United States Code.
       ``(B) A sum equal to $7,500,000 of the amount available for 
     fiscal year 1995, $30,000,000 of the amount available for 
     fiscal year 1996, $45,000,000 of the amount available for 
     fiscal year 1997, and $59,000,000 of the amount available for 
     each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, shall be transferred to 
     the Secretary of Transportation and shall be expended by the 
     Secretary of Transportation for State recreational boating 
     safety programs under section 13106 of title 46, United 
     States Code.
       ``(C) A sum equal to $10,000,000 of the amount available 
     for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 shall be available for 
     use by the Secretary of the Interior for--
       ``(i) grants under section 903(e) of the Boating 
     Improvement Act of 1994; and
       ``(ii) grants under section 5604(c) of the Clean Vessel Act 
     of 1992.

     Any portion of such a sum available for a fiscal year that is 
     not obligated for those grants before the end of the 
     following fiscal year shall be transferred to the Secretary 
     of Transportation and shall be expended by the Secretary of 
     Transportation for State recreational boating safety programs 
     under section 13106 of title 46, United States Code.
       ``(2)(A) Beginning with fiscal year 1996, the amount 
     transferred under paragraph (1)(B) for a fiscal year shall be 
     reduced by the lesser of--
       ``(i) the amount appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for that fiscal year to carry out the purposes 
     of section 13106 of title 46, United States Code, from the 
     Boat Safety Account in the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund 
     established under section 9504 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986; or
       ``(ii) $35,000,000; or
       ``(iii) for fiscal year 1996 only, $30,000,000.
       ``(B) The amount of any reduction under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be apportioned among the several States under 
     subsection (d) by the Secretary of the Interior.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 5604(c)(1) of the Clean 
     Vessel Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 1322 note) is amended by 
     striking ``section 4(b)(2) of the Act of August 9, 1950 (16 
     U.S.C. 777c(b)(2), as amended by this Act)'' and inserting 
     ``section 4(b)(1) of the Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 
     777c(b)(1))''.
       (3) Limitation on other distribution.--Notwithstanding any 
     other law, the amount distributed under section 4(a) of the 
     Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777c(a)), in fiscal year 
     1996 may not exceed $50,000,000.
       (b) Expenditure of Amounts for State Recreational Boating 
     Safety Programs.--Section 13106 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall expend under contracts with States under this 
     chapter in each fiscal year for State recreational boating 
     safety programs an amount equal to the sum of the amount 
     appropriated from the Boat Safety Account for that fiscal 
     year plus the amount transferred to the Secretary under 
     section 4(b)(1) of the Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 
     777c(b)(1)) for that fiscal year.''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) For expenditure under this chapter for State 
     recreational boating safety programs there are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation from the 
     Boat Safety Account established under section 9503(c)(4) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9503(c)(4)) not 
     more than $35,000,000 each fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 903. BOATING ACCESS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Nontrailerable recreational motorboats contribute 15 
     percent of the gasoline taxes deposited in the Aquatic 
     Resources Trust Fund while constituting less than 5 percent 
     of the recreational vessels in the United States.
       (2) The majority of recreational vessel access facilities 
     constructed with Aquatic Resources Trust Fund moneys benefit 
     trailerable recreational vessels.
       (3) More Aquatic Resources Trust Fund moneys should be 
     spent on recreational vessel access facilities that benefit 
     recreational vessels that are nontrailerable vessels.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     funds to States for the development of public facilities for 
     transient nontrailerable vessels.
       (c) Survey.--Within 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, any State may complete and submit to 
     the Secretary of the Interior a survey which identifies--
       (1) the number and location in the State of all public 
     facilities for transient nontrailerable vessels; and
       (2) the number and areas of operation in the State of all 
     nontrailerable vessels that operate on navigable waters in 
     the State.
       (d) Plan.--Within 6 months after submitting a survey to the 
     Secretary of the Interior in accordance with subsection (c), 
     a State may develop and submit to the Secretary of the 
     Interior a plan for the construction and renovation of public 
     facilities for transient nontrailerable vessels to meet the 
     needs of nontrailerable vessels operating on navigable waters 
     in the State.
       (e) Grant Program.--
       (1) Matching grants.--The Secretary of the Interior may 
     obligate not less than \1/2\ of the amount made available for 
     each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 under section 4(b)(1)(C) 
     of the Act of August 9, 1950, as amended by section 902(a)(1) 
     of this title, to make grants to any State to pay not more 
     than 75 percent of the cost of constructing or renovating 
     public facilities for transient nontrailerable vessels.
       (2) Priorities.--
       (A) In general.--In awarding grants under this subsection, 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall give priority to projects 
     that consist of the construction or renovation of public 
     facilities for transient nontrailerable vessels in accordance 
     with a plan submitted by a State submitted under subsection 
     (b).
       (B) Within state.--In awarding grants under this subsection 
     for projects in a particular State, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall give priority to projects that are likely to 
     serve the greatest number of nontrailerable vessels.

     SEC. 904. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purpose of this title the term--
       (1) ``Act of August 9, 1950'' means the Act entitled ``An 
     Act to provide that the United States shall aid the States in 
     fish restoration and management projects, and for other 
     purposes'', approved August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777a et seq.);
       (2) ``nontrailerable vessel'' means a recreational vessel 
     greater than 26 feet in length;
       (3) ``public facilities for transient nontrailerable 
     vessels'' means mooring buoys, day-docks, seasonal slips or 
     similar structures located on navigable waters, that are 
     available to the general public and designed for temporary 
     use by nontrailerable vessels;
       (4) ``recreational vessel'' means a vessel--
       (A) operated primarily for pleasure; or
       (B) leased, rented, or chartered to another for the 
     latter's pleasure; and
       (5) ``State'' means each of the several States of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.

                   TITLE X--DOCUMENTATION OF VESSELS

     SEC. 1001. AUTHORIZATION OF DOCUMENTATION FOR VARIOUS 
                   VESSELS.

       (a) In General.--Nowithstanding section 27 of the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 
     1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), the Act of May 28, 1906 (46 App. 
     U.S.C. 292), and sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 
     46, United States Code, the Secretary of the department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating may issue a certificate of 
     documentation with appropriate endorsements for the vessels 
     listed in subsection (b).
       (b) Vessels Described.--The vessels referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) ABORIGINAL (United States official number 942118).
       (2) ALPHA TANGO (United States official number 945782).
       (3) ANNAPOLIS (United States official number 999008).
       (4) ARTHUR ATKINSON (former United States official number 
     214656).
       (5) ATTITUDE (North Carolina registration number NC3607AN).
       (6) BIG DAD (United States official number 565022).
       (7) BROKEN PROMISE (United States official number 904435).
       (8) CHESAPEAKE (United States official number 999010).
       (9) CHRISSY (Maine registration number ME4778B).
       (10) CONSORT (United States official number 999005).
       (11) CURTIS BAY (United States official number 999007).
       (12) EAGLE MAR (United States official number 575349).
       (13) ENDEAVOR (United States official number 947869).
       (14) FIFTY ONE (United States official number 1020419).
       (15) FIREBIRD (United States official number 253656).
       (16) GIBRALTAR (United States official number 668634).
       (17) HAMPTON ROADS (United States official number 999009).
       (18) ISABELLE (United States official number 600655).
       (19) JAMESTOWN (United States official number 999006).
       (20) JOAN MARIE (North Carolina official number NC2319AV).
       (21) KLIPPER (New York registration number NY8166AN).
       (22) L.R. BEATTIE (United States official number 904161).
       (23) LADY ANGELA (United States official number 933045).
       (24) LADY HAWK (United States official number 961095).
       (25) LADY HELEN (United States official number 527746).
       (26) MANDIRAN (United States official number 939915).
       (27) MEMORY MAKER (Maryland registration number MD8867AW, 
     hull number 3151059).
       (28) OLD HAT (United States official number 508299).
       (29) ORCA (United States official number 504279).
       (30) REEL TOY (United States official number 698383).
       (31) RENDEZVOUS (United States official number 924140).
       (32) SALLIE D (Maryland registration number MD2655A).
       (33) SEAHAWK (United States official number 673537).
       (34) SEAHAWK III (United States official number 996375).
       (35) SEA MISTRESS (United States official number 696806).
       (36) SHAMROCK V (United States official number 900936).
       (37) SILENT WINGS (United States official number 969182).
       (38) SPIRIT OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST (Bahamian official 
     number 725338).
       (39) SUNSHINE (United States official number 974320).
       (40) TECUMSEH (United States official number 668633).
       (41) VIKING (former United States official number 224430).
       (42) WOLF GANG II (United States official number 984934).
       (43) A hopper barge owned by Foley & Foley Marine 
     Contractors, Inc. (United States official number 264959).
       (44) Each of 2 Barges owned by Roen Salvage Co., numbered 
     103 and 203.
       (45) Each of 3 spud barges owned by Dan's Excavating, Inc., 
     as follows:
       (A) Spud barge 102 (United States official number 1021958).
       (B) Spud barge 103 (United States official number 1021960).
       (C) Spud barge 968 (United States official number 1021959).
       (46) Each of 3 barges owned by Harbor Marine Corporation of 
     Rhode Island, as follows:
       (A) HARBOR 223 (approximately 110 feet in length).
       (B) GENE ELIZABETH (approximately 200 feet in length).
       (C) HARBOR 221 (approximately 90 feet in length).
       (47) SMALLEY 6808 Amphibious Dredge (Florida registration 
     number FL1855FF).

     SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION OF DOCUMENTATION FOR THE ATLANTIS 
                   III.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. 
     U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United States 
     Code, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating may issue a certificate of documentation 
     with appropriate a coastwise endorsement for employment in 
     the coastwise trade in Alaska during the period beginning May 
     1, 1995, and ending October 31, 1996, for the vessel ATLANTIS 
     III (Canadian official number CG006455).

     SEC. 1003. AUTHORIZATION OF SALE AND REREGISTRATION.

       Notwithstanding any other law or agreement with the United 
     States Government, the vessels SS LAKE CHARLES (United States 
     official number 619531) and SS LOUISIANA (United States 
     official number 619532) may be sold to a person that is not a 
     citizen of the United States and transferred to or placed 
     under a foreign registry if an application to authorize 
     payment of operating-differential subsidy to the vessels is 
     not approved by December 15, 1994.

     SEC. 1004. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION FOR CHARITY CRUISES.

       (a) Authority To Document Vessels.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 
     1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, 
     United States Code, and subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating may issue a certificate of documentation with a 
     coastwise endorsement for each of the vessels--
       (A) GALLANT LADY (Feadship hull number 645, approximately 
     130 feet in length); and
       (B) GALLANT LADY (Feadship hull number 651, approximately 
     172 feet in length).
       (2) Limitation on operation.--Coastwise trade authorized 
     under a certificate of documentation issued for a vessel 
     under this section shall be limited to carriage of passengers 
     in association with contributions to charitable organizations 
     no portion of which is received, directly or indirectly, by 
     the owner of the vessel.
       (3) Condition.--The Secretary may not issue any certificate 
     of documentation under paragraph (1) unless the owner of the 
     vessel referred to in paragraph (1)(A) (in this section 
     referred to as the ``owner''), within 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, submits to the Secretary a letter 
     expressing the intent of the owner to enter into a contract 
     before October 1, 1996, for construction in the United States 
     of a passenger vessel of at least 130 feet in length.
       (4) Effective date of certificates.--A Certificate of 
     documentation issued under paragraph (1)--
       (A) for the vessel referred to in paragraph (1)(A), shall 
     take effect on the date of issuance of the certificate; and
       (B) for the vessel referred to in paragraph (1)(B), shall 
     take effect on the date of delivery of the vessel to the 
     owner.
       (b) Termination of Effectiveness of Certificates.--A 
     certificate of documentation issued for a vessel under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall expire--
       (1) on the date of the sale of the vessel by the owner;
       (2) on October 1, 1996, if the owner has not entered into a 
     contract for construction of a vessel in accordance with the 
     letter of intent submitted to the Secretary under subsection 
     (a)(3); and
       (3) on any date on which such a contract is breached, 
     rescinded, or terminated (other than for completion of 
     performance of the contract) by the owner.

     SEC. 1005. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR THE M/V TWIN DRILL.

       Section 601(d) of P.L. 103-206 is amended by striking 
     ``June 30'' in subpart (3) and inserting ``December 31'' and 
     by striking ``12'' in subpart (4) and inserting ``18''.

  Mr. STUDDS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered en bloc, considered as read 
and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of the 
leadership of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
  The Studds-Fields-Tauzin-Coble amendment embodies the committee's 
work over the past year on maritime safety and regulatory reform. I am 
very proud of these efforts, which, through this bill and amendment, 
continue to demonstrate our bipartisan modus operandi.
  While I will be submitting a detailed section-by-section analysis of 
this amendment for the record, I want to highlight a few of the more 
important provisions of the leadership amendment.
  Our amendment adds a new title V to the bill which incorporates the 
text of H.R. 3786, the Recreational Boating Safety Improvement Act of 
1994, as passed by the House on March 21, 1994. It institutes important 
new lifesaving protections for children and other passengers on 
recreational boats, and is supported by the States, the industry, and 
recreational boaters.
  Title VI is the text of H.R. 3282, the Towing Vessel Navigational 
Safety Act of 1994, as passed by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries yesterday. This issue comes before the House on the 1-year 
anniversary of the tragic Amtrak accident in Mobile, AL. That accident, 
which resulted in the deaths of 47 citizens, was caused by the 
collision of an uninspected, ill-equipped, and poorly operated towing 
vessel with a railroad bridge.
  We have learned a lot about the towing vessel industry since that 
accident. We have had hearings, the Coast Guard has issued several 
reports, and the National Transportation Safety Board has made its 
recommendations for change. The consensus is that navigational safety 
equipment aboard these vessels must be greatly improved and the 
training and licensing of operators greatly enhanced. The amendment 
remedies both problems by requiring new equipment for towing vessels, 
upgraded licenses for masters and pilots of towing vessels, Coast Guard 
documents for all unlicensed personnel, and the development of a model 
company inspection program for certain types of towing vessels.
  The adoption of these new requirements will ensure greater safety for 
the users of our waterways and for those who live and work along their 
shores.
  Title VII adds the text of H.R. 4959, the Coast Guard Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1994, which the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries also approved yesterday. This title reflects the joint effort 
of the Coast Guard and the maritime industry to ensure that we do not 
impose on the U.S. industry any unnecessary or obsolete requirements 
that could keep it from being competitive. I am confident that the bill 
accomplishes this objective without sacrificing U.S. safety standards 
or changing the requirements of any U.S. environmental law.
  This provision is one element of our comprehensive program to reform 
and revitalize the U.S. maritime industry. Its passage today may prove 
inspirational to the Senate which we fervently hope will soon return 
the favor and pass H.R. 4003, the Maritime Security and Competitiveness 
Act of 1994.
  Title VIII is the text of H.R. 3821, the United States Passenger 
Vessel Development Act, which the Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Committee ordered reported on August 11, 1994. This bill was jointly 
referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and I appreciate the 
courtesy of Chairman Miller in agreeing to be discharged from further 
consideration of this bill.
  Much of the credit for this title goes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld], who, working with a coalition of interested 
parties, came up with this novel approach for attracting more cruise 
ship business into U.S. ports and stimulating shipbuilding in this 
country. Under the amendment, we will allow foreign-flag cruise ships 
to carry passengers between two U.S. ports, provided the owners of 
those ships have entered into a binding contract to build another 
vessel in a U.S. shipyard. As I say, this is a novel solution for a 
particularly vexing problem in the Pacific Northwest, and one that will 
benefit not only ports in that region, but also, hopefully, shipyards 
in mine.
  Title IX is the Boating Improvement Act of 1994, H.R. 4477, which was 
approved by the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee on August 11, 
1994. This title ensures that State boating safety programs will 
continue to receive their share of much needed Federal assistance. The 
Coast Guard did not submit a fiscal year 1995 budget request for this 
program solely because of budget scoring problems. The amendment fixes 
this problem by permanently allowing a transfer of funds from the Sport 
Fish Restoration Account to the State boating safety grant program. 
This portion of the amendment involves a jurisdictional matter with the 
Ways and Means Committee and I will include with this statement an 
exchange of letters between Acting Chairman Gibbons and me.
  Finally, the leadership amendment contains a number of waivers to the 
Jones Act which the committee has carefully reviewed and approved.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that passage of this amendment 
on this day, is a fitting memorial to the victims of that horrific 
tragedy 1 year ago. I urge Members to support the leadership amendment 
and H.R. 4422.
  The section-by-section analysis of the Studds-Fields-Tauzin-Coble 
amendment follows:

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 1994.
     Hon. Gerry E. Studds,
     Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House 
         of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you will be offering a 
     floor amendment to H.R. 4422, the Coast Guard Authorization 
     Act of 1994, that would include the text of H.R. 4477, the 
     Boating Improvement Act of 1994. As reported by the Committee 
     on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, H.R. 4477 would provide 
     that certain amounts from the Sport Fish Account of the 
     Aquatic Resources Trust Fund could be used for certain boat 
     safety programs.
       As you know, the Internal Revenue Code (``Code'') contains 
     provisions setting forth the purposes for which expenditures 
     can be made out of the Sport Fish Account of the Aquatic 
     Resources Trust Fund (``Trust Fund''). Although the Code 
     allows expenditures for certain boat safety programs to be 
     made from the Boat Safety Account of the Trust Fund, it does 
     not allow such expenditures to be made from the Sport Fish 
     Account. It is clear that the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over any measure that, like H.R. 4477, attempts 
     to expand the purposes for which money can be spent out of 
     the Code's Sport Fish Account of the Trust Fund.
       Notwithstanding the jurisdictional interest of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, I do not plan to slow down the 
     progress of the Coast Guard Authorization Act. However, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means will address the necessary 
     changes to the Code when possible to permit these 
     expenditures. In the future, I hope that our two committees 
     can work together on those matters over which we share 
     jurisdiction.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means with respect to H.R. 4477.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Sam M. Gibbons,
                                                  Acting Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant Marine 
           and Fisheries, Longworth House Office Building,
                               Washington, DC, September 22, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Gibbons,
     Acting Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am in receipt of your letter this 
     morning regarding the inclusion of the text of H.R. 4477, the 
     Boating Improvement Act of 1994, in a committee leadership 
     amendment to be offered to H.R. 4422, the Coast Guard 
     Authorization Act of 1994.
       As you point out, the Internal Revenue Code does not 
     specifically authorize the expenditure of funds from the 
     Sport Fish Account of the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund for 
     boating safety, although it does allow expenditures for 
     certain boat safety programs from the Fund's Boat Safety 
     Account.
       The intent of this amendment is to provide stable funding 
     for the Coast Guard's highly successful state recreational 
     boating safety grant program.
       Clearly, any measure that would modify the purposes for 
     which money may be spent out of the Internal Revenue Code's 
     Sport Fish Account in one of direct jurisdictional interest 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means. I appreciate your 
     willingness to allow us to proceed with the amendment with 
     the understanding that your committee will, when possible, 
     address changes to the Code necessary to permit these 
     expenditures. I share your interest in having our two 
     committees work together on matters of mutual jurisdictional 
     interest.
       Again, thank you for your cooperation on this matter.
       With kind regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Gerry E. Studds,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____


                      Section-by-Section Analysis

              Section 204. Marine Casualty Investigations.

       This amendment strikes the explicit authority for the Coast 
     Guard to conduct informal marine casualty investigations. The 
     Coast Guard conducts marine casualty investigations to 
     determine the causal factors of accidents to prevent their 
     recurrence. The Coast Guard currently conducts formal and 
     informal marine casualty investigations. The Committee has 
     decided that further review of the scope of informal marine 
     casualty investigations is required before granting this 
     authority to the Coast Guard.

   Section 308. Response Exercise Program at Massachusetts Maritime 
                                Academy.

       This amendment strikes the direction to the Coast Guard to 
     transfer $500,000 to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy to 
     continue oil spill simulator activities. The transfer of 
     money to complete the work authorized by Public Law 102-587 
     has been accomplished.

Section 311. Buy American Requirement for Surface Search Radar Systems.

       This amendment adds multibeam sonar to the Buy American 
     provision for surface search radar. Multibeam sonar is a 
     large bottom-mapping sonar used primarily by research 
     vessels. Only large Coast Guard cutters, such as polar-class 
     icebreakers, would be equipped with multibeam sonar. These 
     instruments are very expensive and the world market is 
     limited. Multibeam sonar does not include all the various 
     smaller electronic depthfinders used on the majority of Coast 
     Guard vessels. The amendment requires the Coast Guard to 
     ``Buy American'' provided the U.S. manufacturer offers a 
     competitive price.

                  Section 312. Conveyance of Property.

       This amendment provides the correct metes and bounds, as 
     determined by recent survey, of the Coast Guard property 
     located in Traverse City, Michigan, which shall be conveyed 
     to the Traverse City School District. This detailed 
     description is necessary to clearly identify that portion of 
     the Coast Guard's property that shall be transferred to the 
     School District.

       Section 419. Electronic Filing of Commercial Instruments.

       Section 419 clarifies that a bill of sale, conveyance, 
     mortgage, assignment or other related instrument concerning a 
     vessel may be filed with the Secretary of Transportation 
     electronically, such as with a fax machine, under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary. This amendment simply affirms a 
     legal opinion by the Coast Guard that current law allows 
     electronic filings to be made. With the adoption of this 
     amendment, financial institutions issuing mortgages on U.S.-
     flag vessels for millions of dollars will not have to worry 
     about a possible legal challenge to the status of a preferred 
     mortgage based on the fact that it was filed electronically.


                  title v--recreational boating safety

                       Section 501. Short Title.

       This section provides that this title may be referred to as 
     the ``Recreational Boating Safety Improvement Act of 1994''.

     Section 502. Personal Flotation Devices Required for Children.

       This section adds a new paragraph to 46 U.S.C. 4307(a) 
     which makes it illegal to operate a recreational vessel under 
     26 feet in length unless each individual 12 years of age or 
     younger wears a Coast Guard-approved personal flotation 
     device PFD when the individual is on an open deck. The 
     Committee intends that this requirement only apply to 
     recreational vessels which are underway, not those that are 
     tied to a dock, at anchor, or moored. Additionally, a new 
     subsection is added to 46 U.S.C. 4307 that states that the 
     prohibition on operating certain recreational vessels unless 
     children 12 and younger wear PFDs shall not be construed to 
     limit a state's authority to establish more stringent 
     requirements for the wearing of PFDs on recreational vessels.

   Section 503. Allocation of Funds Based on State Adoption of Laws 
                  Regarding Boating While Intoxicated.

       This section provides incentive funding to encourage states 
     to adopt comprehensive boating while intoxicated (BWI) laws 
     by FY1998. In FY1998, the Coast Guard's state boating safety 
     grant program will receive an additional $14 million pursuant 
     to the Boating Improvement Act of 1994. Section 503 restricts 
     eligibility to $10 million of that additional funding to 
     states that have adopted certain BWI laws.
       This section also divides the $10 million into two pools of 
     money. The first $5 million is only available to states that 
     have passed laws establishing either a blood alcohol 
     concentration limit of .10 percent or less, or have adopted a 
     behavioral standard as evidence of intoxication. This money 
     is allocated among the eligible states as follows: (1) one-
     half shall be allocated equally among all of the eligible 
     states; and (2) one-half shall be allocated among the 
     eligible states based on the ratio of numbered vessels in the 
     state to the total amount of numbered vessels in all eligible 
     states.
       The second $5 million is to be distributed to states that 
     have adopted laws that specify that individuals are deemed to 
     have given their consent to a blood alcohol or other 
     intoxicating substances test (so-called ``implied consent 
     laws''). Implied consent laws generally state that the 
     refusal of an individual to submit to a test for 
     intoxication, e.g., a breathalyzer or blood test, may be 
     introduced in court as evidence of intoxication. This money 
     is allocated among the eligible states in the same manner 
     as the first $5 million.

                 Section 504. Marine Casualty Reporting

       Subsection (a) of this section requires the Coast Guard to 
     submit a plan to Congress to increase reporting of vessel 
     accidents to appropriate state law enforcement officials. The 
     lack of reliable information on boating accidents is a 
     problem in evaluating the need for changes to the boating 
     safety laws. The plan required by this section will help 
     ensure that accident information received by boating 
     officials is complete and accurate.
       Subsection (b) amends section 6103(a) of title 46, United 
     States Code, to establish a $1,000 civil penalty for an 
     owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master, or 
     individual in charge of a vessel who has failed to submit a 
     marine casualty report to state authorities as required under 
     46 U.S.C. 6102.

 Section 505. Requiring Violators to Take Recreational Boating Safety 
                                 Course

       Subsection (a) requires an individual who operates a 
     recreational vessel in violation of 46 U.S.C. 2302, i.e., an 
     individual who operates a vessel under the influence of drugs 
     or alcohol, or in a negligent manner, to complete a boating 
     safety course that is approved by the Secretary of 
     Transportation. Examples of actions which constitute 
     negligent operation include: (1) operating a vessel in a 
     swimming area; (2) operating a vessel while under the 
     influence of drugs or alcohol; (3) excessive speed in the 
     vicinity of other vessels or in dangerous waters; (4) 
     hazardous water-skiing practices; and (5) bowriding. The 
     Committee has received written testimony from several 
     maritime trade associations describing reckless and dangerous 
     behavior by recreational boaters including high speed wake 
     jumping, failure to comply with the rules of the road, and 
     reckless operation around vessels with restricted operating 
     abilities, e.g., tugs and barges. The Committee anticipates 
     that the Coast Guard will use the authority granted under 
     this section to require recreational boaters engaged in these 
     types of reckless activities to complete an approved 
     recreational boating safety course.
       Subsection (b) provides Coast Guard hearing officers with 
     the authority to require individuals to complete boating 
     safety courses in lieu of, or in addition to, a civil penalty 
     where a person has been found to be in violation of a federal 
     boating safety law. Violations which could trigger this 
     requirement include: (1) an insufficient number of PFDs; (2) 
     insufficient fire extinguishers; (3) overloading; (4) 
     improper fuel tank or engine compartment ventilation; (5) 
     fuel leakage or fuel in the bilges; (6) improper backfire 
     flame control; and (7) manifestly unsafe voyages.
       The Committee does not expect the Coast Guard to develop 
     its own boating safety courses to meet the requirements of 
     this section. Rather, it anticipates that the Secretary will 
     certify appropriate existing boating safety courses, e.g., 
     those taught by the Coast Guard Auxiliary, U.S. Power 
     Squadrons, and the Red Cross, as courses that can fulfill 
     this requirement.

                   Section 506. Technical Correction

       This section corrects two typographical errors in section 
     13108(a)(1) of title 46, United States Code.


              title vi--towing vessel navigational safety

                        Section 601. Short Title

       This section states that this title may be cited as the 
     ``Towing Vessel Navigation Safety Act of 1994''.

 Section 602. Minimum Navigational Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels

       Subsection (a) amends section 4102 of title 46 by adding a 
     new subsection (f) which directs the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating to prescribe 
     equipment requirements for towing vessels. To the extent 
     appropriate, the Secretary shall require the installation, 
     maintenance, use, and familiarity with the following 
     equipment: (1) a radar system; (2) an electronic position-
     fixing device; (3) a sonic depth finder; (4) a compass or 
     swing meter; (5) adequate towing wire and associated 
     equipment; (6) up-to-date navigational charts and 
     publications; and (7) other safety equipment the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary. The Committee intends that the 
     Secretary evaluate the appropriateness of requiring each of 
     these types of equipment when developing regulations to 
     implement this section. In developing these regulations, the 
     Secretary should also: (1) consider the characteristics, 
     methods of operation, and nature of service of towing 
     vessels; and (2) consult with the Towing Safety Advisory 
     Committee. These regulations shall not apply to towing 
     vessels that are only used for towing disabled vessels.
       This list of equipment is modeled after the minimum 
     equipment requirements of self-propelled tank vessels (46 
     U.S.C. 3708). These new equipment requirements are intended 
     to correct deficiencies highlighted by the MAUVILLA accident 
     near Mobile, Alabama in 1993 (e.g., a lack of navigational 
     charts, a compass, a depth finder, and electronic position-
     fixing equipment) and the MORRIS. J. BERMAN barge accident in 
     Puerto Rico in 1994 (inadequate towing equipment).
       Paragraph (2) of new subsection 4102(f) directs the 
     Secretary to establish by regulation that equipment required 
     on towing vessels under paragraph (1) shall be maintained in 
     effective operating condition. The regulations should also 
     require the operator of the vessel to exercise due diligence 
     to restore the equipment to effective operating condition at 
     the earliest practicable date.
       Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
     issue regulations implementing this section within 12 months 
     of the date of enactment.

               Section 603. Reporting Marine Casualties.

       Subsection (a) amends section 6101(b) of title 46, United 
     States Code, to require that marine casualties be reported as 
     soon as practicable but in no case later than within five 
     days. This provision is intended to deter delays in reporting 
     casualties to the Coast Guard similar to the delay that 
     occurred after the MAUVILLA accident.
       Subsection (b) increases the penalty for not reporting a 
     vessel casualty to the Coast Guard under section 6103(a) of 
     title 46, United States Code, from $1,000 to $25,000. This 
     penalty increase was recommended by the Coast Guard in its 
     report entitled ``Review of Marine Safety Issues Related to 
     Uninspected Towing Vessels''. Moreover, the Coast Guard is 
     concerned that the inland tug and barge industry is grossly 
     under-reporting casualties. Increasing the penalties for not 
     reporting casualties should increase reporting.

   Section 604. Report on Feasibility of Establishing a Differential 
 Global Positioning Satellite Navigation System and Electronic Charts 
                         for Inland Waterways.

       This section directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
     submit a report to Congress on the feasibility of 
     establishing a differential global positioning satellite 
     navigation system and creating electronic charts for the 
     inland waterways of the United States no later than six 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

       Section 605. Protection of Seamen Against Discrimination.

       This section amends section 2114 of title 46 to provide 
     that an owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master, 
     or individual in charge of a vessel may not discriminate 
     against a seaman because the seaman refuses to violate 
     Subtitle II of title 46, or a regulation issued under that 
     Subtitle.
       If the owner, or other named person, violates this section, 
     the seaman has the right to bring an action in an appropriate 
     United States District Court. The Court is authorized to 
     enjoin the discrimination, and to order any other appropriate 
     relief, including reinstatement to the seaman's former 
     position, back pay, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees.
       The term ``seaman'' is intended to be interpreted broadly 
     to include any individual engaged or employed in any capacity 
     on board a vessel owned by a citizen of the United States.
       Under general maritime law, a seaman is an employee-at-
     will. As such, he or she may be terminated for any reason 
     without the employer being held legally responsible. Courts 
     have refused to recognize a judicial exception to the 
     employee-at-will doctrine based on public policy for seaman 
     discharged for refusing to violate safety regulations. 
     Therefore, seamen who refuse to operate vessels in violation 
     of safety laws and regulations may be discharged by their 
     employers without recourse.
       Under current law, a seaman's license or document, 
     necessary for maritime employment, may be suspended or 
     revoked if the holder has violated any law or regulation 
     intended to promote marine safety or to protect navigable 
     waters. It is not a defense for the seaman that he or she was 
     following his or her employer's orders.
       Limited ``whistleblower'' protection exists for seamen who 
     report or are about to report safety violations to the Coast 
     Guard (46 U.S.C. 2114). However, this protection is not 
     available to seamen who refuse to violate a safety statute; 
     rather it only applies after a safety violation has occurred, 
     and then only if the seaman has reported or is about to 
     report its occurrence to the Coast Guard.

  Section 606. Manning and Licensing Requirements for Towing Vessels.

       Subsection (a) amends section 8904 of title 46, United 
     States Code, by adding a new subsection (c) which establishes 
     new manning and licensing requirements for towing vessels. 
     First, all towing vessels while being operated, except those 
     used only for towing disabled vessels, are required to have 
     on board an individual licensed by the Secretary to serve as 
     master of that type of towing vessel. The master of a towing 
     vessel is intended to be the person in charge of the vessel. 
     Second, new subsection (c) requires that all towing vessels 
     be operated by an individual licensed by the Secretary to 
     operate that type of towing vessel. This section is not 
     intended to require a towing vessel to carry a master and a 
     licensed operator. A person with a master license is 
     authorized to operate a towing vessel.
       Subsection (b) amends section 7101 of title 46, United 
     States Code, by adding a new subsection (j) which directs the 
     Secretary to prescribe regulations which establish licenses 
     for masters and mates of towing vessels. An individual may be 
     issued a license as a master or mate of a towing vessel only 
     if the individual: (1) demonstrates proficiency in the use of 
     the navigational safety equipment required pursuant to 
     section 4102(f)(1)(C) of title 46; and (2) demonstrates 
     proficiency in operating a towing vessel. It is anticipated 
     that applicants for the master license will also be required 
     to have significantly more experience in the towing industry 
     than applicants for a mate license. The Committee notes that 
     the term ``mate'' has a distinct connotation in the inland 
     towing industry. On an inland towing vessel, a ``mate'' is 
     the lead member of the deck crew, rather than a licensed 
     vessel operator; the second most senior person is known as a 
     ``pilot''. Therefore, the term ``mate'' is used in this 
     section in a generic sense to mean any person who is licensed 
     to operate a towing vessel, but not to be in charge.
       The Committee believes that the distinct terminology used 
     by the inland towing industry should be reflected by the 
     Secretary in establishing new licenses under this section. To 
     avoid unnecessary confusion within the towing industry, the 
     Secretary should establish licenses for Master and Mate, 
     Coastal Towing Vessel, and Master and Pilot, Inland Towing 
     Vessels.
       To assist the Secretary in examining the proficiency of 
     individuals applying for towing vessel master and mate 
     licenses, the Secretary is authorized to use individuals who 
     have experience in the operation of towing vessels and other 
     qualified third parties. It is anticipated that the Secretary 
     will establish an examiner endorsement for persons holding 
     towing vessel master licenses to serve as proficiency 
     examiners.
       Subsection (c) is intended to provide an orderly transition 
     between the existing uninspected towing vessel operator 
     licenses and the new master and mate licenses. First, a 
     towing vessel operator license valid on the date of enactment 
     of this Act is valid until it is required to be renewed. If 
     an operator license is required to be renewed during the two-
     year period immediately after the date of enactment, it shall 
     be renewed pursuant to the requirements of the existing 
     uninspected towing vessel operator license. Individuals 
     holding licenses requiring renewal more than two years 
     after the date of enactment must meet the requirements of 
     the new towing vessel master and mate licenses. 
     Individuals applying for a first renewal or a new master 
     or mate license after the date must demonstrate 
     proficiency under the requirements of section 7101(j) of 
     title 46, United States Code.
       Subsection (d) states that the amendments made by this 
     section shall take effect two years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to issue regulations 
     implementing this section by not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

                      Section 607. Civil Penalties

       Subsection (a) increases the penalties contained in section 
     4106 of title 46, United States Code, from not more than 
     $5,000 to not more than $25,000. Penalties may be assessed 
     under section 4106 for violations of Chapter 41 of title 46, 
     including failure to carry required lifesaving, firefighting, 
     and navigational safety equipment.
       Subsection (b) increases the penalties contained in section 
     8906 of title 46, United States Code, from $1,000 to not more 
     than $25,000. Penalties may be assessed under section 8906 
     for violations of Chapter 89 of title 46, including operating 
     a vessel without an appropriate license.

      Section 608. Model Towing Vessel Company Inspection Program

       This section directs the Secretary within 1 year and, in 
     consultation with the Towing Safety Advisory Committee, to: 
     (1) develop a model towing vessel company inspection program, 
     including a Coast Guard boarding program to determine 
     compliance with the model program; and (2) submit to Congress 
     for its approval the model program and a description of the 
     statutory changes necessary to implement it. This section is 
     intended to implement the conclusion from the Coast Guard 
     issued ``Towing Vessel Inspection Study'' that certain 
     segments of the towing industry should fall under some type 
     of inspection regime. In determining which types of towing 
     vessels should be inspected under a model program, the 
     Secretary should target those vessels that pose the greatest 
     potential risk to life, property, and the environment. In 
     making this assessment, however the Secretary should not 
     limit his assessment to towing vessels that power inspected 
     barges, because certain barges often carry hazardous 
     chemicals in a form which does not require the barge to be 
     inspected (e.g., 50 gallon drums). The Committee does not 
     mean to suggest by this provision that the Coast Guard does 
     not necessarily have the authority to implement a model 
     company inspection program. Rather, before the Coast Guard 
     may implement this particular program, Congress must first 
     approve it.

           Section 609. Merchant Mariners' Documents Required

       Subsection (a) amends section 8701(a) of title 46, United 
     States Code, by lowering the tonnage threshold for 
     application of the merchant mariners' document requirement 
     from 100 gross tons to five gross tons. Unless falling under 
     one of the exceptions to section 8701(a), crewmembers on 
     merchant vessels of at least five gross tons will be required 
     to carry merchant mariners' documents.
       This subsection also repeals the documentation exemption 
     for individuals on vessels only operated on rivers and lakes, 
     and for barges. All crew members on these vessels which are 
     over five gross tons will be required to have merchant 
     mariners' documents. Subsection (a) exempts individuals on 
     small passenger and uninspected passenger vessels, as those 
     terms are defined in section 2101 of title 46, United States 
     Code, from the documentation requirement.
       Subsection (b) amends section 8701(b) of title 46, United 
     States Code, to direct the Secretary to prescribe regulations 
     which exempt certain categories of employees from the 
     documentation requirements of section 8701(a) of title 46, 
     United States Code. The requirement for merchant mariners' 
     documents on passenger vessels shall be limited to crew 
     members employed in positions listed on the vessel's 
     Certificate of Inspection. It does not include the category 
     ``other persons in the crew'' which are individuals not 
     involved in the normal operation of the vessel, such as 
     waiters, room stewards, and band members. Additionally, 
     individuals employed in positions for which the individual is 
     required to hold a license issued by the Secretary are exempt 
     from the merchant mariners' document requirement.
       Subsection (c) prohibits the Secretary from collecting a 
     fee or charge under section 2100 of title 46, United States 
     Code, for issuing any merchant mariners' document required to 
     be obtained under this Act. This subsection also prohibits 
     the Secretary from making available to the public any 
     personal information concerning an individual required to 
     obtain a merchant mariners' document under this Act.
       Subsection (d) states that this section shall take effect 
     two years after the date of enactment of this Act.


                title vii--coast guard regulatory reform

                        Section 701. Short Title

       This section states that this title may be cited as the 
     ``Coast Guard Regulatory Reform Act of 1994''.

                     Section 702. Safety Management

       Section 702 adds a new chapter 32 to title 46, United 
     States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating to prescribe regulations 
     regarding shipboard and shore-based management of vessels and 
     personnel. This authority would include conducting 
     examinations and requiring the maintenance of records. The 
     purpose of this section is to implement the International 
     Safety Management (ISM) Code. This agreement, which the 
     United States Government has signed, requires owners of 
     vessels engaged in foreign commerce to manage their vessels 
     in a safe manner. This initiative recognizes that many of the 
     decisions directly affecting the safety and environmental 
     conditions on vessels are made on shore. The Secretary 
     currently lacks legal authority to require adoption and use 
     of the ISM Code by the owners and operators of U.S.-Flag 
     vessels. Neither the International Convention for the Safety 
     of Life at Sea (SOLAS) in general, nor the ISM in 
     particular, derogate any of the pollution prevention 
     measures contained in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-380). SOLAS, including the ISM Code, 
     augment safety and pollution prevention measures already 
     enacted in the United States.
       New section 3201 provides definitions for the chapter.
       New section 3202(a) provides for the mandatory application 
     of the chapter to the vessels covered by the International 
     Safety Management Code. Mandatory application of the chapter 
     will begin on July 1, 1998, to vessels transporting more than 
     12 passengers (as the term ``passenger'' is defined in 
     section 2101(21)(A) of title 46, United States Code), and to 
     a tanker, bulk freight vessel, or high speed freight vessel, 
     each of which over 500 gross tons, as measured under chapter 
     143 of title 46, United States Code. The term ``freight 
     vessel'' is already defined in section 2101 of title 46. 
     Therefore, a ``bulk freight vessel'' is a freight vessel that 
     transports bulk cargo and a ``high speed freight vessel'' is 
     a freight vessel that operates at a high speed, as defined 
     under the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, 1974.
       New section 3202(b) provides that the chapter may be 
     applied to vessels not covered by the ISM Code if the owner, 
     charterer, or managing operator of the vessel requests. A 
     vessel may not be ``covered'' by the ISM Code in two ways: 
     first, the effective dates in the ISM Code for a particular 
     type of vessel may not have been reached; or second, it may 
     be a vessel, such as a vessel in coastwise trade, to which 
     the ISM Code does not apply.
       New section 3202(c) provides that the chapter does not 
     apply to a barge, a recreational vessel not engaged in 
     commercial service, a fishing vessel, a vessel operating only 
     on the Great Lakes or its tributaries and connecting waters, 
     or a public vessel (including a public vessel owned by the 
     Maritime Administration). Most of these vessel types are 
     defined in section 2101 of title 46, United States Code. Each 
     of these exceptions is contained in the International Safety 
     Management Code. This chapter does not apply to recreational 
     vessels carrying more than 12 passengers on foreign voyages 
     so long as the vessel is not engaged in commercial service 
     and is not otherwise required to have a SOLAS Certificate.
       New section 3203 required the Secretary of the department 
     in which the Coast Guard is operating to prescribe 
     regulations for a safety management system for vessels to 
     which the chapter applies. The system must include, at a 
     minimum, the six functional areas covered by the 
     International Safety Management Code. The safety management 
     system must include: (1) a safety and environmental 
     protection policy; (2) instructions and procedures to ensure 
     safe operation of the vessel and protection of the 
     environment in compliance with international and United 
     States law; (3) defined levels of authority and lines of 
     communications between, and among, personnel on shore and 
     personnel on the vessel; (4) procedures for reporting 
     accidents and nonconformities with the safety management 
     system; (5) procedures for preparing for and responding to 
     emergency situations; and (6) procedures for internal audits 
     and management reviews of the system.
       New section 3203(b) requires that all regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary for vessels covered by the 
     Convention must be consistent with the Convention. However, 
     the Secretary may prescribe different regulations for those 
     vessels and owners that apply for application of the chapter 
     on a voluntary basis. The Secretary may decide that it is 
     appropriate to prescribe different regulations for vessels 
     engaged in domestic trade due to the difference in vessel 
     operating environments, management structures, span of 
     control, and the number of parties involved in the operation 
     of the vessel.
       New section 3204 requires each vessel owner, charterer, or 
     managing operator to establish and submit to the Secretary 
     for approval a plan describing how they will implement and 
     comply with the safety management system. A vessel that is 
     subject to the mandatory coverage of the chapter may not be 
     operated without having on board a Safety Management 
     Certificate and a copy of the Document of Compliance issued 
     to the responsible person.
       New section 3205 requires the Secretary to issue a Safety 
     Management Certificate and a Document of Compliance if the 
     owner, charterer, or managing operator of a vessel complies 
     with the requirements of the chapter and the regulations 
     prescribed under the chapter. This section also requires the 
     Secretary to periodically verify that the safety management 
     system, as approved, is being followed by the vessel owner, 
     charterer, or managing operator. If a vessel required to have 
     a Safety Management Certificate on board, either by 
     application of the chapter or the International Safety 
     Management Code, does not have one on the vessel, the 
     Secretary shall withhold the clearance of the vessel to leave 
     the United States until the certificate is issued, unless the 
     owner files a bond or other surety satisfactory to the 
     Secretary. Additional penalties for violations of this 
     chapter are provided in section 3318 of title 46, United 
     States Code, and include a civil penalty of $5,000.
       Section 702(c) requires the Secretary of the department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating to submit to Congress a 
     study on the implementation of the International Safety 
     Management Code. The marine industry cannot be expected to 
     join in this effort without meaningful participation in this 
     development. This study must be completed and submitted to 
     Congress not later than the earlier of one year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act or before the Secretary has 
     prescribed final regulations implementing new chapter 32 of 
     title 46, United States Code.

 Section 703. Use of Reports, Documents, Records, and Examinations of 
                             Other Persons

       Section 703 adds a new section 3103 to title 46, United 
     States Code. This new section will allow the Secretary to use 
     reports, documents, and certificates issued by persons that 
     the Secretary decides may be relied on to inspect, examine, 
     or survey vessels.
       Under this section, the Secretary may use and rely on 
     reports, documents, and certificates issued by international 
     classification societies, surveyors, professional engineering 
     societies, shipyards, marine chemists, testing laboratories, 
     the National Cargo Bureau, the International Cargo Gear 
     Bureau, foreign governments, or other persons that the 
     Secretary believes may be relied on to professionally 
     inspector or review a vessel to ensure compliance with 
     subtitle II of title 46, United States Code, which includes 
     vessel inspection and load line laws. This authority gives 
     the Secretary the flexibility to use alternative means of 
     complying with regulatory requirements, including 
     determinations that requirement or materials meet Coast Guard 
     approved requirements, without reducing marine safety or 
     pollution prevention. This offers the possibility of greater 
     efficiencies for shipyards and vessel owners making it 
     possible for the Secretary to use governmental resources in 
     areas in which greater oversight and enforcement are needed. 
     Reliance by the Secretary on the work of these various 
     qualified persons reduces the need for the Coast Guard to do 
     this work directly and reduces the number of duplicate 
     examinations imposed on the marine industry.
       While this provision does not authorize the Secretary to 
     delegate any authority to these qualified persons, it does 
     allow the Secretary to continue to rely on their work to 
     carry out various marine safety, security, and environmental 
     protection functions, including approval of equipment and 
     material. The Secretary is expected to implement and maintain 
     an active oversight program to ensure the continued integrity 
     of the federal government's various mandates in the maritime 
     sector, while decreasing the burden on industry.
       Under section 3103, as added, the Secretary can establish a 
     ``model company'' program in which maritime companies that 
     meet the approval of the Secretary may conduct full self-
     inspection programs by a vessel owner that demonstrates, to 
     the satisfaction of the Secretary, that the owner's safety 
     management system can be relied on to maintain their vessel 
     in a safe manner. Self-inspections will be subject to Coast 
     Guard audit and oversight. The Secretary also may establish 
     partial self-inspection programs for small companies and 
     small vessels that may not have the ability to conduct full 
     self-inspections as an alternative means of demonstrating 
     compliance with regulatory requirements. The section allows 
     the Secretary to provide increased oversight of shore-based 
     management system of the vessel owner in return for which 
     certain current enforcement practices could be reduced, so 
     long as the overall level of safety is maintained. The 
     Secretary may use as the basis for this program the 
     International Safety Management Code System established in 
     new chapter 32 of title 46, United States Code; a consensus 
     standard; a documented record of compliance with existing 
     regulations; or another standard that is approved by the 
     Secretary. The degree to which a domestic company's safety 
     management plan and performance assures the Coast Guard of 
     its diligence and dedication to safety will ultimately 
     determine the degree to which the Secretary will rely on 
     their records or certify them for self-inspection.
       Nothing in this section lessens the need for the Secretary 
     to continue efforts to eliminate unneeded regulatory 
     requirements and to harmonize, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, U.S. requirements with those applying to foreign-
     flag vessels operating in our waters.
       Section 3308(c) amends section 3308 of title 46, United 
     States Code, to clarify that the Secretary, or a person 
     delegated by the Secretary, does not have to personally 
     examine the vessel. This will allow for the use of reports 
     other records and for self-inspections by model companies. 
     (See discussion above.)

                    Section 704. Equipment Approval

       Section 704 amends section 3306 of title 46, United States 
     Code, concerning vessel inspection regulations and equipment 
     and material approvals. Subsection (b)(1) contains the same 
     language as the current section 3306(b), except that the 
     language has been broadened to specifically include material 
     subject to regulation. This term is added for clarification 
     only.
       This section also amends section 3306(b) of the title 46, 
     United States Code, by adding a new paragraph (2) that allows 
     the Secretary to accept, for use on vessels inspected by the 
     Coast Guard, equipment and materials approved by foreign 
     governments that use standards and testing procedures that 
     the Secretary determines to be consistent with the 
     requirements of the International Convention for the Safety 
     of Life at Sea. Currently foreign manufactured equipment and 
     material may be used on U.S.-flag vessels but must first be 
     tested and approved by the Coast Guard.
       However, when deciding whether to accept these approvals, 
     the Secretary is required to determine that the approval of 
     the equipment or material by the foreign government will 
     ``secure the safety of individuals and property on board 
     vessels subject to inspection.'' This is the same legal 
     standard that the Secretary must follow under section 3306(a) 
     when approving equipment and materials for these vessels. For 
     lifesaving equipment, such as lifeboats and liferafts, the 
     Secretary must also determine that the foreign government 
     allows the same type of U.S. Coast Guard approved lifesaving 
     equipment to be used on vessels documented in that country 
     without having to get separate approval of that equipment by 
     the foreign government. If the foreign government, either 
     through the approval process or other governmental barriers, 
     restricts the use of a piece of U.S. Coast Guard approved 
     lifesaving equipment on their commercial vessels, then the 
     Secretary may not recognize that foreign approval for that 
     piece of equipment in lieu of the Coast Guard approval. The 
     Secretary should publish in the Federal Register the 
     standards that will be used to determine whether a foreign 
     country has an acceptable approval process.
       When the Secretary accepts equipment and material under 
     this authority, the equivalent standards should be acceptable 
     for all such equipment and materials manufacturers holding 
     U.S. Coast Guard approvals. Equipment and material accepted 
     under this subsection may not be used on public vessels.
       Section 704(b) requires the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with other Federal agencies, to work to 
     eliminate barriers to U.S. manufactures of fire and safety 
     equipment and materials imposed by foreign governments, such 
     as failing to certify their products, which the Secretary has 
     found safe, for use in vessels documented in that country. 
     Additionally, the Secretary shall continue to work through 
     the International Maritime Organization to develop standards 
     that result in mutual acceptance of maritime equipment and 
     material.

                  Section 705. Frequency of Inspection

       Section 705 amends section 3307(1) of title 46, United 
     States Code, to clarify its purpose and to change the period 
     of validity for certificates of inspection from two to five 
     years. No practical changes will result with respect to 
     inspections and examinations that are the basis for issuing 
     the certificates of inspection.
       Small passenger vessels carrying more than 12 passengers 
     and engaged on foreign voyages are required to be inspected 
     annually (along with passenger vessels and nautical schools 
     vessels). Section 3307(2) of title 46 is also amended to 
     require all other vessels to be inspected at least once every 
     five years instead of either every two or three years as is 
     currently the case. The change to section 3307 will, for the 
     most part, align the U.S. inspection interval requirements 
     with those found in the Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 
     1974 and the practice of the American Bureau of Shipping for 
     their special periodical surveys. As a technical conforming 
     amendment, this section also amends section 3710(b) of title 
     46, to change the duration of a valid certificate of 
     inspection for tank vessels from 24 months to five years.
       The Committee does not envision any decrease in the level 
     of safety due to these changes. Vessels on five-year cycles 
     will continue to receive annual examinations to ensure they 
     are in compliance with their Certificates of Inspection,. 
     These annual examinations may be scheduled within two months 
     of the certificate of inspection anniversary date. Nothing in 
     this provision affects the requirements applicable to hull, 
     boiler, or other interval examinations as these are functions 
     of regulations independent of section 3307.

                 Section 706. Certificate of Inspection

       Section 706 eliminates the prohibition of a vessel owner 
     from scheduling an inspection for a vessel more than 60 days 
     in advance of the inspection. This change will allow 
     shipowners to request inspections more than 60 days prior to 
     the expiration of the current certificate of inspection. 
     Modern commercial practice require that ship schedules 
     generally be developed six months or more in advance. The 
     owners and operators of U.S.- flag vessels, in order to 
     adequately compete with their foreign counterparts, need to 
     be able to make long-range commitments. The current statute 
     restricts their ability to request scheduling of required 
     vessel inspections and examinations. Further, it restricts 
     the ability of the Secretary to make long-range plans for use 
     of government personnel.

  Section 707. Delegation of Authority of Secretary to Classification 
                               Societies

       Section 707 amends section 3316 of title 46, United States 
     Code, concerning the use of classification societies to 
     inspect vessels. Currently, section 3316 limits delegations 
     to the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) ``or a similar 
     United States classification society.'' Since there is no 
     similar U.S. classification society, there is, in effect, no 
     delegation under this section other than to ABS.
       Classification societies review vessel plans and conduct 
     vessel examinations, primarily for insurance purposes. The 
     Coast Guard frequently conducts plan reviews and vessel 
     inspections that in many respects duplicate the work of the 
     classification societies. There are over 40 classification 
     societies worldwide, each associated or affiliated with a 
     particular foreign country. The degree of professionalism 
     varies among these classification societies. Eleven 
     classification societies (including ABS) have joined together 
     to form the International Association of Classification 
     Societies (IACS). IACS has been granted observer status by 
     the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Section 
     707(a)(4) allows the Secretary to delegate vessel inspection 
     and examination and plan review and approval authority to 
     classification societies, in addition to the ABS, that meet 
     safety and quality standards acceptable to the Secretary.
       However, the Secretary may make this delegation only if the 
     foreign government provides reciprocity to the ABS to provide 
     those services for vessels documented in that country. Under 
     section 3316(b)(2)(A), the Secretary may delegate this 
     authority to the extent that the government of the foreign 
     country in which the society is headquartered delegates to 
     the ABS authority to provide those same services for vessels 
     documented in that country and provides access to ABS to 
     provide tese services. For example, if a foreign government 
     delegates, beginning in 1999, the authority to inspect 
     vessels registered in that country that are only engaged in 
     their foreign commerce (but not their coastwise trade), then 
     the Secretary could only delegate to a classification society 
     headquartered in that country the authority, beginning in 
     1999, the authority to inspect U.S.-flag vessels that are 
     engaged in foreign commerce, but not the coastwise trade. The 
     term ``foreign government'' includes any government entity 
     that documents vessels under its flag, which, in the future, 
     may include the European Union.
       While this section allows the Secretary to delegate the 
     authority to inspect and provide related services on a 
     reciprocal basis to foreign classification societies, the 
     Secretary should exercise discretion to determine who should 
     be delegated authority and the extent of that delegation. 
     While membership in IACS should be a minimum standard, it 
     should not be the only standard. A delegation may only be 
     done if it will secure the safety of individuals and property 
     on board the U.S.-flag vessels to be inspected.

      Section 708. Study of Marine Casualty Reporting Requirements

       The purpose of Section 708 is to have the Coast Guard look 
     at existing requirements that require adoption of regulations 
     that differentiate between degree of severity of accidents 
     that require follow-up drug testing. Currently, any accident 
     on a vessel, no matter how minor, requires drug testing. The 
     Coast Guard has not provided guidance on whether very minor 
     accidents are exempt. Examples are if the cook cuts his or 
     her finger, if a passenger falls and the cabin attendant is 
     nearly, if a crew member pulls a muscle, etc. The language of 
     the statute authorizing the Coast Guard to adopt regulations 
     differentiating between severity of accidents make it clear 
     that Congress did not intend drug testing for every very 
     minor occurrence. This does not change current law. Vessel 
     owners will still be required to conduct pre-employment and 
     random drug testing and post-occurance drug testing where the 
     accident is more than minimal.


          title viii--united states cruise vessel development.

                        Section 801. Short Title

       This section provides that this title be referred to as the 
     ``United States Cruise Vessel Development Act''.

                          Section 802. Purpose

       Section 802 states that the purpose of this Act is to 
     promote the construction and operation of U.S.-flag cruise 
     vessels in the United States.

          Section 803. Coastwise Transportation of Passengers

       Subsection 803 rewrites section 8 of the Act of June 19, 
     1886 (commonly referred to as the ``Passenger Vessel Act'') 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 289).
       In new section 8(a), the first phrase ``Except as otherwise 
     provided by law,'' means that this section does not apply to 
     those areas currently exempted from the application of the 
     coastwise trade laws, such as the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Canton 
     Island. This phrase also means that documented vessels 
     serving Guam, Wake Island, Midway Island, and Kingman Reef 
     may continue to do so with a registry endorsement under 
     section 12105(b) of title 46, United States Code, and are 
     not required to have a coastwise endorsement as required 
     under subsection (a)(2).
       New section 8(a)(1) also requires these vessels to be owned 
     by an individual who is a citizen of the United States or a 
     corporation, partnership, or association that is a citizen of 
     the United States under section 2(a) of the Shipping Act, 
     1916, by having the controlling interest in the vessel owned 
     by United States citizens. This paragraph makes no 
     substantive change to law but simply codifies existing law as 
     interpreted by the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the 
     courts.
       New section 8(a)(2) requires all vessels transporting 
     passengers in the coastwise trade to meet the requirements of 
     section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, by being built 
     and, if rebuilt, rebuilt in the United States. Section 27 
     also prohibits documented vessels that have been transferred 
     to a foreign flag from being redocumented in the United 
     States with a coastwise endorsement. This paragraph makes no 
     substantive change to law but simply codifies the existing 
     law as interpreted by the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, 
     and the courts.
       New section 8(a)(3) requires that any vessel transporting 
     passengers in the coastwise trade be a documented vessel with 
     a coastwise endorsement if the vessel is over five net tons. 
     A certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement 
     is the certificate maintained on a vessel that authorizes it 
     to be used in the coastwise trade. This subsection makes no 
     substantive change to law but simply codifies existing law as 
     interpreted by the Coast Guard and the courts and provides 
     the means to enforce the requirements under this Act.
       New section 8(b) provides an exception to the requirement 
     that a cruise vessel be owned by a United States citizen. 
     This section will allow a foreign-owned vessel to be engaged 
     in the coastwise trade if the vessel is operated under a 
     demise charter to an individual or corporation, partnership, 
     or association that is a citizen of the United States under 
     section 2(a) of the Shipping Act, 1916. To prevent a series 
     of short-term demise charters from occurring, this subsection 
     requires a demise charter to be for a period of at least 18 
     months. To accommodate short periods of time between demise 
     charters, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     approve the operation of the vessel in the coastwise trade 
     until the owner reaches an agreement with a United States 
     citizen to again demise charter the vessel to a U.S. citizen.
       New section 8(c) provides an exception to the requirement 
     that a vessel meet all of the requirements of section 27 of 
     the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, commonly referred to as the 
     Jones Act. Section 27 of that Act established most of the 
     requirements for a vessel engaged in the coastwise trade 
     (including a cruise vessel); e.g., the vessel must have been 
     built in a United States shipyard, if rebuilt, the vessel 
     must have been rebuilt in a United States shipyard, the 
     vessel may never have been owned by a foreign citizen or 
     placed under a foreign registry.
       Under this exception, a vessel owner may reflag an existing 
     foreign-flag vessel for operation under the U.S. flag with a 
     coastwise endorsement if the vessel is not less than five 
     years old and not more than 15 years old on the date that the 
     vessel is documented under the U.S.-flag after the date of 
     enactment of This Act and if the owner or charterer has 
     entered into a contract for the construction in the United 
     States of another cruise vessel that has a total berth or 
     stateroom capacity that is at least 80 percent of the 
     capacity of the reflagged cruise vessel. A cruise vessel may 
     use either or both of the exceptions provided in subsections 
     (b) and (c).
       New section 8(c)(2) eliminates the ability of a reflagged 
     vessel to engage in the coastwise trade after the date that 
     is 18 months after the date on which it is reflagged if, 
     before that date, the keel of another cruise vessel has not 
     been laid or at a similar stage of construction. The use of 
     the standard ``at a similar stage of construction'' has been 
     used by the Coast Guard when a vessel does not have a keel 
     laid such as with modular construction of modern vessels. The 
     Secretary of Transportation is allowed to extend this 18-
     month deadline for not more than six months for good cause 
     shown. There are instances in which a shipyard and vessel 
     owner are making substantive progress toward having a keel 
     laid but an event occurs that may prevent the 18 month 
     deadline from being met. If the parties can demonstrate this 
     to the Secretary, then the Secretary may grant up to a six 
     month extension.
       New section 8(d) prohibits a reflagged cruise vessel and a 
     U.S. non-reflagged cruise ship owned or chartered by a person 
     that owns or charters a reflagged cruise vessel, from 
     operating the reflagged, or any other vessel, in the 
     coastwise trade between any two ports served by another 
     cruise vessel that transports passengers in the coastwise 
     trade on the date the Secretary issues the coastwise 
     endorsement for the reflagged vessel. This prohibition only 
     extends to competition with owners or operators of vessels 
     that do not own or operate any reflagged vessels in any 
     market. A reflagged vessel may enter a coastwise market in 
     competition with another vessel if the owner of that vessel 
     also owns a reflagged vessel.
       This section also prohibits these owners from operating any 
     vessel between the islands of Hawaii. For example, neither a 
     reflagged vessel nor a U.S.-built vessel owned by a person 
     that owns or charters a reflagged vessel may engage in the 
     coastwise transportation of passengers between the islands of 
     Hawaii.
       New section 8(e) establishes the penalties for vessels 
     operated in violation of section 8. Paragraph (1) provides 
     for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each passenger transported 
     in violation of the section. This paragraph increases the 
     penalty from $200 which was established in 1898. Paragraph 
     (2) provides that a vessel operated in knowing violation of 
     this section, and its equipment, are liable to seizure by and 
     forfeiture to the United States Government. This is similar 
     to the penalty contained in section 27 of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1920, for the transportation of merchandise and the 
     penalty in section 12122(c) of title 46, United States Code, 
     for knowingly using a certificate of documentation in 
     violation of the documentation laws.
       New section 8(f) provides two definitions for terms used in 
     this section.
       Paragraph (1) defines ``coastwise trade'' to include, but 
     not be limited to, the transportation of passengers between 
     points in the United States, either directly or by way of a 
     foreign port. This paragraph makes no substantive change to 
     the current interpretations of that law as it applies to 
     distant foreign ports.
       This amendment does not otherwise change the current 
     definition of a passenger, as interpreted by the U.S. Customs 
     Service. In most instances that agency interprets a passenger 
     as an individual who is not substantially connected with the 
     operation, navigation, ownership, or business of a vessel. 
     However, the bona fide guest of an owner or bareboat 
     charterer of a recreational vessel is not considered to be a 
     passenger by the Customs Service. The vessel transporting 
     passengers is often operated as a business, which may be 
     evidenced by facts such as having a crew that is paid, 
     depreciating the vessel under the U.S. tax laws, or by the 
     receipt of consideration for the transportation of passengers 
     by the owner or charterer of the vessel. The term 
     ``consideration'', as interpreted by the Customs Service, 
     means a past, present, or anticipated economic benefit, 
     inducement, right, or profit, direct or indirect, including 
     pecuniary payment, economic advantage, or business goodwill 
     accruing to an individual or person, but not including a 
     voluntary donation of food, beverage, or other item which is 
     of a nominal value considering the circumstances.
       Paragraph (2) defines the term ``cruise vessel'' to mean a 
     vessel that is at least 10,000 gross tons (as measured under 
     the international tonnage convention system), has berth or 
     stateroom accommodations for at least 200 passengers, and is 
     not a ferry. Paragraph (3) defines the term ``related 
     person'' to mean any holding company, subsidiary, affiliate, 
     or association of the person owning or chartering the vessel 
     and any officer, director, or agent of the owner or charterer 
     of the vessel. The purpose of this section is to ensure that 
     a person that is prohibited from owning or operating a vessel 
     engaged in the coastwise trade because of their failure to 
     build an additional vessel in a United States shipyard does 
     not circumvent this prohibition through related business 
     ventures.

                  Section 804. Construction Standards

       Section 804 amends section 3309 of title 46, United States 
     Code, to require the Secretary of the department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating to issue a certificate of inspection 
     for a passenger vessel if the vessel meets the standards and 
     conditions for the issuance of a control verification 
     certificate to a foreign vessel embarking passengers in the 
     United States. This section will allow the Coast Guard to 
     issue a certificate of inspection to a vessel, either a U.S.-
     built or a reflagged cruise ship, if the vessel meets the 
     requirements of the International Convention for the Safety 
     of Life at Sea (SOLAS), as interpreted by the Coast Guard.

         Section 805. Citizenship for Purposes of Documentation

       Section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916 allows a vessel to be 
     engaged in the coastwise trade only if the vessel is owned by 
     a United States citizen. In the case of a corporation, 
     association, or partnership, the amount of the interest 
     required to be owned by United States citizens shall be at 
     least 75 percent.
       Section 805 decreases this requirement from 75 percent to a 
     majority of the interest in the corporation, association, or 
     partnership must be owned by U.S. citizens. Under this 
     section, corporations owning vessels that primarily transport 
     passengers in the coastwise trade must meet the requirements 
     in section 2(b) of the Shipping Act, 1916. Partnerships or 
     associations owning vessels that primarily transport 
     passengers in the coastwise trade must meet the requirements 
     in new section 2(e) of that Act.

  Section 806. Amendment to Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936

       Section 806 amends section 1101(b) of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1936 to clarify that the Secretary of Transportation may 
     issue a loan guarantee under title XI of the Act for the 
     construction of passenger vessels, and not just combination 
     passenger-cargo vessels.

Section 807. Permits for Vessels Entering Units of National Park System

       Section 807 establishes a priority system that the 
     Secretary of the Interior must use when issuing permits for 
     the operation of vessels in a National Park. For example, 
     there are currently 107 permits for operating a vessel in 
     Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska. Under section 807 there 
     will be three priorities for the issuance of these permits:
       The first priority is for any U.S.-flag vessel that is 
     home-ported in the United States and any foreign-flag vessel 
     whose owner holds rights to provide visitor services under 
     section 1307(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act.
       The second priority is for any person currently permitted 
     to operate a foreign-flag vessel in the National Park for 
     which the permit is being issued.
       The third priority is for any other person that will 
     operate a vessel that is not granted a permit under the first 
     two priorities.
       Section 807 also establishes a system for revoking foreign-
     flag vessel permits that have been issued if a U.S.-flag 
     vessel applies for a permit to enter the National Park. 
     However, the permit a person allowed to operate a foreign-
     flag vessel under section 1307(a) of the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act may not be revoked in order 
     to allow a U.S.-flag vessel into the Park.


                     title ix--boating improvement

                        Section 901. Short Title

       The section provides that this title may be referred to as 
     the ``Boating Improvement Act of 1994''.

                   Section 902. Boating Safety Grants

       Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) amends section 4(b) of the 
     Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777c(b)) to provide a secure 
     source of funding for the Coast Guard state recreational 
     boating safety grant program. The Secretary of the Interior 
     is directed to deduct an amount equal to $15,000,000 for 
     FY1995, $40,000,000 for FY1996, $55,000,000 for FY1997, and 
     $69,000,000 for each of FY1998 and FY1999 from the total 
     amount available for allocation to states from the Sport Fish 
     Restoration Account. Of those amounts of $7,500,000 for 
     FY1995, and $10,000,000 for each of FY1996 and FY1997 shall 
     be used by the Secretary of the Interior to make competitive 
     grants to states under section 5604(c) of the Clean Vessel 
     Act of 1992 (subtitle F, title V, P.L. 102-587) to be used 
     for the construction, renovation, and maintenance of boat 
     sewage pumpout stations. In each of FY1998 and FY1999, 
     $10,000,000 is available for making boat sewage pumpout 
     station grants under section 5604(c) of the Clean Vessel Act 
     of 1992, or for nontrailerable boat access projects under 
     section 903(e) of the Boating Improvement Act of 1994.
       The remainder of the amounts deducted, i.e., $7,500,000 in 
     FY1995, $30,000,000 in FY1996, $45,000,000 in FY1997, and 
     $59,000,000 in each of FY1998 and FY1999, shall be 
     transferred by the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary 
     of Transportation and expended by the Secretary for state 
     recreational boating safety programs under section 13106 of 
     title 46, United States Code. The amount transferred to the 
     Secretary of Transportation for the boating safety program 
     shall be reduced by the amount appropriated from the Boat 
     Safety Account, or $35,000,000, whichever is less. Amounts 
     available for Clean Vessel Act or Boating Improvement Act 
     grants in FY1998 or FY1999, which are not expended within two 
     years of the time they become available, shall be transferred 
     to the Secretary of Transportation and used for the state 
     recreational boating safety grant program.
       Paragraph (2) makes a conforming change to section 
     5640(c)(1) of the Clean Vessel Act necessitated by the 
     amendments made in section 902(a)(1) of the Boating 
     Improvement Act of 1994.
       Paragraph (3) limits the distribution under section 4(a) of 
     the Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777c(a)), to $50,000,000 
     in FY1996. Amounts distributed under section 4(a) provide 
     funds to carry out the purposes of the Coastal Wetlands 
     Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (title III, P.L. 
     101-646), including wetlands conservation and restoration in 
     Louisiana and other coastal states, and wetlands conservation 
     under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (P.L. 101-
     233).
       Subsection (b)(1) amends section 13106(a)(1) of title 46, 
     United States Code, by deleting the authorization for the 
     state recreational boating safety grant program to receive 
     one-half of the amount deposited in the Boat Safety Account. 
     This authorization is no longer necessary with the passage of 
     this Act. It also clarifies that the amount that the 
     Secretary of Transportation is required to spend on the state 
     boating safety grant program is the total of the amount 
     appropriated from the Boat Safety Account and the amount 
     transferred by the Secretary of the Interior from the Sport 
     Fish Restoration Account.
       Subsection (b)(2) amends section 13106(c) of title 46, 
     United States Code, by deleting the authorization for the 
     Coast Guard to receive one-half of the amount deposited in 
     the Boat Safety Account, and replacing it with an 
     authorization of appropriations of $35,000,000 per year from 
     the Boat Safety Account for the state recreational boating 
     safety grant program.

                      Section 903. Boating Access

       Subsection (a) states the findings of Congress that 
     nontrailerable vessels contribute a disproportionate amount 
     of the gasoline taxes deposited in the Wallop-Breaux Trust 
     Fund, most boating access facilities constructed with Wallop-
     Breaux Trust Fund monies benefit trailerable vessels, and 
     more Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund monies should be spent on 
     access facilities that benefit nontrailerable vessels.
       Subsection (b) provides that the purpose of the section is 
     to provide funds to states for the development of public 
     facilities for transient untrailerable vessels.
       Subsection (c) authorizes states to complete and submit to 
     the Secretary of the Interior a survey which identifies: (1) 
     the number and location of all public facilities for 
     transient nontrailerable vessels; and (2) the number and 
     areas of operation in each state of all nontrailerable 
     vessels that operate on the navigable waters of the state. 
     The primary purpose of this survey is to determine whether 
     public facilites within the state are adequate to meet the 
     needs of the nontrailerable vessels which operate on the 
     navigable waters of the state.
       Subsection (d) provides that, within 6 months of submitting 
     a survey under subsection (c), a state may develop and submit 
     to the Secretary of the Interior a plan for the construction 
     and renovation of adequate public facilities for transient 
     nontrailerable vessels to meet the needs of nontrailerable 
     vessels operating on the navigable waters of the state. The 
     Committee anticipates that states will base their plans on 
     the needs identified in the survey conducted under subsection 
     (c).
       Subsection (e) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
     obligate not less than one-half of the amount made available 
     for each of FY1998 and FY1999 under section 4(b)(1)(C) of the 
     Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777c(b)(1)(C)) for making 
     grants to any state to pay not more than 75 percent of the 
     cost of constructing or renovating public facilities for 
     transient nontrailerable vessels. In awarding grants, the 
     Secretary of the Interior may make a grant to any state; 
     however, priority shall be given to projects that are 
     identified in a state plan submitted under subsection (d). In 
     awarding grants for projects within a state, the Secretary 
     shall give priority to projects that are likely to serve the 
     greatest number of nontrailerable vessels. In determining 
     which projects to fund under this subsection, the Secretary 
     should give priority to those projects which do not compete 
     with private facilities.

                        Section 904. Definitions

       This section contains the definitions of terms used in this 
     title.
       The term ``Act of August 9, 1950'' means the Act entitled 
     ``An Act to provide that the United States shall aid the 
     States in fish restoration and management projects, and for 
     other purposes'', approved August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777a et 
     seq.). This Act is commonly called the Federal Aid in Sort 
     Fish Restoration Act.
       The term ``nontrailerable vessel'' means a recreational 
     vessel greater than 26 feet in length.
       The term ``public facilities for transient nontrailerable 
     vessels'' means mooring buoys, day-docks, seasonal slips or 
     similar structures located on navigable waters, that are 
     available to the general public and designed for temporary 
     use by nontrailerable vessels. The term ``day-dock'' means a 
     dock that is available for public use for periods less than 
     24 hours in duration. The Committee intends ``seasonal'' use 
     to mean use during the normal boating season for the relevant 
     section of the country.
       The term ``recreational vessel'' means a vessel that is 
     operated primarily for pleasure; or leased, rented, or 
     chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. This 
     definition is identical to the definition of recreational 
     vessel contained in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25).
       The term ``State'' means each of the several States of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.


                   title x--documentation of vessels

    Section 1001. Authorization of Documentation for Various Vessels

       Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (popularly 
     known as the Jones Act, 46 App. U.S.C. 883) provides that 
     only vessels built in the United States and owned by a 
     citizen of the United States may transport merchandise in the 
     coastwise trade of the United States. The Act also provides 
     that a vessel that has acquired the right to engage in the 
     coastwise trade and is later sold to a foreign owner or is 
     placed under foreign registry may not engage in the coastwise 
     trade.
       Chapter 121 of Title 46, United States Code, prohibits 
     foreign-built, -owned, and -documented vessels from engaging 
     in the U.S. coastwise or Great Lakes trades or fisheries of 
     the United States.
       When the facts surrounding any particular vessel implicate 
     one or more of these statutory prohibitions, the Coast Guard 
     may not issue a document granting coastwise or Great Lakes 
     trading or U.S. fisheries privileges. A vessel may acquire 
     these privileges through special legislation authorizing the 
     Cost Guard to issue the necessary documentation. In the past, 
     the Committee has approved special legislation when the 
     owners of particular vessels have demonstrated extenuating 
     circumstances meriting such action.
       Subsection 1001(b) authorizes 47 vessel owners to receive 
     certificates of documentation with the appropriate waivers. 
     Most of these vessels were originally U.S.-flag vessels, but 
     were transferred to foreign ownership at some point in their 
     chain of title. Other vessels were foreign-built and are 
     otherwise prohibited from engaging in the coastwise trade.

 Section 1002. Authorization of Documentation for the ``Atlantis III''

       Section 1002 grants a coastwise waiver to the vessel, 
     Atlantis III (a submarine--Bahamian official number 006455), 
     for employment in the coastwise trade in Alaska from May 1, 
     1995, to October 31, 1996.

         Section 1003. Authorization of Sale and Reregistration

       Section 1003 authorizes the foreign transfer of the vessels 
     SS Lake Charles (U.S. official number 619531), and SS 
     Louisiana (U.S. official number 619532), notwithstanding any 
     other law, if an application to authorize payment of 
     operating-differential subsidy to the vessels is not approved 
     by December 15, 1994.

                   Section 1004. Vessel Documentation

       Subsection 1004(a) grants a coastwise waiver for each of 
     the vessels Gallant Lady (Feadship hull number 645) and 
     Gallant Lady (Feadship hull number 651).
       The coastwise waiver is limited to carriage of passengers 
     in association with contributions to charitable 
     organizations, no portion of which is received by the owner 
     of the vessel. Receipt of the certificate of documentation by 
     the owner would be prohibited unless the owner, within 90 
     days after the date of enactment, submits a letter to the 
     Secretary of Transportation, expressing the intent of the 
     owner to enter into a contract before October 1, 1996, for 
     the construction of a U.S.-built passenger vessel of at least 
     130 feet in length.
       Certificates of documentation for the Gallant Lady vessels 
     shall expire upon the sale of either vessel by the owner, or 
     on October 1, 1996, if the owner has not entered into a 
     contract for construction of a vessel in accordance with the 
     owner's letter of intent to the Secretary of Transportation, 
     or if the contract for construction is breached or otherwise 
     terminated.

     Section 1005. Extension of Deadline for the M/V ``Twin Drill''

       Section 1005 amends section 601(d) of P.L. 103-206 to 
     extend the date required for the conversion of the M/V Twin 
     Drill. P.L. 103-206 required the M/V Twin Drill. to have 
     completed a major conversion before June 30, 1995. The M/V 
     Twin Drill. is in the process of being converted, but will be 
     unable to be completed by the June 30 date. The amendment 
     would change the requirement for completion of conversion 
     until December 31, 1995.

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the leadership amendment to 
H.R. 4422, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1994.
  This amendment packages a number of bills into a sort of omnibus 
merchant marine proposal covering a variety of areas within our 
committee's jurisdiction. I am proud to say that in the best tradition 
of the Merchant Marine Committee, this amendment has been crafted in a 
bipartisan spirit.
  The first four titles of H.R. 4422 authorize funds for the Coast 
Guard for fiscal year 1995, and include important provisions to improve 
vessel and navigation safety and Coast Guard personnel management. I 
support this bill, although I have great concerns about the future 
effect of the reduced level of certain Coast Guard services authorized 
under this legislation.
  Budget problems are not new to those of us who are strong and 
consistent supporters of the U.S. Coast Guard. Since coming to Congress 
in 1981, I have fought each year to assure that the Coast Guard has 
adequate funding to carry out its multiple responsibilies. In the past, 
we have worked together on a bipartisan basis to fund the Coast Guard 
at the authorization levels requested by the previous administrations.
  Unfortunately, this year the Coast Guard funding request is 
particularly grim, and the problem is the President's fiscal year 1995 
budget submission. Based on policy decisions made by the President in 
Function 400, Coast Guard operating expenses are dangerously deficient.
  Under the President's proposal, and unless we pass this bill, the 
Coast Guard would have no choice but to slash 100 million dollars' 
worth of services to the public, including cuts of an additional 1,100 
military personnel, elimination of all regional documentation centers, 
small search and rescue units, and aircraft and vessels performing 
various important life saving functions. In short, there is simply no 
way that the Coast Guard can adequately perform its ever growing number 
of roles and missions under the budget request of this administration.
  As I mentioned earlier, my greatest concern involves the effect of 
the President's policy on Haiti on Coast Guard drug interdiction 
operations. Until the Cuban refugee situation worsened, the Coast Guard 
had diverted nearly all of its resources in the Caribbean to Haitian 
refugee interdiction. Earlier this month, the Coast Guard was unable to 
respond to 11 potential drug incidents in this area. Obviously, the 
Coast Guard's law enforcement resources have been exhausted, and drug 
smugglers are taking advantage of the situation. Fortunately, we will 
not see a repeat of this situation during the next fiscal year, because 
H.R. 4422 contains my amendment to prohibit diversion of drug 
interdiction resources to any other mission in fiscal year 1995.
  In addition, I am especially concerned about the cuts to drug 
interdiction for the Coast Guard and other agencies, especially the 
Department of Defense, that provide information and support to the 
Coast Guard drug interdiction program. I think we are going in the 
wrong direction by dramatically increasing funding for drug treatment 
programs, while cutting resources for drug interdiction. H.R. 4422 
authorizes an additional $21 million for Coast Guard drug interdiction 
in fiscal year 1995 to build drug interdiction activities back up to an 
acceptable level.
  The President's budget request for the Coast Guard significantly 
reduces drug interdiction funds. The President's national drug control 
strategy emphasizes drug treatment programs for hard-core drug users 
over drug interdiction and other law enforcement measures. To implement 
this strategy, the President's fiscal year 1995 budget contains a $1 
billion increase for treatment, prevention, and source-country 
eradication programs and a $95 million decrease in drug interdiction 
funds.
  I do not support the President's drug control strategy because it 
cripples our drug interdiction efforts. To actually decrease drug use, 
a national drug control program must emphasize ways to control the 
supply as well as the demand for drugs. By neglecting tough drug 
interdiction activities at the border, the President's drug control 
strategy will encourage drug smuggling and make drugs more plentiful on 
the streets of our country.
  Another proposal in the President's request is to fund the repair of 
highway bridges that are deemed to be hazards to navigation through the 
Federal Highway Administration's [FHA] Discretionary Program, rather 
than through the Coast Guard's Alteration of Bridges Program. I am 
concerned that even if we change the law to allow this arrangement, the 
funds may not be available to ensure that safe bridges continue to be 
constructed.
  Finally, the President's budget proposes another deep cut in the 
number of Coast Guard reservists from 8,000 to 7,000 reservists. Last 
year, the Coast Guard released a study supporting the administration's 
decision to cut the Coast Guard Reserve to 8,000. The additional cut to 
7,000 is completely unjustified. The Coast Guard Reserve is important 
to augment Coast Guard emergency activities, such as oil spills, 
floods, and hurricane relief. The country's emergency preparedness is 
severely threatened by the proposal to cut the Reserves to this level.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest problems in the President's budget 
was a proposal to consolidate the marine safety offices in Galveston 
and Houston, TX. This consolidation will compromise the safety of 
shipping in the Houston Ship Channel, and leave the Coast Guard without 
a presence in the seventh busiest port in the world. It is a serious 
mistake to allow budgetary concerns to overwhelm safety considerations, 
and a provision I authored should address this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, unless this bill is passed, there will be fewer 
individuals in the Coast Guard than at any time since 1982. Since that 
time, we have added many major enforcement responsibilities to the 
Coast Guard in law enforcement, navigation safety, and environmental 
protection areas. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 alone consumes millions 
of dollars in resources. If we don't change course, Congress will be 
forced to review Coast Guard missions and eliminate many of them. I 
hope that we can convince our colleagues in the other body that this is 
bad policy, and that we need to provide the Coast Guard with adequate 
funding in fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4422 addresses the critical problems for the Coast 
Guard for the next fiscal year, and I hope that we can send this bill 
to the President for his signature later this Fall.
  The leadership amendment would add six additional titles to H.R. 
4422, as introduced. These provisions cover recreational boating and 
towing vessel safety, lessen the regulatory burden on our American 
merchant marine to allow it to compete with foreign companies, and 
encourage the development of an American cruise ship industry.
  Mr. Chairman, title five of the leadership amendment contains the 
substance of H.R. 3786, the Recreational Boating Safety Improvement Act 
of 1994. I am pleased that the most important requirements of my bill, 
H.R. 2812, the Recreational Boating Safety Act of 1993 are also 
incorporated into this title.
  Boating deaths are the second-largest category of transportation 
fatalities, exceeded only by highway deaths. Alcohol is a contributing 
factor in at least half of all boating accidents. Nearly 85 percent of 
all persons who drown in recreational boating accidents are not wearing 
life jackets, and only 37 States require individuals aboard 
recreational vessels to wear life jackets.
  I believe that we must act now to require our children to wear life 
jackets to protect them from drowning in boating accidents. This title 
would require children 12 years and younger to wear a life jacket or 
other Coast Guard-approved flotation device aboard recreational vessels 
under 26 feet in length. Second, we must crack down on violators of 
boating-while-intoxicated [BWI] laws, and encourage the States to enact 
tougher BWI laws. This title requires individuals who commit serious 
boating law violations to take a boating safety course, and provides 
$10 million in additional boating safety funds for States that enact 
tough BWI laws.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the President has proposed to cut the 
State Boating Safety Grant Program as part of his fiscal year 1995 
budget. That program is fully funded by the fuel taxes paid by 
recreational boaters, and it is wrong to ask recreational boaters to 
pay the tax without the benefits of State boating safety programs.
  I think that we should spend more, not less, of the fuel tax paid by 
recreational boaters for the important boating safety purpose for which 
it is collected. Boating safety should be a Coast Guard priority, and 
targeting more fuel tax dollars in this area will ensure that boating 
safety issues get the attention they deserve.

  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will save lives and reduce the number 
of injuries that occur on America's waterways each year. These 
provisions have been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 
the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, and the 
National Marine Manufacturers Association.
  Mr. Chairman, title six of the leadership amendment, incorporates 
H.R. 3282, the ``Towing Vessel Navigation Safety Act of 1994,'' a bill 
to increase the standards for navigation safety on our inland 
waterways. There have been several tragedies over the past year that 
have compelled us to improve safety standards on our inland waterways. 
On May 28, 1993, a 31-year-old woman who was 5 months pregnant was 
killed and two other motorists were seriously injured when a 145-foot 
section of the Judge Seeber Bridge in New Orleans, LA, collapsed after 
it was struck by a tug and barge.
  On September 22, 1993, Amtrak's Sunset Limited derailed while 
crossing the Big Bayou Canot Bridge north of Mobile, AL. The accident 
was the worst in Amtrak's history, and claimed 47 lives. Moments before 
derailment, the bridge was severely damaged when it was struck by a tug 
pushing several barges. The tug was operating in heavy fog without 
basic navigational tools.
  On January 7, 1994, another towing vessel accident occurred when a 
barge spilled 750,000 gallons of diesel oil off the coast of Puerto 
Rico. In this case, the towing vessel operator improperly repaired a 
tow, allowing the barge carrying oil to float free and run aground on a 
reef.
  Last June, the National Transportation Safety Board found that 
inadequate licensing requirements, poor radar training and inadequate 
navigational equipment combined to cause the Sunset Limited accident. 
The Coast Guard recently released studies on towing vessel inspection 
and manning requirements. The Coast Guard did not recommend inspection 
of all towing vessels but suggested that, in certain vessel operations, 
greater Coast Guard oversight may be necessary. The Coast Guard also 
recommended several manning changes to increase the proficiency of 
operators of towing vessels.
  This safety act would require certain navigational equipment aboard 
towing vessels; require that the operator of the vessel demonstrate 
proficiency in the use of the equipment; require prompt reporting of 
marine casualties; direct the Coast Guard to develop a model company 
towing vessel inspection program; direct the Coast Guard to develop an 
enhanced boarding program for inland rivers; increase civil penalties 
for violations of towing vessel equipment and manning requirements; 
eliminate the existing uninspected towing vessel operator licenses and 
replace them with new master and operator licenses; provide 
``whistleblower'' protection to all seamen who refuse to violate safety 
laws and other Federal regulations; and require towing and offshore 
supply vessel personnel and certain personnel employed aboard passenger 
vessels to carry merchant mariner's documents.
  The increased safety requirements contained in this act will not only 
protect innocent individuals, but will also help keep our Nation's 
ports free of obstructions and open to commerce.
  Another very important title included in our amendment pertains to 
safety. Title seven, the ``Coast Guard Regulatory Reform Act of 1993,'' 
is intended to simplify U.S. construction requirement to reduce the 
regulatory burden on the U.S. maritime industry without compromising 
safety.
  U.S. shipbuilding requirements maintain the safety of passengers and 
crew carried aboard U.S.-flag vessels. Shipbuilding requirements also 
control the ultimate profitability of vessel operations. The goal of 
U.S. shipbuilding requirements should be to maintain a high level of 
safety without discouraging investment in vessel operations under the 
U.S. Flag.
  In 1992, Secretary of Transportation Card directed the Coast Guard to 
simplify their ship construction requirements to reduce the regulatory 
burden on the U.S. merchant marine industry. Unfortunately, that 
project did not move forward until recently. These provisions, 
developed by the Coast Guard, industry representatives, and the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, will streamline shipbuilding 
requirements for all the U.S. maritime industry and allow it to become 
more competitive internationally.
  The title implements the International Management Code for the Safe 
Operation of Ships [ISM Code] under chapter IX of the Annex to the 
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974; requires 
the Coast Guard to study the methods that may be used to implement and 
enforce the ISM Code; authorizes the Coast Guard to use reports of 
qualified organizations as evidence of compliance with Coast Guard 
inspection requirements; authorizes the Coast Guard to accept equipment 
approvals of foreign governments if the approval secures the safety of 
individuals and property on board vessels; conforms the durations of 
U.S. certificates of inspection to the internationally recognized time 
period of 5 years; and authorizes the Coast Guard to delegate 
inspection authority to classifications societies in addition to the 
American Bureau of Shipping under certain conditions.

  Streamlining U.S. shipbuilding requirements is an essential part of 
maritime reform. Any legislative solution to problems in this area must 
maintain a high level of safety in ship construction, but must also 
``level the playing field'' for vessels in foreign trade.
  Title eight contains the provisions of H.R. 3821, the ``United States 
Passenger Vessel Development Act,'' which is designed to promote the 
construction and operation of domestic passenger ships that will 
operate out of U.S. ports and cater to Americans.
  I have fought to revitalize the American-flag cruise ship industry 
since my first term in Congress. I know how important this industry 
would be and how hard it is for us to compete against foreign 
competitors.
  For a number of years we have been looking at legislative proposals 
designed to create opportunities for American businesses to enter the 
lucrative cruise ship trade. As we all know, this trade is currently 
dominated by foreign-owned and foreign-flagged cruise ships.
  H.R. 3821 could well provide the mechanism to allow Americans to 
prove that we can compete with the foreign cruise ships, by using 
vessels manned by American citizens and, ultimately with American-built 
cruise ships.
  It is my hope that this title will provide the statutory mechanism to 
encourage American businesses to enter the cruise trade. We just sent 
to the Senate our maritime reform program designed to stimulate our 
merchant marine and shipbuilding industries. It is now time that 
Congress took action to break the grip of the foreign interests that 
dominate what should be an American cruise ship trade.
  Title nine addresses another aspect of boating safety, specifically 
the State Boating Safety Grant Program.
  It would establish a reasonable, stable funding method for the 
program, and yet will not increase the total expenditures of the 
Federal Government. It is supported by all of the affected groups, 
including the National Association of Boating Law Administrators, the 
American League of Anglers and Boaters, and the Boat Owners Association 
of the United States.
  I deeply regret that the President proposed to eliminate the State 
Boating Safety Program in his fiscal year 1995 budget. This committee 
is on record in opposition to this proposal for three reasons. First, 
boating safety grants are fully funded by the fuel taxes paid by 
recreational boaters. Second, no real savings result because funds 
deposited in the boat safety account that are not appropriated for 
State grants are automatically spent for sport fish restoration 
projects the following year. Third, this program has been successful in 
reducing boating accidents and fatalities. According to the Coast 
Guard, the estimated number of boats has more than tripled since the 
Federal Boating Safety Act was enacted in 1971, yet the boating 
fatality rate has dropped 80 percent. In fact, recreational boating 
fatalities dropped to a record low 816 in 1992. We should not eliminate 
a program that is so successful; that is strongly supported by the 
States; and that is paid for by recreational boaters.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the leadership amendment includes a number of 
Jones Act waivers. The committee has ensured that there were compelling 
reasons to grant these waivers, either because the problems related 
solely to chain-of-title, or because the individuals who requested the 
waivers demonstrated a significant financial hardship.
  In conclusion, the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee has 
completed action, in a fair, bipartisan manner, on bills that are 
immensely important to our maritime industry and the safety of our 
citizens. As we enter the final weeks of this session, I only hope that 
the other body will move this legislation expeditiously.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting adoption 
of this bill.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendments to H.R. 
4422. We have all seen the important work of the Coast Guard in recent 
weeks regarding both Haitian and Cuban refugees. That we need a strong 
and well-equipped Coast Guard for these type of actions is undisputed. 
But in addition to refugee intervention, a strong Coast Guard is also 
necessary in the war against drugs.
  When the President first proposed a fiscal year 1995 budget for the 
Coast Guard, it provided no funds for drug intervention. The Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries Committee added $21 million to that request for 
drug intervention. In addition, the committee added language to require 
the Coast Guard to dedicate at least 9.5 percent of its operating 
expenses to drug interdiction activities.
  Unfortunately, with this administration's policy of drug treatment as 
opposed to drug interdiction, and the reallocation of Coast Guard 
resources to the Cuban and Haitian situations, there remains minimal 
resources for drug interdiction. Since May alone, the Coast Guard has 
been notified of 11 instances of drug trafficking and has been unable 
to respond due to the fact that all of its resources are being used 
elsewhere. This is a situation that simply cannot continue.
  Given Florida's past role as a major conduit for drug trafficking 
from Latin America and the Caribbean, and the impact these illicit 
operations have had on the crime rates in Florida, further reductions 
or reallocations of the Coast Guard's drug interdiction activities are 
unacceptable.
  With the help of the Coast Guard and other Federal crime fighting 
agencies, Florida's law enforcement authorities have scored impressive 
successes against drug trafficking. We simply cannot reduce our 
vigilance in this regard. For these reasons, I support passage of this 
legislation.
  Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment 
offered by Mr. Studds, my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts 
and the chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
  Included in this amendment--which seeks to waive the Jones Act 
statues to allow a number of vessels to participate in coastwide 
trade--are two beautiful and historic sailing yachts currently anchored 
in the waters of my home State of Rhode Island.
  I would like to take just a moment to briefly share the history of 
these unique and historic vessels.
  Shamrock V and Endeavour are the only remaining J-Class sloops, a 
class of enormous sailing yachts built in the 1930's.
  These 130-foot classic sailing yachts, with mast that soar 165 feet 
above the water line, have a displacement of 150 tons and travel at 
speeds upwards of 12 knots. To see them on the waters of Narragansett 
Bay is to witness a brilliant combination of grace and power.
  Both Shamrock V and Endeavour dominated the British racing scene from 
the time of their launch until the advent of World War II, and competed 
in the America's Cup races in 1930, 1934, and 1937.
  And while Shamrock V was fortunate to have a series of subsequent 
owners who cared for her, it is a miracle that Endeavour is even afloat 
today. She passed through several owners and was nearly demolished and 
left for scrap on a number of occasions.
  In 1984, as she sat in an abandoned seaplane base in southern 
England, Endeavour was purchased by a new owner who truly appreciated 
the elegance of the J-Class sloops, and an extensive 5-year restoration 
effort was launched.
  In 1989, for the first time in 52 years, Endeavour sailed again.
  I am proud to speak on behalf of each of these yachts, both of which 
have strong ties to Newport, RI, a town which has a long tradition of 
maritime activity, and is affectionately known as the Sailing Capital 
of the World.
  Mr. Speaker, passing this amendment will allow thousands of people to 
enjoy these vessels and become part of their rich and distinguished 
history.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Stubbs].
  The amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, section 415 of H.R. 4422, the Coast Guard Authorization 
Act of 1994, transfers Cape Ann Lighthouse on Thatchers Island, MA, 
from the Coast Guard to the town of Rockport, MA. That section provides 
that the ownership of the lighthouse will revert to the United States 
if the property ceases to be maintained in a manner consistent with the 
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
  Cape Ann Lighthouse is only accessible during part of the year, 
usually by helicopter, because of weather conditions in the area. I am 
concerned that, despite a good faith effort to comply, accessibility 
problems may prevent technical compliance with the Historic 
Preservation Act at Cape Ann Lighthouse. Weather permitting, I am 
assured that the town of Rockport will make any necessary repairs to 
keep the lighthouse in compliance with the Historic Preservation Act.
  Am I correct in assuming that a good faith effort to comply with the 
National Historic Preservation Act will be sufficient to comply with 
the terms of conveyance under section 415 of H.R. 4422?
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, my part here 
is very modest. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] is 
correct.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.


           AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. STUDDS

  Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendments 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rules that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts has already been adopted.


                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to propound a 
unanimous consent request to make such an amendment in order? We did 
not know this amendment was drafted as an amendment to the amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman submit to the Chair a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
proceedings wherein the amendments were adopted be vacated for the 
purpose of the consideration of an amendment to the amendments offered 
by the gentlewoman from Virginia [Mrs. Byrne].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Byrne to the amendments offered 
     by Mr. Studds: At title 10, section 1001, insert the 
     following paragraph:
       ``(48). Too Much Fun (United States official number 
     936565).''.

  Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will help a small business 
which has been held back by redtape and bureaucracy.
  This business is owned by two brothers, Chip and Curtis Fredericks.
  The Fredericks brothers grew up along the east coast and spent their 
childhoods working on ships. A few years ago, they decided to pursue a 
lifelong goal and start a charter boat business on the Atlantic Ocean.
  Chip and Curtis went up to Maryland to purchase a boat from a dealer 
who they believed to be reputable. The dealer told them that the craft 
could serve as a excellent charter boat and could be licensed for 
commercial and charter uses. Chip and Curtis laid down almost $200,000 
of their life's savings for the boat, and got set to start their 
business.
  Chip and Curtis then learned that their new boat, while in good 
overall shape, was not properly equipped to be a commercial vessel. The 
dealer never told them this. Chip and Curtis completed these 
improvements with American-made products, which cost them another 
$75,000, making their total investment over a quarter of a million 
dollars. Thinking they were ready to get their venture moving, they 
hired a crew and support staff.
  However, when Chip and Curtis went to have their ship licensed for 
commercial use, the Coast Guard turned them down because of the boat's 
foreign-made hull. Chip and Curtis, who had been told by the dealer 
that the hull would not prevent the boat from being licensed, sought 
him out to rectify the situation. When they went back to Maryland, they 
could not find him, and he has since disappeared without a trace.
  While the Coast Guard rejected this boat because it was foreign-made, 
this supposedly foreign boat has--these don't sound like foreign-made 
products to me, and they certainly don't to Chip and Curtis Fredericks.
  Meanwhile, Chip and Curtis' potentially vibrant business has been 
placed on indefinite hold, and these two entrepreneurs may be forced to 
close shop permanently because they cannot license their boat without a 
Jones Act waiver. Already, the lucrative spring and summer seasons have 
passed by with Chip and Curtis stuck in drydock. They have been forced 
to lay off several employees and have watched their $250,000-investment 
go down the drain.
  If you have any doubts about the Fredericks brothers' determination 
and commitment to getting their business started, just ask the members 
of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Yesterday, Chip 
Fredericks took the time to travel up to Capitol Hill to speak in 
person to as many members of the committee as possible about his ship. 
To Chip and Curtis Fredericks, the Jones Act restriction is not an 
abstract legal technicality, but a very real roadblock that has turned 
their dream of starting a ship business into a nightmare. This business 
is their livelihood, and it would be a tragedy if it was ruined by 
government redtape and congressional indifference.
  We all recognize the need to support our Nation's commercial maritime 
industry as it fights foreign competition and job losses. But when you 
consider that Chip and Curtis Fredericks made a sizable investment into 
a ship they bought with misleading information, in order to start a 
venture that will create American jobs, getting this boat licensed for 
commercial use just makes sense.
  Today, we have an opportunity to strike a blow for an American 
business and against government bureaucracy and delays. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment to help Chip and Curtis Fredericks 
realize their lifelong dreams.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia [Mrs. Byrne] to the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  The amendment to the amendments was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] as amended.
  The amendments, as amended, were agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Fields of Texas

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Texas:
       At the end of title IV, add the following new section:

     SEC.  . COST ACCOUNTING FOR HAITIAN OPERATIONS.

       (a) No later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall submit a full accounting of 
     all Coast Guard costs related to Haiti during Fiscal Year 
     1994 to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the 
     House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation in the Senate. This accounting 
     shall include numbers of Coast Guard personnel involved, the 
     numbers of Coast Guard vessels involved, and the amount of 
     funds diverted from other Coast Guard missions.
       (b) Until all U.S. military operations in Haiti cease, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall submit monthly reports on 
     all Coast Guard costs related to Haiti to the Committee on 
     Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the House of Representatives 
     and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     in the Senate.

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to submit to the oversight committees in 
the House and the Senate a full cost accounting of all the Coast Guard 
costs related to Haiti during fiscal year 1994 and 1995.
  I have been disappointed with the estimates I have received on Coast 
Guard costs associated with Haiti, because they do not reflect the full 
costs of Haitian operations. The Coast Guard has been forced to divert 
substantial funds from drug interdiction and other law enforcement 
missions to increase the resources devoted to operations related to 
Haiti. We need complete and up-to-date information on these costs to 
adequately assess the effectiveness of the Coast Guard missions in 
Haiti.
  Amendments of this type requiring routine information from the 
executive branch should not be necessary, but unfortunately, I have had 
a difficult time receiving timely and complete information from the 
administration concerning the Coast Guard's involvement in Haiti.
  I hope that the monthly cost updates required under this amendment 
will not be necessary for many months, because I hope the President 
will pull out United States troops from Haiti as soon as possible. In 
the meantime, we must have an accurate cost accounting to assess the 
benefit of the President's policy in Haiti to the American public.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 37, after line 18, 
     add the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It 
     is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds 
     made available under this Act should be American-made.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, shall provide to each recipient 
     of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) of the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend this committee on 
section 311, the buy-American requirements for surface search radar 
systems, and also for section 417, for prohibition on overall repair 
and maintenance of certain Coast Guard vessels and foreign shipyards, 
except for emergency needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I concur with what the gentleman said. If every 
committee showed the bipartisan fair play that he has, we not only 
could conduct our business much quicker, we would help the American 
people much more.
  I say to the gentleman, ``My buy-American amendment is standard, Mr. 
Chairman. It's significant and the same that you have had in the past, 
and I ask that it be accepted.''
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, anyone prepared to praise the committee to 
that extent has an acceptable amendment.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] bringing his amendment to the floor today, and, as 
he said, it is standard, and so what I am going to ask him today is if 
he could tell us what the real purpose of this amendment is.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, hopefully there will be a few extra 
jobs, and a little bit of the money that is expended in this bill will 
go to buying some American-made products, without being protectionist, 
but being helpful for our economy and the working man in our country, 
which certainly the ranking member has always been a proud sponsor of 
these types of amendments.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to 
say to the gentleman that I think what he does on each piece of 
legislation is not standard. I think it is very important. I think the 
gentleman has made a reputation in the House for himself standing up on 
this particular matter, and I just want to give him an opportunity to 
stand up and tell us why he does this each time. Again I want to say I 
applaud what he does. I support it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I appreciate all the help over the years the gentleman 
has given.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: Page 37, after line 18, add 
     the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDING FOR COAST 
                   GUARD.

       It is the sense of the Congress that in appropriating 
     amounts for the Coast Guard, the Congress should appropriate 
     amounts adequate to enable the Coast Guard to carry out all 
     extraordinary functions and duties the Coast Guard is 
     required to undertake in addition to its normal functions 
     established by law.

  Mr. GOSS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. I 
believe it is noncontroversial. The same provision was signed into law 
as part of last year's Coast Guard authorization. All that is changed 
is the page number. It simply says when we give the Coast Guard extra 
missions, beyond their normal functions, we should provide the extra 
funding needed to carry those missions out.
  Certainly no Department or Agency can be immune from belt-tightening, 
but the belt around the Coast Guard already is in the last notch. Even 
with a 4 percent increase over last year's funding levels, the fiscal 
year 1995 level will mean a $100 million cut in current services, which 
will include separating 1,100 personnel and 1,000 reservists, closing 
14 search and rescue stations, and ending the Boat Safety Grant 
Program--one of the few Government programs that actually works. Add to 
this equation the extra responsibilities so often heaped upon a willing 
but underfunded Coast Guard and you have a serious dilemma.
  Most recently, the Coast Guard has been called to serve in an extra 
mission in the Caribbean. Since January, the Coast Guard has rescued 
24,733 Haitians who were part of the mass exodus unleashed earlier this 
year by the combined impact of the embargo and the ever-evolving back 
and forth refugee policies of the White House.
  When Fidel Castro seized the opportunity to manufacture a refugee 
crisis of his own in nearby Cuba, the Coast Guard found themselves with 
37,074 Cubans to bring to safety. At the height of this refugee crisis, 
it was reported that every major cutter from the east coast had been 
committed to operations in the Caribbean and some vessels had even been 
pulled from Pacific Northwest fisheries duties to fill in the gaps.
  The Cuban search and rescue mission alone occupied more than 30 Coast 
Guard cutters. Last year, the incremental cost figure for Haitian 
interdiction in the windward passage was $11.2 million. This year, 
although we have yet to receive a firm cost estimate for either the 
Haiti or the Cuba operation, we can expect the costs to run much 
higher. This week, the Coast Guard picked up a new role--port security 
for the United States occupation of Haiti. All of this paints a pretty 
clear picture of how the smallest of our Armed Forces has been 
repeatedly called upon to carry out extraordinary duties which are 
generally not anticipated in the authorizations and appropriations we 
pass here.

  All indications are that this trend will continue, but without more 
realistic funding something will eventually have to give. I don't 
believe that most Americans are willing to give up on ongoing drug 
interdiction operations, search and rescue operations, fisheries law 
enforcement, navigable waterway management or any of the other vital 
operations the Coast Guard performs.
  While I know this amendment is not the solution to the Coast Guard's 
budget shortfalls, it is after all nonbinding and was largely ignored 
by the Clinton administration in the past year. But it is important 
because it puts Members on record in support of a policy of providing 
adequate funding when we add to the list of missions. Perhaps next 
year, we can work to go beyond such a policy statement and actually 
make it stick.
  I urge Members to once again support this amendment as a useful first 
step along this path. But for now what better way to stand behind our 
heroic Coast Guard engaged in dangerous work in the nearby Caribbean 
than to say we are going to provide the necessary resources for you to 
carry out these tough missions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say at this time that I want to 
associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Hughes] about the bipartisanship and leadership of the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries. I used to serve on that committee, and I 
enjoyed that very much. The difference between the partisanship or the 
lack of partisanship on that committee and the Committee on Rules is 
indeed something to behold. I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Studds], the chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields] for the work they are continuing to do. I hope they 
will support my amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is welcomed back at any time 
that he cannot stand the third floor. I think the gentleman's 
proposition in this amendment is unarguable. We are proud to support 
it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida. The Coast Guard has 
been forced to divert substantial resources from other missions this 
year to engage in different activities related to Haiti. We have not 
received a full accounting for these costs, but I urge the President to 
quantify the costs of the Haitian operation for the Coast Guard, and to 
request funding to restore the Coast Guard funds diverted from other 
missions, especially drug interdiction.
  Drug interdiction resources in the Caribbean have been strained to 
the extent that the Coast Guard was unable to respond to 11 possible 
drug incidents earlier this month. I am concerned that we have 
seriously compromised the ability of the Coast Guard to protect our 
shores from drug smugglers. This is a national security problem that 
deserves our immediate attention.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Merchant Marine Committee, I rise to 
express my strong support for H.R. 4422.
  Mr. Chairman, in the First District of Oregon, we greatly appreciate 
the presence of the Coast Guard in Astoria. We recognize and heavily 
rely on the marine safety assistance services it provides. This agency 
carries a heavy burden of responsibilities on its shoulders: search and 
rescue operations, boating and environmental safety, drug interdiction, 
and the enforcement of a multitude of laws and treaties governing the 
high seas, among others. Too often, we take for granted the role of 
this extremely valuable agency.
  I am pleased to add my voice to the support expressed by my 
colleagues for the fiscal year 1995 authorization for the Coast Guard.
  In past years, this agency has consistently been underfunded. It has 
been caught in a no-win situation. Since the Coast Guard has done a 
good job on a bare bones budget, we continue to heap more 
responsibilities upon them without any additional funds to carry out 
these new duties. If the Coast Guard has been able to do a decent job 
on constant underfunding, imagine what they could accomplish with 
adequate resources.
  It's time to give the Coast Guard what they need to do their job. The 
work they do is essential to our coastal communities and our entire 
Nation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4422.


                     amendment offered by mr. hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows.

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer: At the appropriate place in 
     the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PLAN FOR RESCUE OF PASSENGERS ON THE CHESAPEAKE BAY.

       (a) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating in consultation with officials of the 
     States of Maryland and Virginia, and other interested 
     persons, shall develop and submit to Congress by March 30, 
     1995, a plan for the rescue of persons transported on 
     passenger vessels or small passenger vessels on the 
     Chesapeake Bay.
       (b) The plan developed in subsection (a) shall include:
       (1) a protocol for command, control, and communications 
     among federal, state, and local authorities;
       (2) a protocol for training exercises to prepare for an 
     emergency rescue on the Chesapeake Bay;
       (3) an identification of emergency medical personnel that 
     would be available for an emergency rescue on the Chesapeake 
     Bay;
       (4) an identification of procedures to be followed and 
     equipment that would be needed in the event of weather that 
     could result in hypothermia of the passengers; and
       (5) a study by the Coast Guard examining the feasibility of 
     locating a helicopter station on the Chesapeake Bay and in 
     developing mutual aid agreement with appropriate federal, 
     state and local agencies to improve helicopter response time.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coast Guard 
reauthorization and congratulate Chairmen Tauzin and Studds on their 
hard work.
  Today, I am offering an amendment in response to a tragedy which 
occurred last December when a charter boat sank in the Chesapeake Bay 
after leaving from a marina in my district.
  Despite the mobilization of the Coast Guard, Navy, State, and local 
resources three people died. I believe that we can improve emergency 
response to such disasters, and I am offering this amendment to do just 
that.
  Briefly, my amendment would direct the Coast Guard, in consultation 
with the States of Maryland and Virginia, to develop a plan for 
rescuing people from the Chesapeake Bay. The plan calls for developing 
five important protocols for the Coast Guard to follow. They are as 
follows:
  First, a protocol for command, control, and communications among the 
various Federal and State agencies.
  Second, a protocol directing coordinated training exercises among 
these agencies.
  Third, a protocol identifying emergency medical personnel available 
for response to such disasters.
  Fourth, a protocol identifying the procedures and equipment needed to 
treat hypothermia cases.
  Fifth, and finally, a protocol directing the Coast Guard to report on 
the feasibility of locating a helicopter station on the Chesapeake Bay 
and in developing mutual aid agreements with appropriate Federal, State 
and local agencies to improve helicopter response time.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment so that we can be 
assured that future rescue operations will be equipped, and prepared 
for future disasters.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we have had an opportunity to 
review the amendment on this side of the aisle. We find no problem. We 
just wonder why it is not already being done. We appreciate very much 
the gentleman bringing this to our committee's attention and bringing 
it to the floor today. We are happy to support it, and urge Members to 
support it.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, those from coastal districts are all too 
familiar with this sort of tragedy. I am delighted to support the 
gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer.
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise today to commend my colleagues, Mr. Studds, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. 
Fields, and Mr. Coble for their work on the Coast Guard Authorization 
Act.
  This bill includes the transfer of Light Station Montauk Point, in 
Montauk, NY, to the Montauk Historical Society.
  The Montauk Point Lighthouse was commissioned by President George 
Washington in 1796 and was completed in 1797. The Montauk Point 
Lighthouse was the second public works project undertaken by the U.S. 
Government. It has served ever since as the marker for the first land 
encountered by ships headed for New York Harbor, Long Island Sound, and 
other ports along the eastern seaboard.
  The Montauk Historical Society has done a heroic job of maintaining 
and preserving the lighthouse in cooperation with the Coast Guard. 
Their efforts both in fundraising and in protecting the lighthouse have 
literally kept it from falling into the sea. So it is only fitting that 
they should now own it and preserve its integrity for future 
generations. Under my amendment which was adopted by the Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries Committee, the U.S. Coast Guard will still be 
responsible for maintaining the light, sound signal, and other 
equipment which aid navigation.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4422.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to take a quick moment to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], 
and my ranking minority member, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Coble].
  Once again, this legislation has been crafted in a bipartisan manner. 
There was a great deal of encouragement from a number of Members. We 
feel that this is a good piece of legislation. I would not tell anyone 
it is a perfect piece of legislation, but once again, I think it is a 
piece of legislation representative of the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries, a piece of legislation that has been crafted in a 
bipartisan concensual manner.
  I just want to pay the highest compliment to the chairman in the way 
in which he conducts himself and the committee.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reciprocate those feelings 
in that respect. It is a source of great pride, in this particularly 
contentious time where partisan nerves are so frequently and so 
severely frayed, to work in the fashion that this committee works.
  I also would like to point out that the harmony and tranquility which 
has been observed on the floor, as almost a dozen amendments here, plus 
or minus, have been adopted in a bipartisan fashion which does not 
happen by accident.
  It reflects a great deal of work on the part of members who never 
speak on this floor, at least not ordinarily, and that is the staff, 
both majority and minority staff. It takes a lot of work to make things 
look as easy as the bipartisan spirit of this committee can so 
frequently do.
  I reciprocate the gentleman's remarks. It is a joy and real pleasure 
to work with him.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to the bill?
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Hefner] having assumed the chair, Mr. Darden, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4422) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for the Coast Guard, and 
for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 535, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402, 
nays 13, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 437]

                               YEAS--402

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--13

     Costello
     Duncan
     Ewing
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Johnson, Sam
     Lipinski
     Penny
     Petri
     Poshard
     Sangmeister
     Sensenbrenner
     Stump

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Carr
     Cooper
     Gallo
     Gibbons
     Green
     Herger
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Levy
     McCurdy
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Ridge
     Serrano
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Tanner
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1626

  Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HOAGLAND changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________